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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Gemini Man - HFR Test (Page 9)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10

Author Topic: Gemini Man - HFR Test Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-17-2019 05:47 AM                     If they do no longer use a mirror setup, they need even more warping to align the images from those two huge projectors. HFR+, by the way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZnxAfcvY4 - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 10-17-2019 03:36 PM                        I thought warping violated DCI spec?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-17-2019 04:26 PM                     DCI? And just what authority do they have without VPFs? And where was their enforcement mechanism? On the projection side, there is MUCH more latitude. On that taking side, all pixels are to be square. On the projection side the requirement is to not have visible artifacts. If the warping compensated for keystone and pincushion, would that not reduce artifacts? The key would be to start with a high resolution imager so when you warp you don't lose native resolution of the content.  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 10-21-2019 08:16 AM                        Well I would think if the manufacturers want to advertise their product as DCI compliant then it would have to be DCI compliant. I always thought the square pixel thing applied to the playback side too and that this was the reason for not going full chip with an anamorphic for scope D-Cinema projection?  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-21-2019 08:30 AM                     No, initially, they only allowed integer scaling ratios (necessary within strict DCI environments for 2k->4k imager scaling anyway), also for anamorphics. Then there is the 'no visible image artifacts' constraint. The 'strictly square pixel for content' policy is still there. They added some scaling options with the advent of direct view and HDR displays as well, currently in the addenda and errata. DCI spec 1.3: '8.2.2.7. Spatial Resolution Conversion The projector is required to display either a native resolution of 4096x2160 or 2048x1080. If the projector's native resolution is 4096x2160, and the incoming spatial resolution of the content is 2048x1080, then the projection system is required to perform the up-conversion of 2048x1080 content to 4096x2160. All spatial conversions are required to be done at an exact ratio of 2:1 in each axis, i.e., a projector with a horizontal pixel count of slightly higher than the image container is required to not convert the projected image beyond the image container to fill the array, nor is an image to be converted to something less than the 4096x2160 or 2048x1080 image container size. Should electronic image resizing or scaling be used to support a constant height projection or constant width projection theater environment, then it is required that the image resizing or scaling does not introduce visible image artifacts. It is intended that the projector project the full horizontal pixel count or the full vertical pixel count of the image container. ' Then again - Dolby Cinema, as well as IMAX, is a closed environment. What they do is only limited by the contracts Dolby and IMAX have with the content creators. That is, neither Dolby Cinema nor IMAX need to sell anything as 'DCI compliant'.  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 10-21-2019 01:27 PM                        so then what is the justification for not using anamorphic's for scope?  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-21-2019 02:24 PM                     The primary reason is cost. High quality anamorphic attachments aren't cheap. You also probably want something that can move the attachment in and out of place via a macro, which also will cost you extra. In the end, you can probably save lamp life, so over the entire run, the anamorphic setup will probably pay back partly due to longer lamp life, but it's still a sizable one-time investment. Personally, I'm also not the biggest fan of "non-integer scaling", especially on 2K imagers as it can introduce some noticeable artifacts. The DCI requirement to only allow "square pixels" as the delivery format is pretty stupid, as "anamorphic pixels" could've allowed for maximizing the resolution for scope presentations for those who do have a working anamorphic setup for scope. I think this requirement was introduced to keep the "single inventory" spirit alive... we know what happened to that... On the other side, the only part that studios really tend to care about is the security part of the DCI specs... Dolby Cinema and IMAX, like Carsten indicated are under no contractual obligation to keep within the DCI specs for their "specially graded" presentations.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-22-2019 06:10 AM                     Sean...there is zero reason to not use anamorphic lenses on "Scope screens" other than cost. It is easier on the lamp (or laser)to pick up the 23% light savings by using the anamorphic lens. Every DCI compliant projector supports anamorphic lenses should be a clue that they were never disallowed. Even projector software that doesn't directly support anamorphic lenses one can use the DLP program to change the anamorphic factor to use them (and save the resulting screen file). The only exception I know to the rule, at the moment is the ICMP, despite responding to the DLP program does not understand the anamorphic factor. But any ICP based projector does.