Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Exhibition in 2018

Film-Tech Cinema Systems

Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE

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

next oldest topic

next newest topic

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Exhibition in 2018 (Page 5)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Author

Topic: Exhibition in 2018

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 01-24-2014 09:39 PM

Author's Homepage

Email Justin Hamaker

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Jesse, it sounds like this theatre did a horrible job of setting up their screen files.

The scope resolution is 2048 x 858, on a chip that is 2048 x 1080. Unlike with film, the picture is not morphed, so no anamorphic lens is needed for projection.

When done properly, there should be no letterboxing. The masking should be set to the scope position, the picture should be set so it best fills the masking top to bottom and side to side. Then crop files should be set up to crop what falls outside the masking (essentially a digital aperture plate). The crop file even has a curve setting to eliminate any picture overlapping the masking in the middle of each side.

With a digital presentation, there is zero excuse for not having nice crisp lines that are dead on the masking.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-24-2014 09:51 PM

Email Bobby Henderson

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Mistreatment of 'scope is one of my biggest complaints with d-cinema. The spherical single lens approach in d-cinema makes 'scope a smaller, lower resolution format than 1.66:1, 1.77:1 and 1.85:1. It doesn't matter whether the theater has a common width or common height screen, the image quality of 'scope will be lower. Common height screens make 'scope image bigger (as it should be), but that lower resolution is magnified.

Was a dual lens system ever considered for d-cinema projectors (one spherical lens for flat formats and one anamorphic decompression lens for 'scope)? Doing some quick math, a 1.25x decompression lens (similar to Ultra Panavision) applied to an entire 2048 X 1080 imager (or a 4096 X 2160 imager) would deliver something very close to the 2.39:1 ratio (2.37:1 to be exact).

IMHO a 'scope DCP ought to fill the entire image sensor area, just like it filled an entire 35mm film frame. The letterboxing method is crap.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 01-24-2014 10:24 PM

Email Terry Lynn-Stevens

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Bobby Henderson
Was a dual lens system ever considered for d-cinema projectors (one spherical lens for flat formats and one anamorphic decompression lens for 'scope)?

Yes, it is possible to do a dual lens setup.

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMHO a 'scope DCP ought to fill the entire image sensor area, just like it filled an entire 35mm film frame. The letterboxing method is crap.

If you have an anamorphic set up, I believe (not exactly sure) the projector will change the image to use more of the sensor. This will use light a little more efficiently for larger screens. The big difference is that the image is not ever distributed in anamorphic and is changed in the projector.

Perhaps someone can provide a little more info and clarity .

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-24-2014 10:56 PM

Author's Homepage

Email Brad Miller

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Jesse Skeen
Just came back from my first time seeing a scope movie projected digitally on a screen with proper side-masking, and am not at all pleased.

quote: Jesse Skeen
This theater (UA Arden/Market Square, Sacramento)

Jesse, you shouldn't base digital cinema on a Sony presentation, which is what you saw. Go see something in DLP. The difference is SIGNIFICANTLY better.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If you have an anamorphic set up, I believe (not exactly sure) the projector will change the image to use more of the sensor. This will use light a little more efficiently for larger screens. The big difference is that the image is not ever distributed in anamorphic and is changed in the projector.

That is accurate. The scope source file is scaled vertically to use all available pixels on the DMD, then the anamorphic lens stretches the image just like with 35mm and you end up with your 2.4 ratio which typically looks better than "zooming out" to scope. (I say typically because that may not always be the case, but in the several anamorphic installs I've personally done, the anamorphic definitely looked better.)

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 01-24-2014 11:28 PM

Email Jesse Skeen

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

So why didn't they make anamorphic the standard for showing 2.35, or just make the frame natively 2.35 and put side bars on 1.85 or less material? To use a politically incorrect term, this is just plain retarded.

