This is topic Did I see D-Cinema done wrong? 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=000059
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-30-2004, 12:20 PM:
Well, today I finally got a chance to see first-hand what has been discussed on these forums for a while now...D-Cinema.
I saw a presentation of 'The Day After Tomorrow'.
It was depressing...and I'm talking purely about the picture quality!
What was wrong? Contrast was poor. Black levels were simply not there, peak whites were not bright enough to even be called peak whites, and there was no true highlight or shadow detail: dynamically, the image hit a brick wall of either grey (supposedly black) or dull off-white (supposedly white).
The focus and resolution were poor, especially in wide shots - they were actually soft and didn't have nearly enough detail. They reminded me of really bad release prints with a LOT of printer slippage.
As the movie progressed, I yearned for some brightness, sharpness, contrast, dynamic range...in other words, the very things that actually give LIFE to the visuals...but those qualities simply weren't there. The image was lifeless, dead.
I've read many, many opinions about D-Cinema on these forums and elsewhere, and either a) Others are being WAY too kind in their assessment, or b) I saw digital done wrong. Or maybe both. Or do I need to see a Pixar film or a Powerpoint presentation on one of these things in order to 'get it'?
The biggest challenge to getting this thing to look even remotely like film is to increase the contrast. There is a lot of talk about increasing resolution to match film, but will it be possible to reach film's formidable contrast and latitude?
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-30-2004, 12:55 PM:
Boy you must have seen one of the better ones ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
How big was the image and how far back were you seated?
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-30-2004, 01:13 PM:
The screen was approximately 40-45 feet wide (in scope). I was sitting near the back of the theatre, at least 3-4 screen heights away.
What is the maximum size screen that a DLP projector can still display 16 footlamberts of brightness with a 7K xenon, I wonder?
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-30-2004, 03:15 PM:
Michael B.
Can you provide what projector was used? Without knowing the projector it is hard to comment. The brightest dlp are up to cinema standards with as large screens as 70 feet. Which theater did you visit in Sydney?
Cr or black level of film are not normally better than digital cinema. What is more likely to be better is perhaps shadow detail.
If they have done a bad job with the digital copy then that is to blame. The range in picture quality from the best dvd to the worst is huge.
If they used digital intermediat in a bad way the film copy might be of poor quality too.
Without knowing how the movie was produced and what projected the picture any comment is speculation.
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-30-2004, 03:28 PM:
"The brightest dlp are up to cinema standards with as large screens as 70 feet." Only in your dreams
7K is the norm for 40' images and they rarely hit the 12fl level
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-30-2004, 03:45 PM:
Mr McLeod
Are you saying that 7kW is the norm for 40 feet wide with a digital projector or are you commenting on what gives you acceptable brightness on screen with a film projector?
I guess that TI can overstat what dlp can do but only 40 compared with 70 wide?
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-30-2004, 03:53 PM:
quote: Gordon McLeod
they rarely hit the 12fl level
But when they do then 12fl is equivelent to 16fl from a film projector (open gate).
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-30-2004, 04:05 PM:
Most of the DLP use a 7K lamp for screens in the 55' wide range ( and most still do not look all that bright) and yes 12fl dlp is considered the same as 16fl for film
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-30-2004, 06:05 PM:
Since film projection screen illumination is measured without film in the gate it's likely (I've not measured it) that with clear film (positive stock, clear after processing, not just blank base stock) the whitest white might well be around 12 fL when open gate it's 16 fL. This difference owing to the absorption of the film base and the emulsion (which even when "clear" contains a tiny bit of fog). If that's correct then that would be the standard of comparison.
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 05-30-2004, 06:31 PM:
Could some pop-corn jockey have screwed around with the projector? Do the optics need to be cleaned, but no one knows how to do it? Or does DLP just suck?
I remember cleaning the lenses on a 3 tube projector in a bar (lots of smoking going on), and it produced a much better looking picture. The DLPs out there now, have been in service for some time now, and if they have not been maintained, it should be noticeable.
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-30-2004, 06:35 PM:
The other thing you have to remember is that if the movie was not filmed with digital cameras - the quality will not get better when transferring to digital. It usually has the same quality. Like transferring a home movie from VHS to DVD.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2004, 06:58 PM:
Uhhhh... that's insinuating that film is inferior in resolution and image quality to digital cameras. The statement "D-cinema is to DVD as Film is to VHS" is NOT true. There should be more than enough resolution in film to make a good copy, right? Going from Film to D-Cinema should be like going from DVD to SVCD (more or less).
The fact that D-Cinema projectors require larger bulbs for the same sized screen makes it extremely cost-inneffective. Only the studios save money. Until these problems are solved, D-Cinema is just gay (or "teh ghey" as a wise man once said).[av=d]
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-30-2004, 07:18 PM:
Just to throw in this one, any claims about doing movie presentations right with 70 foot wide screens really has to be called into question. I haven't seen giant screen stadium seated houses properly light such a screen with 35mm. Any claims about DLP doing the same is just silly.
The only way to correctly project a movie onto a 70 foot wide screen is by using a 5 perf 70mm print and a good 70mm projector.
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-30-2004, 08:43 PM:
To answer the original question, yes, it does sound like you saw a bad presentation. True, digital (presuming 1.2K DLP) is lacking in resolution, contrast, color depth, etc. compared to film but a decent show still looks okay to the casual observer and what was described sounds pretty mediocre by anyone's standards.
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 05-30-2004, 09:03 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Until these problems are solved, D-Cinema is just gay (or "teh ghey" as a wise man once said).
Joe,
Can't you come up with something more clever than such an idiotic phrase? ![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
danny
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2004, 10:22 PM:
Sorry to say...
JFC! Joe, that's more like a "straight" thing since DLP has a much "smaller" bulb for the same screen illumination.
Just exactly WTF RU smokin' over there?
Yours in Christ,
>>> Phil
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2004, 10:33 PM:
Hey, I didn't start "teh ghey", Thomas Procyk did.[av=n]
It's funny, when I was on the road with Adam and Scott, they were saying things are "gay" all the time in the exact same frame of referrence that I used it in. Lighten up people. I'm not gonna be politically correct just because you're offended. It is up to you to take it a different way than I mean it or not.
PS - Phil, DLP needs a bigger bulb. Did you even read my post?
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-30-2004, 10:42 PM:
Joe, I'm ***SURE*** you're NOT referring to me... It's takes a LOT more to offend me. I'm just pointing out some "truths".
Just because you want to hide behind Thomas' "skirts" is NO excuse for your lack of information about bulb sizes...
Yes, I did read your post... did YOU read mine?
>>> Phil
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-30-2004, 10:58 PM:
The projector was a 1.2K DLP unit.
Interestingly, the theatre played its trailer pack on 35MM, then switched over to DLP for the feature. The 35MM was equally underlit and poor overall, so film done wrong was followed up with DLP done wrong (or was it film done wrong followed by DLP-done-as-well-as-possible-but-it-sucked-anyway?).
By the way, during the 'brighter' scenes, the screen was revealed as being quite dirty, too. Maybe the port glass was dirty too, but by the time I saw it the show was over, so I don't know. (Doesn't this say something about the argument that DLP is set-and-forget compared to film, and that it is absolutely subject to similar negligence?)
As to being acceptable to the casual observer, I suppose no-one complained, but then they didn't see the film trailers done right, either! Afterwards, when discussion over the technical merits began with my friends, I pointed out how there were no true blacks or shadow/highlight detail, and how dark it was, and they agreed, but also said that that's how the films they normally see look too! Looking at the trailer pack, I can see what they mean. Basically, if you do film extremely wrong and make the contrast as flat as a pancake, then DLP can ALMOST match it (but still can't).
As to myself, I'm used to seeing things done properly, so the whole thing was totally sub-standard. Maybe on a smaller screen, DLP could look okay, but then again on a smaller screen film would look better still!
I still think that resolution is only one of the problems. The other properties that film is known for also have to be matched, but can they?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-30-2004, 11:13 PM:
I did read your post Phil. U sez:
quote:
DLP has a much "smaller" bulb for the same screen illumination.
[av=m]
Nope. Let's say both are putting out about 12 Christopher-Lamberts of light. The screen is 45 feet wide. Mr. Film Projector will require between a 4K and 4.5K bulb to make it nice. The D-Cinema will require between a 6K and a 7K light bulb to put out the same light, ths making your statement ENTIRELY incorrect! HA! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 05-31-2004, 12:15 AM:
All this arguing about bulb size is gay.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2004, 12:21 AM:
The proper, hip internet phrase is "teh ghey" Jeremy.[av=v]
Google it.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-31-2004, 12:59 AM:
quote: Mattias Ohlson
Cr or black level of film are not normally better than digital cinema. What is more likely to be better is perhaps shadow detail.
Huh? Are you joking? The "really really dark grey" black of the digital cinema projectors I've seen can't compare to the "blacker than black" black that's possible with Kodak Vision Premier stock.
Producing accurate blacks is going to be one of D cinema's biggest challenges I think.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-31-2004, 01:12 AM:
Joe, as a gay bulb owner...you are smoking crack and/or that I-30 stuff! Get your story "straight"! Do your research! Gay bulbs are bigger! Ummm... but NOT for film vs. "TV" images.
Errr I mean, DLP takes less watts for the same image brightness as compared to 35mm FILM!
Get OFF my ASS!
>>> Phil
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-31-2004, 02:00 AM:
NO IT DOESN'T! I think you need to get some of that I-30 stuff yourself. Why else would Brad choose to live by such a great highway? [av=x]
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 05-31-2004, 02:29 AM:
Although dlp does suck, I'd have to say Day After Tomorrow is certainly not a good reference film...My two prints of that movie are TERRIBLE! Once the attatched trailer comes on and the movie starts I get one or two complaints from customers about the focus being off when in fact it isn't.
And guests at my theater never complain unless their movie didn't start. It truly is terrible, the image is quite flat and has very dull colors. But the worst part is that it just doesn't look focused...Ever.
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-31-2004, 04:43 AM:
Do others have poor print quality on their prints of 'Day After Tomorrow' as well?
I will go and see it at my 'reference' theatre and see what it looks like there. They have two prints.
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-31-2004, 05:14 AM:
Mark J.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said not normally better than dlp. The film stock Kodak vision premiere is hardly used for world wide mass releases that I see or?
Michael
It now seems confirmed that the source itself is part of the problem and not the projector. The film is that in scope format? My question is if the theater used an anamorphic lens. If they did not they would lose light and resolution. Can you find out who many kW of light was used in the projector?
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-31-2004, 05:50 AM:
I wouldn't say it was confirmed - I still have to check out my reference theatre and see what their prints look like.
The other thing is that if the release prints don't look good, then that should NOT affect the quality of the DLP. Remember that DLP is supposed to alleviate variations in print quality due to the fact that release prints are NOT being struck - that is supposed to be one of its positives. I doubt that the problem can be traced back to the camera negative.
The theatre was using a 4K for the 35MM film projector and a 7K for the DLP. The 4K was on its way out (it was flickering/unstable) whereas the 7K was clearly new and provided an even light. The light output of both projectors was balanced, which is to say they were both equally dim.
Regarding Kodak Vision Premiere, I haven't been keeping track of all releases but it was used wonderfully for 'Minority Report', which really had BLACK blacks. Gorgeous stuff. Light output has to be a little higher than normal for this stock, though, because it is dense! Very rich contrast and grain structure.
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-31-2004, 06:14 AM:
The light output appeared even to you, but you would really have to see a white test frame to be sure.
Even though digital projectors are, if not completely fire-and-forget, much less operator-dependent, they also need a minimum level of maintenance. Cleanliness of lenses and port windows are obvious points already mentioned. The lamp focus also needs to be checked after changing the lamp, and that is a bit trickier than on a 35mm projector where you can simply take the lens out and observe the anode shadow and light arc position - you can`t just take off the digital projector head!
There was some experimentation with some DLP projectors whether a 6 or 7kW lamp should be used. Maybe the one you saw was originally installed with a 6kW lamp and then they switched to 7kW without properly refocusing the lamp. Another possibility is that the power supply output is incorrectly set.
Since you say the "classic" projector wasn`t aligned properly, it is more than likely that the digital one was even less so.
"Scope" images are usually projected with a 1.5 anamorphic lens.
But like Mr Ohlson said, you can also letterbox an uncompressed scope image in the 1280x1024 frame. Then there would be a very big loss of resolution and brightness. It depends on how the projector was set up.
Theoretically, there is no variation in "print" quality. But if the digital master wasn`t prepared optimally, that doesn`t help either. For instance, the digital release of "Matchstick Men" didn`t look very good at all, it was hastily done and there was even some dirt. Some suspected this was to make it look more film-like. But in reality, it just wasn`t a very successful transfer.
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-31-2004, 09:13 AM:
quote: Mattias Ohlson
Perhaps you missed the part where I said not normally better than dlp. The film stock Kodak vision premiere is hardly used for world wide mass releases that I see or?
I didn't miss it, I just respectfully disagree with it. I don't think DLP is capable of reproducing blacks anywhere near as well as film on any of the popular stocks currently used. And I don't think the best DLP can ever hope to approach the black producing ability of Vision Premier. That was my point. Others may disagree with me, and that's ok. But when someone says "the blacks weren't there" that doesn't surprise me at all because in my opinion, they never are.
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 05-31-2004, 09:28 AM:
Competition Is Heating Up as Projectors Go Digital
By ERIC A. TAUB
Published: May 31, 2004
Sony Electronics hopes that the digital projector it will demonstrate at the Digital Cinema Laboratory in Hollywood this week will become the new industry standard as movie theaters gradually shift from film to digital projection.
The company says its new projector can create images with four times the resolution of the current digital projection technology, developed by Texas Instruments.
Motion picture industry analysts have long predicted a shift to digital projection because using a hard disk, rather than a film projector, to serve up a movie produces a superior image.
"Our new technology is the holy grail of digital projectors," said John Scarcella, president of Sony Electronics' broadcast and business solutions company. "A 4k resolution is what the industry has been waiting for. It gives the 'wow' factor that consumers want."
Sony's 4k projector creates an image that is 4,096 pixels across and 2,160 high, and has four times the number of pixels delivered by Texas Instruments' 2k DLP Cinema projection chip, which projects an image 2,048 pixels across by 1,080.
But shifting to any form of digital projection is expensive, and because the technology is improving quickly, movie theater owners may be hesitant to invest now when better equipment could be available soon. Moreover, it is not yet clear that improved picture quality will fuel the transition by drawing more consumers to a digital cinema.
If the difference between standard film and a digitally projected print were "as great as the difference between a VHS tape and DVD, we'd have much more consumer interest in this technology," said Curtis Clark, chairman of the American Society of Cinematographer's technology committee.
And Bob Gibbons, director of marketing and communications for Kodak Digital Cinema, said: "A better cinema experience is much more than just a big screen with a sharp image. It's also about how the customer is treated, how they feel when they're in the theater. It's the whole experience."
Only 67 movie theaters in North America use digital projectors, all with the Texas Instruments imaging chip.
Eastman Kodak, another rival, is developing its own 4k digital projector, which it expects to bring to market next year or in 2006. Texas Instruments, however, has no intention of developing a chip with 4k resolution, said Doug Darrow of the company's cinema products division.
When it comes to picture quality, he said, "true-to-life colors and high picture contrast matter much more than resolution."
Mr. Darrow also said that the most advanced Texas Instruments projector, which has 2k resolution, "already produces images better than the best film can do."
To remind the Hollywood community of its projection accomplishments, Texas Instruments is holding its own technology demonstration at the Digital Cinema Laboratory, one day after Sony's.
Projector manufacturers have subsidized the cost of installing most of the digital equipment in use in the United States today. But that will change once testing ends and projection, encryption and security standards are codified.
Digital Cinema Initiatives, an industry group financed by seven motion picture studios, is evaluating technical issues and the best way to pay for the shift to digital projection. While projector prices will eventually come down, movie theaters initially may have to spend $150,000 per projector, five times the cost of conventional film projectors, which last up to 30 years.
Theater owners have refused to pay for the digital conversion, arguing that the studios stand to gain the most in the switch to digital delivery. Indeed, when studios deliver digital files of films via satellite rather than by producing and shipping large reels of celluloid from theater to theater, they will save about $1,200 a print, or a total of $1.36 billion a year, according to Screen Digest, a London-based research firm.
Chuck Goldwater, chief executive of Digital Cinema Initiatives, said his organization recognized that studios need to help pay for the purchase of digital projection equipment. "The proportion of financing should be relatively proportional to the benefits enjoyed by each party," he said.
One proposal is for studios to contribute to a fund, in proportion to the money they save by not making prints. Those funds would then be distributed to theater owners to buy the new projectors.
John Fithian, president of the National Association of Theater Owners, said that many questions remained to be answered, like who will get the money, when the money will be collected and the tax implications of the fund. Meanwhile, any delay in the transition to digital may be good for Sony, which stands to benefit if theater owners wait for another version of the technology.
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-31-2004, 10:07 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Hey, I didn't start "teh ghey", Thomas Procyk did.
NO I DIDN'T!!! You clinking, clanking, clattering, collection of colliginous JUNK!! ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Quit trying to get me in trouble with your LIES!!! ![[eyes]](graemlins/eyes.gif)
Anyways, the most recent DLP show I saw was "Home on the Range" which I saw in film first, digital second. They were both in approx. the same sized theater, but the film screen was a bit smaller. (This was a flat movie, and the DLP screen was common-width. Go figure!)
The film presentation was sharp, bright, great contrast, and vivid colors. (especially since this was animation). But the DLP presentation was nothing short of utterly disappointing. If I drove out of my way specifically to see this in DLP, I would ask for my money back.
The first trailer was for "Raising Helen" -- now for DLP, they turn the house lights completely OFF for the trailers, and keep them OFF until all the credits are done -- during the dark scenes, it looked like they had the cleaning lights on! NO contrast, all the colors were washed out, and when it got to the end of the trailer where it said "Raising Helen" in powder blue on a white background, it looked almost navy-on-grey.
I dismissed this as "cheap mastering of trailers" and waited for the feature, but it was the same story. I almost felt like walking up to the screen and looking underneath for the buttons to bring up the Big TV's setup menu.
OTOH, "Finding Nemo" a year ago looked fantastic. So I wonder if they haven't changed the bulb.
But Price is Right is on now, so I must go.
=TMP=
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-31-2004, 11:35 AM:
Digital Cinema: Coming to Eugene when hell freezes over.
Yay!
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-31-2004, 11:48 AM:
A quick google search shows that I'm not the only one to report my findings with DLP:
-------------------------------------
'I saw the last Star Wars Clones movie in DLP.
It looked really, abominably, unforgivably bad. I was 10 rows back, the screen was large, the picture was drastically dark & underlit, & even though dark the contrast was so poor that the black masking at the side of the screen was arrestingly, distractingly darker than adjacent picture when the image was supposed to be something black.
The contrast problem did not even begin to approach the resolution problem: everything was so soft that the need to run up & just focus the picture was overwhelming & added to the headache of squinting at the dark, hard to read picture. I think the dark picture & low contrast actually helped to make the low resolution less apparent to the average moviegoer.
Black & white 16mm films in high school were easier to make out &
better looking. DLP is not progress in theatrical image quality, it's degeneration.'
----------------------------------------------
This description exactly matches what I saw. I forgot the thing with the masking...when the masking is much, much blacker than the 'black' picture on the screen, that's just scary.
It's clear that either a)If I saw a 'bad' DLP presentation, then other 'bad' presentations have taken place also (which doesn't bode well for the 'demonstration stage' of a new system - what happens when they 'stop caring'?) or b) This is the norm, and it's always this bad.
Either way, this game is over before it starts, therefore ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
can go get ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-31-2004, 12:08 PM:
quote: Bevan Wright
Sony's 4k projector creates an image that is 4,096 pixels across and 2,160 high, and has four times the number of pixels delivered by Texas Instruments' 2k DLP Cinema projection chip, which projects an image 2,048 pixels across by 1,080.
That new 2K TI DLP chip is not commonly found. Most DLP installations are of the puny 1.2K 1280 X 1024 pixel flavor.
4K sounds cool. But do you have to replace an entire existing DLP projection system to install it? The digital projection fanboys out there have to get real for once. Cost is an extreme issue.
Those guys need to come up with a simple retrofit kit that can install into most any film projector console and cut down the cost. Having to replace an entire projector for an upgrade in resolution, or a shift to a different make/model is stupid. Even still, with most film releases being 35mm only, it is unrealistic for movie theaters to add in second projectors to show video. They don't have the deep pockets to do this. Hollywood's studios have already carved enough "profit" out of their backs (or rather their fair side of the box office take) to make it tough for most theaters to even pay for regular maintenance. Any talk of paradigm-shift industry wide to video projection is pure fantasy. And this says nothing of digital projection's ability to match "film done right" (which is does not).
quote: Bevan Wright
Only 67 movie theaters in North America use digital projectors, all with the Texas Instruments imaging chip.
Again, nearly all are of the puny 1.2K itty bitty shitty DLP chippie variety.
I thought there were at least a couple JVC D/ILA installations, at least there were a few during the "Star Wars Episode I" thingie. Were the JVC installations removed?
*************
It should be noted 1.2K DLP presentations tend to suck ass and look "tey ghey" when trying to show a live action 2.39:1 movie with a lot of dark imagery. "The Perfect Storm" looked pretty bad in DLP (and had lots of video compression artifacts to boot). DLP only seems to fare decently when showing brightly colorful stuff, such as a Pixar movie. But even then, with only 1280 X 1024 pixels (the evident standard of the prevailing majority of DLP installations) the detail is just too weak and "tey ghey."
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-31-2004, 12:39 PM:
I wonder what the Pleasure Island AMC is running these days. The last time I was there, the manager told me that they're one of the test sites, and they rip it out and install all new stuff every couple of months or so.
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 05-31-2004, 12:42 PM:
Hi Michael,
Ive not posted on here since a little while after Hoyts fired my ass for posting here, but Im over it now.
(Hmm maybe not, every now and then I think THAT sucked. To produce a forum message and say OK your FIRED. But what can you do?)
Just a few questions,
Where was DLP of 'Day After' at?
Where is your reference theatre at?
Where the hell has John gone too? Back home to MacKay?
Im glad you hate VIDEO (dlp) in cinemas, because it looks as crap as you explained in the first message of this thread.
But now Im getting really scared, today, I had to remove the 16mm from the MAIN to make way for a permanent place for the Barco!!! Arrrgggggggg
Regards Bill.
Posted by Darren Briggs (Member # 1071) on 05-31-2004, 12:42 PM:
2K digital projection should look better on larger screens than the 1.3k
Colours should be better, with better black level's and more colours.
If a 2k is set up without an anamorphic lens for Scope, you gain extra light.
1.3k is ok for up to 8m wide screens in my opinion.
2k for above.
Shot on film and set up well DLP can look ok. HD shot content shown on DLP can look very good, a high quiality Video projeced image, doesn't look like film though.
Prefer 35mm still, 70if they put there money into 70mm prints, no need for all this DLP expense to try match 35mm.
Darren
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-31-2004, 09:16 PM:
Welcome back, Bill!
John Wilson is now sadly missed; he has gone back to Queensland.
The DLP is in cinema # 2 at Hoyts Fox Studios. I have never enjoyed the presentation there at all, which is why I thought the DLP might actually lift their game. Wrong!
My 'reference' theatre is the Randwick Ritz. Gotta love them Kinotons!!! 16-22 footlamberts in every house, and those Kintons keep that image NAILED to the screen.
(Those Centurys can put out a pretty terrific image too...no question about it. But those Kinotons...and did I mention how much I love Kinotons?)
Just for the record, my Film Tech picture features me standing right in front of...well, you get the idea!
I hope that despite the absense of John that the others will maintain the ridiculously high standards at the Ritz. Keep that FilmGuard a-flowin', those lamps fresh, and everything will be peachy keen!
As for the Barco going into your theatre...here's my suggestion. Whenever you're scheduled to run a session on it, 'accidently' thread up that 'Far and Away' 70MM trailer. When it's over, go into the cinema and say, 'Oh, sorry about that...now THIS is our movie!'. Then start the Barco... ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
But seriously, I doubt that it will be used for much other than private hires and the like, and remember that there are still five other rooms there that need a good projectionist! If DLP comes up in meetings, just keep asking, 'So...when are we doing that 70MM retrospective?'. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Peter Hall (Member # 695) on 06-01-2004, 10:40 AM:
I agree Darren - a 2k or 1k3 looks "OK" on a 9m screen. But so do my EIKIs ! Is "OK" the objective ? Surely we're looking at "as good as" as an entry point, and "better than (35mm)" as a target. There's a lot of talk that eventually Digital will be appreciably better (so much so that it will command premium admission prices) but I feel it would have to be something stunning to convince an audience..
Animation and CGI aside, where are we at ? OK, as good as or better ?
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-01-2004, 02:35 PM:
Michael Barry
Can you find out if the dlp showing used an anamorphic lens. Without it light output is almost half and so would resolution be at 1280x 500 something.
Ideally you would want 2048x1080 pixels for the picture unless you had the chance to see a good film presentation.
TI are now experimenting with pseudo 4k. The guess is that a 2k picture is double displayed offset half a pixel diagonnally. This would give you higher resolution, no pixel structure but a softening compared with digital 4k. Perhaps such a level is more what should be a minimum.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-01-2004, 02:50 PM:
The resolution required is a function of the viewing magnification (number of image heights you are from the screen), not the screen size. If you sit 2 image heights from the screen, the required sharpness is the same whether you are 20 feet from a 10 x 24 foot screen, or 60 feet from a 30 x 72 foot screen. You can reduce the lumen output for a smaller screen, but NOT the resolution.
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 06-01-2004, 06:36 PM:
I'll just chip in here, and agree that Day After Tomorrow is not a great reference print, If my print is anything to go by. It certainly is soft focus, and not very bright, in fact very grey looking.
I know it's the print as just put a new bulb in, and the next day Harry Potter was running in the same screen, looking fantastic and bright. The print that is, not the small boy wizard.
I think my print of Day After Tomorrow is definately a bit gay.
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-03-2004, 06:54 AM:
Another impression of Day after tomorrow found at avsforum.
"I saw TDAT at the Uptown in DC, supposedly our premiere movie house. WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT. It was a dark, colorless image with poor contrast and so-so-focus. This is the UPTOWN, folks.
My days at the public movie houses is at its end . . ."
This movie´s mastering seems like the worst in a long time or?
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-03-2004, 08:29 AM:
It just struck me that I was wrong in saying scope movies are usually shown with an 1.5 anamorphic lens. If we are talking about the Barco 1k (DP50), then it should be set up with a 1.9 anamorphic lens. At 1280X1024=1:1.25, this gives you a near optimum area of 2.375. In reality, you of course have to overzoom a tiny little bit and blacken out some pixels (basically a "software aperture plate") to achieve a clean frame, just like with a "classic" projector.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-03-2004, 11:16 AM:
They have this thing so sugar coated it is rediculous. First off if you think that print production is going to suddenly stop when these units start to roll out then I have news for you, it will keep right on going. The big reason is because any rollout will most likely involve new theater installs more than existing locations unless the existing location is a top 50 US theater business. This is not something where you get off work closing down your nice reliable 35mm projector go home go to sleep wake up go to work and be greated by a bank of hard drives and video projectors and all the unknown problems that go with it. God that sounds like a nightmare to me not a sweet dream.
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-03-2004, 02:47 PM:
Now I am trying to tell why TDAT looked bad in both film and digital presentation. Was it intentionally made to look bad in line with the movies catastrophy theme?
Posted by Pete Apruzzese (Member # 1446) on 06-03-2004, 07:36 PM:
I think they deliberately blurred the image to hide the special effects work. The same director used a similar optical trick - constant rain - in an attempt to hide the Godzilla (1998 version) special effects.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 06-04-2004, 01:53 AM:
If the rollout of is anything like the way the industry's handling cyan soundtracks, I won't be in any hurry to buy stock!
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-04-2004, 03:42 AM:
I will say this that I watched some scenes of Day after tomorrow on a very well lit screen last night and I noticed none of the problems mentioned in this thread. Film my friends looked great.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-04-2004, 06:18 AM:
Oddly enough...the image at the Uptown in DC compared favorably to one I saw where the light was notably higher...everywhere I've seen TDAT it looked soft and faded (washed out).
Steve
Posted by Steve Anderson (Member # 364) on 06-06-2004, 01:52 PM:
Is there a Digital Cinema still at the Orleans 16 in Las Vegas. I saw the last SW there and I am in town for a couple of days and would like to see another feature in DLP.
Thanks
Posted by Raphael Jacquot (Member # 1936) on 06-09-2004, 08:40 AM:
the funny thing is...
these TI 1.2K DLP chips have the same resolution as high end home cinema versions....
It's me or the studios that want that DLP thing get into the movie theatres are shooting themselves in the foot ?
if the picture at the local cinema is about as bad as what you can get at home, what's the point of going to the movies ???
Amaury
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-09-2004, 10:00 AM:
http://www.dlp.com/home_entertainment/home_entertainment_feature_article_1.asp
quote:
See how RCA's new widescreens showcase DLP™ image quality for imagery so realistic you may find it difficult to believe your eyes >>
Scenium HDLP50W151
SPECIFICATIONS
WEIGHT 109.3 pounds
DIMENSIONS 46.9 inches high x 39.21 inches wide x 15.96 inches deep
SYSTEM One DMD
RESOLUTION 1280 X 720
COLORS 16.7 million (24-bit)
http://www.dlp.com/home_entertainment/home_entertainment_feature_article_old2.asp
quote:
IF YOU'VE BEEN FANTASIZING about bringing home a high-definition TV that will turn your living room into a digital entertainment destination without a) breaking the bank; b) eating up space; or c) requiring umpteen cables and elaborate configuration, this is where you learn that, sometimes, electronic wishes really do come true.
As of now, razor-sharp, all-digital picture quality is an affordable reality. Why? Because the new 43" and 50" HDTV monitors from Samsung have finally landed, at Best Buy, Tweeter, Ultimate Electronics, Magnolia Hi-Fi, and other retailers across North America.
These 15"- and 18"-deep tabletops, weighing in at 75 and 84 lbs respectively, make state-of-the-art digital television available at previously impossible price points. And both exhibit the combination of elegant design and superior engineering this brand is famous for; Samsung's slim and sexy silhouettes incorporate next-generation DLP™ technology for a unique, all-digital viewing experience.
Imagine the impact of a movie, sports broadcast or your favorite television show displayed with maximum fidelity to the source image - so the director's vision is brought to life before your eyes. Every detail of every touchdown is perfectly clear. And the actors in the sitcom you've been following (for how long now?) have normal skin tones for the first time.
DLP™ technology brings more clarity and color to the screen because it comes closer than any other technology to recreating an original video or graphic source. That's why DLP Cinema™ technology wows audiences in digital movie theaters around the world. And it's why televisions featuring DLP™ projection have been primarily the stuff that dreams are made of. Until now.
Currently shipping nationwide, both units are available in two models. Suggested pricing for the 43" monitor starts at $3,499*; suggested pricing for the 50" monitor starts at $3,999*.
http://www.1-877camcorder.com/55dmx01wd.html
quote:
Hitachi 55DMX01WD
55" DLPTM HDTV 55DMX01WD Monitor/Projection Television
Overview of Hitachi 55DMX01WD
Based on high-performance Digital Light Processing (DLP)TMtechnology, the DMX Series delivers a stunning 720p x 1280 HDTV picture. Hitachi's exclusive D3TM Digital Display Driver features 3:2 Pulldown Correction for smooth seamless reproduction of programming originated on film. Digital WindowTM Plus offers a wide range of picture-in-picture and split-screen viewing options. Inputs include RGB computer terminals allowing the DMX to be used as a high-quality 16:9 computer display...
Hitachi 55DMX01WD 55 inch Rear Projection DLP Television - In Stock - New Unit
55DMX01WD$2,798.77
Most everyone agrees that Digital Cinema needs to be better than anything available for home theatre viewing.
IMHO, 2K is the "entry point", and 4K or higher is the goal.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 06-09-2004, 12:36 PM:
These items you posted are 1280 by 720. The affordable home technology is stuck at 1280 by 768 or 1280 by 720 or 1366 by 768 or something similar, and the computer data projectors are stuck at 1024x768. I keep thinking any day now there will be an improvement to the 1920 by 1080 resolution for home HDTVs and 1280 by 1024 or more for computer data projectors.
I wonder if digital movie theatres and home devices will all converge to the same standard: 1920 by 1080.
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-09-2004, 01:03 PM:
The best dlp for home use are single chip, all primary colors are through one chip, and currently at 1280x720.
Digital cinema is 1280x1024 and 3-chip at the low end. That is a big difference.
I did not get a reply if TDAT was projected without an anamorphic lens or not. Without the lens you would lose light output and resolution.
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-09-2004, 01:20 PM:
Barco has had the Cineversum 110 / 120 projectors for home cinema = 3 dlp chips at 1280 X 720, for the past year
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-09-2004, 02:50 PM:
I know of the smaller three chip units. It can be argued if they are for a normal home theater. Such a projector would be a very up scale setup. Those who can afford that setup is a very small fraction of those attending a real movie theater.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 06-09-2004, 06:18 PM:
For home viewing, I'm not buying into any DLP stuff that shows only 1280 X 720. Crap. Unless it can hit 1920 X 1080 I will not make any plans to buy it.
Same sort of thing applies to computer monitors. A customer visiting my workplace scoffed at the CRT on my desk. He wanted to know why I wasn't using a flat panel display. I told him, "not enough pixels." The 1600 X 1200 level is ONLY the starting point for graphics displays. I don't give one damn if the thing is 19", if it can't go beyond 1280 X 1024 the thing will not sit on my desk. Besides, high rez CRTs are so much more price competitive than overpriced flat displays right now anyway.
To get back to the point, the electronics manufacturers and D-Cinema proponents need to please shut the hell up about all the "it's digital" hype. We know. So the f**k what!? Instead of telling us the whoop-de-doo of digital balleyhoo they need to hit some of those hard numerical bench marks like 1920 X 1080, etc. instead of only giving us somewhat useless info like "6000:1 contrast ratio". It is funny as hell, or sort of angering, when you see a plasma screen TV display that bellows out "6000:1" contrast ratio but then you cannot find any info anywhere about its native resolution --and that's because its native rez ain't real HD. Just 1280 X 720 or less, all for the many-thousands price.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-09-2004, 06:28 PM:
Bobby,
I'm okay with my 1366 x 768 projector for home at the moment. It was always to be a stop-gap for me.
I agree though that 1080 x 1920 minimum is where HDTV should start but you may find that source material for the home will be a ways in coming.
For theatres, I think the 1080 x 2040 chip will be the turning point and while the 4K chip will be notably better, the layperson already likes the 1.2K systems and will love the 2K systems.
Steve
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 06-09-2004, 06:39 PM:
Surely there's a world of difference between D-Cinema grade DLP and the consumer version - firstly as Mattias implies, the majority of consumer DLP projectors are single-chip (with a colour wheel), not dedicated 3-chip for RGB.
Secondly, I believe the cinema-grade TI chips are physically different to the consumer versions (in size? - I'm not sure), and there are critical differences in software, etc.
BTW having seen the latest 2K DLP demonstration with properly-mastered material, I can confirm Michael Barry that you have indeed seen "D-Cinema done wrong"!
I experienced no problem with contrast, sharpness, black level, and so on; the demo was on a 30ft screen and it was terrific.
However, it was only as good as "film done right". And also, there seems to be many more steps needed to "get it right" with digital; many more variables. Look at the mastering, then the file creation, then loading the portable hard drive, then the server, then the software, encryption and user interface, then the projector, and the de-encryption, then the projector interface, then the audio...and so on. And all these have to talk to each other! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Set up in a logical, clear manner with appropriate expertise, it all works brilliantly...but the worry is always there that with so many variables there are so many more things that can go wrong!
I too suspect that the screening "done wrong" was a letterboxed Scope picture blown up to fit the cinema's screen...Scope in digital MUST be shown with an anamorphic attachment, and the newer projectors should all be fitted with motorised turrets! (Amazing how so many of them come with stand-alone brackets that are relatively difficult to mount in the field).
Day After Tomorrow - seen two prints in different theatres here, A-Ok, was the film perhaps shot Super-35? (I checked IMDB but no specifics). That might account for the reported softness.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-13-2004, 03:46 PM:
Until the industry spokes people stop making idiotic, assinine statements like this:
quote:
Mr. Darrow also said that the most advanced Texas Instruments projector, which has 2k resolution, "already produces images better than the best film can do."
(yah, in his wet dreams) and the consumer marketing aholes stop this kind of crap:
"And the actors in the sitcom you've been following (for how long now?) have normal skin tones for the first time."
"so realistic you may find it difficult to believe your eyes" Geez, I can't believe my freakin eyes!
"That's why DLP Cinema™ technology wows audiences in digital movie theaters around the world. Yah, where, exactly are they being wowed, huh? In the less than 75 theatres here in the states? WOW.
....the DMX Series delivers a stunning 720p x 1280 HDTV picture. 720p x 1280....STUNNING indeed.
As of now, razor-sharp, all-digital picture quality is an affordable reality. RAZOR-SHARP is conveniently not defined; my 85yr old auntie thinks she sees thing razor-sharp too.
As long as this nonsense keeps up, the vidiots will continue to make themselves and their technology a laughing-stock.
It seems like Kodak is the only one in the battle for the cinema video market to talk with restraint about how Deeeee-Cinema is going to take over the world. Perhaps it's because they really know what film can look like.
"....Bob Gibbons, director of marketing and communications for Kodak Digital Cinema, said: "A better cinema experience is much more than just a big screen with a sharp image. It's also about how the customer is treated, how they feel when they're in the theater. It's the whole experience."
Amen.
Posted by Kevin Orman (Member # 3076) on 04-20-2005, 09:35 PM:
People keep saying 'DLP done bad'. Isn't the major selling point of DLP supposed to be that it will ALWAYS be perfect and cant be 'done bad'? It is just amazing to watch the manufacturers of this equipment writhing about trying to pursuade everyone that after over decade of research and billions of investment they have a product that.. almost looks okay, and looks as good as something we already have - if it's setup correctly and maintained(!?)etc etc.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2005, 12:09 AM:
quote: Kevin Orman
Isn't the major selling point of DLP supposed to be that it will ALWAYS be perfect and cant be 'done bad'?
They could try to sell it that way, but anyone with even a pedestrian knowledge of film presentation and computer technology knows the "will always be perfect" claim is just not true. Digital technology breaks and fails just like analog technology -and sometimes with more disasterous results. It ain't "the blue screen of death" for nothing.
D-Cinema has all its own compromises.
The digital video image is lossy compressed, and sometimes with noticeably less graceful results than what you see end up on HD or even DVD. That's because it's typically done in a mad rush thanks to increasingly tight post production deadlines for meeting ever more demanding release schedules.
The D-Cinema presentation hardware on the market is horribly expensive to movie theaters, yet does not offer a demonstrably better video image than what home HDTV can do.
To me the cost difference between commercial D-Cinema and home HDTV seems to be an even more extreme cost imbalance than what has already existed in terms of surround sound for the home and the commercial cinema. Joe Six-pack can have DTS and Dolby Digital surround sound playing off DVD in his home for a few hundred bucks or less. A commercial theater has to spend around $20,000 or more for the cinema processor, amps, crossover and extra surround processor to have DTS and Dolby Digital ready to go in a booth rack.
quote: Brian Guckian
Secondly, I believe the cinema-grade TI chips are physically different to the consumer versions (in size? - I'm not sure), and there are critical differences in software, etc.
This is actually not true. I didn't notice this quote before, but still feel compelled to comment about it.
Texas Instruments does make a variety of different DLP micro-mirror chips in different resolutions and aspect ratios, with the 2K chip being the top of the line unit. However, you have to consider the HUGE cost it takes to build a production line for a computer processor. The development cost can easily run into the billions of dollars.
There are no specialized DLP chips that are only sold for commercial movie theater projectors. TI would lose their shirts if they did that. They have to sell millions of each type of DLP chip developed to recover their investment costs. Commercial movie theaters do not number in the millions. You're talking tens of thousands. That's a niche market --a high profile market good for marketing visibility, but still a niche market.
It is an absolute certainty the same 2K DLP chips used in commercial D-Cinema projectors will also be featured in DLP-based televisions and home theater projectors. And, yes, some high end models will feature three of those chips installed. You'll also see plenty of those DLP chips being used in computer projectors. There's already a variety of them using various DLP chips, even the 1280 X 1024 part.
The only big differences that will remain between a D-Cinema commercial setup and that of a home HD setup is the commercial system will have much more expensive and complicated hardware. All that for something a home user will pay between 1% to 10% of the theater's cost to get the same image quality.
If Sony can pull off a success with their 4K SXRD system, it may pose a better advantage for D-Cinema. 4K will not be the basis of any broadcast or home video entertainment standard for at least another decade. Commercial theaters would at least have some slightly comfortable and marketable separation between home theater with 4K. Well...that's at least until Sony comes up with 4K flat screen TVs for use with Sony Playstation 5.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-21-2005, 12:40 AM:
Well we will see if the sony projector lasts or ends up on the same crappy shelf as the sdds sound systems. As of right now there is only the single chip DLP chips in use in the home market. I don't know if the 3 chip DLP's will make it to the home market because the chips require huge amounts of light to process the colors correctly. That is why it takes a 7K bulb in the 3 chip DLP process. Now in time that may change as better chip advances are made. These upgrades can be handled in the consumer market with the new sets and systems developed over the years. The big question is what it will cost the exhibitor to replace the current chips with the better chips when they become available.
Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-21-2005, 06:53 AM:
The current 2k chip will only show up in extremely expensive projectors that some might afford to get for their home (read mansion). Based upon size the current 2k chip will not be used in televisions. The current 2k chip is almost 1.3 inches in diagonal whereas the almost 2k(1080p wobulation) chip is about 0.85 inches. With a new process this might be reduced to 0.60-0.65 inches.
Three chip dlp is more light efficient than single chip designs so they need a less powerful lamp for the same brightness.
We should also remember that users at home get video at 4:2:0, 8 bits and 14-20 Mbit/s. At your local cinema you will meet a format that is SUPERIOR to home video.
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-21-2005, 08:33 AM:
There are 3 dlp WXGA chips in use for the home market from Barco, Runco and others...pricy but available. 1980 resolution for the home is available from JVC. If TI sells 2K units to the 1% of the home cinema market, that would be several thousand sales
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 04-21-2005, 09:00 AM:
I know it would probably be rediculously expensive but would it be possible to design a 12-chip DLP projector to produce a 4k image? Basically, it would be 4, 3-chip projectors in one each dedicated to 1/4 of the screen. Could it be aligned well enough that it would look like a seamless 4k image?
Also, I believe that TI does screen the DLP chips for cinema use. I remember reading that the cinema chips are specified for no dead or hot pixels while chips sold for home use might have one or two.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-21-2005, 09:54 AM:
I forgot about the very high end of home theatre....that is an area I can't afford to go to.
quote: Mattias Ohlson
Three chip dlp is more light efficient than single chip designs so they need a less powerful lamp for the same brightness.
It may be more light efficiant but I don't think the lamps use less power. They just last longer in hours of use. In some projectors for high end home use it requires 2 lamps to reach the 6000.1 lumens just one lamp for 3000.1 lumens.
Done With Mirrors
Done with Mirrors: The Scoop on DLP
With the release of its 3-chip technology, Texas Instruments is providing video solutions for a variety of users.
By Bharath Rajagopalan
07/04 - The consumer-electronics industry continues to raise the bar. Rapid advancements in the introduction of new technologies are challenging the standards that have defined the market for years.
Front-projectors for home entertainment are no longer reserved exclusively for high-end theater enthusiasts who have the money and space to build a dedicated home-theater room. Today we are seeing mainstream acceptance of projectors optimized for home usage at price points as low as $1,500.
Moreover, screens have become optional, as consumers are projecting images on white walls, sheetrock and garage doors. According to Pacific Media Associates, the 2004 consumer projector market will reach 350,000 to 400,000 units, up from 233,000 units in 2003.
In this push towards the mainstream, Texas Instruments’ Digital Light Processing (DLP) technology has become a major driver in the acceptance of front-projection video systems. With a wide variety of home-entertainment projectors and TVs available from dozens of manufacturers, DLP technology is providing consumers with an affordable streamlined solution to meet their video needs.
How It Works
DLP chips are micro-electromechanical semiconductor devices, which feature up to 2.1 million microscopic and independently moving mirrors that can change positions more than 5,000 times per second. When a DLP chip is coordinated with a digital video or graphic signal, a light source, and a projection lens, its mirrors can reflect an all-digital image onto a screen or other surface by tilting the mirrors 12 degrees into an “on” or “off” position. The switching of the mirrors is determined by the color shining on the mirrors. The human visual system, communicating between the brain and one’s eyes, integrates the sequential colors to see a full-color image.
DLP projection systems are available in two different chip configurations: single-chip and 3-chip. Although the technology is inherently the same, the unique advantages of the two systems offer consumers a choice of benefits.
Single-Chip DLP Systems
Televisions, business projectors and many home-theater systems that utilize DLP technology rely on a single-chip configuration, which can create 16.7 million colors and process light at eight bits per color. Single-chip DLP projectors currently deliver brightness performance in the range of 1,000–3,000 ANSI lumens.
Advantages of the single-chip system include:
Higher Contrast: Single-chip DLP systems contain less complex optics, which allows for contrast ratios of up to 5000:1. Single-chip DLP can also provide deeper black levels, with incredible detail in dark scenes.
Mobility/Compactness: The single-chip configuration leads to the most compact, lightweight and efficient designs that deliver a range of brightness levels and performance to meet various application needs.
Single-Panel Precision: The single-panel precision of single-chip designs consistently offers a clean image.
Affordability: The cost savings in materials are passed on to the consumer. Single-chip projectors for the home are now available from retailers and the professional A/V channel starting at $1,500.
3-Chip DLP Systems for the Home
DLP technology-enabled projectors used for high-performance home theater rely on the 3-chip configuration, which is capable of producing no fewer than 35 trillion colors. In addition to home-theater applications, 3-chip designs can be found lighting up professional events and venues, including the Emmy and Academy Awards ceremonies, and digital cinema.
Advantages of the 3-chip systems include:
Higher Brightness: For home-theater projectors, brightness is amplified—up to 5,000 lumens. This allows home-theater enthusiasts to light up larger screens in dedicated home-theater rooms. The 3-chip projectors developed for professional venues range up to 27,000 lumens.
Ultimate Color Fidelity: The 3-chip architecture efficiently accommodates a wide color gamut, and many 3-chip projectors also feature xenon arc lamps, which provide a uniform color spectrum. Advanced color processing ensures extremely accurate color reproduction, and when combined with high brightness, 3-chip DLP colors appear to pop off the screen.
Greater Depth: The color- and signal-processing capabilities are more sophisticated with the 3-chip system, which can deliver up to 16 bits of grayscale per color channel on screen. Although single-chip DLP-based systems offer excellent performance, grayscale performance dramatically increases with a 3-chip system, to deliver substantially greater image detail and clarity.
Keeping It Digital
Both 3-chip and 1-chip DLP systems offer certain advantages over other technologies. DLP continues to serve as the only digital projection solution available to produce an entirely digital video infrastructure, and offers the maximum benefit of digital and HDTV source material.
Because of its all-digital nature, DLP is highly reliable. DLP systems have passed a multitude of environmental and mechanical tests, including accelerated life-cycle tests simulating approximately 20 years of use through thousands of hours of rigorous testing. More than 2.5 million DLP subsystems have been delivered to the marketplace over the past several years, which demonstrates its reliability.
In comparison, some transmissive technologies (images that remain static for a period of time, such as tickers on news channels, gaming graphics, network logos) will “burn in” to the screen. Because DLP is reflective, this is not an issue. Additionally, the switching time with DLP technology is extremely fast, which is optimal for fast-action video, including sports. Technologies with slower switching times tend to “blur” fast-moving images.
Believe Your Eyes
Manufacturers and consumers have gravitated towards DLP technology since its introduction. DLP projection systems have consistently ranked as best-sellers in the custom and custom retail industries. In addition, large-screen DLP TVs are exceeding all growth expectations. As of January 2004, Samsung led the large-screen HDTV market in sales with its DLP TVs. In choosing between the single-chip and 3-chip systems, the best advice for consumers is to evaluate both versions to see which version fits their performance and cost criteria.
Keep in mind that each version of the technology can address different needs and scenarios. Single and 3-chip DLP systems are built to serve different market needs. Single-chip projectors and TVs provide a theater experience at an affordable price for a variety of commercial and consumer applications. Three-chip systems meet the most demanding visual requirements required by large-venue applications and provide high-end home enthusiasts with the best solution on the market.
Bharath Rajagopalan, Ph.D., is projection products manager for Texas Instruments’ DLP products. For more information on DLP, call 1-888-DLP-BYTI or visit www.dlp.com.
Who Is Using DLP?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-21-2005, 09:45 PM:
quote: Mattias Ohlson
We should also remember that users at home get video at 4:2:0, 8 bits and 14-20 Mbit/s. At your local cinema you will meet a format that is SUPERIOR to home video.
Really? With some of the rushed encoding jobs and bad compression artifacts seen in some D-Cinema shows I have to wonder. I also have to wonder about those low compression claims when the film is delivered on a handful of single layer DVD-R discs.
Also, bitrates and compression ratios are highly negligible on what the capabilities are and will be for home digital video playback. D-VHS has had playback bitrates close to 30Mbit/s for quite some time.
It is also pretty obvious more time is being spent on encoding a DVD for commercial release than what D-Cinema is doing when it gets the final cut only a day or two before the theatrical release. When a video authoring outfit has months to play around with a title versus only a few hours the ones with more time are going to have a better chance of doing good work.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-21-2005, 10:39 PM:
Just saw JVC's little 2K 3-chip D-ILA projector at the NAB show. They are marketing it as a monitor for critical use in mixing and transfer rooms. $4300 (or was it $4800?). They were showing two of them, both rear-screen, one on an approximately 80" diagonal, and the other in a 48" home theater-style self-contained box. The playback material was musical clips from The Tonight Show, 1080i origination scaled to 1080p. Very nice pictures. Now if only OTA or cable HD looked that good...
[ 04-22-2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]
Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 04-22-2005, 07:59 AM:
Paul are you sure it was DLP and not D-ILA? I don't think JVC has any DLP projectors unless this is something new.
Posted by Neil Fish (Member # 698) on 04-22-2005, 11:41 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
There are no specialized DLP chips that are only sold for commercial movie theater projectors. TI would lose their shirts if they did that. They have to sell millions of each type of DLP chip developed to recover their investment costs. Commercial movie theaters do not number in the millions. You're talking tens of thousands. That's a niche market --a high profile market good for marketing visibility, but still a niche market.
Bobby is correct. The cinema market is almost a novelty for TI, as the DLP was developed for fiber-optic switching. Ironically, you can't switch light with a light switch.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-22-2005, 12:20 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
When a video authoring outfit has months to play around with a title versus only a few hours the ones with more time are going to have a better chance of doing good work.
I seriously doubt that very many DVD releases are allocated months of expensive work on the transfers. Maybe the occasional "Lawrence of Arabia". I bet the majority of titles are completed very quickly.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-22-2005, 03:49 PM:
Oops, so sorry. Bevan caught it. Yes the JVC stuff was D-ILA. Post edited. That's what I get for writing when dead tired. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Kevin Orman (Member # 3076) on 04-23-2005, 07:00 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
They could try to sell it that way, but anyone with even a pedestrian knowledge of film presentation and computer technology knows the "will always be perfect" claim is just not true.
Sorry Bobby, I realise I probably was not too clear, I was being a little ironic when I said "surely it's supposed to be perfect all the time".
Yes, I agree fully with you that digital cinema systems are unlikely to be any more reliable than any other electronic/digital system. I fear that in future we may be faced with the prospect of re-boots during a show which will be considered 'acceptable' by technical support people. Periodic failure is considered 'normal' by most in the computing/IT world.
I don't need convincing at all, we have been running film as our business since 1996 and to date have a zero failure rate, so of course I am wondering in which way digital will be 'better'!?
For the record my own position on digital is that this is way too early as the technology is not mature or stable (both in terms of actual operation and development). I do sincerely believe that after ALL factors are taken into account (including the cost of junking perfectly good 35mm equipment)that digital will be a less reliable and more expensive solution than film - remember I am talking about OVERALL cost.
There are also some potentially serious issues relating to control over what is screened with the possibility that some film companies will take the opportunity to dictate showtimes etc.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2