Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality?

This is topic 4K vs. 2K - Do you see better image quality? in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=000017

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2004, 10:11 AM:

In another thread, Aaron Haney wrote:

quote:
Oh yeah, and I have to say this movie ("Spiderman 2") looks really good. And no wonder, it employed a 4K digital intermediate. Here is an article discussing how the process was done at EFILM, although it is a little light on the technical details:

http://colorfront.com/index.php3?n=10&m=20

The article mentions how SFX shots were still done at 2K, even though the final digital master for the film was 4K. I think this shows in some places, especially the end credits, which exhibit a lot of aliasing. But overall, the image quality is really quite good.

Another recent movie that used 4K scanning and recording was "Stuart Little 2".

Does the increased resolution improve image quality on your screen?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-22-2004, 10:38 AM:

The end credits of Spider-Man 2 were HORRIBLE...to the point of embarassing. When the sound system credits hit...they actually pulsate just like a CRT monitor running an interlaced image of a white horizontal line.

Steve

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2004, 10:56 AM:

I have a gut feeling the closing credits were not 4K, and maybe not even close to 2K.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-22-2004, 12:29 PM:

When I saw SPIDERMAN 2 yesterday, I found the image quite fine-grained, and many close ups and medium shots looked really good. But I missed sharpness and detail in almost any long shot, as it is with most Super 35 productions (so size does matter...).

Ill see the film again next weekend in a theatre where I can check the focus myself, because where I saw Part 2 they often have focus problems.
Certainly the movie looked much better to me than SPIDERMAN 1 which arrived over here in Germany grainy and unsharp, possible due to hastily produced internegs and/or prints, but the overall cinematography in Part 2 seems much better to me. In close up shots there is, however, what others have described as a "plastic look", but they did not spend much time making the actors look attractive, Kirsten Dunst looks good in the still image during the credits, from there on she is treated badly in terms of photography.

Just my $0.02...

Posted by Ken Russell (Member # 2491) on 07-22-2004, 01:13 PM:

I agree with the take on the plastic image. Much of the special effects looked like a video game rendering. I have seen twice now, the first time having my hands on the equipment for the first time in 23 years but that's a another story.

My first viewing was at a small drive-in. The print was technically worse than poor. It looked like the platen (or what ever it is called that holds the negative against the film stock for exposure) was loose. The top of the image periodically drifted out of focus. My second viewing was in a hard top. That print was m-u-c-h better.

I read the article mentioned with interest as the last 30 years of my working life has been founded in computers (I do so miss the theaters and hope to be back in them soon). I did a little quick calculation. A 4K feature taking 35 TB is a chunk. The largest hard drive of the shelf for your PC is about 250 GB. There are 1000 GB in a TB (ok, 1024 for the other computer geeks). add it up and that is over 140 drives to hold one movie... WOW. I know, that's all of the shots that were sifted through in the editing process. Just the same, it is sobering to try to fathom the amount of "data" that we will have to transfer and store in order to make DCinema work. I can't wait [Wink]

Just another $.02 for the pot.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-22-2004, 01:17 PM:

Shrek 2 also suffered from the same flicker during the end credits, I had a few people ask me if we had a xenon flicker.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-22-2004, 01:33 PM:

There is a small bit in the new Boxoffice where somebody from TI says that "resolution {in digital cinema) is not as important as color depth to the audience." ....when I have the magazine in front of me I'll put in the exact words but that's the gist of it.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-22-2004, 03:06 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
There is a small bit in the new Boxoffice where somebody from TI says that "resolution {in digital cinema) is not as important as color depth to the audience."

I agree.

As long as you are sitting far enough away from the screen. [Roll Eyes]

Even an XGA projector looks okay from the back row. [thumbsdown]

The Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) member studios certainly sees a need for 4K:

http://millimeter.com/pressroom/video_dci_members_approve/

http://www.theasc.com/studio/index.htm?news/news_111403_dci.html~main

quote:
By a unanimous vote, all seven DCI Member Studios approved pursuit of a hierarchical architecture approach for digital cinema, which defines a 4K (4096 by 2160) delivery system that will be compatible with both 4K projectors expected to be available in the near future and with 2K projectors available today. DCI is continuing to encourage manufacturers to develop 4K projectors and related technology for DCI testing and evaluation.

http://www.cameraguild.com/news/techno/d-cinema.htm

quote:
ASC cinematographers artistically designed and filmed "Mini-Movie" during a two-day shoot in August on the back lot at Universal. More than two hours of film were captured in both 35mm and 65mm formats...

During the postproduction process, thousands of feet of film were edited down to the 12-minute "Mini-Movie," DCI said, which was processed and scanned at 6K horizontal resolution to retain the richness of the details in the film images. The film was then "down-resolved" to both 4K and 2K digital formats, which DCI will use in its own testing. An HD version is available as well as a 35mm answer print version.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-22-2004, 04:24 PM:

Be wary when a manufacturer tells you what is important in the specifications.

TI has to pay huge financial costs to step up their DLP program. They were hoping 720 was going to be the home HDTV but all looks are 1080 is where it is going to settle. The true grail is really the home market. Being able to service cinemas is nice but it is kinda like auto racing...there are not enough cinemas out there to justify the cost of pushing the technology. Even if TI were to get 100% of all cinemas, it would not recoupe their investment in the DLP technology.

Now the home market...that is another thing...there are billions of consumers out there and TI would love to have all of them buying something with the TI DLP technology.

I'm surprised TI is boasting about color depth or if they will mention anything about their grayscale. The numbers they use are kinda like the contrast ratios video projector manufacturers use...that is...bogus. With the dither TI must use on their DLPs their achievable grayscale is much worse than the theoretical.

I am quite pleased to see that 4K seems to be where DCinema is heading. 2K is really the first DCinema type projector. The 1K systems are SXGA projectors with anamorphic lenses. They are not really High-Def though they do a decent job.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2004, 05:41 PM:

"They were hoping 720 was going to be the home HDTV but all looks are 1080 is where it is going to settle."
________________________________________________________________

According to a friend that has worked with the HDTV consortium from the beginning 1080i is just a temporary stopping point and the ultimate stopping point for broadcast HDTV is actually 1080p. Its just that there is no available camera technology that is really fesable to do true 1080p at this point in time. They are looking at around 2025 for this upgrade which is a good thing as opposed to the no upgradability issue with the NTSC system. By 2025 HDTV technology will be much more mature and in use all over the world and the conversion to 1080p can be agradual thing that will blend in with the rest of the HD technology.
So far Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico have all signed to align with the new ATSC HD broadcast standard.

Mark @ CLACO
(Live from Winnemucca, NV.)

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-22-2004, 05:44 PM:

Has anyone here had a chance to see the new Sony 4K cinema projectors? One is 10,000 lumen (model SRX-R110) and the other is 5,000 lumen (SRX-R105) output--both feature 4096x2160 SXRD imagers. Sony says they're working on higher lumen output versions.

Sony 6/4/04 press release

Mark, first Elko and now Winnemucca. You're sure hitting all the northern hot spots. [Smile]

You going to be in 'Vegas this trip?

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-22-2004, 06:41 PM:

I saw the two prototype units in operation at Infocomm in Atlanta a few weeks ago. Viewing the image at 10 feet ( 3.04 meter ) the image was impressive. They where doing a split 2k / 4k image to show the difference and 90% of the time the 2k image was more than adequate for cinema applications; the difference was apparant on static chart / map type images. Overall the image projected was about 35 - 40 feet ( 10.66 - 12.19 meters ) wide.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2004, 07:38 PM:

No, won't make it to Vegas this trip, still have to take care of Fallon and then back to Elko to install some needed parts. Might be down in Vegas in October though.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-22-2004, 07:52 PM:

The i (interlaced) versus p (progressive) on digital displays is not that different. A digital display updates appropriate pixels as opposed to a CRT which scans actual lines. Progressive versus interlaced on a CRT is quite apparent. I don't know of any digital projectors made anymore that dont convert the interlaced display to progressive immediately. Heck, any scaler will also output its display as a progressive output unless 1080i is specifically chosen.

Steve

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-22-2004, 08:49 PM:

I tried our Barco DP50 with 720p and i input signals, and there was indeed no visible difference.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-22-2004, 11:01 PM:

I'll try to find out what the exact reason is for the 1080p thing. Its not even a standard as of yet.
I can say that its much harder to tell differences in resolution with a crt based imaging device as you are starting to get to the spot size limit that the electron beam and phosphor formulas are able to do. With 1080i you are approaching the limits that even a very high end crt can do. In the next 10 years we will not only see 4x3 screens disappear but we will also see CRT's disappear as well. CRT's are very costly to produce and costly to design and build the support circuitry for. Governments are beginning to require them to be recycled because of toxic ingredients that go into them. With more and more mass production of solid state imaging reproduction systems(lcd, dlp, etc.) there is definately alot of incentive to head these routes.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-23-2004, 08:07 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Governments are beginning to require them (CRTs) to be recycled because of toxic ingredients that go into them.

AFAIK, the big environmental issue with CRTs is the use of lead for shielding any x-rays produced. Also chemicals like thorium, barium, or strontium that may be used on the cathodes.

Of course, lead solders have long been an issue with electronic components, as well as other "nasties" like etchants and solvents used in IC and circuit board production, cadmium, chromium, thorium, etc.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-23-2004, 08:55 AM:

Wait a minute...720i? That one I must admit I have not come across. The defined HD standards are 480p, 720p and 1080i though many things accept 1080p.

Michael, how were your feeding your DP50 720p and 720i signals? What was your source equipment?

Steve

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-23-2004, 09:03 AM:

Sony HD receiver via DVI. I have to go back and check the output options of the receiver, maybe I remember that incorrectly. I may have confused it with 480p/i, I did a lot of experimenting with that setup.

Posted by Robert L. Fischer (Member # 2424) on 07-23-2004, 01:28 PM:

I noticed the flicker in the Spider-Man 2 credits as well.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 07-23-2004, 05:53 PM:

No surprise here
480i-deinterlacing->480p->projector->display
or
480i->projector->deinerlacing->projector->display
Which device has the best deinterlacer?

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 10-25-2005, 01:27 PM:

It has been 458 days since the last post.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 10-25-2005, 01:27 PM:

Hopefully, I can find the real press release, but I think this is fairly reliable.

SONY UNVEILS MARKET-READY SXRD 4K RESOLUTION PROJECTOR FOR NEW ERA OF DIGITAL CINEMA

Sony is heading into the ShowEast convention in Orlando following a successful unveiling of the market-ready version of its digital cinema SXRD™ (Silicon X-tal Reflective Display) 4K projector.
Ushering in a new era in theatrical exhibition, the professional front projector (model SRX-R110) started shipping earlier this month, and Sony intends to begin producing 100 units per month by December.
During a day of movie industry screenings last week in Hollywood, Sony showed a variety of 2K and 4K footage, highlighting the unique capabilities of the projector. Content screened included “Mystic India,” “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,” “The Sound of Music” and material from the DCI and ASC Standard Emulation Material (StEM). The footage was presented in both 4K and 2K resolution, as well as in side-by-side comparisons with a 2K DLP projector.
On hand for the demonstration were representatives from major Hollywood studios, independent production companies like Lucasfilm and Lightstorm, leading post houses and industry organizations such as DCI and ASC. Exhibitors, including Landmark Theatres, the first major chain planning to roll out SXRD, were also in attendance at the event, held at the AMC 16 Theater in Burbank, Calif.
“We are very gratified by the reaction of the entertainment community,” said John Scarcella, president of Sony Electronics' Broadcast and Business Solutions Company. “The industry response confirms our belief that 4K technology presents a distinct advantage for the theatrical exhibition community.”
Thirty-three years after Sony introduced its first electronic projection system, the KP-7200, the company maintains its position as an industry leader and innovator. The SXRD 4K projector offers superb contrast, vivid color, and 4096 x 2160 pixel resolution, which displays images at nearly four times the resolution of current high-definition displays.
The new SRX-R110 model is specified at 10,000 ANSI Lumens and is designed for screens up to 40 feet wide.
“The progress made to date is impressive,” said attendee Michael Karagosian, a partner of Karagosian MacCalla Partners. “The display of the media block card was unexpected and very welcome. This is a central element toward a digital cinema-centric solution.”
Sony plans to follow up the debut screenings with another round of demonstrations at this week’s ShowEast trade show in Orlando, Fla. In addition, a request will be made that NATO organize and set specifications for a side-by-side test of 2K and 4K technologies and work in conjunction with the Digital Cinema Lab/Entertainment Technology Center and the ASC to set parameters for these tests. Following ShowEast, Sony will present a white paper at SMPTE/NY on the latest developments for SXRD 4K front projectors.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-25-2005, 03:35 PM:

quote:
Content screened included ... “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,”
...
The SXRD 4K projector offers ... 4096 x 2160 pixel resolution

So what was the point of that then? Wasn't Sith shot at 1920x800 or something like that? I wonder how it looked.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-25-2005, 07:40 PM:

do we really want anything with Sony's name on it.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-26-2005, 06:04 AM:

I think Sony had indeed shown how they support their products...and it just isn't up to movie industry standards.

So if Sony does't make significant inroads in the video projector market are they not only going to pull out but also make servicing them a nightmare (prohibitively expensive)?

Posted by Oliver Pasch (Member # 1335) on 10-26-2005, 07:29 AM:

quote: Paul Konen
is designed for screens up to 40 feet wide.

In the rest of the world, that's just a little more than 12 Meter. So we're talking about the smaller, if not smallest auditoriums in todays multiplexes here. Who need's that? Who want's to open the blockbuster of the week on his smallest screens?

SIZE DOES MATTER!

The only good thing is, that this might give SDDS a new meaning...

Small Damned Digital Screen

...or DTS...

Digitally Tiny Screen

No offense against any soundformats here intended!

Oliver

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-26-2005, 10:12 AM:

The irony is Sony has pockets deep enough that they can give cinema products as much or as little support as they want and it's probably just a rounding error either way on their balance sheet. I would think that just getting the Sony name in front of audiences would be a great brand-building tool for selling TVs to consumers.

Technically though, ya gotta admit the Sony cinema system is intriguing.

Posted by Ron L. Funderburg (Member # 3325) on 10-26-2005, 11:08 AM:

On the subject of sound and Sony, with no new SDDS being manufactured and no support for the ones out there, how long before the SDDS sound track is dumped completely? I still see the logo on the end of films along side of the Dolby Digital and DTS logos but where is the need now? I mean other than those unlucky enough to have SDDS sound systems!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-26-2005, 11:52 AM:

David,

Sony's pockets aren't as deep as they used to be. They've been in a lot of financial trouble recently to the point that bankruptcy has been a topic of discussion on the financial channels.

Posted by Ron L. Funderburg (Member # 3325) on 10-26-2005, 11:57 AM:

Sony's pockets are as deep and bankruptcy is an option then why did they purchase MGM another film company ripe for bankruptcy?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-26-2005, 12:30 PM:

It is not that you can't support the SDDS systems. It is that they have made it progressively difficult and expensive. I will be installing LEDs in 2000 series readers next week, in fact.

However...as compared to other systems, Sony is just way out of line in their support and treatment of the cinema industry. I don't know if the 2000 series stuff is over 7-years since the last date of manufacture, that will be telling on their support.

There is also Robbie that supports the product better than Sony ever did.

To answer your question of why films still carry the soundtrack...because there are still a great many theatres that have the SDDS system as their primary sound system...the number is in the 1000s.

SDDS will probably be on films (for those studios that support currently support it) until film ceases to be the primary media for cinemas....or if that takes a real long time, until the preception is that there are very few surviving SDDS systems out there.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 10-26-2005, 02:48 PM:

Sony support for their consumer products is horrid.
And seem's their consumer products have a much higher failure rate than most other co's.

I don't want no stinkin Sony projecting my movies, unless they change their ways.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 10-26-2005, 07:20 PM:

quote: Ron L. Funderburg
Sony's pockets are as deep and bankruptcy is an option then why did they purchase MGM another film company ripe for bankruptcy?

With these types of purchases it is usually the companies back log of titles that benefits the most. Remember that James Bond films fall in the MGM/UA category.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 05-15-2007, 05:29 PM:

It has been 565 days since the last post.

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 05-15-2007, 05:29 PM:

Sony here in the Uk have currently are Beta testing with UCI/Odeon with three screens at the Odeon Guildford with the Sony SRX-R220 (?).

Looking at both the 2K and the new Sony 4k with "Spiderman3" in D-Cinema it certainly had the edge over 2k and most note worthy was the skin flesh tones were improved.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-16-2007, 02:48 AM:

quote: Ben Wales
most note worthy was the skin flesh tones were improved.

Interesting you should say that Ben; hav a look at what I'm about to write in the 'Some thoughts on my first digital screening' thread.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-16-2007, 03:28 PM:

I'm off down there next week to look at the comparison. Guildford of course is not only running in 2k and 4k but also 35mm.

Interestingly a large format veteran from the States was wanting to see the 4k fired up in anger. He was told by Sony US that there had been a projector in Queens,NY for a few screenings and one in Sigapore but they had both been removed quite quickly and there were definitely not any more in use anywhere in the world at present.

He arrived here last week and i told him of the Guildford installation. Although it listed digital screenings on the website there was no mention of 4k.

Thinking they mat be "blind "testing imagine his surprise upon arriving there not only to see banners proclaiming Spidey in 4K but also receiving his tickets in a Spidey 4k wallet and his popcorn in a Spidey 4k bucket [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 05-16-2007, 05:10 PM:

Well here is the proof that the Odeon Guildford is screening "Spiderman3" in 4K.

They may have to change their Moto about "Film" [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2007, 05:21 PM:

RE: SDDS
I was told two things... one of these just a couple of weeks ago....

1. Robbie is no longer with us as a result of the heart attack.

2. SDDS will be printed until the cameras used to do the sound tracks wear out.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2007, 05:39 PM:

I don't know where SDDS came into this other than the obvious Sony connection...but...Our success with SDDS tracking and overal track quality is MUCH higher than it ever was when SDDS was an upcoming or heavily marketed medium! I just don't get it. They got the system working reliably and then poof...gone. BTW, I mean we have 2000 series units just running right along without much of any problems anymore...heck the LED prices are cheaper and more stable than when the 2000 series were current.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2007, 06:06 PM:

LED technology has gotten much better in the last several years as far as fade rate goes. I see almost the same thing here as far as tracking of new prints goes... but on second run they are still touch and go. I only check video level once a year now instead of every 6 months. The 3000 units are utterly reliable for us unless you loose a board in the processor in which case its time to retire the unit for a 650. The big problem now with the 3000 is the lack of penthouse sprockets. Sony keeps promising the 50 we've had on order since last November... almost all of those will quickly vanish when they appear at our door. The possibility of a LaVezzi custom VKF/Stainless steel sprocket here makes more and more sense every day.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-16-2007, 07:04 PM:

Need spockets eh? We have enough to service what we have (3000 series and 2000 series...LaVezzi Hardcoat versions, natch for the 2000). The 3000 series sprocket is an odd beast considering how it is attached to the rest of the assembly. Are you ordering just the sprocket or the sprocket assy? I want to say that Sony started with the sprocket piecemeal and then forced it to be only as an assembly. All of our spares are assemblies.

We don't retire the units just due to a board failure...Sony still has their FRB service which prices out similar to other manufacturers. They just do it different...that is you get billed the whole shebang and then get a core charge credit...the core doubles the price to make it seem pricey until you return the core. However for SDDS service we will have all of the boards on hand and merely replinish our field kits.

Oddly enough most of the SDDS we deal with are 8-channel systems...for the 2000 series ones, it is normally the analog processor that is weak link (often not Dolby...if they bought a Dolby analog processor, they probably would have bought a Dolby Digital decoder).

Spiderman is 8-channel, Surfs Up will 8-channel as will Ocean's 13 this summer (and possibly others). Where are the EX films? Where is Dolby's list of EX films? AFter all, any full bore CP650 is EX.

Steve

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 05-16-2007, 08:22 PM:

Anybody had problems with any of the screen channels dropping out on their 3000's. The 3000 I have here drops the Right channel and a 3000 unit I used when I worked at another theatre back in 1999 would always drop the center channel. The fix was simplely to reboot the system. I talked to a Sony tech a few years ago and he had never heard of such a problem and sent me a disk to flash the firmware, but still have the occassional right channel drop out.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-16-2007, 08:23 PM:

Only the whole sprocket assy. is available any longer... or supposedly. It lists for over 500 bucks and I'm sure that LaVezzi could beat that price by miles even as a custom sprocket as odd as it is. At least its a standard diameter(24 teeth).

As for repairs sure thay can be repaired but why? I don' think you're going to see these units in use till the end of film... When they decide to pull the plug on the cameras that'll be it and you may have no advanced warning about it. No one knows for sure whats going to happen with SDDS and we feel its in the customers best interest to replace it with something else thats servicable and usable into the future(digital). Plus with Dolbys sometimes screwy delivery getting replacements may take a while. We've also replaced a few 2000's with the JSD-80/DTS.

RE: The 8 channel mixes... We have both 2000 and 3000 units doing 8 channel and we primarily strive to maintain those units before all the others... And where is DTS in all this... The XD-10 does 10 channels out of the box! Will they ever get with it???

One customer had us pull all his 2000's out of service,close to 20 of them and replaced them with DTS's both new and used... He had no 8 channel systems so no problems there. We have 2000's stacked like chordwood at Claco.

Mark

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 05-16-2007, 08:43 PM:

Normally we keep 30-50 CP-650's at Hadden so we don't have supply problems. More when contracts demand.) Louis

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-17-2007, 03:26 AM:

Why repair a Sony than replace it? That is easy...because a FRB board is under a grand and a new CP650 (or even a Dolby alternative) is knocking in the 10-grand department, depending on the system and reader.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-17-2007, 08:25 AM:

I think it has more to do with an excuse to standardize formats(at least for one of the chains we service) at a given location than anything else but it also has to do with compatability and servicability into the future.

Mark

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 05-28-2007, 03:55 AM:

Well finally got to see the 4k presentaion in Guildford on Thursday last week sadly one day too late to do a direct film vs 2k vs 4k comparison as POTC 3 had taken over the film and 2k screens.

I was impressed by the amount of general detail, the flesh tones and also the detail in the blacks. The contrast range was very good.

One disappointing aspect was the sound drifted in and out of sync throughout the movie. It was in sync most of the time ,at some points 2 or 3 frames out but at one point, when the maitre de blows his whistle in the restaurant, somewhere between 6 and 10.

This apparently has been there since day 1 on both 2k and all 4k screens [thumbsdown]

Anyone else running this noticed a sync problem?

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-28-2007, 05:35 AM:

quote: Dick Vaughan
I was impressed by the amount of general detail, the flesh tones and also the detail in the blacks. The contrast range was very good.

Would you say 4k provides a much better cinema experience than good 35mm? How would you rate 4K compared to the best 70mm blow-ups you have seen? Was the screen where you saw 4K bigger than Pictureville's flat screen? Finally, how much better would you rate a new 70mm print like Hello Dolly (Todd-AO, which is a 50s technology) compared to 35mm in 4K (a 21st century technology)? Thank you

Thank you

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 05-28-2007, 05:58 AM:

I belive and seen the Sony 4K and was improved over 2K & 35mm prints, with "Spiderman 3" it was filmed on Super 35mm, I was told that Sony claim if it was Filmed on 65mm or HD would be even more superior than the exampled being screened in 4K when I was there.

But the 4K Projectors are far more expensive at about £80K and having the costly Dual Xenon Lamp so adding the operation costs for the Theatre owners.

Perhaps they could be used at Premier Locations like 70mm was used a few years ago.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2007, 02:26 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
RE: The 8 channel mixes... We have both 2000 and 3000 units doing 8 channel and we primarily strive to maintain those units before all the others... And where is DTS in all this... The XD-10 does 10 channels out of the box! Will they ever get with it???

I had hoped Universal Pictures would support the XD-10 when it was brand new by having a 10 channel mix for Hulk (the studio's big summer release that year). Nothing materialized. I've read comments in other threads about some 8-channel discs and uncompressed LPCM audio tracks being delivered to some XD-10 theaters. But largely, I would say the huge amount of capability in the XD-10 has gone unused. That's a shame.

Audio doesn't get as much hoopla on d-cinema as it did with 35mm. That seems contradictory since the audio is typically 24-bit, uncompressed LPCM 5.1 (not sure about the sample rate, 48kHz?). It's a big step above lossy Dolby Digital, SDDS and DTS. Since there's no fancy logos or other promotional stuff for the sudio on d-cinema I don't expect to see any big push for more discrete audio channels above 5.1 for quite some time. DCI specs provide room for more audio channels though.

quote: Dick Vaughan
One disappointing aspect was the sound drifted in and out of sync throughout the movie. It was in sync most of the time ,at some points 2 or 3 frames out but at one point, when the maitre de blows his whistle in the restaurant, somewhere between 6 and 10.

Sounds a bit like the Sony DVD player I bought several years ago.

quote: Ben Wales
I belive and seen the Sony 4K and was improved over 2K & 35mm prints, with "Spiderman 3" it was filmed on Super 35mm, I was told that Sony claim if it was Filmed on 65mm or HD would be even more superior than the exampled being screened in 4K when I was there.

Some effects background shots in Spiderman 2 were filmed in 65mm.

Any movie production that chooses to shoot on larger formats like 5/65mm and VistaVision will have a product that can adapt to more demanding presentation environments and formats in the long term.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-28-2007, 03:17 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
But largely, I would say the huge amount of capability in the XD-10 has gone unused. That's a shame.

I would agree.. DTS seems to be just completely lost these days supporting stuff that no theater that I work with utilizes.

Mark

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-28-2007, 03:17 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
But largely, I would say the huge amount of capability in the XD-10 has gone unused. That's a shame.

I would agree.. DTS seems to be just completely lost these days supporting odd stuff that no theater that I work with would ever utilize. On the other hand of they did support 8 channel mixes I would happily tear out every Sony left in the Mountain States and replace them with XD-10's. There are quite a few 8 channel systems out here...

Mark

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 05-28-2007, 03:59 PM:

I don't really get it. I mean, we still see movies released for SDDS-8. Are there DTS-8 versions? We sure don't seem to hear about it. What's the story there?

--jhawk

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 05-28-2007, 05:05 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Audio doesn't get as much hoopla on d-cinema as it did with 35mm. That seems contradictory since the audio is typically 24-bit, uncompressed LPCM 5.1 (not sure about the sample rate, 48kHz?). It's a big step above lossy Dolby Digital, SDDS and DTS. Since there's no fancy logos or other promotional stuff for the sudio on d-cinema I don't expect to see any big push for more discrete audio channels above 5.1 for quite some time. DCI specs provide room for more audio channels though.

The only thing about that is while theoretically, the digital presentations should have better sound, I've always perceived them to be inferior. Now I'll admit that my mid-high-frequency hearing isn't what it used to be, but I always find the digital presentations to have sound that seems metallic and shrill as compared with DTS or Dolby Digital. I'd love to hear an A-B comparison one day.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-28-2007, 07:00 PM:

quote: John Hawkinson
I don't really get it. I mean, we still see movies released for SDDS-8. Are there DTS-8 versions? We sure don't seem to hear about it. What's the story there?

Sure and there are still occasional 8 track mixes too but SDDS is just not where its happenning these days. DTS could easily pull this off with the XD-10. One of their selling features was "10 channels out of the box". Not so for the older DTS units which are only 6 track.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-29-2007, 09:27 AM:

On the other hand, the general public pretty much has gotten jadded with the continual hype of new new new. After all, how revolutionary have they been hyping digital and the public goes in and everything looks pretty much the same as it always did. Pretty much a letdown. You can't do that to the public over and over without them just tuning it out. After all, how many channels past good stereo surround do you really need to appreciate a film soundtrack? And will 8 channels be a kickass number that will make people seek out a theatre with 8 track playback as opposed 6 or even 5.1? It's dubious, especially given the extra expense of mixing different track mixes. You KNOW a theatre that has more ushers who are attentive to patron disturbances and where the bathrooms are cleaner and the auditoria have clean floors, this will be much more attractive to the public who routinely complain about these issues. You don't hear them saying that they really couldn't enjoy PIRATES this weekend because it was only playing in 6 channel sound and if only it had 8 channels.

It's like the Extreme razors from Gillette and Schick. First they gave us two blades, then they upped it to three blades, then four, now freakin five....pretty soon as far as marketing potential and influencing the public, those numbers becomes useless. You can reach a saturation point and go past the point of no return. In fact, it can even backfire if people's perception is that the ever multiplying numbers are basically just meaningless hype. People start mocking your product.

SNL did a mock ad based on the burgoneing multitude of blades on those Schick and Gillette razors...the guy is shaving and reveals his new shaver which has something like 20 blades in the head, which procede to slice his face to ribbons. I am sure that wasn't something either blade company was happy to see.

Neither would it be a good thing if the public started thinking that way about the multitude of cinema sound channels -- over your head, above the screen, below the screen, five across the rear of the theatre and one under your seat -- the UYA channel or better known among industry insiders as the Up-Your-Ass Channel. [Big Grin]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-29-2007, 10:59 AM:

I don't expect most people in a movie theater audience to ever understand the differences between THX, Dolby Digital, LPCM 5.1 and a lot of other tech-head oriented stuff.

It should also be said that if we had to wait for the general public to be able to properly understand the significance of something new before delivering it to the marketplace most movie theaters would still be running in mono or no more than basic 2 channel stereo.

5.1 audio doesn't work all that great in a lot of larger movie theaters. Unless you're sitting in one of the few seats in the theater's sweet spot you're just going to hear a left wall and right wall effect when the surrounds are used.

With more discrete channels added to the surround array transient fly by effects and other panning and circling effects would be a lot more convincing. Depending on the theater you visit, normally the effect just sounds stupid. It doesn't pan the way it should. Add to that the common problem of many movie theaters having poorly maintained sound systems and the problem just compounds itself.

I think a great deal of the public doesn't get excited about improved audio quality and audio effects capability because most movie theater sound systems just aren't working like they should.

It's a shame the home theater environment is actually doing more to address that specific problem. No one is delivering things like DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete audio tracks to commercial movie theaters. We're not getting any discrete 6.1 LPCM audio tracks in d-cinema either. It only seems to be for the home environment.

As to the issue of mixing expense and complexity, I think the newer digital audio editing tools are making the process a lot easier. You can literally draw a path of where you want the audio element to be imaged in the sound field and map its position and intensity changes on the time line. It can be folded down or blown up to as many channels as needed. A bunch of that stuff can be scripted to automate repetitive tasks.

The big problem with movie sound editing and mixing is lack of time. That job is one of the last things completed on a movie production and its amazing a lot of those guys are able to put together a decent mix with such stupidly short deadlines. But then they'll get to go back and tweak things to how they really want the audio track to sound for the DVD release.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 05-29-2007, 02:30 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
And will 8 channels be a kickass number that will make people seek out a theatre with 8 track playback as opposed 6 or even 5.1? It's dubious

With a properly recorded orchestra, five channels behind the screen, if there is a big screen, make a huge difference. I love 5 channels behind the screen, especially on those films from the 60s when they did amazing recordings (Todd-AO quality)

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-29-2007, 04:39 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
We're not getting any discrete 6.1 LPCM audio tracks in d-cinema either. It only seems to be for the home environment.

And the ironic part about that is that a discrete 6.1 system would make a far bigger difference in a large theater than in a typical home environment. The whole EX concept was developed to improve the "phantom rear" effect in large rooms.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 06-08-2007, 10:13 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Why repair a Sony than replace it? That is easy...because a FRB board is under a grand and a new CP650 (or even a Dolby alternative) is knocking in the 10-grand department, depending on the system and reader.

Steve,
Just so you know... Sony strikes again... there are no D/A boards available for the 3000's at this time and no delivery date for any frb's to be available as of a half week ago. Perhaps they developed "Dolby core syndrome" and no one returned the cores [Eek!]

. About all one can do at this point in time is buy used 3000's to scrap out for the parts.

With no promised 3000 series sprockets delivered yet and on order since last November and no FRB D/A boards its becomming obvious that even Sony wishes SDDS would just go away. Indeed I will continue my practice of "lets replace it with a 650 so you can use it into the future".

Mark