>>DIGITALLY PRODUCED MOVIE TO BE SHOWN IN DIGITAL HOUSES

Columbia Pictures said on Monday that it will release Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within in seven "digital cinemas" Wednesday, where Texas Instruments DLP digital projectors will run the movie from in-theater servers. In a statement, Bill Hausch, who carries the long title of senior vice president, Strategic Technologies, Digital Studios Division for Sony Pictures Entertainment, commented: "The sensation you get with digital cinema is a picture without a flicker, scratches, dirt or focus flutter. We're providing the moviegoing patron a glimpse of the future of theatrical exhibition." Digital theaters showing the film include AMC Empire, New York City; Edwards Irvine Spectrum, Irvine, Calif.; AMC Media 6, Burbank, Calif.; Cinemark Legacy, Dallas; Famous Players Paramount, Toronto; AMC Barrington, Chicago; and the AMC Van Ness, San Francisco. Final Fantasy incorporates human-looking stars that are completely computer generated.<<

But I'm already projecting images free of flicker, scratches, dirt or focus flutter. It's called a combination of a correctly aligned lamp, FilmGuard and decent lenses. And what's more it cost me a hellava lot less that what Texas Instruments are offering.

Take note film companies...the future has already been met by technology currently available...it's called 35mm film and a caring PROJECTIONIST!

------------------
"If you think THIS is fantastic...wait until you see the full effect with the HIMP!"
- Chief Inspector Clouseau.
 

1000111001011001100010111001. 1100011010101010011100100101011000011
00100001000100001111010101010100010. 010000100000111100101010100010
01011100101000100010001001010101000010010010001001000010000001011
10001001010100101001010100110. 00100001001001010.

Oh, one more thing -- is that a completely random string of numbers, or do they generate some kind of ASCII message?

------------------
Tao Yue
MIT '04: Course VI-2, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Projectionist, MIT Lecture Series Committee

Brad will probably introduce DIGIGUARD® shortly to elminate the dead pixels on your projector.

I am amazed that I lived this long without digital in my life.

Now that I know that Bob Maar is digital, I await the Neumade Digital 35mm splicer so that there will be no evidence that the splice just went through my measly analog Holmes 8.

Seriously, I am sick of hearing how good for me digital anything is. It all seemed to start when CD's came along. I was not impressed then, either.

Did you mean D-ILA technology?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

------------------
Matt Rockwell
xenon wrangler / carbon master
IA #251
 

70mm IB Tech prints have never been made. I am not sure of the cost-effectiveness of tooling up an IB printing rig for 5/70 but im sure its way too expensive.

70mm Eastman Vision prints from a 65mm negative would suffice for me. DTS soundtrack is fine as well.

John Pytlak agreed with me a couple years ago at the rigged [in DLP's favor of course] side-by-side DLP-vs-film comparison at ShoWest, that DLP doesnt stand a snowball's chance in hell of matching a 70mm print from 65mm negative.

Vive Le FILM!!! (Especially in 5/70mm!!)

Aaron

Even with a more expensive booth, they're being seduced by the *idea* of film-less delivery & automation eliminating company-wide projectionist/usher-B positions is probably being considered in terms of annual salaries, liability insurance, workers' comp insurance, & health insurance cost. The "analog units" being targeted are not neccessarily the projectors, but the operators.

yet, 35mm is unbeatable, if fresh copy is used, for real films.

also, isn't the laser techology the real stuff??

but hey, TI got majors by the balls with super strict contracts anyway..... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I would say 3DLP is great for large home theaters, 15-20ft screens, with SDI connections.

the sole real advtantage of 3DLPS for cinemas is constant quality and billions of colors. but blacks level, pixelisation are still an issue
 

IMHO, current Digital Cinema looks best with animation and CGI, where resolution is not an issue, and the colors are computer-generated. Pixel visibility and "jaggies" are issues when you sit close to the screen.

Be skeptical of "contrast ratio" specifications -- usually they are measured totally "on" (white) vs. "off" (black), so the black level measurement is without any other light going through the optical system, and therefore unrealistic. The effect of optical flare in the system is being ignored. By that measure, a Kodak VISION Premier print would have a contrast ratio of over 10000:1! Flare in the optical system cannot be ignored, and there are lots of optics in a digital projector.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

quote:

---

John Pytlak wrote:
IMHO, current Digital Cinema looks best with animation and CGI, where resolution is not an issue...

---

I agree that current digital cinema is best suited to showing computer animation, but I still think resolution is an issue in such cases. Most feature film computer work is done at or near "2K" resolution, but since DLP is currently limited to only 1280x1024, it cannot display every last pixel of a 2K image. It's true that DLP will avoid the addition of analog noise that comes from printing to film, but what good does that do if DLP can't display all the pixels?

On the other hand, outputting digital work to film with a laser recorder will preserve all the pixels. Even if there is a chance of introducing some slight analog artifacts, I still think that's better than scaling the images down for DLP. Plus, there's no lossy video compression to worry about, which is a problem with current digital equipment.

I've looked all over, and I can't find any information about the exact resolution "Final Fantasy" was rendered at. In fact, information about the resolution of nearly any CG work these days is very hard to come by. I wonder if they are being secretive about it in order to discourage people from speculating about the very things I discuss in the above paragraphs...

I think that "real" actors should be worried about their future, at least as much as film projectionists!
Other than a lack of emotional "projection", the human CG characters look great to me. And Moore's Law is seemingly still in force...
 

I myself like what the technology has achieved. although not perfect by all means(prefer a 70mm Dolby mag print viewed on a traditional 12:1 seating slope<hate stadium seating> ) it is solid and at least we know if we go the digital route with the TI machine we can expect an "X" amount of quality that will only get better with time......
Anybody get a look at the Qualcomm machine say around Entertech Seminar of '99?
Black, contrast? haha! The black was purple for one, and well the rest will go unmentioned but it was a fifteen foot image to be presented alongside the TI presentation's fifteen foot image. The TI guys had their machine on a plastic rack container----->easy out install/ boom your on screen. The Qualcomm guys brought a huge plastic Pelican Case Crate. It took them two days to get the picture "just right" with all black...i mean purple...and the rest. When show time came to....the right hand side TI image had a pretty good, in my opinion, presentation for being my first digital cinema viewing. It was clear, steady, bright, colorful(although the red seemed a bit exaggerated)focus immpecable, yet it wasn't what I call "liquid". A 45 foot screen, 4k bulb, 3 bladed shutter makes a liquid presentation. the movie stands out! The qualcomm presentation never came through....i guess the engineers didn't want to make it obvious whose technology was superior so they scrapped their viewing. hehe well there you go!!! a little history on the birth of Digital Cinema! We've come a long way and it will take time for God's sake. Give it the time it needs and only exibiting what existing technology available like the TI DLP machine and the Quvit Digital storage unit and show it off to the public will gain more confidence in the technology and demand for more and better! Will we achieve 4k x 4k film quality picture in the future?....I think so. Lasers? mentioned in an earlier post....the day will come.
John P? agree with achieving 4k x 4k someday?

Rory

 

I love you guys!

The one thing nobody considers... a good projectionist is still a necessary component to a quality presentation in Digital Cinema as well. At THX, we did the Digital Cinema releases for Episode 1, Titan A.E., Akira, Shrek (recently), and Jurassic Park 3 (presently). And I hate to say this, but Digital Cinema has come a long way baby. It really looks better, and if the Theatre and equipment are properly maintained (sounds a lot like 35mm, doesn't it), it really does rival the best film presentations. JP3 is playing at 10 sites Digitally, check it out...

And so you all don't hate me... I run TAP. We survive off of 35mm film. Yet, I am welcoming the Digital world because, and you can quote me on this, "We'll all be dead before 35mm is obsolete." At best, when all the digital dust settles, we'll all be working with dual inventories, and trust me... Digital Cinema is not like a VCR. You don't just press play... or our Techs wouldn't be spending 15 hours or more at each site.

Anyway, it does look good. And with the right technical support, like 35mm film, it will look great.

THXfully Yours,

Ted Costas
Manager, THX Theatre Alignment Program

 

quote:

---

Roy Burke wrote:
it is solid and at least we know if we go the digital route with the TI machine we can expect an "X" amount of quality that will only get better with time......

---

I'm curious as to why you say it will get better over time. Unless theaters install new projectors on a regular basis, the resolution and other parameters will stay exactly the same and not improve. That's the trouble with digital -- that level "X" you mention represents both the minimum and the maximum level of quality. You have to get a brand-new projector if you want it to increase.

When I go to a movie now, if the print is of poor quality, that doesn't bother me so much because I know that for the next movie, it will be a whole new print; thus the quality can (and usually is) different.

But with digital -- that's it! Whatever level the quality is at when the projector is first installed is where it will remain forever, unless the projector is completely replaced by a new one.

I just don't see spendthrift theater chains being all that enthusiastic about upgrading. Once they install a digital projector they will likely just leave it in place for years or even decades. Recall Phil Barlow of Disney's recent comment in which he said they will not make any money off digital cinema for at least seven years. That's seven years with no upgrades at all; probably followed by at least another seven years (since they will no doubt want to have it in place actively saving them money for at least an equal amount of time as it took to pay for it). So that's a total of fourteen years in which the pixel count does not increase by even one!

I am concerned that if companies get too hasty and start installing digital systems before they have reached their full potential, we will be stuck watching inferior images for the next couple of decades. This so-called digital "revolution" is in danger of saddling everyone with needlessly low standards.

quote:

---

David Baum wrote:
TI has introduced new anamorphic chips recently, 1920x1280 or something...

---

Now that's new. I know they recently came out with their "black" chips (the ones with improved contrast), but they are still 1280x1024. Has there been an announcement? (TI's website doesn't say anything about it.) It seems like every few months the rumors pop up that TI has finally reached HDTV's full 1920x1080 resolution (which is still not enough to replace film, but at least it's better than 1280x1024) ... but it never actually materializes. It's one of those "I'll believe it when I see it" things.

quote:

---

Ted Costas wrote:
And I hate to say this, but Digital Cinema has come a long way baby. It really looks better...

---

Well Ted, I'm the kind of person you have to convince. I'm not a projectionist (I'm not even in the exhibition industry), so I've got no vested interest -- I'm not worried about losing my job. I'm just a customer. I just want to be able to pay my money and see the best presentation possible.

And you know what? I'm not impressed with the digital presentations I've seen so far. It may have come a long way, but it's still got a long way to go. I can still remember just how good the 70mm 6-track presentations were that I saw in the 80s and early 90s. As a customer, I demand that level of quality. So far digital is just all hype and no results. As it stands now, I'd rather pay to see a 35mm print than a 1280x1024 DLP presentation.

Just my $0.02...

At a recent SMPTE/USC event, at the Entertainment Technology Center's Digital Cinema Laboratory in the Pacific Hollywood theatre, "Space Cowboys" was screened, with alternating reels between digital (TI's latest DLP Cinema prototype) and film (35mm release print through a Kinoton PK60E). Sitting about 2.5 screen heights back (the screen was about 50 feet wide), the DLP image looked very impressive compared to film in terms of blacks and spatial resolution (except for stationary graphics), and I slightly preferred its brightness and sharpness. Fleshtones did look somewhat washed out, with film seeming to have somewhat greater depth and richness with color rendition. But what I expected was the film to have noticeable flicker and jitter/weave. But neither was easily detected--the film projection was flawless and one of the best I have seen, and the print was in remarkably good condition.

I came away from this event with two observations: 1) DLP Cinema projection on a 50-foot screen, at a mere resolution that can be produced on a computer monitor is undeniably impressive and the technology is only going to get better (and has to get better), and 2) Film projection standards at their best can raise image quality to a whole new level and pose a greater challenge to digital cinema.

I'm curious to see how the detractors are going to react when JVC's and Kodak's new projectors (at QXGA resolution) come online with actual digital cinema demonstrations. Are they still going to complain when they get to look at 2k images? If so, then why isn't anyone crying foul that film is scanned at "only" 2k for CGI work? Or that Roger Deakins accepted a 2k scan of the camera neg for "O Brother Where Art Thou?" for digital color manipulation?

Of course, this is all separate from the question of future upgradability of projectors and technological obsolesence.

quote:

---

The problem I see with detractors of digital cinema is that they're basing all of their criticisms on digital cinema in its current state. I feel that digital cinema looks very impressive but has quite a ways to go before it can be acceptable for prime time.

---

But the other camp, the shillers of digital cinema, are trying to sell something which does not exist yet, hypeware.

How realistic *or* ethical is that?

Here's an ugly illustration of someone selling something now which is not yet ready for prime time:

Check the League of Historic American Theatres site.

At this year's convention, there's a speaker to convince historic
theaters to add some sort of digital projection technology.
Most booths were so cramped that when platters came, one projector
had to leave the booth. So, with a digital projector, there'd be no room for a 2nd projector for changeovers *or* another projector - not to mention no product...

The fella came from the city with a case of this snake oil which he said would cure everything, so we bought it...

From
http://lhat.org/conference_theatre/plenary_sessions.asp

quote:

---

PLENARY SESSION
3

Digital Cinema: New Technology for Old Movie Theatres
Friday, July 20, 2001
8:30 AM
Roosevelt Hotel

Digital technology is changing all aspects of our existence, in our businesses, personal lives and entertainment options. We have digital systems in all aspects of the production and presentation of entertainment and educational programs.

This session presents a comprehensive overview of the exhibition and distribution of film-based media, as well as alternate content such as High Definition "films" of music, dance, theater, and popular attractions for presentation on large screens in historic theatres.

The presenters will be Barry Rebo and Giovanni Cozzi, co-founders of EmergingCinemas, LLC, a New York based company. Both have many years of experience in both digital production and digital presentation technologies. EmergingCinemas is assembling a national network of digital screening venues such as those operated by many LHAT members.

Topics to be covered include:

The impact of digital technologies on the production of entertainment content.
Most major film festivals, such as the prestigious Sundance Film Festival, now use digital projection technologies. What's involved, what does it cost?
Understanding the major components of a digital projection system.
Content, in an appropriate digital format, that will be available to your facility now, and in the near future.
Ways to get started. What's out there today, and business strategies and options to be pursued.

---

quote:

---

That's the trouble with digital -- that level "X" you mention represents both the minimum and the maximum level of quality.

---

Sorry, but no. Even with the same hardware, there can be improvements made to the image quality. Notice the difference in the quality of your TV picture when it gets a better signal. Or in a QUicktime movie played on a computer. You can have a Quicktime that has a resolution of 320x240 (just for example) that has mediocre image quality. Let's say it is compressed with the Sorenson 3 codec. You can also have a Quicktime, also 320x240, also encoded with Sorenson (even with the same frame rate, etc), but it looks MUCH better? How? Less compression. No new hardware required. Sure, the file takes up a bit more space, but there is a difference and hardware doesn't play a part in that difference. Storage is super-cheap nowadays.

quote:

---

Perry Sun wrote:
The problem I see with detractors of digital cinema is that they're basing all of their criticisms on digital cinema in its current state. I feel that digital cinema looks very impressive but has quite a ways to go before it can be acceptable for prime time.

---

There are companies out there (Disney, Technicolor, etc.) who are saying that the current state is "good enough". They are making plans to take the current state and install it in theaters. I'd say that makes the current state a perfectly valid target for criticism. I am not going to give digital cinema a free ride. If they're going to try and shove it down consumers' throats before it's ready, I'm going to complain. Adopting a wait-and-see attitude is not appropriate in that case.

Basically, it doesn't matter if the technology improves later on. It only matters what actually gets installed in theaters.

And again, there's the problem of upgrades. Or rather, a lack of upgrades. Just look at Technicolor's digital cinema plan. They say they are going to install 1280x1024 DLP projectors (there's that "current state" again) in 1000 theaters for free and build up from there. But where is their financial incentive to upgrade? The cheapest thing for them to do is to just leave those theaters alone and never install anything new. Those 1000 screens will be stuck for years, possibly decades, at 1280x1024 resolution. I would even bet that some of them will stay that way until the building is torn down! And like I said before, Phil Barlow of Disney recently said they're not going to make any money off digital cinema for at least seven years. Does anyone believe they are going to upgrade before that time is up? How about after? Won't they want at least a few years to enjoy it after its paid for before they even consider spending more money on it? If they manage to make the current state of digital cinema a de facto standard, why would they bother spending the money to move beyond it? (But I'm repeating myself here.) In any case, studios have already made it abundantly clear that they do not care about quality. (If they did, we would still be watching movies in 5-perf 70mm.) I have no faith that they will upgrade.

quote:

---

I'm curious to see how the detractors are going to react when JVC's and Kodak's new projectors (at QXGA resolution) come online with actual digital cinema demonstrations. Are they still going to complain when they get to look at 2k images? If so, then why isn't anyone crying foul that film is scanned at "only" 2k for CGI work?

---

Hey, I complain about 2K resolution SFX all the time, and so do a lot of other people. I like to play "spot the jaggies" whenever I'm at the movies. 2K would be minimally acceptable to me, but I'd still rather see more.

The human eye can resolve details at a viewing angle of about 1 arcminute (here is a reference). And when I go to the movies, I like to sit so that my total viewing angle for the entire screen is about 60 degrees. For a 2.39:1 image, that works out to just over 2 screen heights back (isn't that the SMPTE recommended viewing distance?). Going by the 1 arcminute measure, that means a 2.39:1 image would have to have at least 3600 pixels across its width in order for the pixels to become so small that the eye couldn't resolve them anymore at a distance of 2 screen heights. 2K resolution doesn't measure up to that, and 1280x1024 sure as heck doesn't.

quote:

---

Or that Roger Deakins accepted a 2k scan of the camera neg for "O Brother Where Art Thou?" for digital color manipulation?

---

Here is a quote from a Kodak article about it:

quote:

---

Deakins believes that 2K scanning imposes compromises in the quality of the final images. Priestnall noted it would be impractical to scan, store and handle digital files for a complete motion picture at 4K resolution today, but predicted that it is a likely future development.

---

Sounds like Deakins only accepted it because he had to, not because he wanted to.

quote:

---

Joe Redifer wrote:
Even with the same hardware, there can be improvements made to the image quality.

---

Yes, but if you look at TI's web page, you'll see that they usually start with 2K resolution material and then scale it down to 1280x1024 before sending the data to theaters. They are already "maxing it out". The only way to get an improved picture out of DLP is to increase the native resolution of the display element.

"Color timing was modified using a DaVinci 2K color corrector."

That is not the same thing. Perhaps you saw this somewhere else on the site? Also, resolution isn't everything. My example had two Quicktimes of the same resolution (320 x 240), yet there was a difference. It doesn't matter if the source was 640x480 or 27840x20880 (other differences such as color nonwithstanding), the Quicktime will look the same if you used the same amount and type of compression, etc. It's all about the compression. I haven't seen an actual digital presentation in a theater yet, but if you can see ANY type of compression artifact, whether it be blockiness (not aliasing) or anything else, then that can be fixed without changing resolution or source material. I see differences in DVDs all the time! Check out the first release of "Seven" and compare it to the recent release. Both are the same resolution, but the newer one uses a far more optimized transfer and compression.

And you're right, resolution isn't everything. Compression is certainly an issue (except for those early demos that were run off uncompressed HD tapes). But my point is that even with all of those factors pushed to their maximum quality, the resolution of the DLP display chips imposes a hard limit on how good the images can be. However, I certainly acknowledge your point that there is variance within those limits.
 

Then what?

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
 

The upgradability issue of projectors is certainly being considered with the various business models that are being proposed. I've also heard from at least one DLP Cinema manufacturer who is offering a trade-in credit for an upgrade to a future projector. That having been said, trying to sell and install DLP Cinema at this time isn't in the best interests of the exhibitor, since SMPTE standards haven't been finalized, and based on current discussion the resolution for the "initial" implementation of digital cinema should be about 2k for 1.85:1 and about 2.4k for 2.39:1. TI is reportedly working on refining their DMD to increase the density of their micromirrors, but they also would like to know what exactly the industry wants in terms of spatial resolution.

Some from the projector manufacturers believe that the now "current" DLP Cinema projectors, if they were to be installed in theatres now would be shifted to smaller screens as new projectors become available.

The catalyst that will move d-cinema ahead is a business model that works for everyone, one that also takes into account upgradability. The problem is that any business plan is highly likely to shake so many existing foundations of exhibition/distribution that uniform acceptance could be very difficult.

You can justify film as highly preferable to digital, but to justify on the basis of being able to realize 3.6k resolution, when the theoretical resolution of 35mm film is 4k, but under realistic projection conditions is far lower due to focus, jitter/weave is a little far-reaching to me.

------------------
Movie Sound Editor,
Widescreen Review www.widescreenreview.com

quote:

---

Actually there are several projectors out there that focus flutter, jitter and weeve are a non issue as they should be

---

Aside from this, there is also the question of how much generational loss in resolution results from interpositive to high speed-duplicated release print. Perhaps John Pytlak has a good estimate?

------------------
Movie Sound Editor,
Widescreen Review
www.widescreenreview.com
 

Besides, the good DLP will be when no downconversion will occur, that is if the movie has been shot at the resolutionof the DMD. That is what Lucas has been doing for EP II with the Sony digicams, using the current highest existing dmd resolution. But as you say, studios don't want to wait.
Besides, the masses are J6packs and can't distinguish squat from shit !
But again, TI has majors by the cojones.

I don't like progress at all cost. Look at the dvd: you end up with dvd loaded up with supplements at the expense of the sound and the image sometimes. And the great PCM tracks, "lossless" audio used on laserdiscs has been ruled out of the dvds by Dolby and replaced by the crappy dolby surround 192kbps!
Now, we go from 2000points per line of film or more to SXGA. duh !
Studios however are ready to maintain quality over time rather than guaranteeing naturalness and maximum resolution. If it results in higher box offices numbers, ok, good for theaters too but for purists.......

A couple of thoughts...first on the printing issue....from what I understand (and Mr. P. has posted many times now) the primary problem with high-speed printing isn't the speed itself but the fact that they contact print each stage rather than using a step-print between contacts...that is, there are only two pitches of film 1866 and 1870...you can only contact print one stage before a step print or jitter will result. There are many high quality low jitter prints out there...unfortunately, this business of contact printing each stage has been allowed.

On to the next item...costs...what is the life expectancy of the D Cinema projectors...then what is the cost/year of operating the D Cinema projection equipment (regarless of who is paying)? I have seen no financial models that can exist in the cinema market...at least none where the exhibitor is paying anything on the projectors. What exhibitors pay for film projectors is very little and why they pay for upkeep is almost immeasurable as compared to video.

You will read about people here on film-tech bitch about changing belts out at the cost of less than $100/year...we just got a quote back from Apollo for repairing one of their projectors (a small one at that) for just under $10,000...Are exhibitors prepaird to pay the equivalent of a new projector every 5 years? They sure aren't now.

Back to resolution a bit...what if...70mm was adopted as the film projection standard instead of 35mm (stop laughing and hear me out)...The cost/theatre to convert every screen over to 70mm would cost the exhibitor less than 10% of that for video (now with DTS and such as a viable sound track medium)...all the exhibitor would have to do is replace just the projector head, no penthouse, drop in 70mm centerfeeds, and swap rollers...they would now have a robust system that after the initial purchase wouldn't cost them any more/year than their existing 35mm systems. How does D Cinema compare to that...after all 70mm is state-of-the-art in film projection, not 35mm...35mm is just the most popular. D Cinema doesn't have the resolution of 70mm and with one shot, the quality of the image jumps about 3 fold.

Then there are the side benefits...I mean Kodak I'm sure would be in favor of an all 70mm world! (right John?) And even Dolby should love it...after all they have been trying to rid the planet of those god awful, better sounding, silver analog tracks on 35mm...Just think how proud Ioan would be to know that DTS would be saving the environment!

The patron would be seeing a vastly improved show (or potentially improved show) with the increase in sharpness and steadiness...all for the same low-low price

The only losers in the deal would be the distributers that have to pay for the 70mm prints. This might cut back on print availability...which...might not be such a bad idea for the industry as a whole since we are much too over screened...the industry would be better off with fewer yet higher quality movie theatres...it would have the best result if longevity is the goal...not just immediate profit.

I site an example...the theatre I work at, the Uptown in Washington, DC often will play day and date with a popular Hoyts theatre. On opening week, the Hoyts will often out gross us by virture of more screens...ah ha, the bean counters would say...see multiplexes are a smart move...look at the bottom line! But at the end of the title's run, we almost ALWAYS out gross them on every title. A high quality large theatre, long term, is more financially sound than a lower quality small theatre.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

Quit your job at the Uptown and at Cardinal and go to work for SMPTE, Nato and the like. The industry would be far better off as a whole if you were up there on the podium pushing and explaining for what you just did above. It's ashamed that the industry is set on the immediate dollar and doesn't care as much with quality any more.
 

Last I looked at the numbers, 70mm screens outgross their 35mm counterparts by about 24:1. How can the bean counters at the studios ignore those numbers? Yet they do...nothing I would say would change their minds...But think about it...if it where an all 70mm world and we reduced our screen count by say 24:1...Everyone wins! Those theatres still left would have a good attendance if they built high quality theatres since the experience in the theatre would be more than it is today...that is...a sneak preview of what is coming out on DVD. And while we are at it...lets finally go up to 30fps and rid ourselves of the flickery 24fps standard once and for all. Mike Todd really did have it right...way back in the early/mid '50s. It is a shame we have not advanced the industry in the past 50 years and it is absolute crazyness that we are going to try an adopt a D Cinema standard based on films worst public offering in 35mm's entire life...that is the 1.85:1 ratio.

BTW...I hear Lawrence of Arabia is due to have new prints struck in 70mm DTS.....A 70mm world? You have to start someplace!

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

Sure, DLP may be a "flicker free" image. But it sure is NOT as sharp as a frame from a four perf 35mm film print. I run my 21" computer monitor at a 1600 X 1200 desktop or 1800 X 1440 when doing some rather elaborate Photoshop work. I cannot stomach working at 1280 x 1024 ---and it is at this decidedly PUNY TINY resolution that DLP wants to replace 35mm?

The word "DIGITAL" is quickly turning into a means of selling snake oil. It is a come on. Until the folks at TI and other digital cinema companies can come up with something that truly matches or surpasses 35mm 4-perf levels of sharpness, their product will not be suitable for replacing film. But they use the term "DIGITAL" as if their product is "perfect". This is one area where I really wish the general public could pull its collective head out of its backside. There are such things as pitifully bad forms of "DIGITAL". The current versions of DLP are one of those bad forms. I don't want 35mm projectors replaced en masse by current DLP systems.

The thing I really cannot understand is the business model behind DLP. It just seems stupid. Texas Instruments is not developing micromirror chips tailor made for the commercial theatrical exhibition market. Absolutely not. The DLP chips they make are primarily targeted for computer based video projectors, flat panel monitors (with FAKE HDTV resolution claims), and low resolution replacement flat panel monitors for people like me --computer graphic artists. To the guys at TI, make a freaking better DLP chip that is better suited for my needs other than viewing web pages. I am a damned graphic artist. I need HIGH resolution. Bare minumum before we talk about me replacing my "outdated" CRT monitor is the 1600 X 1200 barrier --and that has to be at a 85Hz refresh or better too. Since CRT displays have NO problem doing resolutions such as 2048 X 1536, those little micromirror chips should be doing the same thing, if not a lot better. But 1280 X 1024 seems to be the best they can do. I feel sorry for those folks who have shelled out thousands of dollars on flat panel "HD" ready monitors only to be stuck with a screen resolution only suitable for a 17" computer monitor.

Ultimately, DLP is a Pandora's box for theater operators. Home users will quickly be able to equal or surpass whatever digital cinema can do in the commercial theater. While DLP is hoodwinking audiences at $7 to $10 a pop for a puny, crude and highly compressed 1280 X 1024 image, those who have a HDTV system and digital video playback will be enjoying the film in better reproduced 1080i HD quality and possibly 5.1 uncompressed LPCM audio to boot. Just look at what it costs for a commercial theater to put Dolby Digital and DTS in the same booth rack versus the $300 someone can spend to get DTS and Dolby Digital in an entry level receiver. One can put together a respectable home theater sound system for under $1,000. An even wider gulf in cost will be had with what commercial theaters have to spend for DLP versus what the average Joe will have to spend to put a better quality HD display into his house. What are movie theaters going to have to spend in terms of keeping their houses "upgraded" to respectable standards --that is if the 1280 X 1024 standard is ever upgraded. Since it is already "digital" then it must already be "perfect" right?

My feeling is that commercial theater companies need to redirect their focus away from the DLP systems that are not appropriate for use at this time. They are certainly NOT good enough to replace 35mm film prints. And I feel that DLP would just be another way for home theater to "one-up" commercial cinema, much in the way home theater has already one-upped commercial theaters in the sound department.

Items like large format projection with 70mm 5-perf for theatrical features and formats like 8/70 and 15/70 can be the real salvation for commercial cinema --and a way for commercial cinema to dramatically differentiate itself from the tyranny of home video. There is no way any TV set, not even an HD one, can approximate the look of true 65mm/70mm production. IMAX on DVD is arguably a joke and would continue to be in HD form as well. Sure, you're getting the content, but not the whole picture or visceral feel.

With digital cinema, commerical theaters cannot command that superior edge. Customers can then measure the picture and projection quality in terms of pixels and home video will quickly outstrip and outpace whatever moves digital cinema can make in commercial theater circles. "Digital" projection is a bad idea for commercial theaters right now. The movie distributors may talk about how great DLP may be, but all it really come out to being is just a short-sighted cost-cutting measure. They don't want to spend $2000 to $3000 a pop for a 35mm high speed print X how ever many prints they need to open a picture. They're going to hoodwink theaters with that "digital" word so they can cut their costs and please some shareholders in the short term.
 

Someone mentioned this in another thread, but it won't take long at all before the exact same technology (if not better) is used in the home to deliver home movies. Same exact resolution, same exact data, etc. There will be no advantage in going to a movie theater. I think we need to give people something they simply cannot get at home. And I'm not talking about gimmicks like 3D or EX or anything like that. I'm talking superior image quality (preferably 70mm) and sound. DLP offers uncompressed sound, but will the picture quality stand the test of time?

I wonder what DTS thinks of all this? There wouldn't be any need for their services if digital cinema was the norm.

For the example you gave (20m wide 2.35:1 screen). If one sits at exacly two screen heights (17m) away, the viewing angle will be 60.1 degrees. If one wants a viewing angle of exactly 60 degrees, the appropriate distance is 17.3m, or just over two screen heights ... as I said originally. However, it should be noted that the "scope" aspect ratio is 2.39:1, not 2.35:1 ... we've had that discussion before.

Also, what you said about Lucas filming Episode II at "exactly" the resolution of DLP is incorrect. He filmed it with a Sony HD camera which had a resolution of 1920x1080. The final image will have to be cropped to about 1920x803 to form a 2.39:1 "scope" image. Unless TI has come out with chip that has those figures as its native resolution, the resulting image will have to be scaled in both directions (scaled down in the horizontal direction, and scaled up in the vertical direction) to create a copy for display on DLP projectors.

Perry: I don't think it's unrealistic at all to expect a theatrical display system to approach the limits of human vision. John Pytlak has posted before describing how in Kodak's screening rooms, they are able to measure 80 line-pairs per milimeter of film at the screen's surface. That demonstrates that is possible to get a full 4K of resolution from 35mm film. It just requires good equipment setup.

Now as to focus, you know as well as I do that focus is still a problem for digital projectors -- it is not specific to film. Or are you saying that lenses limit resolution to 2K and under, so we shouldn't bother trying to get more? If that is indeed what you are getting at, I'd like to hear from someone who knows about lenses. As I mentioned above, Kodak experiments were able to get the equivalent of 4K from film even as it was being projected, so that demonstrates it is possible to get that much information to go through the glass intact.

As for jitter and weave, they may cause the image to move slightly, but they do not somehow change the amount of detail it contains. If motion had the effect of reducing resolution, why would we even bother discussing it at all, since these are motion pictures we are talking about? Weave is at most a minor annoyance. I was at a showing of "The Score" yesterday, and I saw it on a screen about 60 feet wide. This was nothing special, just an ordinary screening of a release print at an ordinary multiplex. During the movie, I would occasionally look down at the corner of the screen to see how much the image moved around in relation to the masking. The answer I found was "not much". It was there, yes, but it did not somehow make me see less detail in the image. And that image was truly fantastic. I sat even closer than I normally do. I saw a smooth, detailed image with rich colors are terrific contrast. Why would I want to sacrifice all of those factors just to get rid of a little weave? Show me a digital projector that meets or beats even the best film in terms of resolution, color, and contrast, and then we'll talk about eliminating weave. As for now, it's at the bottom of my list of concerns.

In one of your posts, you touched on what is probably the biggest problem with film today -- the release printing process. A lot of what was originally on the film's negative is apparently getting lost in the printing process. I am conviced that a lot of the grain we see in today's prints, especially in darkly lit scenes, was added during duplication. I say this because I have been fortunate enough to see some dye-transfer and "show" prints of a few movies, and I can see that when prints are made with a process that preserves all or most of what was on the original negative, film really does live up to those high specs that get thrown around during these types of discussions.

What I would like to see is either better quality prints, or a digital process that is comparable to what film delivers in a "best case" scenario. These "real world" or "worst case" arguments are an attempt to dumb down the quality of movie presentation, when we should be trying to lift it up.

As always, just my $0.02.

quote:

---

Until the folks at TI and other digital cinema companies can come up with something that truly matches or surpasses 35mm 4-perf levels of sharpness, their product will not be suitable for replacing film. But they use the term "DIGITAL" as if their product is "perfect".

---

I think you're overreacting a bit here. Nobody is talking about an outright replacement for film right now. And TI certainly does not consider their product perfect. But I feel they are fully justified to tout DLP Cinema image quality and their achievements. Doug Darrow and the engineers at TI spent three years developing the technology, with A LOT of interaction with the film production community, especially cinematographers. They never felt their achivements with their technology was fully justified until the creative folks gave them their "thumbs up."

The question is whether digital projection technology is at the point where it can be acceptable for commercial implementation in theatres. The DLP Cinema manufacturers think so. I don't agree. I think we're definitely at a starting point for further evolution of digital technology, with eventual progression toward 4k resolution and beyond, though.

quote:

---

The thing I really cannot understand is the business model behind DLP. It just seems stupid. Texas Instruments is not developing micromirror chips tailor made for the commercial theatrical exhibition market. Absolutely not.

---

This is not correct. DLP Cinema is a special feature set of DLP technology, for the purposes of theatrical use. The DMDs have a special black layering, behind the mirrors, which helps to improve contrast by absorbing any back scattering of light behind the micromirrors and straying through their spacing and into the optical path. In the trade, these DMDs are also known as the "black" chips, for differentiation from the "normal" DMDs that are used in other applications. The electronics and optics associated with the DMD for DLP Cinema were also specifically engineered.

quote:

---

I am a damned graphic artist. I need HIGH resolution. Bare minumum before we talk about me replacing my "outdated" CRT monitor is the 1600 X 1200 barrier --and that has to be at a 85Hz refresh or better too.

---

For your purpose, the CRT monitor will remain unbeaten for a long time to come. The same goes for home theatre video projectors. DLP and D-ILA, and the latest LCD projectors are all the rage now, and it seems that CRT is considered an old technology. But ask any videophile and he/she will tell you that nothing beats the image quality of a CRT, set up properly.

quote:

---

With digital cinema, commerical theaters cannot command that superior edge. Customers can then measure the picture and projection quality in terms of pixels and home video will quickly outstrip and outpace whatever moves digital cinema can make in commercial theater circles.

---

I think we're not far away from the day when the mainstream consumer is going to to discover a new-found ability to display large-screen images in the home that will give the reminiscent feel and look of a big-screen movie presentation. A study published earlier this year predicted that the focal point of a fully networked home in the future is going to be a projector. I have an article in Film Journal Interational for their August issue, warning exhibition industry people that they need to be aware of what is happening in the home theatre market with video technology.

------------------
Movie Sound Editor,
Widescreen Review www.widescreenreview.com

I have a very nice kitchen in my house and I like to cook. So why do I eat out 5 nights per week?

I have a television in my house that I like to watch television programs on. When I want to see a movie, I go out and see one in a movie theatre.

So even if Big Brother assigned everybody a vid screen, I still think people will like to get out to the house every now and then. Ultimatly, I don't think the public will care if the image is film or video as long as it is as good or better than it is today.
 

From a technical level, the only thing where DLP shows feature superiority over 35mm shows is in the sound department --at least when a uncompressed 20-bit LPCM 5.1 audio track is being used. I feel the 1280 X 1024 resolution spec used by DLP is not acceptable for commercial use. But such DLP systems are being sold to commercial theaters anyway. I thumbed through the August issue of Box Office magazine and saw glossy DLP projection ads from the likes of Christie and Barco. When a movie theater pays a lot of money for one of these things, what do they do to get an upgrade? How much digging do they have to do in their pockets to keep up?

I see what is currently going on with DLP as just another example of how movie companies are using digital technology to just get by on a lowest common denominator level. 35mm film has a pretty high resolution to it. If you are doing computer graphics still image work that will be recorded to a 35mm film frame, the bare minimum for acceptable quality is 4000 line recording. Some people to 6K recording. In the early 1990's a decent amount of early CGI work was done at 4K resolution. Now almost all of it is done only at 2,000 lines. That is so the special effects companies can bid on a sequence project better and offer a lower price and quicker turnaround time. I've seen complaints from time to time how people can see the pixels and jaggies in some CGI work. I don't think the movie companies really care about that much. The film will only play in theaters for two or three months and then be on DVD on a couple months after that.

I'm wondering just what George Lucas is going to be able to do in taking care of image resolution limit flaws when his digitally shot Episode II and III gets shown on "Super-HD" video systems a decade from now. It is going to be pretty funny. A movie shot in 70mm like "Lawrence of Arabia" will still look naturally sharp and those much younger Star Wars installments won't quite work. That's my argument for shooting movies on film (aside from videotape not being able to accurately reproduce the "film look").

As for DLP chips having any exclusivity to commercial movie theaters, perhaps there might be some specialized chips, but I am seeing the same DLP logo pop up on computer projection displays and even on flat panel monitors. To look at Texas Instruments' website, one would not come away thinking DLP was just something for movie theaters. There is not enough of a customer base for TI to justify making all kinds of chips. Home video and computer applications is their main target, and will be for any higher resolution chips they develop.

In the end, it comes down to a numbers game with "digital". Home theater developments will be able to move faster and cheaper than what can be implemented in a commercial theater environment. I've had people tell me, "image quality is not why people go to the movies," or they'll say something about how much bigger a commercial theater screen is than someone's new HDTV monitor. Sure, there other attractions to get people into the movie theater. But picture and sound quality are major factors in this. The cost for taking a family to the movies has not risen all that much over the last decade, but it still is fairly expensive. As the hit to the wallet gets worse, people will find more reasons to watch the movie on their home system. If they are able to say to themselves, "this theater's digital picture is no better than the one I have at home", that will be a big problem. I can just see the marketing on it now: "the same (or better) picture quality than what you get at the theater!"

This is why I think the movie theater industry needs to work on a different, film-based approach. Commercial theaters have to be able to differentiate themselves from home theater. They can't do that with DLP. Any commercial DLP installation will be technically matched on home video. But home theater cannot equal 70mm projection (much less even 35mm).

I do think the movie distributors do have a legitimate complaint about having to strike 3,000 or 4,000 35mm prints at the cost of $2,000 to $3,000 per print. But the North American theatrical market is badly overscreened. Many older, outdated theaters need to just be closed. I see no reason for North America to have any more than 20,000 to 25,000 theater screens (if even that). With fewer screens, not as many prints have to be made --and better quality prints (like 70mm) can be made. Already, many people drive to "destination" movie theater complexes instead of just going to the crappy one right down their street. Ultimately, what we need is fewer theaters with a variety of traditional and large format special venue shows. Eventually movies may move on to being produced in large format.

An aside about DTS and how they relate to DLP, none of the three currently used formats will last forever --not even as it relates to film projection. Lossy compression audio formats like DTS, Dolby Digital and SDDS are just not needed for a DLP show (even though the DLP video image is lossy compressed).

DTS could, if they wanted to, develop a new DVD-ROM based player that could deliver uncompressed 20-bit LPCM 5.1 surround, and then even do so with more channels of sound. With two or three disc drives, one could have uncompressed 10.2 LPCM Surround. That is something I think we might see in special venue theaters before too long. And it would be something to improve sound quality above what can be had in the home. I don't see SDDS being developed any farther than its current level. Dolby Labs could conceivably sountrack the right side of the film print for a better quality DD track or a 10.2 track of equal quality to the current standard. But, yeah, I can't see much reason for DTS to want to promote the "merits" of digital projection in commercial movie theaters. I think they are smart for doing what they can with special venue (but even much of that is going to uncompressed surround). If the switch to digital projection really gains steam, SDDS will die off and the DTS and Dolby Digital formats will just be home video things.

 

I don't want to burst you bubble but...I'd be willing to wager that if DCinema were to happen today...that Dolby-E would fast become the standard not any of the lossless systems you mentioned.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

I think you'd win on your bet. Dolby is working on what I think is called "Dolby F" or a modification of Dolby E. The current discussion within SMPTE is to provide for up to 12 audio channels, though I believe at least one or two of them would be designated to multiple language/ADA use. This is all in the early stage so nothing is set in stone. Dolby E allows for only up to eight channels, so, I'm just guessing here, Dolby F addresses that...and also probably takes away the inherent features of Dolby E that are for video broadcast editing/monitoring/synch, while incorporating new metadata and other side data information that can be useful for d-cinema.

Dolby E is not lossless but does provide for a much milder compression than AC-3 at up to around 4:1. But the question arises...why is compression needed for d-cinema? The early speakers on this topic at trade shows and meetings seemed like they had been *looking* for reasons to justify compression, rather than state the necessity for it. One of the the speakers is very well known, from Dolby, so you could surmise that they're active in d-cinema to protect their interests.

The reasons stated for having audio compression for d-cinema include:

1. Uncompressed digital audio is still a "compression" of analong audio.
2. Bandwidth is not free.
3. The several GB that can be saved from audio compression can instead be used to potentially benefit image quality.

Do these sound like good excuses for implementing audio compression?

------------------
Movie Sound Editor,
Widescreen Review
www.widescreenreview.com
 

Click Here

Maybe it will provide some new information on things.

One thing, our DLP of JP-3 will be presented without the TI Logo, I am thinking about going to do some exit polling, and ask people if they thought this was digital or film.

Paul.

 

Disney really messed up with "Atlantis", instead of using the entire chip, they letterboxed it and squeezed to 1280 X 800. (Corrected Info) It really did look pixelated and awful.

On the other hand, Shrek looks really awesome and so does Final Fantasy and JP3.

It really sad that Disney is the one who was starting this and they have had a couple of bad releases. "Emperor's New Groove" was pixelated too.

My 2 cents about all of this. If you go looking for something, you are going to find it. Do you look at your monitor running 1024x768 and go WOW, these letters and pictures look like poo. Maybe no, you find a resolution that gives you the real estate that you want and you are happy with that. Maybe yes, then you go and get something that fits your needs. Do you get just as upset about printing errors that create black dots, white dots, white string lines or do you just accept it and watch the movie for the value it is trying to give you.
Yes, I have 2 DLP's at my theatre now, as many probably know, and I think that the average movie go'er is accepting of what they see. It is ready for everyone? No. Is it going to take over all of our jobs? Not hardly. They do have to make it denser and then it will be "acceptable" to most. The movie companies have to be sure not to squeeze the heck out of something to make it fit. They scan at 4K, I don't know why Disney did what it did, but it sure didn't help Digital Cinema, regardless of whose technology you have in the booth.

I think I am done for now.

Paul.

http://www.cipherwar.com/news/01/sandia_20million_pixels.htm

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - A 10-foot-high, 13-foot-wide screen that makes high-definition television look as grainy as an old TV in a cheap
motel has been unveiled by Sandia National Laboratories.

The facility's digitized images, created of 20 million pixels, approach the visual acuity of the eye itself. "The eyeball is the limiting factor, not the screen," says manager and program leader Philip Heermann. "From ten feet away, the image is as good as your eyes are able to see."

Lessee ... 20M pixels / (130 sq ft) =~ 153,000 pixels/square foot

sqrt(153,000) = 392 pixels/foot =~ 32 pixels/inch.

This is a paradigm shift in the industry and must be carried out with patience, due diligence and care to insure the health of the industry. Naysayers are a dime a dozen. People that are willing participate, do the work, and insure theatrical release integrity is few.

Now that the preamble is over let me touch on just a few of the items in the posting. While I would love to be able to address every posting I cannot. I will do the best I can.

I guess the first question to be answered is “Will Digital Cinema happen?”

Yes. While this is not the answer everyone was hoping for it is the reality.

The next question is “In what form?”

