|
|
This topic comprises 6 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Exhibition in 2018
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-25-2014 08:11 PM
quote: Lyle Romer
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.
I guess the decision making at TI was quite simple: Full HD is very close to flat, aspect ratio wise. So, instead of totally redesigning a chip they already had, they just extended Full HD so flat could fit. Those same DMDs could also be used for professional projectors that would otherwise only show 16:9 content. The reason that it ended up being 2048, is because it needs to be dividable by 8, otherwise designing hard- and software for it would become rather awkward.
quote: Lyle Romer
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.
I totally agree with this. The probem is that probably 80 to 90% of all current installs are 2K machines. Most of them are just a few years old, so 4K is never going to get a widespread market adoption in the forseable future. I've told this before, but it really hurts knowing that your next big TV will probably a 4K model (I'm pretty sure those things will be as cheap as Full HD screens are now within 2 years), but the cinema around the corner is operating at a fraction of that resolution...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 01-28-2014 05:03 AM
For now there are only 3-DLP or 3-SXRD (Sony's version of LCoS) products that are DCI certified. There is no single 3-LCD implementation, probably because it's rather hard to produce transmissive LCD panels that keep performing well under the required light levels.
Of all the digital projection gear, the JVC LCoS implementation, called D-ILA, has the deepest levels of black and probably the best overall contrast without cheating (like auto-iris) that I've seen. But there is currently no DCI certified projector that uses this technology.
quote: Lyle Romer
In the US, this isn't necessarily the case because AMC and Regal both went with Sony and are therefore close to 100% 4k capable.
I've done a little bit of Googling and found that Sony claims about 35% to 40% market share in the U.S. That's higher than I expected, but I didn't know that Regal also had an exclusivity agreement with Sony. Still, I'm wondering how many of those "other" installs are 4K machines.
quote: Brad Miller
That doesn't matter when they use RealD with that Sony. 4k is out the window. In fact it looks downright awful because nobody moves that RealD out of the way.
It's also a bit of a failure of RealD itself, since they don't offer an out-of-the-box solution for their Z-Screen and XL(S) units and you need to go shopping at a third party. Also, moving the XL(S) unit back in place requires more calibration than just moving the Z-Screen in place, so it's probably very tempting to just leave it in place, due to lack of sophisticated projectionists.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-14-2014 12:04 PM
Lots of movies have been filmed for multiple aspect ratios since the 1980s. This is essentially what the Super35 format allowed. Home video safe widescreen. I have generally hated the compositions of most Super35 movies since they merely tried to frame in a happy medium between aspect ratios for standard definition TV, HDTV and 'scope. The compositions would be merely okay, very conventional but not really using any of those aspect ratios properly. Directors like James Cameron, David Fincher and very few others shot movies in Super35 while deliberately composing for the 2.39:1 frame.
Anamorphic lenses force the director and DP to use the 2.39:1 frame. But even with that locked in aspect ratio plenty of movies would still try to play things safe. Lots of 80's and 90's movies shot in scope tried to confine the most important stuff in the frame into a 4:3 area safe for panning and scanning to old TV sets. It's kind of an 80's look to have an actor placed on the far left or far right end of the frame in a low depth of field shot where the other 80% of the screen is a big anamorphic blur.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The situation isn't quite as bad in the differences between 'scope and HDTV, but the difference is still pretty substantial. Some of the same "playing it safe" compositional problems with Super35 are still there today with video-based movie production. Most movie productions are effectively shooting a movie in near flat format and merely cropping into the image. We're still ending up with 'scope aspect ratio movies that don't really look like they're deliberately composed for 2.39:1.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
As more and more premium large screens open, I think we are going to see more and more 1:85 films released. Perhaps we will see dual aspect ratio releases, by 2018 we are going to see more and more screens without masking so I can see this happening.
I don't think we'll see dual aspect ratio releases at all. With 'scope essentially sucking as a d-cinema format we'll eventually see a big shift to where 'scope just isn't used anymore -except for rap music videos and some TV commercials.
In the years leading up to the big shift to d-cinema, Super35 was dominating many releases. There was a LOT of movies released with 'scope 35mm film prints that really didn't need to be in 'scope at all. The only thing that was happening was filmmakers and producers wanting to fill 100% of commercial movie theater screens. That's all. It didn't have a damned thing to do with the aesthetics of the 'scope aspect ratio. Just fill the entire movie screen. At that time most movie screens were common height. That made 'scope the biggest format image. The practice was so prevalent that Super35 in the theater almost seemed like a reverse form of panning and scanning.
With d-cinema, 'scope is the smallest image. Obviously this situation is fucking backwards, but that's how it is. The 'scope format is smaller on the DCP, it's smaller on the imaging chips and it's smaller on all these common width screens. Now 'scope just sucks. Honestly, throwing in those black bars across the top and bottom of a video camera's 1.77:1 image is pretentious bullshit.
There are some video cameras, like certain Red models, that treat 'scope quite a bit better. Some people are using anamorphic lenses with the Arri Alexa; that's the only way to make that 2.8K image expand to something closer to 4K. Unfortunately, that better treatment ain't making it to the theater screen.
Since one of the ultimate image goals for producers and other big decision makers is to fill the entire screen, I see the 'scope format as an endangered species. With so many new theaters installing common width screens it's only a matter of time before movies shift to fill those screens.
A lot of people were shocked The Avengers was released in flat format. But with so many common width screens, that move actually makes sense. Skyfall was shown in 'scope in most movie theaters, but had more of a HDTV aspect ratio in IMAX branded theaters. Eventually we're going to see a lot more of that and a lot less of 'scope.
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic