|
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Sony exhibiting Da Vinci Code in 4K
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 05-26-2006 01:30 PM
Also, lenses for Digital Cinema projectors are usually projecting an image formed by three modulators (red, green, and blue) combined optically, usually with some sort of prism block. Any lens would therefore need to have a long back focus. Likely a telecentric lens design would be needed. So the lenses usually need to be specifically designed for Digital Cinema projection, as opposed to the simpler case of a single image on a piece of color print film or on a single chip.
For background on typical optics used, here is a technical paper about a digital projector design using reflective PDLC light modulators from NHK in Japan:
http://ao.osa.org/ViewMedia.cfm?id=78325&seq=0
quote:
High-definition imaging system based on spatial
light modulators with light-scattering mode
Hiroshi Kikuchi, Takanori Fujii, Masahiro Kawakita, Yoshiyuki Hirano, Hideo Fujikake,
Fumio Sato, and Kuniharu Takizawa
We have developed a prototype high-definition imaging system using polymer-dispersed liquid-crystal
PDLC light valves, which can modulate unpolarized light with high spatial resolution and exhibit a high
optical efficiency, based on the light-scattering effect. We fabricated high-definition light valves with a
fine polymer-matrix structure in a PDLC film by controlling the curing conditions used during the
photopolymerization-induced phase separation and formation process. This device has excellent characteristics,
such as a high resolution, with 50 lpmm for a limiting resolution and greater than 20 lpmm
at the 50% modulation transfer function point, and a reflectivity of greater than 60%. An optically
addressable full-color projection display was designed, consisting of three PDLC light valves, a schlieren
optical system based on shift-decentralization optics with a xenon lamp illumination and input-image
sources with 1.5 million pixels, including electrical image compensation of the gamma characteristics.
We succeeded in displaying pictures on a 110-inch screen with a resolution of 810 TV lines and a luminous
flux of 1900–2100 American National Standards Institute lumens.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 05-27-2006 05:19 PM
Large exhibitors figure they will save money by not hiring projectionists or other booth-monkeys to do film-handling. They might also save in repairs, because uncaring idiot high school kids won't be handling and damaging the expensive equipment. They'll save in freight, not having to ship film. And, they figure they will see increased attendance because people will stop seeing scratches, dirt and other film damage and so on. After all, one of the big perceived problems with the theatre experience today is "scratched film." (Gotta remember, a huge percentage of booth people have unfortunately never heard of Film-tech.)
I think the studios will see about 90% of the savings. Theatres will see about 10%. Myself, being a small operator and doing my own booth work, will save nothing in $ (except for the shipping), but it'll save me some time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-28-2006 06:00 AM
quote: Paul Linfesty
Because they're not the ones who are paying for the bulk of it.
I keep hearing that. How much, exactly, do they pay for say a $100,000 projector with an additional $13,000 lens and the labor to remove the 35mm projector and the install and alignment of the digital system? What exactly is meant by the "bulk" of cost -- 90%, 80% 50%? So then whoever is paying the bulk percentage, then are they the ones who keep ownership of the equipment? Or are you saying that they pay the bulk of the cost and then, what, they turn the equipment over free and clear to theatre owner? The theatre owner owns it outright, unencumbered, thereafter? He gets to do what he wants with it? I find that pretty hard to believe and if it's true, who do I ask to buy me one of those 4K digital projectors? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Then again, the cost of the initial equipment and the install and alignment, even if it were free, still doesn't address the other operating costs, such as the increased wattage needed for equivalent screen brightness for a given screen size vs. 35mm projection (typically 7000w for a 50ft screen vs. 4500w for film). That's a lot of energy costs when you multiply that over however many digital installs are put in a multiplex. And we still haven't seen a definative, real-life projection of digital vs 35mm maintenance and operating costs out over 1yr, 2yrs, 5yrs. To say that digital will not cost the exihibitor more than a film-based system by looking only at what an install costs which will be partially paid for by whoever (who that is hasn't been defined yet either), to me seems flawed at best.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-30-2006 01:22 PM
quote: Lyle Romer
Question for Manny (or anybody else that might have seen it by now). How do the colors, contrast and black levels of SXRD compare to DLP?
Well, it would take a butterfly + a/b "shootout" to see a true comparison. But, my gut reaction is that the Sony system has similar contrast and black level issues as DLP. The colors look great, especially in brighter shots/scenes.
I really think that pixel count is the lesser issue at this point. They need to develop the ability to reproduce true black and better shadow detail. Resolution isn't everything and, yet, since it's easily quantifiable, I am concerned that these numbers (2K and 4K, etc) will become -- or already have become -- marketing buzzwords (just like Megapixels) whereas exposure latitude and contrast ratio are at risk of being downplayed or ignored because they come across as gobbledegook.
I'm going to see a 2K showing tonight and then back to see the 4K again tomorrow since it's been a while. At $12-$14 a ticket, and a running time of over 2hrs, I'm not sure it's worth checking out a film print since they are off of 4K DI's. It should look just like digital...but worse, since it's now week 2 for this title. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) I really should've gone earlier.
[ 05-30-2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 05-30-2006 08:29 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
After all, one of the big perceived problems with the theatre experience today is "scratched film."
With your quotes around "scratched film" I don't know if you are being sarcastic in that the public calls most film-related problems "scratched film" but in my experience (and perhaps colored by my own personal gripe with it) the worst problem exhibited by just about every film-based presentation I've seen in the past several years is jump and weave.
I attended a show of X-Men: The Last Stand yesterday at one of the better theaters in the area (at least, the most consistent in providing acceptable presentations anyway), and there was the usual amount of both jump and weave. If I had to pick one over the other, I would say that the jump was worse.
The thing is, this is pretty standard, and I think the public just expects it. It's almost like a jittery image will be the thing people will "miss" if/when digital cinema gets a foothold in the area.
Thing is, once you get used to a rock-steady image, watching a film presentation jump around on the screen like Hammy the Squirrel from Over the Hedge isn't going to cut it. The more I watch in my home theater, the more irritating it is to go to the theater. I feel like having to take Dramamine beforehand! (Maybe the concession stands could sell it for $1 per dose.)
As far as black level goes, digital is already there. The sconces in the auditorium yesterday were illuminating the screen well enough that the masking cast a shadow. If it were just this theater, that wouldn't be so bad, but I attended a film showing of Star Wars 3 last year that had a very high black level as well, and I don't think it was the room lighting that did it.
For all the vitriol about digital cinema, one cannot complain about something and say that it has no marketable advantages until one has seen it firsthand. Once you become accustomed to not seeing the flaws of film that's "not done perfect" those flaws are that much more evident.
I welcome the onslaught of digital cinema. It can't come fast enough for the paying public!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5
|
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
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
there....I was being sarcastic. I don't think digital is going to save exhibitors a penny, even after they pay off the bank loans and the second mortages, nor do I think digital will increase attendence one iota. Which is a puzzlement for me as to why this usually stingy bunch would even consider it, let alone actually buying into it.
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic