quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

I'm excited to see how it looks

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

....would be to sync three digital projectors to cover each panel as was done with the film system.

---

Dang, you think that their could be a possibility in some sort of Cinerama revival to full production with screens that has an adjustable curve to go from flat - for the use of the center machine - to deep curve for the other two outboard machines, large houses..and even including 3D processing?

This could almost blow out IMAX processing all together..

..(dang, funny how the mind can think on ideas at times...)

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-20-2009, 07:58 PM:
 
Just to make clear, 3 x 2K projection is not 6k. 3 x 2k is (at best, if full frame is used) 6144x1080 pixels.

-2k projector = 2048x1080 pixels (aprox. 2.2 Megapixels)
-3 x 2k "cinerama" = 6144x1080 (aprox. 6.6 Megapixels)
-4k current projectors (i.e. Sony) = 4096x2160 (Aprox. 8.8 Megapixels)
-Theoretical 6k projectors would be = 6144x3240 (Aprox. 19.9 Megapixels)

Remember that a 4K projector is not "twice the resolution of a 2K projector". It's FOUR times the resolution of a 2K projector.

This e&s projector is almost 8K (36 Megapixels), so it would be feasible for such a thing. Please note that a 17m recut of the movie Fly me to the moon 3D is available for such a projector (in stereo 3D, BTW).

http://www.es.com/products/displays/ESLaser/resources/ESLP_Datasheet.pdf

Also, that evans&sutherland projector, being laser illuminated, doesn't have a focus problems with any curved screen. In fact, it's used for domes all the time.

The rest of the parameters meet or surpass DCI projectors, like contrast=2500:1 (DCI projectors are only 2000:1)

Brightness is about half of most DCI projectors, similar to Sony's DCI projectors, but sufficient for a small (say 5m) screen or for really dark theaters. On the other side, light loss in 3D polarized applications is very low due to the laser light being already polarized. So light levels from this projector are already about the same as small DCI projectors with Real-D. It only used 3.2 Kwatts.

Also, if you want more brightness, just use two of them ... The main reason why the brightness is not higher is not a real technological hurdle but the fear of safety of using high-power pulsed lasers, thus low-power continous ones are used instead, trading light level for safety (i.e. someone getting accidentaly hit in the eye by a laser).

Why isn't (a brighter version of) this projector available for Digital Cinemas? Well, the manufacturer E&S only obtained a license for the technology for Simulators, Platenarium and Digital Dome use. Sony is the one that holds the license for Cinema use. Unfortunately, it's FAR more profitable for Sony to exploit their Lcos SRXD technology instead of the LGV one ...

[ 01-20-2009, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-20-2009, 09:38 PM:
 
Julio,
I agree but they certainly don't have access to an E&S projector. The original Cinerama frames were 6 perfs(.985" X 1.088") high so they certainly could not use all the 2048 frame width. It may actually be more beneficial to turn the projectors on their sides and use the 1080 area as the width of the frame instead.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-20-2009, 10:32 PM:
 
Here is some info on the process probably used. It contains the usual journalistic errors, I guess.

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/west_digital/index.htm

Basically it seems each 35mm "pane" was scanned at 2k. Again, 3 x 2K is NOT 6k. It's not even 4K. 4K is FOUR times 2k.

The resulting scanned image, after some edge blending and whatnot, was pbbly something like 6000x2000 in resolution (due to cinerama frames being taller than academy), but screwed up in aspect ratio. It was pbbly resized to aprox. 4096x1560 for projection in a 4K (Sony) projector (which can project up to 4096x2160 in 1.9 aspect ratio).

It would, therefore, have about the same-to-a-bit-less resolution than a 4K "scope" movie (i.e. Spiderman 3) when seen in a Sony DCI equipped theater.



That's theoretical, of course. Spiderman had a lot of issues (i.e. not real "scope", but a bunch of spherical, super-35, vistavision and all sort of digital intermediates) that would lower the real-world resolution below those 4K, while How the West was Won had more REAL resolution to begin with and just had to be resized to fit the (smaller-in-one-direction) projector resolution.

I doubt they went through the trouble of making a custom anamorphic lens for the Sony for this and thus use more available vertical resolution, but regardless the projected resolution would still be 4K at best.

Also, I'm counting they were projecting 2.55:1. If they decided to go the 2.89:1 route, then the resolution is even lower - unless, again, an anamorphic was used for the Sony.
 

---

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 01-21-2009, 01:41 AM:
 

quote:

---

-2k projector = 2048x1080 pixels (aprox. 2.2 Megapixels)
-3 x 2k "cinerama" = 6144x1080 (aprox. 6.6 Megapixels)
-4k current projectors (i.e. Sony) = 4096x2160 (Aprox. 8.8 Megapixels)
-Theoretical 6k projectors would be = 6144x3240 (Aprox. 19.9 Megapixels)

Remember that a 4K projector is not "twice the resolution of a 2K projector". It's FOUR times the resolution of a 2K projector.

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

I'm excited to see how it looks

---

quote: Peter Castle

---

Why has resolution become a pixel count?
I always understood that it was the ability to resolve parallel lines. So doubling the number of pixels both horizontally and vertically does in fact double the resolution.
It also quadruples the number of pixels.

---

Well, resolution is not an absolute line-pairs, but line-pairs per degree of arc, but all this is academic, and I get your point.

Ok, then. As you know, it all depends on what you are talking about. Twice the resolution, 4 times the pixel count. 3 times the pixel count, 66% increase in resolution.

Also, please note that resolution doesn't only depend on pixel count, and twice the pixel count doesn't mean an automatic improvement of 50% spatial resolution. It would depend on the accuity of the rest of the optical system (perforation on screen, distance from the viewer, contrast-vs-spatial performance of the optical system (lens), etc.

As we all know, resolution is the ability of an image to resolve fine spatial frequencies through the optical system. You could have a crappy 8k system that, at 16 times the number of pixels of a 2K system couldn't resolve even that much resolution.

And perceived sharpness would be a function of the resolution and contrast available at resolutions below the limiting eye resolution, with detail describing the relative fine information on an image that seldom occur at the pixel level.

But all this is, of course, academic to us AV professionals

Also, what is "2K"?
Is 2K the 2048x1080 resolution (sorry, pixel array count at 1.9 ratio 2.000:1 contrast) that a DCI projector can do or is it the 2048x1556 pixel scan area that a Digital Intermediate master can obtain from a Super 35mm frame area? Some scanners do 1616 lines.

And is 4K Sony's 4096x2160 pixel array or is it the 4096x3112 area of Digital Intermediates of Super 35mm at 4K?

How about the 3656x3112 of Scope 4K DI's?
Or the 1828x1556 of Scope 2K DI's?
Or the 1828x1532 of Academy 2K DI's?

So, anyway, saying that 4K is 4 times the resolution of 2K is wrong, but saying that 2x2K is twice the resolution of 2K or that it's 4K is also wrong.

Change the term "resolution" for "pixel count" in that single sentence and all the rest of the my post is correct.

So there is no doubt and we can all talk the same conventions, from now all, we'll speak of 2K flat films as 17 lp/degree (at 2 screen heights), and 4K ones as 35 lp/degree (non-anamorphic, DCI compliant)

I'm also not too happy with DCinema complacency on 2K. 2K, although about as good in resolution as your average projected (jittery) "3perf" 1.85 release print, is also too close to home's (blu-ray, HD) 1080p format.

2K is enough resolution only for those sitting farther than 4 screen heights, and this leaves plenty of patrons in a theater able to use more detail. At homes, viewing distances is often more than 4 times screen height, with the limiting resolution (the detail the eye can actually make-out per degree of arc) is about 5 times the height for HD.

So HD for home is fine. 2K for cinemas is fine to those sitting after 4 times screen height. 4K cinema would be fine for those sitting behind 2 times screen height.

Everybody sitting closer than that (aproximately), could see even more detail, if it was there and contrast was good.

I have only seen 1 Cinerama movie, HTWWW. It was some new cinerama print at a theater in LA close to Hollywood Blvd, not far from the Egypcian. I found it awesome, better than I expected.

I had seen plenty of circleramas and the like in amusement parks, but never cinerama since there was no theaters capable of it nearby. The best I had when I was a child was a Todd-AO theater with a slight curve and a 70mm proyector.
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 01-21-2009, 05:07 AM:
 
They just have the standard Arts Alliance D-Cinema Installation at the Pictureville Cinema with a Christie CP2000 Projector.

Several years ago, they did a Digital (short film) screening on the Cinerama screen and as Mark G has correctly stated you would loose Resolution and Brightness, as far I know, there is no correction Lens on this Projector to project on the Cinerama screen.

On the DP70 they use a D150 Projection Lens, when 70mm is screened on the Cinerama screen.

The idea Mark has for a 3 Digi Projecror, would be a far better option, but costly and as for a Museum view, like Bradford not a good idea as the process of three (35mm) projectors and Sound Follower is part of the attraction.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-21-2009, 07:13 AM:
 
At last year's Widescreen Weekend two features, plus various other material, were shown digitally. I saw 'The Great Escape', and I wasn't impressed. It looked as if somebody had taken an old release print off the shelf, scanned it, and then put that on the digital projector. I'm told that the other digital film, 'Blade runner' I think it was, looked better, but it was on late one evening, and I was feeling tired, so I didn't see it. If they're going to use digital projection they should surely be showing the best that the format is capable of, not what I saw last year which was frankly, a poor transfer.

I note that Darren is giving a lecture this year; it will be interesting to see what he comes up with.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 01-21-2009, 08:06 AM:
 
Julio, you are talking about tne Cinerama Dome theatre. The presentation was impressive for my partner and I. The screen does not have as deep a curve as original one used for Cinerama which where constructed out of vertical strips to control image reflections.....I saw it originally when I was twelve years old
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 01-21-2009, 09:25 AM:
 
Some years ago Darren showed the sTEM footage on the curve, and it looked spectacular. Some of it originated from 65mm. Last year we ran "Blade Runner" also scanned from 65mm and 35mm and it looked spectacular on the flat screen. "BR" also ran here in CPH for 5 days and was a huge syccess - it was digital and looked much better than anything I've seen in years in 35mm. The larger the source material, the better the result in digital I think. Sound for "West" is 5.1 btw.

Sound is also much better in digital - uncompressed and all that. Current mag soundtrack of "West" hasn't got the original fidelity - lack of top. There is a good chance the 5.1 version will sound much better. I'll take that chance. C u there
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 01-21-2009, 04:51 PM:
 
"West" presentation is now:

"On the curve in single-lens non-hocus-pocus almost join-line-free digital version with uncompressed digital high-impact 5.1 track stereophonic sound."

is that OK with everyone? The FT reader who can think of something more spectacular, will get a free beer from the editor before the film ;-)
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 01-22-2009, 03:04 AM:
 
Come to think of it, "West" in digital is actually "Cinerama out of one hole", just like Mike Todd asked for 15 October 1952

It's finally Cinerama perfected - 57 years later.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-22-2009, 03:07 AM:
 
I don't like beer, but 3 digital projectors precisely lined up would look better than one digital projector.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 01-22-2009, 08:49 AM:
 
Based on current practice, and given that Cinerama is full-frame 6-perf, it looks like to emulate the experience digitally you would need to scan each panel at 4000 x 4500 "resolution" (approx.), yielding a combined pixel count of 12000 x 4500.

You then need to somehow display that, pixel-for-pixel.

The real answer of course is a new all-film Cinerama production.

It could be done with philanthropic grants (along with private investment) if carried out as a new travelogue, documentary or drama-documentary, with a relatively short running time (say 40 minutes).

As a not-for-profit venture it would not be subject to box office recoupment (obviously), would provide new material for Bradford, Seattle and the Cinerama Dome and even stimulate the opening of one or two more public Cinerama venues worldwide.

With current stocks like Vision 3 and given the high-resolution nature of the format, the results could be incredible.

quote: Stephen Furley

---

the few reels which were restored of one of the Kinopanorama films, which were shown at the Widescreen Weekend last year

---

quote: Thomas Hauerslev

---

Some years ago Darren showed the sTEM footage on the curve, and it looked spectacular. Some of it originated from 65mm

---

Interestingly there weren't any significant focus problems that I could see in that demonstration. Maybe there was far greater depth of focus available; I don't know exactly what kit was used.

[EDIT: Corrected Cinerama venues]

[ 01-26-2009, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Brian Guckian ]
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 01-25-2009, 07:50 AM:
 
I think Mark’s proposal would be something worth doing. It would show how digital Cinerama would look and it could attract interest from the industry. But this would be costly. Bradford would have to hire two extra digital projectors just for the screening and dismantle two Cinerama projectors to make room for the digital ones (I gather there is no room for both the film and the digital projectors to share it). It would be indeed very interesting and something worth seeing and very close to the original Cinerama experience. Now that digital is converting IMAX into a mere enhanced conventional cinema experience, it would be good that something interesting came out of digital, and digital cinerama could be the answer. I do not think there would be the need for three projectionists with three digital projectors and issues that plagued Cinerama’s projections would be solved with digital.

But a 2k single lens screening seems something very far away from the Cinerama experience. As Stephen says, it would be great if this was an anamorphic digital print with correction on the sides to allow for the geometry of the curve, like the ultrapanavision prints rectified for Cinerama screens, but I do not think this is the case. I do not think it should be that difficult to do it digitally since prints are so cheap to produce, it would be necessary to apply some compression on the sides I gather. Of course, if it is not done, there should be distortion on the sides.

As for the sound, it is a pity it will be in 5.1. I wonder if they are using the home video sound mix. The original Cinerama sound is gorgeous, and albeit as Thomas says it is old, it still sounds powerful and full and warm.

And so, a priori, it seems we will be losing on resolution, we will get distortion on the sides and the sound won’t have the original configuration. We will gain in not having the panel lines and the lack of scratches.

The Bradford print is obviously worn, but it still shows how good dye transfer was. The best solution would be to show the new print they have in the USA, but that would cost a lot of money.

Nevertheless, this brings an interesting point here. Museums like Bradford have been great in replicating film technology history. I think many of us want to see that film history and its technology replicated as close as possible. This is why we travel from far away, to experience something we cannot experience locally. I think it would be great if film had the funds and respect other art expressions have and Cinerama films could be enjoyed the way they were meant to be enjoyed. But this costs a lot of money and the funding does not seem to be there. I go to Bradford to recreate the experience of 70mm, original Cinerama, and new 35mm prints or old 35mm dye transfer prints and I wish they showed some VistaVision dye transfer prints more often. I certainly would not go to Bradford to see a 2k digital print of an old film, which is something very common in London itself and nothing especially exciting.

As to digital as a future technology for new widescreen films, well, 2k is no longer cutting edge (if indeed it ever was cutting edge) and with IMAX new digital technology and the new advances in the field that Julio mentions, it would be great if Bradford had the funds to upgrade its digital projection system to equal it to their film projection system. I think this thread should be in the straight to video forum
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-25-2009, 09:33 AM:
 

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

But a 2k single lens screening seems something very far away from the Cinerama experience. As Stephen says

---

Or as Leonard Maltin sumed it up in Cinerama Adventure... He had never before seen Cinerama and when he finally got to see it in New York he said to himself... "so whats all the hoopla" It didn't do anything to impress or transform him. "Sure it was a big curved picture, sharp, and good looking" but it didn't provide any extra sensation for him like everyone had told him Cinerama would create... Referring to seeing Mad Mad World in the new "Single Lens 70mm Cinerama".

I'm afraid with this Digital presentation they've managed to achieve the same thing and at the same time remove the goosebumps down your back effect all together. Those who saw This Is Cinerama in single lens 70mm back in the 70's will see a very similar thing only alot less sharp than those prints were.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 01-25-2009, 11:46 AM:
 
Please, look at this article: www.movieweb.com/news/NE0U0721NwXS34

George Feltenstein, Home Warner Video executive and key person in the digital restoration says that when possible How The West Was Won should be seen in its original format with the fairly new Cinerama three-strip print, not in digital . As stated, I suppose that Bradford could not afford to ship such a huge print from the USA, maybe one day we'll be lucky.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-25-2009, 12:58 PM:
 
Seems to me thay've done it before....
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-25-2009, 01:27 PM:
 
Normally 'This is Cinerama' is shown at every Widescreen Weekend, and on the first Saturday of each month during the year. At most Widescreen Weekend there's one other three strip film shown, it seems to be either 'How the West was Won' or 'Windjammer', usually on alternate years. I think the aim is to show what the digital version looks like on the curved screen, rather than just to avoid the cost of transporting the print.

What's happened to the other Cinerama films; are there no screenable prints of any of them available?
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 01-25-2009, 02:52 PM:
 
They have their own print of HTWW and so I suppose it is difficult to justify the expense of bringing the new print from the USA. But indeed they have in the past brought some other Cinerama prints to Bradford from the USA, but they were very faded, since they were not dye transfer prints, unlike HTWW. Yes, Stephen, I think you are right and they are showing the digital print to test how it looks, yet, it would have been great if a digital rectified print could have been produced for Bradford's Cinerama's screen. I am going this year since the programme is very good and I like to support the WW, but I do not know yet if I will go to the digital screening of HTWWW since it does not seem it can improve on the original, yet I should not speak without seeing it
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 01-26-2009, 12:34 AM:
 
I started this project last summer, I think, BECAUSE it would be in digital. It's a rare and unique event to be able to see "West" in digital and I hope many will appreciate the work that goes on behind the "screens" to make this possible. David Strohmaier, Bill Lawrence, Duncan McGregor and myself have gone to great lenghts to secure this screening in Bradford, and for that, we can thank George Feltenstein at MGM who has been very kind and helped us. For a long time it looked as if it would not happen. But it did happen at the very end, and I look forward to see what Cinerama in a digital version will look and sound like with great anticipation.

If anyone knows about vintage 3-strip prints which can be showed, please e-mail me.
 

---

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 01-26-2009, 01:49 PM:
 
When artistic decisions are made it is inevitable that there will be discrepancies. I remember the heated debate that quite often happens in Bradford about films being screened on the curve or the flat screen. Luckily, I stay out of that debate and I am happy with whatever is decided

I understand the interest some people would have in seeing this digital print on the curve, although it won’t be digital Cinerama, as Mark says it would resemble more the screening of old Cinerama films on single strip, albeit with less resolution than a 70mm print but it seems that with a wider aspect ratio than the 70mm prints had. Digital Cinerama would be what Mark proposed of having three digital projectors and that would certainly interest me since it could mean the use of digital for something more exciting than what it is being used for now.

I personally go to Bradford for the experience of the old technology, hopefully with new prints. I would also go for something new and exciting in the digital realm (for new films only), like 4K or higher or the double projector system IMAX is using or, why not, digital Cinerama, if that ever happens, but 2K is certainly not exciting, actually it is rather boring, nor cutting edge. Nevertheless, I do agree that there must be room for everybody during the festival and I think that debate is always interesting.

My fear is that constant digital use by festivals will cause studios stop producing film prints. I remember reading recently that Grover Crisp from Columbia was complaining that Cannes is only showing digital and so they would not show any of his lovely film restorations (there are many widescreen films restored by him).

And so, I do fully understand that people have interest in trying out new things and I am not criticising this. I just happen to be one of the purists Mr Feltenstein talks about in his interview.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-26-2009, 06:10 PM:
 
Who is Grover Crisp and how does his name relate to Bacon???

Thanks!
Mark
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-26-2009, 06:30 PM:
 
Grover Crisp is Senior Vice President, Asset Management, Film Restoration & Digital Mastering for Sony Pictures Entertainment. That is who he is.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-26-2009, 06:48 PM:
 
Thanks Bill! Had never heard of him before...
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 01-26-2009, 07:13 PM:
 
I was very fortunate to see THIS IS CINERAMA in the original three strip at the long defunct and demolished Princess Theatre in Honolulu in the late fifties and it was awesome! I saw it again at another theatre in the city that was set up for the three strip process long after the Princess stopped showing films in the format. This time, the Cinerama theatre ran a 70mm version on their deeply curved screen and it was terrible and very unimpressive. I was also not very impressed with the pseudo Cinerama process using a single 70mm projector when I was told it would be like the original three strip process. I did appreciate the fact that the films were shown in 70mm but it did not excite me like the three projection process did.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-27-2009, 02:44 AM:
 
Brad hit it the nail on the head -- 3 projector digital presentation of HTWWW -- now THAT would be the knock-your-socks-off event. And I think it would give people the proverbial goosebumps that everyone admits was lacking from 70mm out-of-one hole Cinerama, which, sure that's what Todd wanted, but which most people agreed, next to 3 strip Cinerama, was yes, out-of-one-hole, but it was mostly arse.

Trying to mimic Cinerama with a single digital projector while no one doubts the techs have gone thru lots of trouble to get this to come to pass, still, will it really thrill anyone the way 3 strip does? My fear is that it will only give people already dubious of digital one more reason to point to it as a very expensive let down.

I actually surprised myself with how impressed I was seeing 2 projector digital IMAX, more than I could have imagined. It had the feeling of a really good top-notch 70mm roadshow presentation. I would guess that 3 projector digital Cinerama would be equally impressive and not have people walking away mumbling about the lack-luster nature of digital. Again, no disrespect to the dedicated guys who put heart and soul into this event.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 01-28-2009, 10:32 PM:
 

quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques

---

The original Cinerama sound is gorgeous, and albeit as Thomas says it is old, it still sounds powerful and full and warm.

---