Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: We're getting a digital projector for 'Dinosaur'

This is topic We're getting a digital projector for 'Dinosaur' in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000871

Posted by Andrew D'Vrey (Member # 285) on 04-15-2000, 01:25 AM:

Word has it we (Mall of America, General Cinema) will be getting a digital projector for the showing of Disney's Dinosaur, May 19th. No word yet what kind, who's installing or (gulp!)

who's running it, but I will keep ya'll posted.

If there are questions people want me to ask, let me know. I'm sure I will bug the people who bring this in to no end.

Just out of curiosity, anyone here currently running a digital projector on a regular basis?

------------------
"And the monkey flips the switch."
- Major Don West, "Lost In Space"

Andrew D'Vrey
IATSE Local 219

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-15-2000, 03:42 AM:

Interesting how it seems most films in digital projection are originating from a digital source.

Are any just your normal, everyday movies with real actors and real scenery or would that make the comparison too biased in film's favour?

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 04-15-2000, 07:53 AM:

That's a good point John! I have been thinking about that also.

------------------

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-15-2000, 08:54 AM:

I have a question. Who's paying the tens of thousands of dollars for the "upgrade" to digital? We're told that digital projection will save the distributors the cost of making all those movie prints and that theatre operators will be stuck with the cost of new equipment. But is that true in your case, or is the distributor sharing the cost to "prime the pump" and make digital projection a wide-spread reality?

Is there anyone out there running digital projectors which have been in operation since last summer? Is there anyone out there who was running digital projectors last summer but has had those projectors removed? Or has the equipment been upgraded? What's the long-term operational reliability of these projectors?

Okay... that's more than one question. I don't mind the idea of seeing digital movies which were computer generated anyway, so what's wrong with digital and "chemical" living together in peace for the time being? As soon as the technology improves enough to give us great looking, non-effects movies, then none of us will complain too loudly, will we?

Posted by Chris Erwin (Member # 176) on 04-16-2000, 09:28 AM:

I too argee about digital projection starting their roll out with digitally made films. Gotta sale it!

The typical patron still doesn't care.

--Chris

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 04-17-2000, 02:31 AM:

My condolences.

I'd like to know how a theatre gets a digital print? On CD or DVD? Through a satellite link? What is the storage medium? Does anyone know?

We've been spared from the digital theatres around here, so far, but I guess it's only a matter of time.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-17-2000, 09:45 AM:

At least with Star Wars, the digital "print" was shipped on a D-5 videotape (which is about the best-quality tape format in existance...many levels above the usual broadcast standards of Betacam SP). The "movie" was then loaded into a hard-disk array which was used for the actual projection (presumably to avoid wearing out the tape after repeated showings).

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 04-17-2000, 11:22 PM:

I work at Cinemark Legacy 24 (pictures available) and we have had a TI DLP projector installed since Thanksgiving for Toy Story 2. We have played TS-2 and Mission To Mars for the general audience and SW-EP1 for "Special" screenings.

The projector was removed after the SW screenings and a new one brought in for the others. The projector head changed slightly as TI moved a couple of hardware cards from the VIDEO playback to the projector head.

The film is stored on a QUVIS device that encodes every frame in 21 bit color. (If I remember correctly). This frame is then sent over COAX in HD (High Definition) to the projector head where it is then decoded and projected.

Mission to Mars used up so much space. Almost all 32 GB that there was only enough space for one trailer (Gone in 60 seconds), the TI timeline and TI DLP Logo. This only left 2 bytes available. I think this will change. We are also slated to get Dinosaurs.

It is loaded from DVD into the player and then mirrored onto an identical set of drives for backup. If the playback unit senses a problem, it switches to the mirror set.

I know what all the "Die hards" say about the image and mainly agree, but the general public will accept what they see.

TI had a standee by the entrance that said "See a movie, not the film".

Anything else I can provide, let me know.

Posted by Bryan Redemske (Member # 354) on 04-18-2000, 10:57 AM:

how do you go about getting ahold of one of the DLP's? do they just decide that your theatre should have one and send it? i'm kind of curious about all of this stuff. i've been keeping an eye on things on here and i'd like to see one in action. or even what it looks like...but i'm in iowa.

brad are there pictures on here somewhere?

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 04-18-2000, 11:20 AM:

Here is a link that will show you different pictures of the pieces that go into the projector, etc.
http://www.ti.com/dlp/resources/library/dlpcinema.shtml

Hope this helps.

For information on the QuBit Player, goto:
http://www.quvis.com

Paul Konen
Usher - B
Cinemark Legacy 24
Plano TX

Posted by Bryan Redemske (Member # 354) on 04-18-2000, 12:29 PM:

those pictures certainly help. i wasn't sure if it was just like a slide projector or what. that makes it a lot clearer. thanks!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-18-2000, 02:33 PM:

There are pictures here as well. Click on pictures below and find "Showest 2000" as well as "Texas Instruments DLP".

Posted by Andy Davis (Member # 262) on 04-18-2000, 07:47 PM:

I'm not exactly sure how a theatre is chosen for DLP but I know it's negotiated with the company's upper management. AMC is running half of the DLP projectors currently showing movies and as far as I know, the decision came from thier home office and was not a theatre manager decision. AMC has placed them in their top attendance theatres in major markets (Orlando, Chicago, etc).

Posted by Andrew D'Vrey (Member # 285) on 04-21-2000, 10:26 PM:

Well, I guess this idea just got canceled. It' would have been interesting, but to be honest I'm glad. One less damn thing to worry about 'round here.

------------------
"And the monkey flips the switch."
- Major Don West, "Lost In Space"

Andrew D'Vrey
IATSE Local 219

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2000, 01:12 PM:

Paul's comment about the TI DLP standee got me thinking. I read in Film Journal about how when a film plays in two houses, one digital and one "film," the digital house has WAY more patronage. They are trumpeting this as an advantage of digital. Well, HELLO!! If you put up a big sign saying "see it in digital," OF COURSE the people are going to want to check that out, what with digital being the "buzz word" of the new millenium!

What I'd like to see them do is go ahead and put in the digital machinery, but don't advertise it as such. Just let the word of mouth do the work. If it's really that much better, before long the people will start spreading the word "Make sure you see it in Theatre A, it has a lot clearer picture (or whatever) than Theatre B." I think if the test is done this way in a well-run theatre with otherwise identical auditoriums (sound, seating, etc) the "digital difference" will be a lot less than they say it is.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-22-2000, 02:16 PM:

It's the same thing back when theaters would have 2 prints of a movie. One screen being in 70mm and the other in 35mm. People have NO IDEA what 70mm is, they just know that if the theater went to all that trouble to put up the "this is the 70mm screen" signs then it simply MUST be better. These are the same customers who will continue to come back to that theater completely convinced that everything they will ever see in that certain auditorium will ALWAYS be in this wonderful "70mm thing".

If these theaters were to put in a DLP projector beside a 35mm house and put up signs saying "see it in 35mm film", people would not go to the DLP auditorium.

It's a trick.

Posted by Erich Loepke (Member # 166) on 04-22-2000, 11:01 PM:

How about a double blind test to see if audiences really can tell if DLP is better or not? I suppose you could have a 35mm and DLP setup side by side and not tell anyone about it. Then you could either run the film in 35 or DLP without the audience knowing which and find out what the audience members thought of the digital presentation. I'd bet at least a few people would say "it looked great" when the FILM was being run and "it looked alright" when it was DLP. Of course, the 35 setup will have to be run correctly (no out of frame starts or dirty film).

Just a thought...

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-22-2000, 11:39 PM:

Possibly technicaly impossible, or at least too hard to do to make it worthwhile, but could one set it up so that a icture was halved, each half being from the different projector? You'd need special apature plates, and maybe a half douser or something so the plate wouldn't heat up to much, but if pulled off correctly watching one half of the screen in digital and the other in film would settle the argument once and for all. Of course the digital people won't allow that, since they own all the projectors.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-23-2000, 03:35 AM:

Actually the digital people use that exact same "split screen" demo! Of course, they cheat by using a larger lamp behind the DLP projector than the 35mm had and they use old beat to crap prints to run beside their un-compressed digital presentation. That 35mm demo film was just in plain nasty condition!

If anyone from TI still maintains they were running a 3000 watt lamp against the 35mm's 4000 watt lamp in the demo I participated in back in Dallas, might I remind you one does not run a 3000 watt lamp at well over 150 amps. (I saw the meter myself.)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-25-2000, 10:05 AM:

Dustin:

To their credit, the "split screen" is how Texas Instruments showed their DLP Cinema projector at ShoWest in March. Most felt that film looked better for tone scale and color in the clips from films like "Snow Falling on Cedars" and "American Beauty". The film images were very good for sharpness, steadiness and cleanliness. If you sat in the front section of the Celebrity Theatre, you noticed the pixels and "jaggies" on the digital projector. But IMHO, the prototype TI DLP Cinema projector did "win" for the digitally originated "Toy Story 2" material. For the "Toy Story 2" clips, Texas Instruments chose to show a "typical" worn release print that had severe base-side scratches, hoping to leave the impression that this was the norm.

Rumor has it that TI asked Boston Light & Sound not to use their "top of the line" Kinoton film projector for the demo, but BL&S did a fine job with an older Century projector. Perhaps Larry Shaw can verify.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-25-2000, 01:50 PM:

"Texas Instruments chose to show a "typical" worn release print that had severe base-side scratches.."

"Rumor has it that TI asked Boston Light & Sound not to use their "top of the line" Kinoton film projector for the demo..."

This (if true) is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy. If theater owners would just take care of what they already got...

I mean, I not totally opposed to all-electronic production and distribution. I'm just tired of rigged tests.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-26-2000, 06:06 AM:

John:

I did NOT mean to imply that Texas Instruments "rigged" the tests. There ARE more Century projectors than Kinoton in the United States, and prints can be mishandled and scratched. My friends at TI were naturally trying to show off their projector in the best light.

Rather than "rant" about digital cinema, we "film people" need to make film and film presentation as good as we know it can be. Poor film presentation is an excuse for digital cinema. Good film presentation is a major challenge to them. The future is in our hands.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 04-26-2000, 08:16 AM:

Yes- I'm sorry... My use of "rigged" was probably a poor choice of word. But I want to compare apples to apples. If TI has pulled out all the stops to make their projector look good, why can't "film" be allowed to do the same? While I might agree with allowing a Century, (rather than a Kinoton)- how pre-scratched was the print? (rhetorical question.) Who's to say that what a "standard" scratched print looks like?

I think distributors are now more interested in controlling their product than improving it- somewhat like Microsoft. While still a bit far away, they can "smell" the advantages of digital distribution for piracy, preventing box office "undercounts,' and other information logging. (There also seems to be a standoff over who's going to pay for it.) I wouldn't be surprised if the majors have a loose "gentleman's agreement" to not release anything new in 70mm- it might look too good and de-rail e-cinema.

Anyway, I just get cranky without my coffee, so sorry about that....!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 04-26-2000, 09:39 AM:

So... how about this for digital cinema? You know how the big movies open in the big house at the multi-plex and then, within a couple of weeks, they get passed down to the small house? And, by then, perhaps the print is scratched... or whatever?

Why not turn all the small houses into e-cinema houses. That way, we get the best of both worlds and the public WILL accept it. I mean, if we're to assume that a "typical" print is trashed after a couple of weeks anyway...

Or... the distributors could give the multiplex one film print (for the big house) and one "digital" print (for the small house). They could open on the same day that way. Then, when the grosses go down a bit, they just drop the film print from the big house. This way, the distributor only has to make half as many film prints (and they save money) and the digital system is only showing on the smaller screen (which makes the customers think the quality is outstanding) and... would this not make everyone happy? If you want to see the film version, just make sure you see the movie during its first couple of weeks.

Posted by Larry Shaw (Member # 388) on 04-26-2000, 10:56 AM:

John, you heard right. Supposedly some of the TI marketing people weren't too happy that we keep our Century's tweaked up pretty well.

-Larry

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-27-2000, 11:31 AM:

HI Lary,
I loved hearing about that showdown with T.I. at Showest this year. They certainly have many decades to go before they will catch up to film.
I was involved in a screening for Ultimatte at the SMPTE HDTV Conference a number of years back at Allstate Headquarters. After a full day of HDTV demos and seminars it was time to run Ultimatte's film.......All I can say is you should have heard the oohs and aahs when the film hit the screen. It was really a riot and afterwords all the Japanese folk came to the back of the room to look over my Century C and tried to figure out why the film was soooooo much better than any video that day. Oddly all were interested in when the machine was manufactured. Very tounge in cheek I told them it was made in the late 30's.
Mark

Posted by Zach Tomcich (Member # 384) on 05-05-2000, 12:53 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Blakesley:
Paul's comment about the TI DLP standee got me thinking. I read in Film Journal about how when a film plays in two houses, one digital and one "film," the digital house has WAY more patronage. They are trumpeting this as an advantage of digital. Well, HELLO!! If you put up a big sign saying "see it in digital," OF COURSE the people are going to want to check that out, what with digital being the "buzz word" of the new millenium!

I'll always go out of my way to experience digital projection. This has nothing to do with any buzz words about our new digital society. The reason i prefer digital projection is that it just looks better. More accurately, it looks a sh!t-load better!

My eyes are sensative to screen flicker. I can usually see dirty prints, scratches, and just the annoying flickering of the projector during bright scenes. DLP got rid of this. Even though the resoluation was not as sharp as film, i think the overall presentation was vastly superior in DLP.

I think trying to argue that film projection is better by comparing resolution ratios is like trying to compare LPs to CDs using frequency responces.

I was so impressed with the smooth, flicker free and scratch free movie projection that i'll go way out of my way to experience it for any other movie. As an avid movie goer, i look forward to the demise of film projection.

-Zach Tomcich
aka Ziggy
Audio Engineer
Berkeley Repertory Theatre

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 05-05-2000, 01:17 AM:

Zach-

And LP's sound MUCH beter than CDs, and ANYTHING sounds better through tube amplification...

Vive La Film!
-Aaron

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-05-2000, 05:28 AM:

Zach my friend, I feel so sorry for you in that you must've never seen a truly good film presentation. I know they are becoming hard to find these days, but if you are ever in the Denver area, please allow me to demo just how basic 100 year old technology will beat the pants off of the latest digital technology of today.

Ever seen 70mm by the way?

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-05-2000, 08:51 AM:

FYI, the GCC Framingham (MA) 15 will be getting a digital projector for "Dinosaur." I don't know what type, but it's probably one of the DLP systems.

Yes, I'll probably go to see it, but I'm starting to think that the recent DLP screenings are somewhat "rigged" to show the virtues of DLP for showing material that originated in digital form. In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if DLP looked better than film projection, although it's impossible to make a proper comaprison since (to the best of my knowledge) no one has done a public demo of DLP using material that was originated on film and not processed digitally, aside from the first reel of Star Wars.

And I will guarantee that proper film presentation (even 35mm) will blow away DLP for a film-originated show. And proper 70mm presentation is a completely different and far better experience than either!

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-05-2000, 12:55 PM:

I get a terrific head ache from any of the DLP machines
But just think a HPS DLP presentation not only is it eq'd wrong but projected wrong at the same time