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-22-2019 07:46 AM                     They even advocated the use of anamorphics in the early days because the light efficiency of the early digital projectors was so bad. I think it was the right decision to disallow non-square pixels. That would have been an inventory nightmare right from the start. Imagine multiple screens, some with, some without anamorphics, a TMS, etc. Consider the typical size of hard discs at the time with additional OVs to be shipped. No... - Carsten  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-22-2019 08:59 AM                     No Carsten, I think we would have been better served to keep "Scope" to be a full container anamorphic. Just like every could handle anamorphics, so can they also apply a scaling factor to compensate for the anamorphic stretch. I would agree that the "F" and "S" formats should be uniform and not have some square pixel "S" and some non-square. Every projector can/could handle Scope retaining an anamorphic process...just the screen files would utilize or not an anamorphic lens based on having a scope or flat native ratio screens. It was a missed opportunity to be better (higher resolution, better light efficiency). I have anamorphics in some high-end cinemas and NOBODY has negatively commented on them...they just pick up 23% more light (smaller lamp = less cost/hour to achieve the same light output).  |  IP: Logged Sean McKinnon Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1712 From: Peabody Massachusetts Registered: Sep 2000 posted 10-22-2019 09:16 AM                        That's great! I had series 1 projectors that had anamorphic lenses on them but when series 2 came out I stopped seeing it. I am glad to know that it is still an option.  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 10-22-2019 09:37 AM                     I play scope features in non-anamorphic setups (as the majority uses them,), and no one complains about 'inferior scope resolution'. If you dare to spend the money on an anamorphic, you can just as well go 4k. At least on constant-width screens, there is no difference in resolution between flat and scope (as a matter of fact, on those screens scope typically has a slightly higher resolution than flat). Moot point. I'm equally glad they skipped non-square pixels in DCI as they did for Bluray (as opposed to 16:9 on DVD), just as it's good they are done with interlaced video. Projection anamorphics are part of the film age and legacy, and rightfully so. On the camera side, they are a creative tool. It would have hindered the digital rollout very early on, and we would still be swearing about it today.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-23-2019 03:11 AM                     quote: Sean McKinnon That's great! I had series 1 projectors that had anamorphic lenses on them but when series 2 came out I stopped seeing it. I am glad to know that it is still an option. Those are pre-DCI projectors, strictly speaking not Series 1. They had a pretty abysmal resolution, but they used anamorphic lenses and non-square pixels for scope features. quote: Carsten Kurz Moot point. I'm equally glad they skipped non-square pixels in DCI as they did for Bluray (as opposed to 16:9 on DVD), just as it's good they are done with interlaced video. Projection anamorphics are part of the film age and legacy, and rightfully so. On the camera side, they are a creative tool. Interlaced video was a result of bandwidth shortage and it's far from gone. Most broadcasters still broadcast in 1080i. I'm not a particular fan of interlacing, but it serves a purpose. Sports is far better to watch in 1080i@50/60 than 1080p@25/30. Anamorphic lenses have long time been used to get the most light and resolution out of a common carrier for wide-screen presentations, in this case, 35mm film. Now, the "common carrier" is the imager in the projector and as long as that's pretty much fixed in resolution, why would anamorphics not be an adequate solution?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-23-2019 04:19 AM                     Many/most/if not all series 1 projectors had the Anamorphic (and wide screen converter...a simple magnifier) option. Think CP2000S/SB and DP100 type projectors. For Christie, this continued through all series 1 projectors. Barco kept the Anamorphic option only on the DP3000 but on the smaller they never made a mount (DP1200-DP2000). NEC had the anamorphic option through the NC2000/NC3200. Christie kept it until they ran out well into series 2 as well.  |  IP: Logged Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 10-23-2019 02:45 PM                     The CP2000S and SB indeed had an anamorphic option, I forgot about those. I didn't know that Barco sold their own anamorphic addons for the DP90/100 and 3000, I think I've never seen any of those.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.