And I've seen pictures of digital booths where cardboard or masking tape was put in place to hide the light from the unused parts of the frame; this theater was 95% incompetent in all the film presentations I saw there in the 21 years it's been open, so likely if there's a proper way to set their projectors for this they don't know how. Zooming the image is, again, just plain retarded anyways. [Razz]

[Razz]

Oh, and just a random question- the movie I saw (Jack Ryan) had some English subtitles during scenes where characters were speaking Russian- are these typically on the actual picture, or overlaid as separate subtitles? Reason I ask is because many recent Blu-Rays and DVDs of movies that include subtitles in this way include them as a subtitle track on the disc rather than using a source where they're actually on the picture, which personally annoys me as it looks very un-film-like, but if that's the way "D-Cinema" is doing it I guess I can live with it.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

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

posted 01-25-2014 01:43 AM

Email Marcel Birgelen

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

The reason that anamorphic isn't the standard is pretty simple: It's more expensive to add two lenses to your setup. Also, the resolution is still lower than flat and non-square pixels in the DCP are still a no-go.

The reason why there are no native scope DMDs is also pretty simple: DCI compliant hardware uses just off-the-shelf DMD equipment, using 16:9 / 1.78:1 as reference aspect ratio. TI (who services every DCI-certified projector supplier except Sony) would probably also be reluctant to setup a separate production line for DCI equipment only. The same goes for digital camera equipment, this is often based around "industry standard" CMOS or CCD sensors with the same aspect ratio.

The Digital version of IMAX also considers 1.78:1 the new BIG format...

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

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

posted 01-25-2014 02:05 AM

Author's Homepage

Email Brad Miller

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Marcel Birgelen
DCI compliant hardware uses just off-the-shelf DMD equipment, using 16:9 / 1.78:1 as reference aspect ratio.

The DMDs for Cinema DLP projectors are 1.9 aspect ratio, not 1.78

quote: Jesse Skeen
So why didn't they make anamorphic the standard for showing 2.35, or just make the frame natively 2.35 and put side bars on 1.85 or less material?

Because that would actually be smart.

quote: Jesse Skeen
To use a politically incorrect term, this is just plain retarded.

Exactly right.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

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

posted 01-25-2014 02:39 AM

Email Marcel Birgelen

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Brad Miller
The DMDs for Cinema DLP projectors are 1.9 aspect ratio, not 1.78

That's right, it is either 2048x1080 or 4096x2160, but those same DMDs are being used for a whole bunch non DCI equipment too and in some cases, otherwise DCI compliant projectors are also being used as e.g. large venue projector.

On another note, do you actually like the result of scaling/stretching the image across the DMD for scope? Especially for 2K setups?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-25-2014 02:48 AM

Email Bobby Henderson

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If you have an anamorphic set up, I believe (not exactly sure) the projector will change the image to use more of the sensor. This will use light a little more efficiently for larger screens. The big difference is that the image is not ever distributed in anamorphic and is changed in the projector.

And that is still a major failure.

A similar analogy would be playing a non-anamorphic 2.39:1 DVD to fill the same amount of TV screen as one authored as 16x9 anamorphic enhanced. The non-anamorphic 'scope image has to be zoomed along two axis (height and width). The anamorphic version is only stretched horizontally. By having more native vertical pixels the anamorphic version will always look better. D-cinema is going with the lower quality route.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The reason that anamorphic isn't the standard is pretty simple: It's more expensive to add two lenses to your setup.

I really have to question that.

Here in Lawton, when our local Carmike 8 went "digital" several years ago, I looked closely at the Konica-Minolta lenses mounted on Christie digital projectors. Those things are gigantic in size compared to the Schneider Super-Cinelux lenses on the Simplex 35 projectors that were put into mothballs. I don't know what a single Konica-Minolta d-cinema projector lens costs, but judging by the size of all that glass I'm willing to bet it costs a lot more than a pair of Schneider 35mm lenses.

As for non-square pixels being a no-go, non-square has been around for a long time. It was standard for NTSC SD. Consumer DVD supported non-square pixels and an anamorphic widescreen model. If the DCI standards committee had to rigidly stick with square pixels only it must have come from someone with a preference for flat movies as opposed to 'scope.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

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

posted 01-25-2014 03:14 AM

Email Marcel Birgelen

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Bobby Henderson
I really have to question that.

Well, in case of the current DCI solutions, it will add another few thousand dollars to the costs. The Christie MALM for example goes for about EUR 3500 around here and I'm not sure if that already includes the anamorphic lens. It will probably also complicate stuff like RealD XL and MasterImage 3D.

quote: Bobby Henderson
As for non-square pixels being a no-go, non-square has been around for a long time. It was standard for NTSC SD. Consumer DVD supported non-square pixels and an anamorphic widescreen model. If the DCI standards committee had to rigidly stick with square pixels only it must have come from someone with a preference for flat movies as opposed to 'scope.

Technically it should not be a problem at all. Even stuff like VLC and mplayer can deal with non-square pixels just fine, it has been used in DVDs for ages, etc. Maybe they were afraid of the compatibility and implementation issues with non-square pixels at the time, or somebody just hated scope, I don't know.

I don't think we will see "scope sized" DMDs real soon, besides the limited market, it will probably also require a redesign of the light engine and the light path itself. Maybe it will also be harder to make such a setup light efficient, because the DMD will be even more of a rectangular form.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 01-25-2014 03:38 AM

Email Jesse Skeen

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

Hmm, seems like the whole point of scope has gone out the window with this. So much for progress!

quote: Bobby Henderson
A similar analogy would be playing a non-anamorphic 2.39:1 DVD to fill the same amount of TV screen as one authored as 16x9 anamorphic enhanced. The non-anamorphic 'scope image has to be zoomed along two axis (height and width). The anamorphic version is only stretched horizontally. By having more native vertical pixels the anamorphic version will always look better. D-cinema is going with the lower quality route.

I usually just leave those as-is at home too and pretend I have a 4x3 TV, since they look like ass zoomed in (even more so if it's a laserdisc), and if it's a movie I care about I'll just re-buy it on Blu-Ray if it's available. The zoomed theater picture didn't look TOO bad, but it's just insulting that they went with something like that- I'd expect that on consumer equipment, but not something designed for theaters. I certainly see why these new "XD" screens and such are installed without masking though, since the picture is just letterboxed anyways, but it's still pretty stupid.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 01-25-2014 11:00 AM

Email Terry Lynn-Stevens

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Bobby Henderson
And that is still a major failure.

The only way to achieve 100% efficiency from your lamp and your sensor is to be presenting with an anamorphic lense.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The spherical single lens approach in d-cinema makes 'scope a smaller, lower resolution format than 1.66:1, 1.77:1 and 1.85:1. It doesn't matter whether the theater has a common width or common height screen, the image quality of 'scope will be lower.

This is not exactly true, light and sensor efficiency with a single lense approach is dependent on whether you are common width or common height.

Lamp and sensor efficiency is the most important factor, presenting with an anamorphic lense for scope and a separate prime lense for flat is best way to get full light/sensor efficiency.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 01-25-2014 11:29 AM

Email Bobby Henderson

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

quote: Jesse Skeen
I usually just leave those as-is at home too and pretend I have a 4x3 TV, since they look like ass zoomed in (even more so if it's a laserdisc), and if it's a movie I care about I'll just re-buy it on Blu-Ray if it's available.

I haven't watched my DVDs of True Lies and The Abyss in several years due to their non-anamorphic nature. They're OK on a 4:3 SD TV, but look downright terrible zoomed up to HD. Unfortunately there are no Blu-ray versions of either movie. There's no telling when James Cameron will get around to supervising the production of those BDs or just get out of the way and let Fox Home Video get it done already.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 01-25-2014 02:12 PM

Email Lyle Romer

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I assume the image dimensions were driven by making each "1k" for 'scope be equal to a digital k (1024). Therefore, 2k scope was 2048 pixels wide by 858 tall. If you had just made that the size of the imager and knocked off unused pixels in flat, the flat image would have been 858x1588 and the physical area of the flat image would have been tiny and probably not big enough to light a decent size common width screen.

That approach would have probably made the light engines cheaper. Once they had to grow the flat height, it made sense to go 1080 high to be standardized with HDTV.

Following from that if you made spherical scope at that height you'd have 1080x2582 (2,788,560 pixels) in 2k. This would be a 26% larger image chip (which I imagine would cost a not insignificantly higher amount to manufacture).

I think they stayed away from anamporphic lenses required was for cost reasons.

For me, the whole problem with the DCI standard is that they wanted to rush it so they made 2k acceptable. DCI should have been 4k minimum.

| IP: Logged

Jesse Skeen
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1517
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 01-25-2014 04:37 PM

Email Jesse Skeen

Send New Private Message

Edit/Delete Post

I have True Lies in HD on D-VHS [Smile]

[Smile]

(And I don't even LIKE the movie!)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Move Topic

Delete Topic

next oldest topic

next newest topic

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic^TM 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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.