|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Samsung's "No Projector" Cinema Screen
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-20-2017 02:07 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Unfortunately, every technology has their own annoying failure modes if not taken care of. Digital cinema has theirs and LED walls can be plagued by broken modules, which will be much more annoying than a stuck sub-pixel. No technology is proof to willing neglect.
A faulty LED driver board is fairly easy to replace. A customer won't have to replace boards very often when buying a good quality product from a reputable company. Problems with projector & screen alignment are likely to be permanent since the problems were created by the very design of the auditorium, booth or lack of a booth.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't doubt the engineering capabilities of those companies. Like both I and Steve in his own way already put forward: DCI is a considerable niche market.
If a LED display manufacturer was determined to get into the cinema screen market they would do so. The only factor that would make them not bother is the small, niche size of the market. If there's not enough money in it they won't go to the trouble.
Even if there is enough potential money to be made, they probably still wouldn't go to the trouble unless at least some of the same board designs can be used in other industrial and advertising applications.
The same issue is just as critical, if not even more critical, in development of DLP chips for projectors. I guarantee Texas Instruments wouldn't have bothered with DLP technology unless there was enough consumer and industrial applications for it. No one buys RPTV sets anymore and sales of consumer projectors continues to fall. So I think there's virtually no chance TI will ever develop a DLP chip with higher than 4K resolution. I could even see TI eventually pulling the plug on DLP chip production if overall sales fall low enough.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm not doubting the engineering capabilities of those companies. I'm only indicating what kind of priorities can be expected from those companies. We've all seen this technology mature over the years. And it's not a stupid question. You know why you don't see HDCP 2.2 just yet? Because it is a pain to implement and for most manufacturers it's too much of a niche. How often will somebody use such a screen for content that requires HDCP 2.2? I'm pretty sure it will eventually arrive, but it is not a priority.
LED displays are driven by a wide variety of controllers. It takes a fairly simple controller to feed imagery to LED displays on billboards and street signs. The biggest displays will often have a custom built controller system and/or servers delivering the imagery. The technology can be tailored to very specific needs.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
There is no doubt that you will still be able to see pixels even in a fully DCI compliant 4K theater, once you sit close enough to the screen or once the screen reaches a certain size compared to the room.
This is why I keep repeating that the customer must buy/configure the proper resolution/pitch of LED display for the viewing situation. If the customer wants a huge screen, yet achieve a continuous tone look even in the first few rows then he'll really have to dig deep in his wallet to install a higher resolution display.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
So, there it goes, the possibility to build a screen in whatever aspect ratio you please?
The content providers are picking the aspect ratio based on the content they render. Most of it is 'scope and some of it is flat. Any theater must be able to play both. So you're going to be stuck letter-boxing one or pillar-boxing the other. Going back to film projection is the only way around those fixed resolution difficulities, but even there you're still dealing with varying aspect ratio problems. The travesty of letter-boxed 'scope has been created by both Hollywood studios pinching pennies on what they render and theater operators wanting taller screens to save money on stadium seated auditorium construction.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
We're talking about production companies that spend millions and millions of dollars on a single feature. Most recent big-budget productions also already employ HDR (mostly Dolby Vision). But they're not producing 4K releases targeted at the cinematic release, but because 4K is the new norm at home.
Production companies spending millions and millions of dollars on feature projects have far more of that money getting put into people's pockets rather than getting burned up in post production render time. As I said before, very few movies on UHD Blu-ray have native 4K resolution. The studios are not doing a 4K render for theaters and then down-sampling it down to fake 4K for consumer release.
There are TV series, such as House of Cards that are produced in 4K. But that's not an effects-heavy production, so it doesn't take quite as much time and money to finish it in 4K. 4K is still far from being the norm for movie releases and TV shows.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic