|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: 'The Maze Runner' will be shown in three-screen panoramic format
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-24-2014 05:57 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, you are complete buffoon, get your facts straight. web page
That's a WB web page for The Dark Knight Rises, not the The Dark Knight.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, stop focusing on the native resolution. A theater that presents a DCP scope film with an anamorphic lense will yield a better image than a theater that is using a zoom lense. The native resolution is not the determining factor in this case.
Native resolution is a very fundamental thing. There's no getting past a 466,000 pixel difference between a fake 'scope image and one that actually would accomplish an anamorphic method correctly.
It doesn't matter if a theater stretches or zooms that 2048 X 852 resolution image, it's still starting from a more limited, lower resolution original image. The image would look a whole lot better if it started out, before un-squeezing, as a native 2048 X 1080 image. There's no getting around that fundamental fact.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
BUT YOU STILL MISS THE POINT..the paying customer has no way to tell if a theater is truly using an anamorphic lense, this is why the audience does not give a shit.
I didn't miss any point. The theaters might as well never advertise it if they're starting out with a non-anamorphic 2048 X 852 source image in the DCP.
And your statements about the audience "not giving a shit" is a bunch of presumptuous, made up bullshit from you (which you keep repeating in typical troll style). If anything, audiences just don't know of the details. Them "not giving a shit" implies that they do know all the details and just don't care about it anyway. That's actually more your deal when it comes to being a little fanboy for IMAX. You know their digital system has shortcomings, yet you think it's the greatest thing. You know IMAX' sound system is, at best, controversial, if not just plain shitty. Your constant jabs at Dolby Atmos really kind of shows you have an inferiority complex about some other things being better than what IMAX is selling.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-24-2014 11:23 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, again. A digital presentation with an anamorphic lense will be superior than a digital presentation with a zoom or fixed lense.
Superior how, specifically? Care to provide something more than vague statements?
At best, an anamorphic setup is only going to give you a more efficient spread of light on a common height movie screen where 'scope is the biggest projected image. If you're going to claim the image is sharper and more detailed you're off your rocker. The native resolution isn't there to make that happen.
See if you can wrap your thick head around this Terry:
Using 2K as the example, Hollywood studios create 2K movies at 2048 X 852 pixels in resolution. Sometimes they render them at 1920 X 800 and blow them up a little to 2K. What the theater gets on that DCP is over 466,000 pixels short of covering the full height of that 2048 X 1080 imager. A theater with an anamorphic setup has to alter that image twice. It gets digitally "up-rezzed" disproportionately from its original 2048 X 852 size to 2048 X 1080 before the image is put through the projector and altered yet again, optically, through an anamorphic lens.
Up-rezzing doesn't create any new detail. Lots of Photoshop hacks out there can't seem to understand that, among lots of other "don't do" kinds of things. Changing an image from its original, native resolution to a larger size often degrades image quality. The best image re-sampling methods can't overcome that.
Then you have any issues the anamorphic lens is going to bake into the already digitally bullshitted image when it is projected onto a movie theater screen.
Here's how Hollywood should be producing 2K:
In the production & post production stage they should be rendering a 'scope image where 1080 is the base height of the image, not 800 or 852. A 2.4:1 ratio image with a 1080 height would be 2592 X 1080. That's what they should be rendering, but they're not since there's a huge difference between 2592 X 1080 and 2048 X 852. It's a difference of more than a million pixels (2,799,360 versus 1,744,896). Those differences are geometrically expanded when you scale it to 4K. All those extra pixels translate to higher cost. Instead, they've gone the cheaper, lower quality route.
When they encode the DCP they should be squeezing that 2592 X 1080 image horizontally to 2048 X 1080 (and using their high dollar post production software to re-sample it to 2048 X 1080 properly). The movie theater ends up getting a real 'scope DCP that doesn't need any digital bullshit happening in the server & projector. The image just gets un-squeezed optically. I guarantee that kind of 'scope DCP image would look a fuck-ton better than the poor excuse for 'scope we're getting now. Not to mention it would give theaters with proper common height screens a leg up on all those damned common width theaters.
'Scope DCPs wouldn't be so friendly to common width theaters stuck with letter-boxing 'scope movies or theaters using non-anamorphic setups. But that can be overcome digitally. The 2048 X 1080 'scope image can be re-mapped to 2048 X 852 using the same principal DVD players have used to make 16x9 enhanced DVDs play normally on old 4:3 SD TV sets. Shit, they could probably enable this kind of function with a firmware update.
After explaining all that with clear, yet easy to understand numerical specifics, it's obvious the current way 'scope is treated in d-cinema is absolutely, stupidly backward.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-25-2014 01:32 AM
Looks like "there" is also a difficult word to spell. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
While resolution is very important, there are just as important factors that make up a quality image.
Yeah, the f(bs) a.k.a. bullshit factor is also very important. It requires at least an f(bs) > 5 to attain a Terry-approved digital presentation. I've heard that Digital IMAX with an f(bs) of about 7 to 8 could perfectly fit your needs.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, in a constant height cinema (side masking) when projecting scope DCPs you are always using the scaler whether you use an anamorphic, zoom, or fixed lense.
And why exactly, in your infinite, proven wisdom, would you be constantly using the scaler for scope if you've got a zoom lens(e) and no anamorphic attachment?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-25-2014 10:11 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, in a constant height cinema (side masking) when projecting scope DCPs you are always using the scaler whether you use an anamorphic, zoom, or fixed lense. However, when you project with an anamorphic lense you are using the full imager thus you will have all 2048x1080 available pixels of the imager to create the remapped image. The light efficiency will be 100% in anamorphic Vs 80% with a zoom/fixed lense which is only using 2048x857 pixels of the imager.
It's still bullshit digital zoom. The fundamentals are no different from someone hitting one of the zoom settings on their HDTV set to get rid of black bars on a Blu-ray disc. The image, blown up out of its original fixed resolution, is degraded when artifically enlarged. Degradation occurs whether it's happening on one axis (vertically) or both axis (vertically & horizontally).
'Scope DCPs ought to be arriving already encoded at full frame 2048 X 1080 to avoid any phony digital scaling. If any digital scaling should be happening it ought to be down-scaling a 2048 X 1080 image to 2048 X 852 for those shitty, common width screens. Those theaters deserve the HDTV in public type treatment since their screens are already designed that way. Again, doing 'scope correctly in d-cinema isn't happening due to cost cutting, quality harming reasons.
If 'scope DCPs were already encoded at full frame 2048 X 1080 it would make the investment in an anamorphic setup far more worth it. Right now, it might be something that can save a theater money on lamp costs, but it sure as hell is not something worth advertising to the public.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
While resolution is very important, there are just as important factors that make up a quality image.
Color depth and contrast. But you're speaking as if the native resolution of an image with a fixed set of pixels on a Bayer pattern grid is somehow flexible.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike, I always leave something in their for idiots like you to comment on.
Terry, I'm looking forward to the day you get banned from this forum. We've seen at least a few people push their luck a little too far and get blocked over it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-26-2014 02:24 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Mike, I always leave something in their for idiots like you to comment on.
You must be bipolar or something. You insult people who disagree with you even when you are proven wrong, and you claim not to like name-calling, but then you go do it yourself. You repeatedly post for no other apparent reason than to stir people up, which makes you a troll, which many people here have also called you out as.
What's interesting to me is, nobody on this forum (besides you) has ever called me an idiot that I'm aware of -- but many other people here have called you this and similar terms. Even so, you never even have the dignity to admit you're wrong when proven so, or even so much as offer to "agree to disagree." Therefore I think I know who to take seriously and who not to.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Terry, I'm looking forward to the day you get banned from this forum. We've seen at least a few people push their luck a little too far and get blocked over it.
Oh now come on, it's too much fun winning arguments, I mean having debates with him! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Buck Wilson
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 894
From: St. Joseph MO, USA
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 09-26-2014 05:35 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Any professional needs to do his job correctly whether the customer notices it or not. It's not the customer's job to "give a shit", notice or whatever you want to call it. If he is only going to do work based solely on what customers will notice then he needs to find another line of work or just go on welfare or something. Compromise, particularly when it isn't necessary, is unprofessional. IMHO the way 'scope is handled in d-cinema is unprofessional.
THAAAAANK YOUUUUUU!!!
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
BUT YOU STILL MISS THE POINT..the paying customer has no way to tell if a theater is truly using an anamorphic lense, this is why the audience does not give a shit.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Again, you fail to understand. The paying have no way of telling if the DCP is being shown with an anamorphic lense.
As for resolution, you are emphasizing took much on the native res, there is much more to a presentation than just resolution. Yes, resolution is important, but it is not the be all end all. The customer does not give shit about anamorphic lenses vs zoomed DCP. Nor do they have a way of telling.
NEWS FLASH: Customers SHOULDN'T HAVE to "give a shit". They are already assuming that for their very expensive ticket, they're getting the best and sadly, they're not. That is where the industry is failing. As Bobby mentioned, it is extremely unprofessional. Sadly, I don't see a magic fix either. There's always going to be something.... Theaters that do things right get more business. It's been discussed time and time again here, the customer may not even know WHY X theater is better than Y theater, just that it is. And they vote with their dollars. Whether it be THX or light not shining on the screen or proper masking...
P.S. Liemax is not the only one that uses dual projection. In fact, the nearest Liemax to me in fact does NOT, whereas the Prime screen right across the lobby DOES. I'm not saying Prime is perfect, in reality it is far from it, but it's light years better than the Liemax auditorium across the lobby. Every time I watch a movie in the Liemax aud(Which I assure you is extremely infrequently/never again) I get a skull-splitting headache. There's good reason why everyone here dislikes Liemax.
I'd choose an Atmos feature in literally any auditorium currently equipped with it over ANY digitally equipped Imax auditorium. ANY. DAY.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
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
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic