quote:

---

Call for papers

Cinema & Technology Conference
6-9 April 2005
Institute for Cultural Research
Lancaster University
Lancaster
United Kingdom

The Institute for Cultural Research at Lancaster University in the United
Kingdom will host a major international conference around the broad theme
of 'Cinema and Technology'. The conference will take place at Lancaster
University and venues in and around the city of Lancaster from 6 to 9 April
2005.

Our aim is to address the digitisation of the film image and the
consequences of this process for theories of history, subjectivity, agency
and perception. Within this general framework, participants will be
encouraged to engage with the dematerialisation of the film image, the uses
of digital cameras, the forms of contemporary cinematic experience, and
revisionist debates about the meanings of technology. The conference will
feature a public keynote address, two major plenary sessions, and a range
of parallel sessions focusing on issues such as:

- The digital imagination
- Changing forms of cinematic consumption
- Histories of film technologies
- The apparatus and technologies of vision
- Cinema/technology/ideology
- Sound and light in cinema
- The politics of cinema technologies
- Technologies of new media
- Other related topics

There will also be a series of related events in and around Lancaster that
highlight the conference themes in a more informal setting.

Scholars in any discipline are invited to submit proposals for papers that
address the implications of technology for cinematic practice and theory.
Proposal should include: provisional title, an abstract of up to 250 words,
your name and contact details (including an email address), and should be
sent to June Rye (icr@lancaster.ac.uk) by 1 September 2004.

---

This seems a bit ambiguous as to whether they're talking about digital technologies in production, in theatres or both. But if these people envisage a three-day conference full of yet more 'film is dead' propaganda, I'm very tempted to submit an abstract to the effect that these idiots can exercise their 'digital imaginations' until they've disappeared up a certain orifice...
 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Weiss (Member # 882) on 02-17-2004, 10:53 AM:
 
I'm an academic. Let me decode for you.

They want to talk about what various forms of technology are doing to movies and the way people think about and watch them. Why the jargon? Because academics like to prove they have large...vocabularies.

If I were going to submit a paper on this topic, I would probably talk about the reasons audiences don't care about the difference between film and digital.

Now...if I can only put "they don't know any better" in some larger, latinate words...
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-17-2004, 11:27 AM:
 
I happen to have a PhD too (you can read my thesis here if you're massochistic enough to want to do so). The research skills I learnt writing it can come in very useful as an archivist, but talk about three years of hell! To say that the part-time projectionist job (well, full-time to all intents and purposes) I did in order to pay for it kept me sane would be an understatement. If that experience qualifies me as any sort of 'academic', then the way I translate this CFP is that they want to talk about what they think various forms of technology are doing to movies, but in reality are not.

I've come across so many ignorant humanities academics who believe that knowing how to press 'play' on a VCR qualifies them as an expert on all matters technological as to want to vomit; and of course their equally ignorant colleagues swallow it. About the best critique of this racket I've come across can be found in the introductory chapters of Barry Salt's Film Style and Technology (2nd ed., London, 1992): anyone who describes Christian Metz as an 'ignorant and badly educated Frenchman' in print sure gets my vote!

I am thinking about a paper on the paradox between the current intensive marketing of d-cinema, the fact that it has been seized upon by a government cultural body in this country as being the saviour of arthouse exhibition and the technical and economic precedents that we all know about and we all know mean that the mass-rollout of this technology just isn't going to happen in its current form and anytime soon. But I don't think they'd want to hear that message, somehow.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 02-17-2004, 07:19 PM:
 

quote:

---

About the best critique of this racket I've come across can be found in the introductory chapters of Barry Salt's Film Style and Technology (2nd ed., London, 1992)

---

It's a fine book. I have noticed that it is missing on most lists of film literature recommended to students. I believe that many people who attempt to "teach film" without knowing about the craft of making a film dislike the book - it makes many pompous scholars look like the Emperor and his new clothes...
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-17-2004, 09:50 PM:
 

quote:

---

If I were going to submit a paper on this topic, I would probably talk about the reasons audiences don't care about the difference between film and digital.

---

quote:

---

But I don't think they'd want to hear that message, somehow.

---

quote:

---

The digital imagination

---

quote:

---

Leo is exactly right (except about the spelling of masochistic, sorry couldn`t resist...

---

As a 1906 advertising poster explains, there are two infallible powers: The Pope and Gordon's Gin. The rest of us make mistakes...
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 02-18-2004, 04:14 AM:
 

quote:

---

For commercial cinemas to safely adopt digital projection they need a format that is superior in quality to home HDTV and exclusive for use only in commercial cinemas.

---

quote:

---

Barry Salt - is that the guy who teaches (or taught 10 years ago) at the International Film School in London?

---

quote:

---

I have noticed that it is missing on most lists of film literature recommended to students.

---

quote:

---

As a D-cinema "fanboy", as Bobby so obsequiously and condescendingly puts it, it will be my pleasure to point out why nobody is helping him out on this point. It's because he's wrong.

---

quote:

---

As far as the idea that D-Cinema must have better-than-HD resolution to be viable: nope. It’s viable right now, and the proof is any DLP showing at any cinema anywhere.

---

quote:

---

In the first place, D-Cinema has never been about exceeding 35mm resolution, or even HDTV resolution (although it will someday).

---

quote:

---

And while I was sitting there watching it I said to myself, "Self, it doesn’t matter that this is no better technically than the HD I can see at home. I've got a comfortable seat, a giant screen, my best girl and a jumbo Diet Coke. Truly, this is an experience that I cannot duplicate at home. Cool!" It didn’t matter that the screen resolution was no better than HD.

---

quote:

---

In fact, I've seen a ton of movies in DLP, and I have NEVER seen a bad presentation

---

quote:

---

Is there an occasional bit of artifacting visible? There is. Does anyone but the most technologically constipated uber-geek give a flying fuck about any of this? They do not.

---

Geez. If the audiences don't care about it then why should the theaters buy it?

Audiences would need to care about the difference if a theater is going to blow upwards or beyond $200,000 on a "D-Cinema" system. An exhibitor would be rightly peeved if he blew a quarter-mil on a fancy setup, advertised it on the marquee and got "so what" reactions. The main people that care about such things are "technologically constipated uber-geeks" like myself. It takes getting the "uber-geeks" on board so the system can get anywhere.

But D-Cinema is stalled, all thanks to those numbers. There isn't a good cost model to support. That's the most important set of numbers.

I cannot think of a single digital-based product where numerical driven features are not listed in megahertz, gigahertz, numbers of megapixels, etc. It is pretty risky to assume that someone is going to ignore the performance numbers he has in a new HDTV, D-VHS deck, HD-capable TiVO or whatever. And it is an extremely common thing for electronics store salesmen to compare home theater product to what is installed in a commercial cinema.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-18-2004, 07:55 PM:
 

quote:

---

“Self, it doesn’t matter that this is no better technically than the HD I can see at home. I’ve got a comfortable seat, a giant screen, my best girl and a jumbo Diet Coke. Truly, this is an experience that I cannot duplicate at home. Cool!” It didn’t matter that the screen resolution was no better than HD. It was available, it was convienient, it was socially communal, and it got me out of the house. And when we were leaving the theatre not one person complained about the resolution. In fact, I’ve seen a ton of movies in DLP, and I have NEVER seen a bad presentation, not once, and I’ve never heard a complaint it from anyone else either. Where the stars in Star Wars a little blocky? They were. Are the end credits a little jagged? They are. Is there an occasional bit of artifacting visible? There is. Does anyone but the most technologically constipated uber-geek give a flying fuck about any of this? They do not. And the reason they don’t is something that no-one on this forum will ever accept, ever: that the vast majority of filmgoers go to the movies to be entertained AND NOT TO PICK APART THE TECHNICAL PRESENTATION.

---

quote:

---

In the first place, D-Cinema has never been about exceeding 35mm resolution, or even HDTV resolution

---

quote:

---

You people are morons! Don’t you know that this isn’t any better than home theatre resolution?!?!”. Do this for me and report back what the crowd had to say.

---

quote:

---

I don't charge a premium for a DLP show over a 35MM and have seen attendance outperform it's film counter part in a same size auditorium.

---

quote:

---

Right now, they are at the theatre enjoying a DLP show, seeing a movie that is bright, colorful, clear, sharp, and involving. What they are NOT doing is sitting there counting rows and columns of pixels or estimating the color depth, because, at the end of the day, they couldn’t care less

---

quote:

---

But saying that the current resolution standard will mean the death of the industry is like going into a sold-out D-Cinema screening and insisting that there is really no-one there at all.

---

I believe mass adoption of digital projection in its current state would do great harm to the exhibition industry. I'll repeat, you have the impossible-to-support cost model: giant cost, little if any return on investment.

Exhibitors are still hurting financially. They cannot afford $200,000 per screen, yet the distributors expect them to foot the bill for the hardware. The distributors are very foggy about improving percentages for exhibitors that do buy into digital projection. Film distributors are steadily shrinking the window between theatrical release and DVD release, which hurts the theaters further. You admit audiences are apathetic and/or unknowledgeable about the differences between film and video projection. So it all adds up as one very bad investment for any commercial movie theater at this point.

Even if the theaters could afford it you still can't get away from the marketing problem. More and more people I know are buying HDTV systems. Every single one of those people compare their new system to what is offered in a commercial theater. They all talk about how they will visit commercial theaters less often. HDTV is still a pricey high end item. But it will be commonplace and a lot more affordable before the end of the decade. When it comes to digital technology it is very easy to do numbers to numbers comparisons. It is not so easy when you have the movie on a different, analog medium like film.

Mark, you mention premiere-class theaters like the Ziegfeld, perhaps maybe to brag. I've watched lots of movies there when I lived in New York and seen movies at other truly great theaters like the sadly lost GCC Northpark #1 in Dallas. As great as you think DLP may be in such a house, I watch such fare with a hollow feeling. The thing that really needs to be shown in a true movie palace is 70mm. When you see a movie that was filmed in 70mm and shown in a first rate theater then you have seen the very best technology that cinema has to offer.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-19-2004, 08:59 PM:
 
The studios will save money on distribution costs. They stand to benefit in the longrun so the playback equipment should be on their dime.

In that case, however, I believe they would then have every right to get a bit more from each ticket. Added to which, a platform release favoring dCinemas would seem fair.

I believe a lot of theatres would gladly get rid of 35mm film if the studios agreed to finance the dCinema rollout.

I really don't see where image quality is anywhere on the agenda. Mind you, I'm not agreeing that it's not important. I just don't think there are a lot of important players who care enough...and I don't believe that attitude will hurt them either.

It's just that kind of world. To the average consumer, "it's only a movie."
 

---

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 02-20-2004, 01:09 AM:
 
Just out of curiosity...
if/when/if d-cinema finds its way into the mainstream, how doth one build a "trailer & policy reel"????
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-20-2004, 01:11 AM:
 
The d-cinema content is usually stored on a server, along with previews, logo and policy trailers. You simply edit a playlist.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-20-2004, 10:47 AM:
 
Bobby Henderson
I agree with you that movies should be shot on film. I think I disagree with you in what should happen next.

Would it not be good if the 4-35 OCN could be scanned at 4kx3k or 6kx4k. This should benefit any presentation. With a film presentation you could go directly from the negative to printing on a fine grain film stock with the best availabel printing method. For digital use the raw material gets filtered to look good at 2k

If one argument is that there is dlp in very few locations another argument can not be that the new 2k dlps does not matters since there are a few old machines still in use.

I will be more clear in hdtv vs d-cineman.
D-cinema has:
a higher resolution not much though, but we should remember the difference between interlaced and progressive
4 times the color resolution, hdtv color is subsampled
10-12 bits vs 8 bits
a higher color gamut
the bitrate is higher, d-theater is not common, hdtv over air cable or satellite is the norm
Also true 1920x1080 display devices will not be for the average Joe for quite some time, the cinema is. Joe can spend 10$, but can not spend 30k$ to see a movie.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-20-2004, 01:19 PM:
 
I would like to see film productions that use digital intermediate go to a 4K or even 6K standard. But it seems to be impossible to get them to go above the "its good enough" 2K standard.

The shrinking release window between theatrical and home video release just makes it harder to get above the 2K standard. The studios seem to care less and less about the theatrical venue and simply want to get to the better money in the sell-through-DVD market faster. With digital projection systems not striving to surpass the 2K standard, that just makes things like 4K more difficult to sell.

Computing technology has matured to the point where 4K is feasible. The computers are fast enough to render to it, and there are better ways to store all the data. There are even monitors out there (such as this 9.2 million pixel Viewsonic model) that can show all the detail. Still, the powers that be think 2K is good enough.

Regarding the new 2K DLP chips from TI, I'd like to know specifically which theaters are upgrading to them. For now, the bulk of DLP installations is of the older 1280 X 1024 standard.

About HDTV versus D-Cinema differences, I don't think people are going to care about, much less understand, differences in color bit depth. But they can count pixels. Again, home theater products have a rapid improvement cycle. Right now you can't buy a plasma screen TV with true 1920 X 1080 resolution (yet you can buy flat screen computer monitors that show much more than that for some odd reason). Such monitors will be commonplace before the end of the decade. The home theater market can improve through product generations at a rate faster than commercial cinema will sustain.

Just look at the sound format comparison. There's lots of people who believe home theater audio is superior to that of commercial theaters based on a number of things. The audio bitrates for DD and DTS are higher in the home versions, particularly for D-VHS (DD runs at 576kb/s or even 640kb/s and DTS is showing up at "full" 1509kb/s). DTS' 6.1 Discrete format is exclusive to the home format, and I don't think DTS has made any moves yet to supply 6.1 Discrete or better tracks to their new XD-10 processor even though it can support it. Finally, you have the DVD-Audio and SACD multichannel formats. Because of all that stuff commercial theaters really can't market themselves based on offering surround sound anymore. Ten years ago it was a big deal for a commercial theater to show something in Dolby Digital or DTS. Outside of New York and Los Angeles, you're not going to find many movie ads denoting sound format information anymore.

I think this is the direction we'll head if 35mm projectors are replaced anytime soon by D-Cinema systems. People won't care if the theater blew $200,000 per screen to install it. To them it won't look any better than the HD systems they'll have in their homes. Movie theaters will have to work hard in other areas to set themselves apart from the home experience. In fact, the theater companies really need to be working in this direction very hard already. Aside from special venue theaters, bars, restaurants, etc., I'm not sure what else they can do. Super fuzzy comfy "love seats"?

IMHO, I think there is a special aspect to watching a movie projected from a real strip of film. If everything goes to video projection, I'm just going to feel like I am watching a big TV.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-20-2004, 01:43 PM:
 
Mark my words: The one thing movie theatres have going for them is popcorn.

It will really spell doom for movie theatres if/when that day comes when popcorn manufacturers figure out a way to make home-made popcorn taste just like theatre popcorn.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-20-2004, 01:47 PM:
 
I do not know if we are talking real picture quality or discussing if people are stupid enough to be fooled by a numeber. The fact is that serious home theater users know how important the source is. The superiorty of the d-cinema formats will show compared with dvd for sure, however with hd-dvd not everyone might notice the differnence. Still there is a quality differnce between professional projectors calibrated to perfection and consumer electronic devices produced at the lowest cost possible.

I say it again, average Joe has the money to spend on a movie ticket, but not the money to by the best home theater equipment. I can see a time when many people will have 720p equipment.

The digital cinema intiative has stated that a dual delivery system at both 2k and 4k is the way to start. To do this the DI has to be 4k. I am pretty sure you will see at least 4kx3k to become common. They need to oversample at 4k if they are going to display it with a 2k device.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-20-2004, 03:00 PM:
 
I've seen two films at 2K, Finding Nemo, which didn’t count, and Love Actually that looked very good. I would be perfectly ok with buying a ticket for and watching D-Cinema at 2K in a cinema. The room I saw it in sat 2,000 people and had a 40' wide screen for scope, Love Actually was presented in 1.85:1. I know 2K isn't the resolution of 35mm film but it is highly watchable. The picture is sharp, bright and steady. My color differentiation isn't good enough to tell the difference between film and video. The black level was good enough but I would have to watch Blade Runner or Alien to be sure. I know 4K would be better, but TI isn't making 4K chips, they are barely making 2K chips right now.

I'm a theatre owner, what I'm not ok with is paying for D-Cinema with no guarantee of a return on investment.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-20-2004, 03:29 PM:
 
I think those exit polls that Bevan referred to are indicative of where the general public stands on this issue.

The so-called "serious home theatre" crowd don't factor into this business equation. At this stage of the game, the fate of dCinema is really a question of capital expenditure. It's no longer about art or science. I'm not convinced that it ever was.

I'm willing to bet that a good portion of the home-theatre market don't *really* know a whole lot about the technical aspects of their equipment. They only know what they're told or what they read. What they're reading these days is telling them that "digital is better than film." We've all seen the articles by now and we've done a lot of bitching and moaning about all the inaccuracies.

Sadly, most consumers have probably embraced the notion that "celluloid is passé" and they'd probably swallow the whole notion that whatever is going on in a movie theatre will always be automatically more advanced than what they've got at home, even if that's not true.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-20-2004, 08:25 PM:
 
I thought the studios were pushing hard for 4K.

In any case, as people have mentioned previously, resolution is not the only determinant in the perceived clarity of the digital image - as we know the contrast ratio is equally important.

Pushing the contrast ratio up - e.g. in the TI case by using the "dark chips" has yielded significant image quality improvements without having to increase the resolution.

If I can throw my 2 cents worth into the debate, I think the opposition between film and digital is a false and unhelpful one. From looking at demos, digital seems to be a middle way between the hard realism of analogue video and the emotional "truth" of film. Like the artist's palette...with oils, watercolours, acrylics and so on - a useful analogy.

Hence digital is another medium, operating alongside film, as it too continues - this must be the way forward.

Going back to Leo's comments near the top of the thread, the enrollment of the arthouse cinema community (over here at least) into this false opposition that digital is "replacing" film is indeed tragic, and I see the impact of this all the time now. Whilst the focus is on the "digital future", festivals and many art venues (not all of course) continue to damage prints, show films with incorrect lenses and plates, cut out service calls and neglect the day-to-day stuff whilst waiting for this promised revolution to happen. It's being used as an excuse to avoid dealing with the here and now!

Which is all the more reason why we are redoubling our efforts here to provide more FILM training, resources and information
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 02-20-2004, 10:45 PM:
 
2k seems to be the standard for digital intermediate right now, yes?

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-20-2004, 11:09 PM:
 
Brian wrote:

quote:

---

From looking at demos, digital seems to be a middle way between the hard realism of analogue video and the emotional "truth" of film. Like the artist's palette...with oils, watercolours, acrylics and so on - a useful analogy.

---

quote:

---

Hence digital is another medium, operating alongside film, as it too continues - this must be the way forward.

Going back to Leo's comments near the top of the thread, the enrollment of the arthouse cinema community (over here at least) into this false opposition that digital is "replacing" film is indeed tragic, and I see the impact of this all the time now.

---

quote:

---

it's as if painting were phased out in favor of digital photography, and all museums shut down, making their collections available only on the internet. it's not the same thing.

---

quote:

---

A movie is a story that is told with images and sound. The images don't have to be on film. That's really all the business insight you need.

---

quote:

---

Going back to Leo's comments near the top of the thread, the enrollment of the arthouse cinema community (over here at least) into this false opposition that digital is "replacing" film is indeed tragic, and I see the impact of this all the time now. Whilst the focus is on the "digital future", festivals and many art venues (not all of course) continue to damage prints, show films with incorrect lenses and plates, cut out service calls and neglect the day-to-day stuff whilst waiting for this promised revolution to happen. It's being used as an excuse to avoid dealing with the here and now!

Which is all the more reason why we are redoubling our efforts here to provide more FILM training, resources and information.

---

Amen to that!

The tragedy is that if the Film Council spent a fraction of what it's pumping in to its digital cinema programme on (i) helping venues with 35mm equipment maintenance and upgrade and (ii) projectionist training, then the very print quality problems which they cite as the main reason for converting to digital would go away.

The arthouse/rep sector is caught in a vicious circle. Because it operates on a shoestring budget, venues very often have less than ideal equipment, as you point out. The projectionist often has to do many other jobs as well and does not get the training and support (s)he needs to handle and project 35mm properly. Add to the fact that there are often only one or two prints of art/rep releases doing the rounds, and they tend to get pretty tatty pretty quickly.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 02-21-2004, 05:45 PM:
 

quote:

---

Why not compare cinematography to photography? That's certainly closer than likening it to painting.

Or do you really think that "Catch That Kid" is a work of Art? For that matter, do you not regard photography as a legitimate art form?

---

quote:

---

If there is any direction commercial movie theaters need to take, it is probably one of diversification. I don't think blowing $200,000 on D-Cinema systems is the right idea.

---

But it is! IF...it is used for showing concerts, stage shows and non-feature film content (diversification - already happening), and show features on 35mm as normal (or large format) - it's the best of all worlds during this transition phase - which could undoubtedly last a very long time.

Re. upgradeability of the D-Cinema heads, is not the current engineering approach with the TI DMDs (for example) to make upgrading of the chipset possible without replacing the whole unit? Certainly the licensees must be more than aware of the rapid obsolescence issue.

The other fatal flaw in the "replace film with digital" approach is the expectation that it will save money - I completely agree with Gordon's comment that it will actually cost MORE. A cinema owner I know told me the distributors will have to have x quantity of prints as back up, so how much money are they really going to save on a release in the overall scheme of things (look at promotion budgets for instance)?

Basically - I think D-Cinema is a worthwhile new medium that is being pushed for all the wrong reasons
 

---

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 02-22-2004, 06:16 PM:
 
The 'upgrade-ability' of current Dcinema projectors is in many cases not practical. Apatures, integrators, chips, interfaces, maybe prisms and lenses need to change. Often it is less expensive to replace with a purpose built unit than to try and upgrade (and maintain inventory) on older units. Think of the PC upgrade paths - it is like trying to stick a P4 3Ghz chip into a Comadore 64.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-22-2004, 06:49 PM:
 

quote:

---

The 'upgrade-ability' of current Dcinema projectors is in many cases not practical. Apatures, integrators, chips, interfaces, maybe prisms and lenses need to change. Often it is less expensive to replace with a purpose built unit than to try and upgrade (and maintain inventory) on older units. Think of the PC upgrade paths - it is like trying to stick a P4 3Ghz chip into a Comadore 64.

---

Which leads me back to what I have said before, about if this thing is going to replace what we have now, it needs to be the best it can be. So we don't have to spend all that money to upgrade it. Right now it is not at that point there is apparently more room for improvements.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-22-2004, 09:26 PM:
 
Try to upgrade either the Christie or Barco DCinema projectors to 2K...you can't you have to change EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING including the lamphouse.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2004, 11:18 PM:
 
The thought of having to replace a $200,000 projection system with another after only a few years is just not going to work. At those cost levels it would make more sense to install IMAX.

A 35mm projection system can last decades. It is proven technology even if it is icky analog.

Here's another possible downside to the D-Cinema thing, it could allow other "unqualified" competitors to get into the market of showing movies.

One of the things Hollywood likes to talk about is beaming D-Cinema movies via satellite to various theaters. They talk about providing more choices of shows and make it all sound like pay per view broadcasting.

When the business of pay per view comes in, then you have other competitors like sports bars suddenly saying, "we can pay to receive that D-Cinema transmission and show the movie in a place where customers can smoke, drink beer, and watch the movie for less money!"

This factor really has to be considered. A 35mm projection system is not the type of thing that can be rigged up just anywhere. A commercial movie theater, and its booth, is designed for that kind of equipment.

Video projection has a lot more room for miniaturization and portability. Not every DLP projector is big. Some can be small. And who's to say the "D-Cinema" show at the sports bar will even be projected at all? Maybe they'll just patch the DVI into some 80 inch plasma screen over where they do Karaoke.

Margins are pretty tight for commercial movie theaters. Blurring the lines between video and film projection will also blur the lines on who can show a movie if it is based on video.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-23-2004, 10:19 AM:
 
It is for this reason that theaters need to concentrate on selling the movie-going experience, and not the movie. When they sell the movie, which is the most common tactic, they are competing head-to-head with tight DVD release windows, movie pirates, and any other possible alternate distribution method (sports bars).

If theaters sell the movie-going experience, then they concentrate on what should be their strength. Make the experience fun, enjoyable, care-free, and without any detracting moments.

Few home theaters will have 30-75ft screens, just make sure that large image is rock-steady and clean. Many home theaters will have good digital sound, so make sure yours is great and doesn't drop out at every reel change.

Most home theaters have better popcorn, so the best you can do is avoid the noxious fake butter topping and teach the staff not to serve the crappy stuff that tastes like styrofoam pellets and leaves you with a dull taste in your mouth until you can get home to brush your teeth. The soda is usually the same between home and theater, so there's not much you can do there outside of not scalping your customers for it.

Once you have the basic experience down pat, swing for the fences by offering something that people will rarely get or bother to do at home. Go above and beyond.

Want to know what those things are? Ask your customers, they'll tell you.

This is how to make D-Cinema better than HDTV or HD-DVD, in the home or any other venue. And you don't even have to wait for D-Cinema to do it. Do the above things with your current film operations, and I'll wager that your revenue will go up, as will your customer loyalty.

Then, when everyone finally stops bitching about who will pay for the costs of D-Cinema and actually starts doing something about it, your customers will still be coming in the door, and all that innovative and customer-focused thinking on your part that got them there will probably result in some ideas on how to capitalize on the investment in the new equipment.

There are many more aspects to customer satisfaction than resolution comparisons between D-Cinema and Film. I think it's very unwise to bash on D-Cinema, especially when many theaters do such a poor job projecting film.

As long as theaters fail to deliver an excellent movie-going experience, they are destined to be overtaken by others who can satisfy those customers better.
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-23-2004, 11:04 AM:
 
And the church said AMEN to that!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-23-2004, 04:14 PM:
 
From Digital Producer Magazine Feb 23, 2004.

>>> Phil
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Digital Distribution of Movies
by John B. Virata

SingTel, Asia's largest communications company recently made the announcement that it successfully distributed a film, Infernal Affairs III, digitally over its Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) network from Hong Kong to Singapore, bypassing the film printing and courier process entirely. While digital technology has permeated almost all aspects of filmmaking in the last decade, the digital distribution of films has not, with just a scant few releases making headlines. Star Wars Episode 2: The Phantom Menace was one such film that was distributed digitally to select locations in the United States.

According to SingTel, the potential cost savings are significant. The company says 99 percent of films that make it to U.S. theaters are shown on standard 35mm film reels, with a cost of each print ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 per theater. If a particular film was shown in 3000 theaters across the United States, the printing cost alone could reach about $6 million, the company says. Digital distribution of such a film, the company says, would reduce that cost to about $42,000. This is provided a theater is already equipped with the necessary technology to receive and playback the digital film. Singapore-based SingTel hopes to change the way films are distributed, and the company is hoping that it can attract the attention of moviemakers and film studios in an effort to woo them to distribute their films digitally, over its network.

DMN Executive Editor John B. Virata spoke with Ms. Hwee Boon Ng, managing director of Singapore Telecom USA about what this technology means for film distributors, filmmakers, and the movie-going public.

DMN: Tell us a bit about what digital distribution of films means for the Asian movie distributor?
HN: Transmitting movies files using SingTel’s ATM service means that Asian films can now be distributed to the rest of the Asia Pacific region and key markets such as the US and Australia in a faster and more secure manner, and at potentially lower costs.

DMN: What are we talking about in terms of cost savings?
HN: Using SingTel’s ATM service to send the movie files means that potentially, only one master of the movie file needs to be sent to each cinema or megaplex. The theaters that will be showing the movie can download the movie file from the central cinema server that stores the movie files. Digital media distribution can potentially cut the average total cost per US movie with 3,000 prints from $6 Million to $42,000, saving Hollywood movie distributors more than $1 billion a year in duplication, transportation and other costs.

DMN: What will this mean for the American movie distributors?
HN: The American movie distributors will enjoy numerous benefits such as increased speed of delivery, increased security and reduced costs. A Hollywood film can potentially be distributed and screened in thousands of theaters in the world as soon as the film is completed. There is no need to wait for the film duplication house to make thousands of print copies and rushing them to the theaters around the world via courier. Reducing time lag caused by duplication and traditional physical courier also means that the movies can be screened earlier, reducing the window for production and sale of pirated versions. As the movie file will be transmitted directly from the studio to the cinema servers, it reduces the number of intermediaries and potential risks such as thefts.

DMN: It is said that the digital distribution of films will lead to a reduction of piracy, of which the Asia region is a huge market for pirated films. Films that are distributed digitally are pristine copies of the original and are very tempting for pirates. How will this technology reduce piracy?
HN: SingTel’s fully managed ATM network, combined with the strong encryption systems developed by companies such as GDC prevents unauthorized use and thus eliminates the ability to pirate the motion picture. Furthermore, with the reduction in time to market with SingTel’s ATM service, simultaneous worldwide releases are possible, hence, making it challenging for pirates to duplicate and sell copies of the pirated movie in the streets even before the movie premiere.

DMN: What is the technology behind the data transfer? Are we talking about existing technology currently used for other applications or is this new technology that SingTel has targeted directly at film distributors?
HN: Movie files are digitally distributed using SingTel’s Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) network. The SingTel ATM service is most suitable for multimedia applications. In general, it is the service of choice if a customer demands multimedia support, high speed transport capability, network manageability and network accountability functions.

DMN: The Shaw Lido Cineplex in Singapore is the first to premiere a film that was transferred via SingTel's ATM network. How many theaters in Singapore are currently capable of showing movies that are distributed digitally?
HN: Currently, Cathay Cineplex is equipped with a DRP 1.3K projector. Over the next few months, another major cinema operator in Singapore, Eng Wah Organisation, will be equipping 20 of their cinema screens digitally and another for an outdoor screen. There will be about 22 digitally equipped theaters in Singapore by the end of 2004.

DMN: What about other countries such as China or the Philippines? At what stage are countries such as these expressing interest in the digital distribution of films?
HN: We have received good response in terms of indication of interests from the various markets, especially Hong Kong and China following the successful launch of “Infernal Affairs III” in Singapore. They are interested to find out how to leverage on SingTel’s ATM service to distribute films and live concerts.

DMN: What is the initial capital outlay for a theater to achieve the capability to display a film that came over via the SingTel ATM network?
HN: A cinema will typically need to procure a digital projector, such as those from Barco Projection Systems, and digital film servers, such as those from GDC Technology. The transmission for “Infernal Affairs III” was done using SingTel’s ATM, GDC’s servers and Barco’s projectors.

DMN: At what stage are American movie makers investigating technologies such as what SingTel is currently delivering in Asia?
HN: We believe that as Asia’s leading communications company recognized by industry experts, SingTel is able to add value to the American movie distributors who are interested to explore this cutting edge form of movie distribution especially to Asia where SingTel has unparalleled reach in terms of service coverage, infrastructure and support. Following the successful release of Infernal Affairs III, we have received queries from media customers who are interested to ride on SingTel’s network for their business needs.
---------------------------- 30 --------------------------------
 

---

Posted by Chris Trainor (Member # 9) on 02-23-2004, 10:39 PM:
 
ATM is a good, secure idea.. but will cost the theaters a small fortune. Figure about $2 - 4k/month for the circuit. Another cost dumped on theater owners to suck their near zero profit to subzero.

Actually in the US satellite would probably be best... there are piles of theaters, and you can install a highspeed data terminal at each location to receive the stream (and decode/authenticate/license it). This would be a 1 time hardware purchase by the theaters instead of a monthly reoccuring expense (for an ATM circuit). The distribution cost will lay with the distributors again in having to pay for satellite time. (figure $250k/month/transponder on Cband, half that on Ku).

--Chris
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-23-2004, 11:40 PM:
 
At one time, a lot of people were happy with VHS too. Some people would not understand my frustration with the format. Laserdiscs were not easily avialable to all. Also 20 inch TVs were more common in the VHS age. Now we got more big screen TVs and DVDs aqnd guess what - DVDs have become big sellers bringing more revenue to the studios than VHS ever did. You don't think quality subconsiously plays a part in that? Now those same people would rather wait for a DVD rental to become available than watch the VHS version.

While it's true not many are consciously bitching about technical quality of presentations, substandard projection does play a part in turning off the audience. Remember when the sound was too loud. I know some customers who would think twice about watching a movie because of the sound. Once the presentation becomes substandard, the audience member is not as immersed into the movie as one should be , and then that member becomes more sensitive to other non movie distractions in the theater, noticing the cramped seats, stale popcorn, or whatever. OK, it's just a theory that is not proven. Still I stand by my other points. I saw a couple of action movies in discount theaters on purpose after watching them in a good theater. Let me tell you. The impact of each action scene seemed to elicit less reaction from the audience than what I noticed in the good theater because the visual and aural cues don't work as well. If theaters would just maintain their projector bulbs, they would get more satisfaction from viewers. I know slow paced movies that seemed even more slow and boring because of the dull projector bulbs.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-24-2004, 07:33 AM:
 
Anybody here that knows when JVC/Kodak is seriously going to challenge TI with a 4k DILA projection system? What are they waiting for, they seem to have everything in place to launch a product. My guess is that they are waiting until they can produce a projector putting out at least 15000 ANSI lumens so that they can light up most ordinary screens.

Why is all digital cinema discussion so focused on TI and dlp? Any discussion that is about the future should touch all alternatives.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-24-2004, 08:24 AM:
 
The weather in Rochester is getting clearer today. The sun is getting brighter with each passing day.
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-24-2004, 06:21 PM:
 

quote:

---

Why is all digital cinema discussion so focused on TI and dlp?

---

quote:

---

(especially in the flat panel HDTV market).

---

I hope you don't mean the plasma market. That whole industry is a great example of "market hype" and people buying the "hot tip" of the day. That technology will (rightly so) die it's much deserved death not only cuz of all it's inherent technical shortcomings, but the picture just plain sucks!

I think the big improvements in LCD that are about to be released will make it the big contender in the home and mid-size screen markets.

I wish the heck Mr. K would get off his dead ass and get the D-ILA system going...it is the most promising for the future...expensive, but really good!

BTW: I agree with the philosophy that the "general" public could give a rat's ass less about image quality.... that's a BIG + for "Movie Theatre TV." Most think that the current crappy DLP is the tits!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 02-24-2004, 09:48 PM:
 
DCS is/was using non-cinema grade/staging DLP from NEC/DPI.

Phil, (surely removed) you don't think the latest 2k DLP product is crap do you?
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-24-2004, 10:02 PM:
 
(...and don't call me Shirley!)
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-24-2004, 10:10 PM:
 

quote:

---

I hope you don't mean the plasma market. That whole industry is a great example of "market hype" and people buying the "hot tip" of the day. That technology will (rightly so) die it's much deserved death not only cuz of all it's inherent technical shortcomings, but the picture just plain sucks!

---

I meant flat-panel HD market in general terms, encompassing both plasma, LCD and other emerging technologies. The DLP thing is currently popular for the simple reasons of having better brand identity than the methods of its competitors, IMHO. I just don't see the micromirror concept being able to hold its own in the marketplace for the long term. You can only make a micromirror chip so small and fit in only so much resolution. The DLP chips wind up costing a fortune. Other emerging technologies have potential to fit a lot more rez onto a lot smaller silicon chip, and thus drive down costs. That's the industry forcast for what Intel and others will introduce.
 

---

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 02-24-2004, 10:33 PM:
 
Intel can certainly make the silicon, I hope they can make a display device... many have tried with LCOS. I don't think Intel plans on going after the high brighness markets (like cinema) with their chips, they are mainly focusing on TVs and other small flat panel displays (consumer). Completely different story when you have to make a chip also withstand 4-6kW lamps. The smaller the chip the lower its light output efficiency due to etendu.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-24-2004, 11:18 PM:
 
Bevan, I'm saying that figuratively and in generalities. While I agree DLP technology has made great progress in the last 10 years, there has not been anything "spectacular" of late to knock my socks off.

I agree the 2k chips are a big improvement over the 1.3K ones, but I still think in the long run Mr. Joe Blow Theatre Guy really doesn't care.

In *my* opinion, the "my-chip-is-bigger-than-yours" argument is ONLY significant to us film guys and the video techno-nerds.

I think if the debate/argument over who will pay for having "TV" in the theatres were to go away, the "industry" would think that the current performance/resolution of DLP would suffice.

For some reason, the general public seems to accept a mediocre picture, but will NOT compromise audio performance.

Bobby, I guess I took you to mean panels and not chips...

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-24-2004, 11:45 PM:
 
Intel is absolutely in love with the consumer market. Like Bevan, I seriously doubt they'll pursue industrial applications like cinema projectors.

Besides, Intel is so (rightly so) distracted with (all of) their chip's power dissipation problems that projection / display chips are just a side project to keep anyone not bright enough to deal with the power dissipation issues busy.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-25-2004, 02:47 AM:
 
TI might have a trick left in their back pocket. The recent demonstration of a 1080p resolution dmd might show what is to come in the future. There is speculation in another forum that they achieve a higher resolution than the mirror count by moving the chips between more than two positions. Only future will tell if there is any substance to this.
 

---

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 02-25-2004, 07:17 AM:
 
"not been anything 'spectacular'" - let's see .... they move 2 million mirrors back and forth 12 degrees at 50,000 times a second while being bombarded with 6kW of xenon light. Tough crowd here.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-25-2004, 07:55 AM:
 
From a technological point of view, DLP _is_ an impressive feat. There are many applications for high-quality large-screen video projection devices, and DLP is the appropriate technology for most of them.

The problem is that current DLP systems (no, I haven't seen the 2k model) just don't look as good as 35mm film, and people here recognize that.

I have no doubt that DLP (or some other technolgoy like it) will someday (probably within my lifetime) have the ability to look far better than 5/70 does at the present time. I can only hope that this will happen and the technology will be used to its full potential, and not watered down by lossy compression or low resolution chips used instead because they are "good enough."

I think that we are all in favor of technological improvements when there is actually an _improvement_ over existing methods, as opposed to a way to perform similar tasks in a cheaper and lower-quality manner.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-25-2004, 08:40 AM:
 
IF you're going to quote me, please do not selectively choose only part of what I said to change my meaning.

You failed to include the important words of "of late."

quote:

---

...I agree DLP technology has made great progress in the last 10 years, there has not been anything "spectacular" of late...

---

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 02-25-2004, 08:51 AM:
 
Forget LCD and DLP ,D-ILA is the NEW baby in Town set to replace the CRT in Home Theatres , or so says Jerry Bruckheimer ,quote "When I watch the combination of D-ILA and D-VHS in my screening room , the clarity and color of the image are almost as good as the original film, and better than what I often see in theaters .I am thrilled to have the JVC system at work and at home"
http://www.jvc-victor.co.jp/english/pro/dila/feature.html
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-25-2004, 09:12 AM:
 
Paul
I am also waiting for JVC and dila to enter the d-cinema scene. Their 4kx2k product should not be far off, the prototype has existed for a long time. JVC has also done testing with illuminating dila panels with lasers. If we are lucky we could get 4k laser illuminated dila projectors for d-cinema. Not that xenon bulbs are to shabby , but lasers are way cooler. It is often quoted that rgb lasers could provide twice the color gamut of lamp based light sources.
 

---

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 02-25-2004, 01:39 PM:
 
2k (2 million pixels) and 12 degree tilt are developments 'of late'.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-25-2004, 02:06 PM:
 
D-ILA like LCD require polarization of the light source with light loss issues versus DLP. The use of laser illumination for D-ILA / LCOS would probable take care of the polarization issue. LCD aging is another factor where overhaul /replacement of 1000's of recently installed advertising projectors ( some of which are price sensitive, hard to repair "disposable" models ) may prove to be expensive if ad rates are too low...there are some quality LCD units but you pay for the difference. I like the "filmic" look of D-ILA but my partner likes the high contrast of DLP; he enjoys a movie like movie goer while I nitpick like the projectsexual I am
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-25-2004, 04:18 PM:
 
Dlp digital cinema will likely have a contrast advantage with todays best products at 2000:1+, but I expect d-ila for d-cinema application to reach about 1500:1 which is entirely acceptable. Few theaters are prefect for projection cr wise. Projected film usuallly measures 1000-2000:1 on screen with the higher number being unusual.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-25-2004, 06:02 PM:
 
I agree TI's micromirror technology is an impressive feat. But it is also a technology plagued with production problems and limits on advancement and cost reduction. All of those spinning mirrors are pretty fragile. With all those many thousands of moving parts the DLP units can wear out, yielding dead pixels showing black or a 100% bright color.

The limits on miniaturization alone put the DLP technology in jeopardy for the long run. Because of the production required for those spinning on-chip mirrors, there's only so many chips you'll be able to fit on a wafer of silicon. You're effectively stuck at a high cost. And the only way to lower cost is lower the resolution, which is largely the case when it comes to DLP chips being used in computer and consumer electronics devices.

Other competitors like JVC and Intel will very likely take over the consumer electronics industry with their products and leapfrog over TI. Texas Instruments needs the much much larger consumer electronics market to fuel any further R&D developments for DLP. They're not going to be able to fund DLP on what they make off commercial cinema installations alone. I just don't see how DLP can make it for the long haul unless TI can somehow can accomplish a true 1080 HD rez DLP chip for the consumer market at an affordable rate.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-25-2004, 08:37 PM:
 
Bobby, DLP MTBF is like 10 years or something, so it's pretty reliable.

BUT! D-ILA with their 1000:1 contrast ratio and the 3K+ HD chip (that DOES knock my socks off) is a much better thing than ANY 2k chip and hi tilt angle of the DLP's.

Problem is, the D-ILA people are not willing to commit to a MTBF!

>>> Phil

(Corrected typo)

[ 02-26-2004, 03:28 AM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 02-26-2004, 03:14 AM:
 
Bobby H.
Do you know that dlp mirrors can not be made smaller?
Do you know that TI has presented a 1080p consumer level chip. However as I mentioned there is speculation that there are fewer mirrors than pixels of resolution. If the xhd3 has 1920x1080 mirrors at 0.9 inches smaller mirrors are indeed possible. Who really knows how small these mirrors can be made.

Phil
There is a whitepaper at JVC studying the reliability of dila. I suggest you take a look at it. They seem to be confident about the reliability of the technology. The last hurdle we are waiting for proof of is a high lumen dila projector. I do not count anything below 10000 ANSI lumens.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-26-2004, 03:24 AM:
 
Mattias: Thanks for the tip on the JVC whitepaper...I was not aware of it and I'll look for it.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-26-2004, 03:45 AM:
 

quote:

---

Do you know that dlp mirrors can not be made smaller? ... If the xhd3 has 1920x1080 mirrors at 0.9 inches smaller mirrors are indeed possible. Who really knows how small these mirrors can be made.

---

quote:

---

I agree the 2k chips are a big improvement over the 1.3K ones, but I still think in the long run Mr. Joe Blow Theatre Guy really doesn't care.

---

quote:

---

After all, DTS and Dolby Digital were regarded as unnecessary expenses, only to be used in premier theaters (esp. in the case of DD). Now, I don't know of many self-respecting first-run theaters that aren't equipped with at least one kind of digital sound system.

---

quote:

---

Seems also that going beyond 4K is beyond the visual acuity of the eye

---

quote:

---

The biggest problem plaguing film presentations, in my experience, are jump, weave, and focus issues.

---

quote:

---

You would be amazed at what Joe Sixpack can appreciate if given the chance... Mr. Sixpack got a taste of the good life, and now won't accept crappy analong sound presentations.

---

quote:

---

As for "awesome 70mm" vs. "crappy 35mm" I feel we are comparing apples with oranges -- or is there no such thing as "awesome 35mm" ?

---

Of course there is such a thing as 'awesome 35mm'! I was pointing out that Joe Six-Pack would have the same opinion with 70mm vs 35mm as he would with DLP vs 35mm.

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 03-11-2004, 10:56 AM:
 
Did you read about Quvis launching servers storing, recording and playing files at 2k and 4k.

With the launch of the 4k Cinema player does this mean a demonstration of a 4k digital projector is imminent?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-11-2004, 11:33 AM:
 
4K Projector??? Kodak's partner JVC has been there, done that...(in October 2002):

http://tig.colorist.org/pipermail/tig/2002-October/001934.html

quote:

---

To Those Who Make a Difference in Colors;

I would like to inform you that Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp.
(NTT) will have a demonstration using the JVC's SHD (3840 * 2048)
D-ILA projector and their decoder. NTT is one of the leading
telecommunication companies in Japan.

The first-generation negative of 35mm and 65mm was scanned in
Cineon 10bit log with IMAGICA scanners and processed it to be
appropriate for their SHD D-ILA projector with our color management
system "Galette" and then encoded these into JPEG2000.

This will be the first time that you can experience 4K data with
a 4K projector. Date and place is as follows;

Date: Oct. 31st, 14:00- 17:00
Place: Pacific Theater (ETC), 6433 Hollywood Blvd.

Registration is not required and you can drop in whenever your
schedule permits.

I'm looking forward to seeing you on Thursday.

Kind regards,
Noriyuki Mibuchi
tel 310-306-4180 fax 310-306-2334
E-mail:nori at imagica-la.com
http://www.imagica-la.com/

---

It was also shown in the UK:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/features/dtb/docs/image-tech-july-2003.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 03-11-2004, 11:49 AM:
 
Mr Pytlak
I will be more precise. I guess I am asking if anyone is close to launch/demo a real product not just a prototype. I am expecting d-ila to be coupled with laser illumination. There are so many compelling reasons for using lasers. I dont know what effect on cost using lasers will have though.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-11-2004, 11:53 AM:
 
All in good time, Mr. Ohlson.

For now, there are also compelling reasons NOT to use lasers.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-11-2004, 09:42 PM:
 
So we really are all doomed. All in good time.
 

---

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 03-11-2004, 10:26 PM:
 
Mattias,

The 4k "laser" projector is Kodak's project code name 'Allan Parsons', due to be delivered right after they get done putting the lasers on the sharks.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-12-2004, 09:54 AM:
 
And the role of Dr. Evil is played by...

Your laser humor is "grating".
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 03-14-2004, 03:35 AM:
 
Has Dr. Evil a SON Y?
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-14-2004, 03:39 AM:
 
Nope, Gerry.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-09-2004, 08:42 AM:
 
Can I expect anything digital non TI to be disclosed/showed at NAB2004? A little bird mentioned a select showing of 4k sxrd(sonys version of lcos) at Showest.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-09-2004, 08:54 AM:
 
Lots of birds flying around Las Vegas.

Sony had a "teaser" in the goody bags given to all who registered at ShoWest. It said: "Thinking 2K? Think Twice."

There was a private, invitation-only, screening.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-09-2004, 10:06 AM:
 
Intel entry into the LCOS market may also show up at the show.
 

---

Posted by David M. Dorn (Member # 2298) on 04-09-2004, 01:26 PM:
 
Several observations on this thread:
1. When it come to technological change...Never say Never!
2. For Hight Def. broadcast TV at 4K see:
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/open2002/en/tenji/id07/07.html
3. If you are attending NAB, DALSA will be showing film vs. digital comparision. The digital is shot with the Dalsa "Orgin" 4K 14 bit camea which usss a 35mm frame sized chip and mechanical shutter. If anyone sees the demo please post a report.
4. If a production uses a digitai intermediate process at 2K aren't we seeing a digital film even if the release is on film? A DI at 4K may be closer but..."silver is silver and bits is bits" and don't forget bit depth.
5. I personally think that Digital in the commercial theateer is driven by the studios desire to cut distribution cost. Since when did they ever worry about the theaters? Look at the shortened DVD release dates.
6. Does any one have statistics about how many theaters are showing second run moves? Most of the independents in my area are gone. Also how many multiplexs show classical films or second runs of deserving films at least occasionally?
Is this a thread or a virus ?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-09-2004, 03:01 PM:
 
You certainly have some pretty big companies working on various aspects of it: TI, Sony, Kodak, Intel, Microsoft, Thomson, JVC, NEC, etc.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-09-2004, 05:29 PM:
 
And the end goal of all those companies developing products for "digital cinema" are really targeted in the end for the much more lucrative home consumer electronics market. Every one of those DLP and LCOS chips are developed with that ultimate purpose in mind.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-09-2004, 05:51 PM:
 
Make no mistake about it: The theatrical market for projectors is miniscule. The big market for chips and related items is the business market and, as costs come down, the home market. There probably won't be home 4K units anytime soon but lesser forms of HD are already affordable for many.

A theatre has only a few things to sell: The biggest, sharpest picture (we lost best sound a while ago), first run features, and the communal viewing experience. Unfortunately, for many the latter is a negative not a positive.

As home equipment becomes higher and higher definition the technical superiority of theatres will be lost. The screens may be larger but that's a relative thing anyway. Floor to ceiling 2K HD at home would be pretty compelling.

And first run will go whereever the content producers can earn the most the fastest. When a theatrical run is no longer necessary to legitimize a feature as a "real" movie then delivering it to home theatre users as a pay-per-view event may deliver the biggest, fastest bang for the buck.

Someone will probably point out that people have predicted doom for movie theatres for years, with each new competitor. This time however, the playing field may be leveled in the technical sense. Thus if the business is to survive it's imperative to maximize the theatre-going experience. Make it the best it can be.

Of course you already do that, right?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-09-2004, 09:08 PM:
 
Kodak's developments in "Hybrid Imaging Technology" have greatly helped advance motion picture technology: scanners, laser recorders, "digital intermediate", and even the first sound-on-film digital sound system (CDS). Unlike some other companies, most "spinoffs" to consumer products like digital cameras or hard copy output will likely not be in competetion to the movie industry:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/products/v2/sehlin.shtml

Did you know that Kodak researcher Bryce Bayer invented the "Bayer Filter" array used in almost all digital still cameras and single-chip digital video cameras?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Patent 3,971,065
Bayer July 20, 1976

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Color imaging array

Abstract
A sensing array for color imaging includes individual luminance- and chrominance-sensitive elements that are so intermixed that each type of element (i.e., according to sensitivity characteristics) occurs in a repeated pattern with luminance elements dominating the array. Preferably, luminance elements occur at every other element position to provide a relatively high frequency sampling pattern which is uniform in two perpendicular directions (e.g., horizontal and vertical). The chrominance patterns are interlaid therewith and fill the remaining element positions to provide relatively lower frequencies of sampling. In a presently preferred implementation, a mosaic of selectively transmissive filters is superposed in registration with a solid state imaging array having a broad range of light sensitivity, the distribution of filter types in the mosaic being in accordance with the above-described patterns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Bayer; Bryce E. (Rochester, NY)
Assignee: Eastman Kodak Company (Rochester, NY)
Appl. No.: 555477
Filed: March 5, 1975

---

quote:

---

Technology advances power DCS Pro SLR Cameras
The Kodak Professional DCS Pro SLR/c and Pro SLR/n digital cameras have different lens mounts and body configurations. But beneath their tough alloy skins, these 14-megapixel cameras share several technological innovations that deliver increased performance for commercial, wedding, and portrait photographers.

An extended range 12-bit CMOS imager and advanced electronics and algorithms provide much of the enhancements. This full-frame imager - equivalent in area to a 24 x 36mm frame of film - provides the largest sensor available today in a digital SLR camera.

---

quote:

---

CMOS sensors, even though they have highly desirable features, also have some properties that need careful attention. One area is fixed pattern noise. Since CMOS sensors utilize voltage amplifiers inside the pixel and also in other sections of the readout subsystem, not all pixels will respond the exact same way to light and dark signals. This adds a fixed pattern to the image; the good news here is the word "fixed." Since the pattern is the same for each image, it can be removed with image processing techniques. The DCS Pro 14n sensor also incorporates a proprietary on-chip fixed pattern-noise reduction circuit that removes all but a very small amount of the fixed pattern noise from the image before readout. The camera's internal DSP processor subsequently performs the complete removal of the pattern noise before the image is stored.

---

quote:

---

Are there too many screens, is there an overestablishment?

---

quote:

---

Should I give income to the theater owner by paying for a quality service or cxpensive food and drinks?

---

quote:

---

Also I believe in a release to the aftermarket after a couple of weeks. Is this too soon and if so why?

---

quote:

---

What strikes me as odd is that the industry seems to have a central committe as the ideal working order.

---

quote:

---

Only x prints are allowed for this movie. This movie can only be shown in these theaters for x weeks and so on. We, the audience accepted this in the past, but today we do not.

---

Can you accept the movie industry going out of business? That's basically what you are demanding through your impatience.

If the movie theater has no time to make any income it will die financially. I have a couple friends who actively buy Chinese pirated DVDs, typically culled from studio screener DVDs. They seem to feel no guilt about this. They just have this stupid faith-based notion that the movie theaters will always be around and survive without their business.

Piracy does a significant amount of damage, but that is nothing compared to the damage that will be done if instant-release to home video gets institutionalized by movie studios. You will see the movie theaters disappear rapidly.

With no movie theaters there will be no movie industry either. The public will not support an all-home-video based movie industry. TV and cable networks are struggling for more elusive viewers. Internet-based movie watching has never taken off. When people are at home they're doing lots of other things besides being couch potatoes watching movies.

If the movie studios are stupid enough to do away with theatrical and home video release windows, I'll be sure to buy some stock in companies that make computers and video games. They'll make out like bandits over that lunacy.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-12-2004, 10:47 AM:
 
Straight to home video releases are a bad idea. They are only going to contribute to the amount of lazy and overweight people. Those are two different categories of people by the way. Dont want to offend anyone.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-12-2004, 01:21 PM:
 
Michael Barry wrote:

quote:

---

What we are seeing a lot of in this industry are 'professional' opinions from people who really know nothing about movies or the movie industry. They believe that just because they work for IBM or understand what the internet is that all of a sudden that makes them an expert about the film industry

---

quote:

---

Welcome to Entertainment Imaging. Thanks for spending some time with us.
Ours is a business that's more than a hundred years old, but is always reinventing itself because our business -- and industry - are powered by the human ability to tell stories in motion.

As our customers' stories have become more imaginative, we've expanded the tools used to create them. So, 'change' has been a way of life with us, but every enduring change has been one that brought technical, business, and creative value.

That's the way we view changes taking place in our industry today - as opportunities to open up new possibilities for human creativity, provide additional tools for the artist, and enable storytellers to work at increased levels of quality.

That's why we're excited about the future of entertainment -- film and digital. Film is proven technology - but we're out to prove it can be even better. Digital is good and is getting better, but we're working with our customers to drive it to much higher standards.

Although film and digital are often described as competitors, in more important ways, they are 'creative allies', expanding choices for filmmakers and extending each other's capabilities. We're working to make the film-digital combination even more powerful.

As you explore this site, you'll find many examples of Kodak's unique ability to work across technologies, to bring the best in imaging capability to its customers. You should find much that's familiar, but we hope you will also find some things that will be new to you.

You may know that the world's most celebrated motion pictures, most popular TV shows, and most effective commercials are photographed on Kodak film... but did you know that our Cinesite facility has created the digital effects for more than 130 movies, television shows, commercials, and music videos?

You may have read that we've won eight Academy awards for scientific and technical excellence in film... but did you know that we have twelve EMMYs, including many for our digital accomplishments?

You know that we manufacture and market film... but did you know our FPC subsidiary supplies digital audio media for audio post-production - and recycles 18 million pounds of used film prints world wide - into new materials - in the US alone, each year?

Did you know... that today, we have the fastest color negative film in the world - as well as an expanding new family of color negative products -- the Kodak Vision2 family -- that the world's finest cinematographers describe as '...amazing...'

Did you know that the Kodak Student Filmmaker Program encourages emerging filmmakers and their faculty through product grants, student discounts, and other resources on a worldwide basis?

Did you know that - in our Pro-Tek vaults - we have the original film components for some of the greatest movies of all time - and are developing and using innovative tools and techniques for digital restoration?

Did you know we are a leader in digital film mastering -- which provides a bridge between the quality of film origination and the flexibility of digital projection - and opens up new creative possibilities in ways that make business sense?

Did you know that our Laser Pacific subsidiary is one of the most-respected and efficient companies in the post-production business, offering a variety of technical and creative services to the producers of television programming and theatrical motion pictures, as well as services for the creation of digital masters for television, home video, DVDs and other delivery formats?

Or... did you know that, we are offering a full and evolving Kodak Digital Cinema solution -- an in-cinema system, service, unique software, and support -- designed for pre-show advertising today, with an upgrade path to digital movie projection in the future?

So, as you can see - we're working on much more than meets the eye. As you visit other parts of this site, you will find specific products, services, and systems. Those will change on a regular - and often, accelerating -- basis.

We will broaden our capabilities in additional technologies. We will participate more fully in services. We will add new dimensions to the Kodak brand.

But, some things will not change. No one will set higher standards of imaging quality. No one will provide more reliable information and support. No one will be more trusted as a member of the industry. And no one will listen more closely - or respond more imaginatively - to its customers.

All of that is part of our heritage - and, in Entertainment Imaging, that heritage continues. Thank you for allowing us to help you tell your stories.
Please tell us how we can better meet your needs.

Eric Rodli
President, Entertainment Imaging and
Senior Vice President, Eastman Kodak Company

---

 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-12-2004, 01:30 PM:
 
I condemn downloading movies off the net. I have never done that and only a moron would watch a movie on their computer.

The pace of everything has picked up in the last 50 years. It is hard to stop an avalanche. I guess I could wait for a good feature, but for how long? More copies in distribution is that the same as lower quality copies? If money is too much the focus fewer and still cheap copies might be an even better idea.

I want a future with
good movies
good quality projection
not too long waiting to see it where I live
How do we get there?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-12-2004, 05:14 PM:
 
Mattias, the only plausible way for American movies to be released both in North America and simultaneously in many parts of Europe is to add more time to the movie's production schedule so a larger variety of prints can be made.

"Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" debuted in nearly 30 different countries, which was a pretty big distribution feat. I have a hunch that kind of thing was only possible since LOTR's entire start to finish schedule ran seven years. New Line and Wingnut had time to prepare.

The window between theatrical release and home video release is not the only thing that has shrank in size. Bean counters at movie studios are demanding movies be produced in ever faster rates. The shortened shooting schedules equal big dollar savings on interest payments for the money they have to borrow to fund productions. To compete with the stock prices of other studios you have to manufacture "profit" wherever possible.

It takes time to take an English language movie and dub it over into another language. Granted, lots of people in Sweden can speak English well. One of my friends is from Sweden and speaks English with a perfect American accent; you would never know he was from Europe unless he told you. Still, many movie-goers don't want to read subtitles.

In the end, we all often have to wait months (if not years) to see certain films. Gordon pointed out the fact how American film fans have to wait a long time to see certain European releases. It's just a problem we have to live with. And digital technology and distribution won't do anything to solve this problem. Adding in a factor of instant gratification would do more to wreck the entire industry that help it improve.

For the motive of fighting rampant film piracy, it would likely pay larger dividends to movie studios to include many more countries in the first tier schedule for a major movie release. For more modest productions, we're just going to have to live with the tiered, delayed releases from one international market to the next.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-13-2004, 06:05 AM:
 
I agree to some extent.
A movie has to be translated and subtitled and that takes time. It also takes time to do dub. I am not used to this latter part and I think the voice is an integral part of the actor performance. I prefer subtitles. To your dismay perhaps it is easier to add subtitles to a digital distribution. Here I would prefer they put the subtitles below the picture and not in it. Even with a partly digital distribution the timings for releases could be the way you see it most convienient for those showing the films.

In a better world, my world.

film copies directly from 4k DI with good quality prints for quality theaters, the best movie experience

But
digital distribution is phased in at 2k/4k
easier with subtitling, different audio tracks if necessary
easier with mass distribution
transition costs taken by the studios

release timing as today or something like today
fewer screens world wide, the cinema should be a quality service. Equal demand with less seats available should make somewhat higher prices possible. Perhaps with adjusted prices for rentals and dvd sales price.
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-13-2004, 07:33 AM:
 
What I don't understand is, even when the technological aspects of d-cinema are resolved, why anyone would think that this is good for the industry? After all, with home d-cinema technology is rapidly dropping in price, the trend of waiting for the video is only going to get worse. When the public begins to perceive that they will be able to get the same digital quality at home, regardless of whether or not that is true, it will be the begining of the end.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-13-2004, 09:21 AM:
 
Everyone is not technically minded out there. It is a niche market when it comes to the type of home video equipment that would keep someone at home waiting for video. A lot of people could care less about the technical issues.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-13-2004, 09:36 AM:
 
Daryl makes a good point. Lots of people will never have a "good" home video setup, regardless of how cheap the equipment becomes or how easy it is to operate. Many people simply have no interest in high-def TV or 5.1 sound. My parents have a TV set and VHS VCR which they bought back in the '80s and which still suit their needs just fine.

Even if everyone had a high-end TV/DVD/stereo system at home, I don't see theatres going away. The "social experience" of being able to "go out" is too important. I don't see this changing as a result of technology.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-13-2004, 01:28 PM:
 
What do you think about making going to the movies more exclusive.
fewer screens
fewer shows
but HOPEFULLY with every seat sold out
This could let the guys that care about quality win. Fewer prints will be needed so more money could be spent per print. I guess studios can decide to whom they want to distribute.

I am talking about changing movie watching from a fast food experience to going out to a restaurant for dinner. Is this something that will never happen?
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-13-2004, 01:47 PM:
 
The experience will work both ends of the market....as an example the new cinemas in Thailand have huge bus / train terminal type of lobbies to handle the "fast food" crowd and within the mix a few "delux" cinemas with separate holding area and catered requirement if this is what you desire instead of entertainment for the masses....
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-13-2004, 01:48 PM:
 
I'm all in favor of fewer (better) screens, longer release cycles with fewer prints, and (gasp!) 70mm prints for the big houses. Will it happen? Probably not.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-13-2004, 04:12 PM:
 

quote:

---

Many people simply have no interest in high-def TV or 5.1 sound. My parents have a TV set and VHS VCR which they bought back in the '80s and which still suit their needs just fine.

---

quote:

---

What I don't understand is, even when the technological aspects of d-cinema are resolved, why anyone would think that this is good for the industry?

---

quote:

---

film copies directly from 4k DI with good quality prints for quality theaters, the best movie experience

---

quote:

---

Will you not be happy with a 4k 35mm from DI essentially an OCN turned positive?

---

quote:

---

How many copies goes out today of
The passion of The Christ
compared with a big movie in the 1970s?
More copies -> Lower quality prints?

---

quote: Mattias Ohlson

---

In time 4k will happen, it is inevitable.

---

quote: Mattias Ohlson

---

IBM and others want to sell storage space.

---

quote:

---

Optimum Pitch for Printing.
Continuous printers used for motion picture film are designed so that the original film and the print raw stock are in contact (emulsion-to-emulsion) with each other as they pass around the printing sprocket, with the raw stock on the outside (Figure 43). To prevent slippage between the two films during printing (which would produce an unsharp or unsteady image on the screen), the original film must be slightly shorter in pitch than the print stock. In most continuous printers, the diameter of the printing sprocket is such that the pitch of the original must be 0.2 to 0.4 percent (theoretically, 0.3 percent) shorter than that of the print stock. With nitrate film and early safety film, this condition was achieved by natural shrinkage of the original during processing and early aging. However, the substantially lower shrinkage of present safety films makes such a natural adjustment impossible; therefore, film used as printing originals is now manufactured with the pitch slightly shorter than the pitch of the print film For 35 mm film, the pitch dimensions are 0.1870 inch (4.750 mm) on print film and 0. 1866 inch (4.740 mm) on original film; for 16 mm film, they are 0.3000 inch (7.620 mm) on print film, 0.2994 inch (7.605 mm) on most camera film.

---

 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-15-2004, 11:12 AM:
 
John Pytlak
I have a question about DI. Why is the flow not like this:
Orignal camera negative->film scanning->DI->film used for projection.
I am essentially asking if it could be done like this ignoring cost and time factors.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-15-2004, 11:19 AM:
 
You need a printing negative to make the relase prints and transfering from DI to film is a slow process
In theory a print could be generated from the DI directly but at a very slow speed
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-15-2004, 11:44 AM:
 
The average rendering speed to create a printing negative or other print materials average 0.8 to 3.2 seconds PER frame from the digital master to the available recorders from Celco / Lasergraphics /Arriflex....so if you want to wait a few months to get out that 1000+ print order
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-15-2004, 01:09 PM:
 
Dupe negatives used for release printing can, and have, been made directly from a Digital Intermediate. Recall that Ted Costas reported that the duplicate negatives for "Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones" were all "original" recordings of the digital data, rather than recording out onto a master positive and then printing multiple duplicate negatives.

As cost and efficiency of digital output technology improves, making duplicate negatives directly from the Digital Intermediate will be used more often:

http://www.cinesite.com/?122

quote:

---

As a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastman Kodak, Cinesite is dedicated to pioneering digital imaging technology. Our digital intermediate services offer the best of both worlds: the beauty, quality and resolution of conventional film in the flexilibility of a cutting edge digital environment.

---

quote:

---

Kodak Lightning I and II Laser Recorders
Polygon has 16 facets and spins at 6120 revolutions per minute
10 bit (per color per pixel) log space
Digital files recorded out to Eastman EXR Color 5242 Intermediate Stock

---

 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-16-2004, 01:14 AM:
 
John Pytlak
Has any film premiered with a print created directly from a DI for a very high quality, here time is not important since only one copy is necassary.
My guess is that the DI is turned into a positive from the scanned film negative. How else should you be able to work with it.

Apart from the printing method what else can be done to cut corners with the duplication negative and the release print. I guess no corners are cut with the master positive apart from what you described above.

many thanks in advance
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-16-2004, 08:52 AM:
 
I doubt that any laser recorders are set up to properly transport and register print film, which is perforated KS-1870, rather than the BH-1866 perforations used for printing negatives.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-16-2004, 12:22 PM:
 
OK
In the future is it possible that a product is developed that can reasonably quickly produce prints ready for projection directly from a DI. I ask this since this should give the highest resolution. You are only really limited by the final printing stage, in theory of course.
oversample OCM 8kx6k and store and work the DI at 4k
develop a printing system capable of 4k
use film that can resolve that 4k, fine grain?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-16-2004, 12:33 PM:
 
ANYTHING is possible, including a DI printed directly to print film.

Kodak VISION Color Print films are more than capable of 4K resolution. Here are the resolution and MTF data for 2383:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/print/2383.jhtml?id=0.1.4.8.4.7&lc=en#imgstr

quote:

---

Technical Data
KODAK VISION Color Print Film / 2383/3383
Image Structure
Like EASTMAN EXR Color Print Film 2386, 3386, KODAK VISION Color Print Film / 2383/3383 has excellent sharpness, capable of capturing almost all of the detail in the printing negative and projecting it onto the largest of theatre screens. Fine grained emulsions, ultra-thin layers, intra-grain absorbing dyes, and superior halation protection all contribute to this excellent performance.

Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) is an objective measure of film sharpness. The film is exposed with a spatially varying sinusoidal test pattern having 35 percent modulation. After processing the MTF target images are measured with a microdensitometer. The response of the film (percent) for each color record is plotted as a function of the spatial frequency (cycles per millimetre) of the original exposure.

Resolving Power subjectively measures the ability of the film to resolve a test target consisting of closely spaced parallel lines. High contrast (Test Object Contrast 1000:1) and low contrast (Test Object Contrast 1.6:1) resolution bar targets are exposed onto the film, and the highest spatial frequency (lines pairs per millimetre) that can be resolved is measured from the processed film by viewing the images with a microscope.

High Contrast Test Object Resolving Power:
>550 line pairs per millimetre (TOC 1000:1)

Low Contrast Test Object Resolving Power:
>200 line pairs per millimetre (TOC 1.6:1)

---

http://www.kodak.com/global/images/en/motion/products/lab/f010_0292ac.gif



The projectable image area of a 35mm "scope" frame is 20.96 x 15.29 millimeters (per standard SMPTE 195).

The projectable area of a 70mm 5-perf print image is 48.56 x 22.10 millimeters (per standard SMPTE 152)

The projectable area of a 70mm 15-perf image is 69.6 x 48.5 millimeters.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-16-2004, 02:18 PM:
 
Mr Pytlak
Do you see any chance for the scenario I dreamed up to happen. Are there technical difficulties that can not be solved at the printing stage?
Is this a chance for film to show what it is capable of. Most people do not get to see film at its best. Then there is the projector. I do not know if there is any idea to do the above with old projectors with old lenses. How much resolution will be left anyway? I know old is not worse, but I have read here that there have been developments with lenses.

In the digital scenario the DI is digitally stretches and no anamorphich lens is used.
DI->digital cinema format 4k->4k projector.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-16-2004, 03:26 PM:
 
Laser recorders are still measured in SECONDS per FRAME recorded. So a feature film still takes over two days to record out to film. As through-put becomes faster and more economical, you may eventually see "EK" prints directly onto print stock from DI.

With proper maintenance and set-up, most projectors and modern lenses are capable of resolving the finest resolution targets on the SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film, or over 80 cycles (160 lines) per millimeter.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-16-2004, 04:06 PM:
 
It is good to hear about what good equipment in the right hands are capable of. The big question is what old equipment with average skilled personel is capable of. If that figure is a lot less it might not be worth striving for DI straight to print.

It is very kind of you to answer my questions. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-16-2004, 04:30 PM:
 
I easily get that performance from 30 year old Century projectors with Isco lenses. It's not "rocket science".
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-16-2004, 04:59 PM:
 
It is easy for you , you are Film GOD
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-17-2004, 10:26 AM:
 
Lots of "lesser gods" here on Film-Tech who are also capable of getting >80 cycles per millimeter on the screen.

The two key factors are the quality of the lenses used and how well you control any excess radiant energy (lamp alignment and heat filters).
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-22-2004, 01:10 PM:
 
I will tell you of the latest development with dlp.
I guess that some of you are in the know but anyway here we go.
In the next product generation they shift the square mirrors by 45 degress creating a diamond like pattern. From a pixel grid of 960x1080 a full HD picture can be shown although softened. A half pixel shift of 960x1080 back and forth creates the 1920x1080 image. This might make the pixel grid essentially invisible.
In the future we can imagine chips with 2048x2160 to create an image that is 4096x2160.

You can follow the discussion here
dlp future
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-22-2004, 03:22 PM:
 
The AVS Forum is mostly for consumer display systems, correct?
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 04-22-2004, 03:41 PM:
 
That is correct but I have found that some people coexist on both boards. I have been given hints that a traditional old dmd style 4k dlp projector is not feasable. This type of trick makes 4k within range. The mirror count I suggested fits perfectly with suggested digital standard at 4k. I think what is most difficult for TI is to load the data to the chip fast enough. Fabrication chip with mirror counts over two million also seems very difficult. The four million chip might be in range but beyond that is likely to be very difficult.

What is attractive with this technology is that it should render the pixels invisible. Then there are other things related to pwm that is likely to hang around even with the new chips.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-17-2004, 05:18 AM:
 
Here we go again...

quote:

---

British film chiefs are aiming to revolutionise the country's cinemas by installing 250 hi-tech digital projectors with £13m of lottery money.

The move will make it easier for film- lovers to see arthouse films because distribution costs will be slashed, the UK Film Council has said.

Digital projectors do not require reels of film, can receive films by satellite and provide higher-quality screenings. The new network will double the world's total of digital screens.

In March, there were 190 digital projectors around the world - with fewer than a dozen in the UK. The 250 new projectors will be installed in about 150 cinemas across the UK by the end of 2004, the UK Film Council has said.

Currently, arthouse and specialist films usually get issued with between 20-70 prints, which cost £1,000 a time. Cinemas with digital projectors will have to dedicate a portion of their screening time to niche films to ensure there is more choice for their customers.

"Unless they live in a small number of major cities, cinema-goers in the UK often have an extremely limited choice of films available to them," UK Film Council chief executive John Woodward said. "The aim of the network is to use state-of-the-art technology to cut the cost of distributing films." It would provide a "cost-effective way of making a broader range of films available to the public", he added.

---

Link.

If you have the time, please e-mail their 'feedback' page and tell them what a pile of badly researched poo this is!
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-17-2004, 07:14 PM:
 
BTW, is the DLP DMD chip the first widespread application of micromachines (considering each mirror unit separately)?
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-19-2004, 05:38 AM:
 
More official news of 4k from Sony.
babelfish translation from a Sony web page

Press release table of contents
Reporting data

The information which is published here is information as of of announcement day. Because there is a search day and a possibility information differing, please acknowledge beforehand. The SONY marketing (Inc.) please view"SonyDrive" in regardto the commodity which presently is sold.
The SONY marketing (Inc.) the public information announcement sentence of announcement (please read)thistable of contents such as the SONY product.
Actualizing 4 time thing Kousei detail of full HDTV
Developing super Kousei small liquid crystal display panel "4 K SXRD"
- In projector for digital cinema development -

As for the SONY corporation, 885 ten thousand pixels which exceed full HDTV (4096H×2160V) resolution, 4000: The liquid crystal display device ' 4 K for the super Kousei small projector which SXRD actualizes the highcontrast of 1 (Silicon X-tal Reflective Display)* 1'it developed.
This corporation last year full HDTV (1920H the ×1080V 200 ten thousand pixels) succeeds in the development of liquid crystal display device, "2K SXRD" is on-board onto the first full HDTV front projector "QUALIA 004" for home already. This time it developed' 4K SXRD ', resolution of the 4 times (as a projector the worldwide highest) with furthermore to actualize high contrast, the smoothness like the silk, it makes the black reappearance which tightens possible, Takasina rank it is possible to create image.
At the time of loading to the projector, RGB of the basic 3 primary color which forms image (every red green blue color) this device is used, the super Kousei small display whose image expression of 2655 ten thousand pixels is possible actualizes.
This corporation introduces this super Kousei small liquid crystal device, to the movie industry where the movement of digitalization accelerates, directing to merchandising during 2004 the cinema and in addition as a projector of large picture use, we examine.
Furthermore, "2K SXRD" of previous development, you insert also development to the rear projection television for home which enjoys the contents of the high picture quality which accelerate more and more & the high resolution which in the large picture in range of vision and start advancing.
< Background of development >
The movie shows the movement which moves to the direction of the digital cinema which utilizes digital technology from the former system which uses the film. As for the digital cinema, in the system which uses the former film in "the production" "transmission" of the movie "screening", soft operation and the high picture quality which could not be thought become possible. SONY merchandises, the movie production system "CineAlta by digital video (シネアルタ)" depends on worldwide first digital video in 1999 June the appraisal where "star wars episode 2", is photographed & is produced by the SONY system, is high is received.
On the one hand, the projector of the high quality where it is not inferior to the film in "screening", is required. This device actualizes worldwide highest resolution at mass production level as a projector, digital cinema initiative (DCI) it is propulsion specification as a worldwide standard of the projector for the digital cinema, "4 K (4096H×2160V)" it becomes the new display device which is filled up.
1 4K (4096H×2160V): It consists the member of the Hollywood movie studio "digital cinema initiative (DCI)" the specification which has promoted.
SXRD: (Silicon X-tal Reflective Display). As for X-tal the meaning of Crystal.
In 2003 February at diagonal 0.78 inch 200 ten thousand pixels (the pixel of 9 ｵ m pitches it succeeds in development with space 0.35 ｵ m between the worldwide smallest pixel arrangement) as a liquid crystal display device.
- The main merit "of 4 K SXRD"
1. At until recently high resolution of full HDTV ratio 4 time, high brightness, actualizing Takasina rank image high contrast ratio
Super high resolution: 885 ten thousand pixels (4K: 4096H×2160V)
As for actualization of high resolution conversion, until recently the pixel pitch which is 9 ｵ m, as for the pixel between space while they were former 0.35 ｵ m it reduced in 8.5 ｵ m with the optimization of the drive circuit design inside the pixel, 10% made the pixel area decrease. It became possible because of this to accumulate 885 ten thousand thing pixels within 1.55 inch diagonal sizes. Furthermore, precision it does the drive of 885 ten thousand thing pixels which are 4 times that or more the full HDTV which is assumed that it is difficult until recently, on the silicon substrate, starts making smooth image well "design technology of the drive element" and "individual signal entry technology" were established. Because of this, the fixed pixel peculiar mesh impression is not made to feel even at the screen size which exceeds 300 inches, super Kousei detail and Takasina rank image is actualized.
< High brightness: Former ratio 4 time >
Brightness of the projector if the illumination light intensity of the lamp is the same, is proportionate to the size of the panel in general. It reached the point where it can actualize high brightness due to the fact that the result and the illumination area which this time enlarge panel size than former 0.78 inches in 1.55 inches reach approximately 4 times. Furthermore, it improved reflectance ratio of light to 72% where it is higher than panel 65% until recently.
With these, regarding the projector which high brightness for the cinema is required, it became possible sufficiently to offer practical brightness.
< High contrast: 4000:1 >
High contrast being able to actualize SXRD, is the vertical orientation liquid crystal material of the SONY individual specification, with the adoption of liquid crystal orientation control technology of thin liquid crystal cell thick device structure and inorganic material. Furthermore the high durability where this time, already it is obtained by the optimization of membrane technology of the orientation membrane, was not impaired, device contrast 4000:1 was actualized. (Until recently "2 K SXRD" 3000:1)
2. Actualization of high quality and potential for mass production
Guaranty the quality potential for mass production which develops wafer unit panel conversion process < regarding the large-sized panel, is high >
Generally, after dividing the silicon drive baseplate and the counter electrode baseplate into the individual panel, doing to make compete, it uses the production process which assembles the liquid crystal cell, but with SONY SXRD, after making the silicon wafer of 8 inches compete with bundle dividing, the to panel it actualizes the process which is converted.
Furthermore this time, regarding big size panel size 1.55 inches as the projection device, the cell interval whose 2 microns or less quite is narrow until recently in the same way, without using the spacer,*the wafer unit panel conversion process technology which can be produced uniformly inside 2 panel surfaces was established. Because of this, during panel conversion processing be able to lighten the penetration of the dust which becomes problem very substantially, high potential for mass production is guaranteed. Simultaneously, completely there is no picture noise by the dust and the spacer, in addition in inside the panel surface very, quite high picture quality of uniform brightness it reached the point where image can be obtained.
* 2 Generally, because cell interval is maintained the glass beads spacer and the post spacer are used inside the liquid crystal cell.

What do we make of this? It is time for JVC to show their cards now. I am waiting for an lcos product to demonstrate something that is 15000-20000 ANSI lumen. Xenon light is ok to start with and then I expect rgb lasers to be used when that is possible.
-
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-19-2004, 06:10 AM:
 
Interestingly, this week, the Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI) group is showing 4K screenings at the USC Entertainment Technology Center (ETC) in Hollywood, using a PAIR of 2K DLP Cinema projectors to "simulate" 4K. JVC has demonstrated 4K D-ILA technology already.

Why do you think laser illumination will be favored over xenon lamps?
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-19-2004, 06:59 AM:
 
I seem to remember there being some sort of laser projection system at Expo 70, in Japan. I wasn't there, but I remember reading about it at the time. I seem to remember that one of the problems at the time was the short life of suitable lasers. How far things have progressed in the last tird of a century, I don't know.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-19-2004, 07:05 AM:
 
Mr Pytlak
I know now that d-ila prototypes have been around a long time but it is time for JVC and SONY to show products now. Digital cinema is starting to happen 10 times more now than ever before. This not saying it is a transition just that the market is starting to become a real market. I wonder how much head start JVC and SONY can afford to give to TI.

Why am a constantly dragging lasers into this thread?
color gamut perhaps
reliability?
long life, less changing of parts?
lcos is more efficient using laser light than xenon light. That is why JVC themselves are talking about lasers in their white papers when they talk about digital cinema / e-cinama.
better focus
better inter pixel cr levels

[ 05-19-2004, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-22-2004, 01:07 PM:
 
More exciting news that you can read about at avsforum. Sony is going to present glv projection next year on a screen 50m by 10m at a world expo. This sounds more like a technology demonstration to me considering the aspect ratio. It does not sound like laser projection using glv as imaging devices is imminent in a cinema near you.

The 4k sxrd projector also from Sony seems to be a go for Infocom in June. It seems like it is aimed at cinema and events.

The TI simulation of 4k(about 8 megapixels) sounds like a difficult task using two 2048x1080 dlp projectors. They are short of mirrors just as with the scenario I talked about. They probably can not yet produce 2048x2160 dmds or feed a single chip fast enough.

If any of you will get to see the event any reviews are appreciated.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-22-2004, 01:42 PM:
 
Throughout the '80's, Billy Graham of Media Solutions here (not the evangelical minister) experimented with and fielded laser projection systems designed for extremely large images (on the sides of buildings and such), well beyond what the biggest Eidophors of the day could handle. One of the problems at the time was lack of output in the red channel. Red required augmentation by projecting the red laser through a specially shaped fan of red dye. This was extremely difficult and finicky to set up, requiring numerous trial and error sessions to get the right combination of dye nozzle shape and Brewster Angle orientation. Three-phase power and water cooling requirements were also major. But when it worked the system produced spectacularly bright video images.

I've been out of the laser game for a long time so I don't know what progress has been made in large lasers since then. I imagine the red output problem has been largely licked.

[ 05-23-2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-22-2004, 06:03 PM:
 
How odd...you'd think red would be the easiest.

Just imagine Billy Graham's projector playing the output of Bing Crosby's videotape recorder.
 

---

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 05-23-2004, 07:42 AM:
 
Here in Australia we've seen only a few demonstration sessions of digital projection. Here's what Hoyts say about their coming showings of "The Day After Tomorrow":
Exclusive to Hoyts Fox Studios, selected sessions of The Day After Tomorrow will be screening in digital projection. Delivered to the audience in a pure digital format, this is the highest quality cinema presentation available in the world.

Need I say more.
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-23-2004, 02:43 PM:
 
Of course, what else could we expect from HOYTS, a cinema company long known for its dedication to quality screen presentations the world over...

'Highest quality cinema presentation in the world?' - not even the best in the vicinity, let alone the world! (That would be 5 minutes down the road at the Randwick Ritz cinema. Now THAT'S more like 'highest quality cinema presentation in the world' than any 1K low-res digital crap!

Actually, digital presentation at Fox Studios may look pretty good next to the non-filmguarded, underlit, soft-focus, jittery mess excuse-for-an-image that they fleece their customers to watch on a regular basis!
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-29-2004, 09:11 AM:
 
For small tidbits about Sony sxrd and large venue and cinama please read at
infocom
From the link
"Finally, Sony is taking advantage of InfoComm’s Large Venue Display Gallery to unveil a new digital projector for large-venue and cinema applications. The projector builds upon Silicon X-tal Reflective Display (SXRD) technology, which Sony views as a clear alternative for the professional market to liquid crystal display (LCD) or digital light processing (DLP) technologies. "This new technology will far exceed anything currently available for large-venue projection in terms of resolution and contrast," promises Tom Mykietyn, Director of Content Creation for Sony Electronics' Broadcast and Production Systems Division."

"The capabilities of Sony’s projector will be tested by Hollywood-produced movie clips and test frames and InfoComm-provided content. "Our main goal," Mykietyn said, "is to have people walk away from this demonstration saying, 'I have just seen the future of large-venue digital projection." "

It seems Sony has started a small counter attack against TI and dlp technology.
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 05-30-2004, 01:50 AM:
 
Mathias, that link seems to be referring to Large Venue rather than Cinema Grade projectors.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 05-30-2004, 03:48 AM:
 
Didn't Sony try this before? Oh yeah...that was SDDS...better than anything anyone else offered...then they pulled the plug on it. Do you think exhibitors will forget that Sony pulled out on them once already?

They might as well just keep to the A/V market for their projectors.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 05-30-2004, 04:19 AM:
 
Paul
In this link below you will see that they talk about digital cinema projectors. Dlp is used both for large venue and cinema.
digital cinema too

Steve
Sony will naturally pay the price for not supporting sdds. From my outside perspective sound formats is more difficult to establish since there are so many. The competition will lead to that not enought theaters convert to sdds and it is not good business.

I do not think that a Sony digital cinema projector is more of a risk than one from another manufacturer. However the technology needs some time in operation to become trusted. That is natural for any new product.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-30-2004, 09:04 AM:
 
No exhibitor or circuit will be willing to make a large scale investment in a one source technology especially if that investment can not be fully recovered in a reasonable time frame before becoming prematurally obselete
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-30-2004, 10:50 AM:
 
Leo quoted, from the BBC news site:

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

British film chiefs are aiming to revolutionise the country's cinemas by installing 250 hi-tech digital projectors with £13m of lottery money.
The move will make it easier for film- lovers to see arthouse films because distribution costs will be slashed, the UK Film Council has said.
Digital projectors do not require reels of film, can receive films by satellite and provide higher-quality screenings. The new network will double the world's total of digital screens.
In March, there were 190 digital projectors around the world - with fewer than a dozen in the UK. The 250 new projectors will be installed in about 150 cinemas across the UK by the end of 2004, the UK Film Council has said.

---

So, they're going to spend £13m to equip just 150 cinemas to run non-existant digital transfers of art-house films. How much more will it cost to make such digital transfers of these films so that the equipment can actually be used. From what I can make out, even at the handful of British cinemas which already have the equipment installed it is little used, and they run film most of the time.

How many films could have a few good 35mm prints struck for £13m? Prints which could be run in just about any cinema in the world.

There was an event at the NFT last year trying out a similar idea for classic films, again, lots of money would be needed to make a digital transfer for just a small number of copies. Where this digital thing might give a saving in distribution costs is in mainstream film, where a large number of copies are required, but then you would have to spend a fortune to equip a large number of theatres.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-01-2004, 02:02 PM:
 
At ShoWest a few years ago, the Kodak presentation noted that it cost about $350 per week to supply a new 35mm release print to a theatre for the typical 4-8 week first run. What kind of digital projection system can you finance and maintain for less than $350 per week? How much will it cost to "deliver" the digital print? In simple terms, that's the business case that must be justified.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-01-2004, 02:51 PM:
 
Mr Pytlak
According to the NY Times Kodak is entering the digital cinema market in 2005 or 2006 with a 4k projector. I think it is wise of Sony and Kodak to let the technology mature and enter at 4k.

How would the cost situation play out for digital projectors if 1000s instead of 10-100 were installed in a year. Yes, why invest any money if you can not justify the cost with improved earnings as a result.

Perhaps the studios ought to buy the theaters and control the whole chain. They could sell subliminal mind control content, how is that for a business idea?
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-01-2004, 03:12 PM:
 
The cost to finance and maintain the system is a key part of any business case. The DCI technical specifications are certainly looking beyond 2K.

http://www.dcimovies.com/

quote:

---

Digital Cinema Initiatives, LLC (DCI) was created in March 2002, as a joint venture of Disney, Fox, MGM, Paramount, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Universal and Warner Bros. Studios. DCI's primary purpose is to establish and document voluntary specifications for an open architecture for digital cinema that ensures a uniform and high level of technical performance, reliability and quality control. DCI will also facilitate the development of business plans and strategies to help spur deployment of digital cinema systems in movie theaters.

---

quote: Mattias Ohlson

---

Perhaps the studios ought to buy the theaters and control the whole chain.

---

quote:

---

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Sony Electronics plans to unveil on Thursday a new digital projection system for movie theaters, using a microchip it says will advance the industry and rival Texas Instruments Inc's market-leading product.

The move by Sony, a unit of Japan's Sony Corp, comes as the industry appears headed for breakthroughs in establishing technology standards and business models for digital projection systems that can cost $100,000 or more. A few years ago they cost as much as $150,000.

"It seems like everything is coming together at about the right time," said Tom Mykietyn, director of content creation for Sony Electronics.

Digital projection, also called digital cinema, promises better picture quality for audiences, especially with digitally-made movies like current smash hit "Shrek 2."

For Hollywood studios, the systems could also save millions of dollars in annual costs for duplicating and shipping movies because film would be replaced by digital files sent via satellite, the Internet or on DVD-like disks.

But since the start of digital cinema in the late 1990s, industry players have bickered over technology standards and who would pay the bill: theater owners or studios.

Sony, which owns its own Hollywood studio, had looked at designing digital cinema systems early, but backed off until about two years ago, after major studios published initial equipment standards, said Andrew Stucker, general manager of digital production systems for Sony.

Final standards should be unveiled this fall along with formal business plans, the head of the studios' Digital Cinema Initiative (DCI) said in March.

"I think (a rollout) is closer than people realize," said Texas Instruments' Doug Darrow. "It's conceivable there could be a significant deployment starting late this year, and by that I mean hundreds of systems scaling to thousands over time."

Currently, there are 95 digital cinema systems in North America and 220 worldwide using the Texas Instruments (TI) "DLP Cinema" technology, Darrow said.

Sony wants to change that. In Hollywood on Thursday, it would unveil a prototype of a system it has been so busy preparing it has not even had time to name it, said Stucker.

The new system is designed around Sony's SXRD microchip and promises picture resolution and contrast ratios at a specification known as "4K."

Mykietyn said Sony has leapfrogged TI's "2K" technology, and Sony's system gives filmmakers greater picture resolution and contrast. Stucker said the system meets DCI standards.

Darrow counters that a picture produced by a DLP Cinema system is already far better than film, and that DLP Cinema has proven it is "reliable, robust and secure" in real deployments.

Reliability, he said, was a key factor in reducing total system expenses because it decreased the chance of breakdowns.

Stucker said Sony could be in production in about six months, and the cost would be extremely competitive with the roughly $100,000 for current digital cinema systems.

On the other hand, current DCI standards call for "2K" systems that easily migrate to "4K" technology, and the DLP Cinema systems are designed to do that.

With Texas Instruments planning its own digital cinema presentation in Los Angeles on Friday, observers said the growing competition showed that the market had arrived.

"It's a positive sign that the digital cinema market for products and services is continuing to develop and advance," said DCI chief Chuck Goldwater.

---

quote: Steve Kraus

---

20K over 30 years is about $13/wk.
10K over 10 years is about 10/wk.

So maybe about $375 a week for film.

What numbers are we expecting for d-cinema when/if it goes mass? $100K? More? What lifetime is expected?

100K over 5 years is already $385/wk.

Help me with the accuracy of these estimates.

---

and multiply that by an average screen count of 14 per location if every theater was to go digital and you have.

$5,250 for film

$5,390 Just for the digital projectors not counting costs for the method of delivery of movie content.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-07-2004, 10:54 AM:
 
I don't see any advantage to making the comparison on a the basis of a multiplex rather than per screen.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-07-2004, 01:03 PM:
 
Don't forget to add in the increased cost of operation and maintenance. For example, if the light efficiency is less, you need a larger lamp (shorter life, higher price) and more electricity.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-07-2004, 03:19 PM:
 
As a former cinema client told me he could afford the extra power cost vs manpower cost
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-09-2004, 01:38 PM:
 
Perhaps some of you remember the rumor about how TI can increase the resolution to almost 4k using a 2k chip. They can use an optical shift likely diagonally and project multiple subframes to reach 4k. My original speculation was a horizontal shift of a 2048x2160 dmd image.

Using this method TI can go from 2048x1080 to 4096x2160. The latter is the DCI 4k standard. This would also remove the pixel structure and make the image smooth.
- no visible pixels
- higher resolution
- equal brightness

I wonder who was first to patent this, TI or HP? HP are working on wobulation, see link
wobulation
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-09-2004, 02:56 PM:
 
Sounds a little "shaky" to me!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-09-2004, 03:19 PM:
 
Must be controlled by "Fuzzy Logic"
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-09-2004, 05:06 PM:
 
I have seen this revolutionary "Wobulation" process and have posted below a picture of the test pattern directly from the screen:



>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-09-2004, 06:03 PM:
 
Phil
I am sorry but I can not tell if your post is serious or not.

About this wobulation and dlp in general I think it will make pixel structure a non issue and I think few will complain about the resolution. The technology might fall short on some other parameters that are important for picture quality. The digital nature at the heart of it all will probably manifest somehow but how visible will it be and to how many?
Who cares it will cost too much anyway.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-09-2004, 06:28 PM:
 
Mattias: Sorry for the confusion. It's a bogus "joke" post. As you read more at FT, you will understand my weird sense of humor. Good or Bad, most everyone here have figured me out! All except Mr. Redifer.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-09-2004, 06:39 PM:
 
This applies to other systems besides DLP so Sony for example could use it to go to 8K.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 06-09-2004, 08:01 PM:
 
Phil's sense of humour is cool Phil rules
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-10-2004, 03:55 AM:
 
Steve Kraus
Perhaps Sony can choose to wobulate too and I think that sxrd technology is fast enough to function in such a mode. However Sony probably does not have to use this technology. It will add cost to dlp projectors if TI add this technology to their big screen projectors.
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-12-2004, 11:22 AM:
 
I saw the Sony 4K projector in Atlanta at the Infocomm convention. They had both prototypes that where used in Los Angeles last week. The image was truely impressive. They where demoing on a split screen set up with 2k to the left and 4K to the right. 90% of the time 2K was more than adequate for the subject matter...the obvious would be pixelation of static charts such as a blow up of a city map. I viewed the 32 foot (10 meter) wide image at a 10 foot (3 meter) distance for evaluation. Sony is planning to start selling these units in January 2005. Barco, JVC, NEC, Christie where also displaying similar sized images ( SXGA+ HDTV, 2K )in side by side rooms which allowed for quick judgement of quality. On the trade show floor several vendors showed 1920 or 2K machines in response to Sony.JVC will have a 2K machine for home cinema and screening room use in a few weeks. Barco displayed a new 5000 lumen 2K projector which will be available in November with a $45,000.00 list price. The next few months will be interesting with enough options from 6 - 8 manufacturers to be very competitive...SXGA+ / 1920HDTV / 2K still, to me, look better than many USA release prints; the 4K appeared to be the quality I usually expect on film dailies projection.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-20-2004, 07:22 AM:
 
Is there anyone here that knows more about Panavision´s new digital camera?
Genesis

Dalsa´s new camera has 8M pixels r+g+b.
Is Genesis 12M pixel rgb? That is somewhat unclear.

Richard
Did they display 2k and 4k source material on a split screen basis with the same 4k projector. The Sony projectors can display 4 2k images at the same time. In that case you saw the difference in the source 2k vs 4k and not projector 2k vs 4k. Do I understand you correctly?
Also was the 2k projector at 345k$ a dlp or an lcd?

[ 06-21-2004, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]
 

---

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 06-21-2004, 03:28 PM:
 
A recurring theme in this whole thing has been "Mr. Average Joe doesn't care." I would like to raise the question that if the average moviegoing public does not care about things like picture quality and is only concerned with the "get out of the house" and "content not available elsewhere" factors, why have I never been to any sort of large format film presentation that wasn't sold out? It seems to me that the public is willing to pay a premium for something they perceive as "better", the studios know this too and have been using it it their marketing regarding D-cinema.

Just a thought...
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-23-2004, 04:00 PM:
 
John, 'tis the mediocre-ing down of America. We seem to accept more and more of what is less and less -- the least common denominator factor. With good marketing, the majority of average Americans have been led to actually believe that MacDonalds is edible food. US corporations strive not for what is best, but only to that which will rise to the threshold that is just below the point of mass dissatisfaction. If they don't complain about it, it's good enough.

Perhaps this is enevitable; perhaps the great masses will never demand the best, but instead what is convenient and what is comfortable. And that's ok, as long as those who can and do appreciate quality will still have the ability to experience it, even though they are a minority. Yes, the masses will revel in the "reality" shows where the highlight of the evening is people eating bugs; but that doesn't seem to prevent the much smaller, minority audiences from being able to find the quality programs of, say, PBS or the other quality programming that keeps rearing it's beautiful head.

Luckly there are still artists and creative people who will not settle and it seems that the original inferior quality of the first TI DLP units, while the quality they were capable of may not have caused the average Joe to go screaming from the theatre, evidently, luckily, the creative community demanded more and they seem to have prevailed. What is the cost of the new Sony's 4K units? Given the many manufactures that are compteting in this market, it would seem that the prices for the newest projection technology (which is able to rival film) might actually fall over time, which didn't seem to be the case with the $150,000 entry point of the first DLP units. If that happens, perhaps all the average Joes may actually wind up with a technology standard for cinema projection that will not be any different for them or even for the more discerning pubic minority (the ones with eyes) than what they have gotten previously with film technology.

Hmmm....maybe things aren't quite as bad as I used to think.

Richard, any prices yet on the new 4K Sony, Barco and others? Where do they fall in relation to the original TI DLP entry units?

What impact does that have on home units? What should I be waiting for to buy for a video home theatre unit that will not cause me to pull out what little left of my hair is left?
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-23-2004, 04:30 PM:
 
60k for 5k lumens
80k for 10k lumens
That is without lens
The projector for the biggest screen will be announced next year the former is said to come in January
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 06-23-2004, 05:23 PM:
 
The 2K projectors are in the same price range as the older 1K projectors. The 1K projectors have come down in price however. As to Sony...they have never been about being the cheapest in price...take SDDS...that was the most expensive system to own and to keep.

Why would any exhibitor purchase a Sony DCinema system when they showed such poor support for SDDS? The Sony 4K system at InfoComm apparantly only showed still images...more Sony tricks, if you ask me.

I suspect that no digital cinema equipment manufacturer has systems available or in the near future that are cost effective.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 06-25-2004, 06:18 PM:
 
The Sony unit did also show motion clips. The static displays allowed you judge resolution. I wondered if they dragged these two prototypes to CineExpo in Amsterdam this week? NHK Network of Japan has announced that they are working on Ultra HDTV with 8K resolution which they say will display images that look as real as looking out of a window....maybe too real to allow you to enjoy the story or presentation as a viewer versus a voyeuristic participant
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-25-2004, 09:24 PM:
 
There's always something better next year, and the year after that.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 06-25-2004, 09:42 PM:
 
I just received the wrap-up edition of the NAB Daily News for this year's convention. There's a brief mention of some coming technology for cinema use, hinting at increased display resolutions:

TV Increases Digital Technology Use
By Andrew Morris
TV Technology

(Excerpted from the NAB Broadcast Engineering Conference, "State of the Art of Television 2004."

quote:

---

Joseph Flaherty of CBS discussed the application of high-definition technology to the world of public, large screen venues.

"Television is coming to the movies," Flaherty said. "High-definition television is all but behind us and large screen digital imaging or LSDI is an extended application of HDTV. Theater-sized HD screens are coming and the very nature of theaters will change with them."

---

quote: Frank Angel

---

John, 'tis the mediocre-ing down of America. We seem to accept more and more of what is less and less -- the least common denominator factor.

---

quote: Paul Mayer

---

Theater-sized HD screens are coming and the very nature of theaters will change with them."

---

quote:

---

"In the next 5 years, film will be a thing of the past....DIGITAL technology will replace film in the way a movie is recorded, transported and then played back in the theatres. No longer will motion picture film be used in to show the latest movie in a theatre near you. Deeeee-Cinema will be more revolutionary than the introduction of sound was to the silent film era."

---

quote: Richard Fowler

---

NHK Network of Japan has announced that they are working on Ultra HDTV with 8K resolution

---

quote: Mattias Ohlson

---

When are you happy with things? I hope there are such times.

---

There's plenty of things that make me happy. But the business culture in the United States is definitely not one of them. You're lucky enough to live in a country where the medical industry isn't allowed to rape the living hell out of the public the way it works here. Most people here either have no health insurance or have really shitty coverage. I dated a woman last night who lost her job at Goodyear over medical claims costs. She herniated a disc in her neck on the job and the company made up some excuse to can her to get her out of their claims pool to cut costs. I need have surgery soon on a inguinal hernia that developed recently. With a $2,000 deductable, I'm trying to figure out how this event is going to keep from emptying my bank account and plunge me into a whole lot of debt. Most Americans are employed by small businesses and small businesses either cannot afford health insurance coverage at all or can only purchase really crappy coverage. But this is all in the name of paying for lush country clubs, million dollar homes and other nice things for the medical industry elite. So this is what drives the anger I have these days. And when you have guys from Enron laughing on audio tape how they're screwing Grandma Millie in California, I want to line those bastards up in front of a .50 caliber machine gun and blast them. We have a really screwed up culture of greed and excess in this country and without some significant change this culture will really put this nation into some very bad shape before the decade is finished.
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-26-2004, 07:58 PM:
 
Bevan, those are all revenue streams they can exploit apart from the film vs. digital question. I don't know what sort of margin there is on MP products but obviously they have deep thinkers pondering these things as well and if there is room for a change in pricing strategy which will still leave them a nice profit and such a change will delay wide adoption of d-cinema by 10 years from what it would otherwise be then no doubt they would consider it in their long term strategy. It would be great if they pulled the rug out from under d-cinema's already very shaky economics. Of course they'd might have to move production overseas to accomplish this.
 

---

Posted by Bevan Wright (Member # 1884) on 06-27-2004, 07:56 PM:
 
Steve, I actually believe they are related. Don't mean to speak for John P. but I see it as a transitional step for Kodak. Sort of 'getting the foot in the door.' Now whether or not they want to go through that door is a different question. Sure is interesting to think about the possibilities.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-28-2004, 11:25 AM:
 
On an inflation-adjusted basis, film print costs from the major labs are probably as low as they ever have been.

The cost structure of Digital Cinema infrastructure, equipment, data delivery, and maintenance needs to be reduced further to make it more competitive with film, not the other way around.

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-28-2004, 12:17 PM:
 
Bobby,

Very elegantly put. I'd add only six more words: "....the haves and the have mores."
 

---

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-28-2004, 07:12 PM:
 
The cost structure of Digital Cinema infrastructure, equipment, data delivery, and maintenance needs to be reduced further to make it more competitive with film, not the other way around.

Only if you want it to succeed, John.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 07-05-2004, 02:15 PM:
 
It's so hard not to allow myself to get sucked into this discussion, only to reiterate previous points...

It's a testament to the quality of that antique projector that it could still provide its useful purpose after all these years. It's a statement about the longevity (and perhaps the stagnation) of the film format that this antique projector is capable of displaying what is still being used in a majority of theaters 92 years later.

Back in the mid-80's, very few people were interested in CD's. They were priced more than LP's and cassettes, and CD players were incredibly expensive compared to turntables, which were a technology dating back to before that hand-cranked projector.

They were touted as being higher quality, digital, and better in many ways. (Sound familiar?) They were also frowned upon by the audio elite as too harsh and lacking the "sound" of vinyl. I remember people coming into the MusicLand I worked at, scoffing at this digital technology and saying that it will never catch on. (Sound familiar?)

Eventually, prices came down and the quality of the technology improved as lessons were learned. For the most part, analog playback media has withered into obscurity, satisfying only a small niche market.

I can't help but think of the episode of M*A*S*H when a new young doctor comes in to show off some new procedures, and the more experienced doctors wouldn't even give him the time of day. By the end of the episode, however, they realized that there was value in what he had in spite of his relative immaturity in the field, and they learned some valuable lessons.

DLP and other digital delivery systems are also relatively immature. The technology is still quite new in regular terms, much less when put into perspective of how long film cameras and projectors have been in service.

Perhaps those that see well-done film on a regular basis can see an obvious difference between 1k/2k DLP and well-done film, and find D-Cinema to be unacceptable. It's also somewhat fashionable for such people to look down with scorn on those who cannot see an obvious difference, but the big point to keep in mind here is that the "cattle" pay the bills and what they are willing to pay for will win in the end.

McDonalds may not be great food, but it's consistent. A public with money to spend and not very much time will go for consistency of quality over usually high (but inconsistently so) quality more often than not.

The biggest challenge for everyone who believes that their film presentation can outdo any digital presentation any day of the week is for their presentations to set the bar so high that digital will have to get really good before it can take film's place.

In my experience in many different theaters in the area, digital has already eclipsed film presentations. No splice problems, no jump and weave, and no dirt after the first weekend. Maybe after repeat viewings, I would begin to notice the lower resolution and it would bother me, but the movies I watched in DLP looked pretty good to me, and I'm probably more discerning than the average movie-goer.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 07-05-2004, 02:54 PM:
 
"In my experience in many different theaters in the area, digital has already eclipsed film presentations. No splice problems, no jump and weave, and no dirt after the first weekend. Maybe after repeat viewings, I would begin to notice the lower resolution and it would bother me, but the movies I watched in DLP looked pretty good to me, and I'm probably more discerning than the average movie-goer."

Then the theatres you attend must be pathetic. Just rememebr the lack of maintance and operator error will filter down to the dcinema world too. The bottom line is not the quality but the cost until the exhibitor can make as much money with out an increased investment it will not happen
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-05-2004, 11:36 PM:
 

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

The biggest challenge for everyone who believes that their film presentation can outdo any digital presentation any day of the week is for their presentations to set the bar so high that digital will have to get really good before it can take film's place.

---

quote: William Hooper

---

will purchase new digital cinema
projectors and video displays with a grant given to it by the state in an effort to
lure college graduates to Ann Arbor.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

When a movie studio is able to literally flood the North American market with more than 8,000 prints of a certain film (when 2,000 is enough)

---

quote:

---

3.2.1.2. Image Structure
The DCDM shall provide an image structure container that consists of either a 2K (2048 x 1080) or 4K (4096 x 2160)image file as defined in Table 1. It is expected that the image structure shall use one of the two containers such that either the horizontal or vertical resolution is filled. For example, a 4K image file with a 2.39:1 aspect ratio would require an image structure of 4096 x 1714, therefore filling the horizontal resolution of the 4K container. The pixel orientation, as displayed on the screen, shall be understood to flow from left to right and top to bottom. Also, the horizontal and vertical pixel count shall begin with 0. For example, the top left pixel of the displayed image shall be anotated as (0, 0).

---

 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 07-27-2005, 07:44 PM:
 
Brad-

I do have a booker. I am currently getting basically everything I want on the break. I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't getting product now, but that if the release pattern changed as drastically as Bobby suggested, all of the small towns would be left out. 2000 prints is a lot different then 2000 theatres, which I think is Steve's basic point.

Mitchell-

First of all, if you want me to send you some Cream Soda, I would be glad to. Gem is a local bottler and you can only buy it here in Wellston and the surrounding area. Send me an e-mail and we'll work it out.

When I bought the Louvee, there was a christie lamphouse with a century projector in storage that I was told came out of the drive-in. Was that the set up you remember? There was also a little feature film called "Deep Rub" in storage that came from the drive-in. I never did have the guts to build it up and watch it though.

As far as the Athena, I've got a story there too. OU bought it and renovated it in 2002. My ex-partner and I ran it for three years, when we spilt up our copmpany, he kept the Athena. I was the manager there for three years (Feb 2002 to Jan 2005). I didn't really like Athens, though, Court street was simply to wild for me. Halloween was fun though.

My ex-partner lost his bid for a contract renewal and the Athena is now ran by a local guy from Athens, who has a contract with the university like we did. OU spent a couple million fixing the place up and did a pretty nice job.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-27-2005, 08:09 PM:
 
A couple of good things in the spec......

1) Audio will be uncompressed, 24 bit, 48 or 96 kHz and up to 16 discreet channels are supported

2) Image compression is JPEG 2000. Since JPEG 2000 compresses each frame without regard to preceeding or following frames, there shouldn't be the MPEG type motion artifacts.

3) Data rate will be 8 to 9 times the data rate of HD-DVD or blu-ray.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-27-2005, 08:25 PM:
 
Couple of bad things to point out.

1) loss of jobs. Yeah one can get another job but in some cases it's not that easy.

2) no more attendance than we have now

3) Hollywood is still going to produce tons of shit.

4) It's still only truly going to benefit the studios which leads to the above number 1.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-27-2005, 11:01 PM:
 
I wonder how much clout DCI has? I only ask because they, or someone, is going to have to push very aggressively to force hardware companies, film studios and anyone else involved in the whole "D-Cinema" pipeline to pursue the 4K standard. If there isn't some arm twisting happening we can look forward to 2K remaining the de-facto standard.

Also, they describe 2K as being 2048 X 1080. Huh? I thought a full 2K frame was 2048 X 1536.
 

---

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 07-28-2005, 12:51 AM:
 
The DCI looked at a number of resolutions to be included in the Digital Cinema Distribution Master (DCDM). These included 4928x2048, 3680x1536, 2464x1040, 1920x1080, 3840x2160, and 4096x2048. They finally settled on 4096x2160 for 4K. The DCDM is able to contain data for both 2K and 4K, therefore, the 2K is culled from the 4K data, and 1/2 of the 4K resolution is 2048x1080.

On another note, the actual specs for digital cinema are being formulated by SMPTE committee DC-28.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-28-2005, 01:34 AM:
 
Other not so good things: no support for aspect ratios other than 1:1.85 and 'scope without losing the number of active pixels (i.e. the spec doesn't seem to support the encoding and projection of Academy ratio images by changing the pixel ratio, if I've read it correctly); and no native support for speeds other than 24fps.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-28-2005, 04:50 AM:
 
What a GREAT "official" announcement! I was ***REALLY*** impressed with the "A" list of people that commented on the NEW "standards"... I almost creamed in my jeans!

I think it would have been a shorter announcement if they quoted who DID NOT sniff and ass-licked Chuck and his DCI posse!

Too bad nothing technical was mentioned about those standards, huh? I sincerely HOPE that it STILL WILL BE the "standard" in another 2 years.... HA!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2005, 12:14 PM:
 
Phil - that article was the "puff piece" for the public. As we all know, they don't even care if the picture is in focus, so why should they care about this shit? If you want to read the technical goop, go to the website. You can read all 170+ pages.

www.dcimovies.com
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-28-2005, 02:47 PM:
 
According to the website www.boingboing.net, over 1/2 of the document is devoted to piracy prevention.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2005, 12:34 AM:
 
Ooh. Ahh. Piracy prevention.

I guess that means having a "digital" version of CAP code chicken pox. My visual imagination is picturing a bunch of huge Atari 2600 pong style brick pixels scattered across an image. They can use the cinder block sized brick shit code...I mean crap code, oh, dammit, CAP code...pixels -yeah I was talking about the use of pixels. Um. Yeah, they can use those huge pixels to protect us viewers from the naked nipples of sexy actresses, but preserve the pristene appearence of exploding brain matter and skull fragments in other scenes -in digitally perfect clarity (with just a few lossy compression artifacts).

Yes, I think some of the folks hocking this "anti piracy" stuff are also cut from the same cloth as the folks who finally thought Grand Theft Auto San Andreas should be given an Adults-Only gaming rating because of the hidden sex scenes. No problem with the violence and glorification of an extremely preverse and destructive lifestyle. Violence good, sex bad. Brick pixels and chicken pox on the screen...all around delicious!!!
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-31-2005, 08:53 AM:
 
How right you are, Bobby -- make a film that shows a breast with an erect nipple, and they want to put cast and crew in jail and make them all register as sex offenders* . But make a film that shows that breast being hacked off with a machettee, and cast and crew are on every morning talk show and up for the People's Choice Awards.

American has zone morality. The only thing that they find moral or immoral, is what happens in that zone between the navel and the knees.....everything else is fair game....er, except stem cell research.

*The Sex Registry -- the book you check to see where to go in your neighborhood for sex?
 

---

Posted by Miguel Garcia (Member # 2443) on 08-01-2005, 04:57 AM:
 
Dear colleagues,
I read with true interest all the subjets or topics that are considered in this forum; I really believe in the value of the forum as a tool of learning through professional experience, for instance. I would like to take part more actively, but I cannot manage in English very well and this is the reason why I must select carefuly the subjects or, on the other hand, back answers.

I have to confess that in this case I have not been able to resist the temptation to deliver some words, because as everybody says, this a matter global view, such as the digital projection in theaters.

According to this, I allow myself to say what I think, leaving clear that it is my personal opinion, which doesn't mean at all that I could be in the possession of truth. And also, that I am not against the technological advances or achivements (I am not so stupid); any king of progress or advence in any field seems fantastic an useful to me.

But what seems not proper to me is the possibility that, unconciosly, someone could mislead (even with half truths) to the independet exhibition market on the tecnological changes, just because these no-truths, as usual, are in favour of the big industry.
I know and understand that we are facing a reconversion process that goes beyond the purely technological things, and I also know that some sectors of our industries are playing or gambling with the future of the traditional exhibition in our theaters or cinemas. The fact that the traditional projection is been erase -blindly and pitylessly-- by digital systems, will irremediably reflect, according to my view, in a progressive diminution of the audience to the theaters. This will happen by a simple sociological question based on previous experiences, and that are translated as "In house I enjoy the same experience as in the thaters or cinemas".

Allow me to extend in a basic explanation on this matter.

All of us will remember what the incorporation to the films of new sound technology systems supposed to be, in clear favour of the business. Now, this technologies are also at the hand of the domestic users or wachers, with the consequent repercussion: no longer is necessary to go to a theater to enjoy thoroughly those sound systems.

As everybody knows digital projections are gaining field in our theaters or cinemas. In very short time those digital projections will also be at home in a massive form, and they will even be able to surpass the quality offered in the theaters. Conequently, not only our audience will go down, but our businesses will go to the bank-rupt, because wi will not be able to recover from the capital invested in the every day buying of new apparatuses or devices in these fields.

Summing-up my points of view:
1.That the industry or controllers of the industry must be clear in their information to the exhibitors of films.
2.That this industry must inform openly about its true intentions.
3.Otherwise, we must suppose that what industry is only looking for is to increase its benefits ("blindly and pitylessly").
4.How? Selling and exhibiting its film or digital products (even in premiers), simultaneously or sincronic, world-wide either to our cinemas or theater or the houses or homes; in that case, as it is known, by pay per view or similar formulae.
It is clear that this commercial policy would be very effective for the interests of the industry, just because we are within a global market, but, at the samen time, very aggressive.

On the contrary, for the independent exhibitors will be translated in a low yield, first of all by the increase of the competition, and secondly by the necessity of a greater time of exhibition in billboard to be able to fulfill the economic terms. Let us be sincere, please.

I would also like, taking advantage of the opportunity that this offers, to make a call to whichever people feel the passion by the projection of films, in traditional form, that they pronounce or declare in defense of the motion picture projection as the proper creation support, and support of exhibition for the audience. By this means, perhaps, we must collect the opinion of whichever professionals also considers, who even without being considered in its just measured by the industry, form the last and unpayable link of that chain that is the cinema.

Miguel García. Expert in cinematography of the Regional Filmoteca of Murcia (Spain) www.filmotecamurcia.com
 

---

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-01-2005, 05:40 AM:
 
Miguel: your command of the English language is excellent; perhaps better than some who speak it all of the time.

Your understanding of the way politics has begun to affect technical (scientific) matters is even better.

Louis
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 08-01-2005, 10:41 AM:
 
When digital projectors in the cinemas are 4k home projectors will not be able to compete.
I will make two points.

1 Who has a 10-15m wide screen at home with a superb audio setup?
2 How many home users have access to digital cinema content? Hdtv compared to digital cinema content is like comparing vhs with a good dvd. There is no comparison.

I agree with many of the other points made.
 

---