Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20 (Page 7)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author

Topic: Tomorrowland aspect ratio 1:2.20

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-03-2015 09:51 AM

Nobody said anything about that being some sort of final standard. The 2K chip will always come first.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-03-2015 10:10 AM

quote: Carsten Kurz
Adding an anamorphic lens is far from 'digital'.

Is this to suggest any of the spherical lenses currently in use on d-cinema projectors are somehow digital? How that even relevant to the previous question I asked about standards with digital? Also, why are you even complaining about this? It sounded kind of like you really enjoyed the idea of IMAX adding anamorphic lenses to vertically stretch the 1.9:1 image in their new 4K laser projectors, but you think the same thing ought to be off limits to projectors without an IMAX logo?

quote: Carsten Kurz
Current equipment is a longterm investment, due to the rather short digital rollout, series-II has the largest installed base. This won't be replaced before 8-10 years.

Long term investment? That and digital do not go together at all. A good film projector was a long term investment, something that could last a few decades if properly maintained. None of this digital stuff can claim to have a 20 or 30 year life span. You're lucky if you get a 10 years out of anything digital. By that point any component that fails threatens to turn it into a door stop.

quote: Carsten Kurz
It's easier to go 4k to pacify those resonerds.

It's even easier (and cheaper) to watch fake 'scope movies at home. It's not going to be long before people can watch fake 'scope in 4K on a fairly widespread basis.

Don't you think movie theaters should have more obvious technical superiority to anything in home theater -superiority the customer might more likely understand? D-cinema isn't doing that nearly well enough currently. The average person isn't going to know the difference between 12-bit or 10-bit video versus some highly compressed 4:2:0 stuff he's watching on the TV set at home.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-03-2015 04:07 PM

Digital systems evolve because software evolves. Lenses are not software. It's expensive hardware.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The average person isn't going to know the difference between 12-bit or 10-bit video versus some highly compressed 4:2:0 stuff he's watching on the TV set at home.

But you expect cinema operators to invest +10.000US$ for an anamorphic lens (and, that anamorphic has to be good for 4k at future laser-induced increased contrast ratios of +4000:1).

Again - where is that corporate greed you fancy so often here when it comes to shell ing out that money 'for nothing'? Won't happen. Anamorphics make sense to increase light-output, but not image quality.

Digital cinema will stay at 2k and some 4k at 1:1.9 base AR for a very long time. Probably as long as digital cinema will exist.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 06-03-2015 05:26 PM

quote: Carsten Kurz
Digital cinema will stay at 2k and some 4k at 1:1.9 base AR for a very long time. Probably as long as digital cinema will exist.

True, since there isn't any big, on-screen "wow factors" to bring the people out to see the new visual changes.

Tighter resolutions and major sharp images on a 60ft plus "Giant Screen", or IMAX screen - like heading up into the 8K realm - could bring more people out since this high resolution could be considered a "wow factor" in large screen digital presentation.

Then, get Hollywood studios to produce digital features that supports this higher resolution to address this need.

It's not like the days when "Cinerama", and "CinemaScope" made the huge splashes to combat television, and these processe got the public back into the theatre seats.

We have a new generation that has different demands now for visual entertainment.

-Monte

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-03-2015 05:38 PM

quote: Carsten Kurz
Digital systems evolve because software evolves. Lenses are not software. It's expensive hardware.

Newly developed hardware makes some changes in software possible. Current 2K and 4K projectors and the food chain of software supporting them wouldn't have been possible without TI developing full HD resolution DLP chips and then 4K DLP chips later.

quote: Carsten Kurz
But you expect cinema operators to invest +10.000US$ for an anamorphic lens (and, that anamorphic has to be good for 4k at future laser-induced increased contrast ratios of +4000:1).

They're already putting more money into things like D-Box, Real-D, etc. And the laser-based systems you mention cost way the hell more than a mere $10,000 per screen price.

quote: Carsten Kurz
Again - where is that corporate greed you fancy so often here when it comes to shell ing out that money 'for nothing'? Won't happen. Anamorphics make sense to increase light-output, but not image quality.

You're deliberately ignoring my previous examples proving that anamophics would improve image quality. You're crazy or blind if you think there would be no quality difference between a cropped 2048 X 852 image versus an anamophic 2048 X 1080 image sourced from a 2560 X 1080 original.

quote: Carsten Kurz
Digital cinema will stay at 2k and some 4k at 1:1.9 base AR for a very long time. Probably as long as digital cinema will exist.

Don't count on it existing forever, especially at those quality levels.

Hollywood studios and their global media parent companies have been shooting themselves in the feet over the past decade with race to the bottom economics stunts, particularly in the home video space. That part of their business is a lot smaller than it was 10 years ago. But they're going to keep shrinking release windows, hoping they'll grow revenue and get people to buy/download virtual copies of movies as opposed to just waiting for it to appear on Netflix. People can say movie theaters will never die, but we've seen other kinds of businesses that have been around for a long time thrown onto the verge of extinction in the past decade. Movie studios and theater chains are foolish if they think they're immune to that.

quote: Monte L Fullmer
We have a new generation that has different demands now for visual entertainment.

If that generation wants to get their entertainment on the home HDTV set, or even a tablet or mobile phone, where is that going to leave movie theaters?

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 06-04-2015 02:56 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
where is that going to leave movie theaters?

They'll still survive since you still have the one attribute that people want to be entertained and will get out of their "personal bubble" to achieve such. Just that Hollywood and Cinemas needs to reach a different plateau to keep the "wow" factor still in existence.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-04-2015 03:20 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
You're deliberately ignoring my previous examples proving that anamophics would improve image quality. You're crazy or blind if you think there would be no quality difference between a cropped 2048 X 852 image versus an anamophic 2048 X 1080 image sourced from a 2560 X 1080 original.

Scope 4k is available NOW at 4096*1716 without hurting DCI specs. If someone is interested in increased image quality, shouldn't he better go for 4k instead of 2k + anamorphics?

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 06-04-2015 03:31 PM

Why should we start throwing away pixels and light with 4K?

A good business case for anamorphics? Look at how much light you're dumping into your heatsinks all the time. How much lamp life could've been saved? How much power could have been saved?

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-04-2015 04:36 PM

I'm not saying it couldn't make sense. I'm saying it won't happen... Ten years after DCI disapproved non-square-pixel containers, and with ever growing numbers of DCP versions shipping, it is more than unlikely. If you want to save light - you can do that already now based on existing technology AND DCI compliant. There is your business case for energy saving or light increase - but only for that. It's the rare occasion where anamorphics are still being used today for projection.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-04-2015 06:03 PM

quote: Carsten Kurz
Scope 4k is available NOW at 4096*1716 without hurting DCI specs. If someone is interested in increased image quality, shouldn't he better go for 4k instead of 2k + anamorphics?

I never said anything about anamorphic lenses being off limits to 4K systems. You can go back and see where I mentioned both "Super 2K" and "Super 4K." The same kind of 1.25x system could apply just the same to 4K. Hollywood studios would need to create even higher resolution digital intermediates. Their "Super 4K" master would really be a 5K master, 5120 X 2160. That 5120 X 2160 image would be squeezed to fill the entire 4096 X 2160 chip on a 4K system.

Anamorphic setups can be used by existing theaters to light common height screens more efficiently. Unfortunately current systems digitally stretch the DCP image vertically and then optically stretch it horizontally. There is no benefit to image quality from this approach, other than just gaining a more uniformly bright image. It would be a whole lot better if the 'scope image on the DCP was already full frame before it was optically stretched onto the screen.

quote: Carsten Kurz
I'm not saying it couldn't make sense. I'm saying it won't happen... Ten years after DCI disapproved non-square-pixel containers, and with ever growing numbers of DCP versions shipping, it is more than unlikely.

Consider the fact electronics companies have already made TV sets and computer monitors specifically in both 2560 X 1080 and 5120 X 2160 resolution.

| IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

posted 06-04-2015 06:34 PM

Yes, there are also loads of movies released in 1:2.39, believe it or not. But just like on 21:9 TVs, they don't need anamorphics to be presented.

- Carsten

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 06-05-2015 01:18 AM

quote: Carsten Kurz
I'm not saying it couldn't make sense. I'm saying it won't happen... Ten years after DCI disapproved non-square-pixel containers, and with ever growing numbers of DCP versions shipping, it is more than unlikely. If you want to save light - you can do that already now based on existing technology AND DCI compliant. There is your business case for energy saving or light increase - but only for that. It's the rare occasion where anamorphics are still being used today for projection.

I consider stretching content across your imager to be suboptimal at best. No matter how good your interpolation algorithm is, you're going to introduce scaling artifacts.

I'm not saying that it's very likely to happen, but I don't think that's a valid reason to just deny it outright as a possibility. You might remember the pre-DCI D-Cinema systems like the Barco DP60. Those machines did use anamorphics and non-square pixels for scope.

Also, nobody will stop anybody to push forward new formats, whether they're DCI compliant or not. Barco just recently introduced their rather awkward Escape format, which might be based on DCI compliant DCPs, but sure isn't DCI compliant as a whole. If this format would ever become successful (which I hope, will not be the case), it might find its way into the DCI specs at one time.

In my somewhat engineering based background, I'd always opt for the better solution, especially if at the end of the line, the costs for the better solution probably are about the same. The extra costs for the anamorphic lenses are most likely easily recouped in other savings.

Also, in my humble opinion, you should try to optimize the way the light flows trough your projector as much as possible. If you end up throwing away a huge amount of light and resolution for a large part of your presentations, I'd consider this design as deficient.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 06-05-2015 06:54 AM

The original DCPs didn't use non-square pixels either. BOTH Flat and Scope used anamorphics and the vertical stretch happened in the projector with a complimentary horizontal expansion happening on via an anamorphic lens (1.5 for "Flat" and 1.9 for "Scope").

I'll say this...unlike 2:1 and 2.2:1, an anamorphic based scope format would not require theatres to do anything more than apply a scaled format in their projector to make it 100% compatible with existing systems. That is, put in a .75 anamorphic factor in the projector and your existing lens/screen settings all still work. If you buy the anamorphic, then you get the light and resolution benefit.

With the 2:1 and 2.2:1...most will be showing an unprofessional letterboxed image that fits neither their flat or Scope settings.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-05-2015 10:13 AM

quote: Carsten Kurz
Yes, there are also loads of movies released in 1:2.39, believe it or not. But just like on 21:9 TVs, they don't need anamorphics to be presented.

A 21:9 ratio TV would not need anamorphic settings for 'scope if it was playing material natively encoded in 2560 X 1080 or 5120 X 2160. Currently, such TV sets have to zoom or stretch any letter-boxed 'scope content, like the stuff typically found on a Blu-ray disc. Of course, it is currently possible to fill a 1920 X 1080 Blu-ray frame with an anamorphically squeezed 'scope image and have a 2560 X 1080 TV set stretch it out to normal proportions and fill the screen.

The larger point with that existing 21:9 hardware in computer monitors and HDTV sets is there is infrastructure in place to support 2.5K and 5K 'scope digital intermediate production. Hollywood studios wouldn't really be wasting any efforts on doing 'scope right for d-cinema because they would have a possible consumer channel for the same true 'scope material.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The extra costs for the anamorphic lenses are most likely easily recouped in other savings.

A theater with a common height screen will definitely save money on power and lamp costs because of the increased efficiency the anamophic lens would provide.

quote: Steve Guttag
I'll say this...unlike 2:1 and 2.2:1, an anamorphic based scope format would not require theatres to do anything more than apply a scaled format in their projector to make it 100% compatible with existing systems. That is, put in a .75 anamorphic factor in the projector and your existing lens/screen settings all still work. If you buy the anamorphic, then you get the light and resolution benefit.

That's really the thing: current projectors. "Super 2K" and "Super 4K" isn't something I just want to wait and see incorporated into a Series 3 d-cinema standard. It is something that can (and should) be deployed with a lot of existing equipment.

| IP: Logged

Daniel Schulz
Master Film Handler

Posts: 387
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2003

posted 06-05-2015 11:17 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
The larger point with that existing 21:9 hardware in computer monitors and HDTV sets is there is infrastructure in place to support 2.5K and 5K 'scope digital intermediate production. Hollywood studios wouldn't really be wasting any efforts on doing 'scope right for d-cinema because they would have a possible consumer channel for the same true 'scope material.

And with Panamorph's Folded Space there is even a proposal on the table to encode true 'scope material in a way that would make anamorphic 'scope Blu Ray or Ultra HD Blu-Ray content backwards-compatible to existing players.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.