Who knows. The only thing known about Digital Cinema is that it must be better than what we are delivering to the theatre today. The home theatre experience is going to improve over the next few years and we must keep improving the movie going experience.

The current theatres using the TI DLP Cinema chips are a test bed. Know one in their right mind would argue the points made in this thread. These are only test. Most people that are working on the standards are looking at a minimum resolution of 1920 X 1080 for the next rounds of test. We do not know what the final resolution needs to be. We have learned a lot from these tests and TI’s Doug Darrow has done a great job listening to and learning from the community. They know they have to continue to improve and they will.

One point on the resolution issue: Please do not say that because you can see the screen door and mirrors that the resolution is not enough. This is not the resolution issue. On devises such as the D-ILA with resolutions of 2048 X 1536 and with less hard edges the few that are looking at these devises are now seeing resolutions that can show the film grain. FYI: anyone that says that have seen this resolution on a 45’ screen I would question. Very few have seen this on a larger than 23’ wide. Also the invitees so far to see this and other technologies is very limited to those that know how to view prototypes and engineering samples. Most that are untrained that see these types of devices do so and then only talk about the unfinished parts (which are usually stated up front) and not the potential of the devise.

As for the sound: committees that are working on the audio standards (it is now 16 channels) are supporting and promoting uncompressed audio. There will be a need for compression schemes in some countries where bandwidth is at a premium.

As for the projectionist role I can only say that now is the time to start learning the new tools that will be used sometime in the future. I hope Steve does not mind if is use his signature, “Old projectionists never die, they just changeover”.

Bottom line:

1. Digital Cinema will happen.
2. Digital Cinema will happen over time, not all at once.
3. The infrastructure to support Digital Cinema is still in the works.
4. Projectionist will be needed for Digital Cinema just as they are needed for Film.
5. The movie going experience is a social event and should always present a great theatrical presentation whether the presentation is Film or Digital.

For those that are interested you can participate in the standards activity through the SMPTE www.smpte.org . Look for the DC28 Digital Cinema Technology Committee. We are looking for people that know technology and are interested in preserving the integrity and quality of the Theatrical Presentation. It is not an easy task, but it must be done.

Al

------------------
********************************
Al Barton
Sony
GM SDDS Customer Support Group
GM Digital Cinema
10950 West Washington Boulevard
Suite 200
Culver City, CA 90232

Phone: 310-244-7415
Fax: 310-244-2024
Email: al.barton@am.sony.com
********************************
 

Welcome aboard film-tech.com I was glad to read your post. I believe you will be able to add a lot of good information to these discussions.

Tell the other technical people at SCP they should sign in as well.

Regards, Bob
 

Information about SMPTE Engineering committees is on the SMPTE website at:
http://www.smpte.org/engineering_committees/technology_committees/

Here is the scope of the Committee on Digital Cinema Technology (DC28):

"The application of the General Scope as it pertains to providing an industry technical forum for digital cinema; identify key systems and technology issues; develop and recommend an approach to digital cinema; identify, establish and coordinate necessary working groups to achieve overall digital cinema objectives; provide standards and recommendations to ensure interoperability, compatibility, performance and support for future innovation."

The ongoing work of the SMPTE DC28 Committee and subgroups is available on the SMPTE ftp website:

ftp://smpte.vwh.net/pub/DC28/

Participation on an SMPTE Committee requires that:

"I can state that I am in a position to actively participate in the work of the committee understanding that, for continued membership, the Administrative Practices specify attendance at a minimum of one of the last three meetings and a written answer to at least one of the last three ballot letters. In accepting this appointment, I understand that I may be participating in the ongoing appraisal of technologies and that many of the decisions are in the interim stages and may undergo substantial revisions. I recognize that SMPTE encourages me to discuss and counsel with others considered to be knowledgeable in the field. However, since public disclosure may mislead and become a disservice to the industry by seeming to encourage premature reliance upon highly tentative conclusions, I therefore agree to refrain from either directly or indirectly making any public disclosure pertaining to the business transacted by the committee without the express consent of the Committee Chairperson and the Engineering Vice-President."

To participate, complete the "Engineering Committee Statement of Participation" at:
http://smpte.vwh.net/cgi-bin/sop/sop.pl

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

quote:

---

For those that are interested you can participate in the standards activity through the SMPTE www.smpte.org . Look for the DC28 Digital Cinema Technology Committee. We are looking for people that know technology and are interested in preserving the integrity and quality of the Theatrical Presentation. It is not an easy task, but it must be done.

---

It's obvious that we've got to crate up Evans & send him over there.
I'll call the freight company.

Actually, imaging science experts like Evans are EXACTLY the kind of people that can contribute to the SMPTE committee activities. His explanation and demos of digital artifacts, and knowledge of communication theory (e.g., Nyquist Theorem), are representative of the kind of work that needs to be done. "Movie Lovers" like Evans would also bring an appreciation for the aesthetics of the movies and a demand for the utmost in presentation quality.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

SMPTE Student Membership $25
 

Although membership in SMPTE has many advantages, you do NOT need to be a member to participate in an SMPTE Engineering Committee:
SMPTE Engineering Committee Statement of Participation

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

D-Cinema is going to happen and I believe the main driving point will be economic. Film base is expensive as well as the silver based image. Then plug in the enviromental aspect...... and on and on.

But nobody on this forum has mentioned those in the industry who really "need" this format. Those of us overseas specifically. I can only speak for the Army and Air Force theaters and then only the theaters located in the Pacific. We have 33 theaters spread out from northern Japan to Diego Garcia and from Alaska to Guam. Getting enough prints in those heavy steel cans across 2 million square miles of salt water to all these theaters economicaly and in short order time is a logistical nightmare.

I'm not putting down 35mm film but I do believe that things could be much better. And our theaters deserve to see new movies on their opening days and not some 8 weeks after.

Two weeks ago on 12 November I got to see a DLP feature at the old Toho Theater in Ginza, Tokyo. It was animation and its English tranlated title was "Spirited Away" (Sen to Chihiro no Kamikakushi).
It was beautifully painted by Miyazaki. It was shown on what looked to be a 40 x 50 screen. The brightness, rock solid steadiness, color saturation and sharpness just blew me away. Best of all no flicker! I was expecting to see another pixl laden feature like what we saw at ShoWest last March. No way! The backgrounds in this showing were almost three dimensional! And all this on a huge screen from the eigth or tenth row. http://www.digital.anime.org.uk/ I guess DLP has indeed come a long way.

I have been a projectionist since 1983 and am now in the maintenance side of things. I am not a salesperson for anything digital but I know what I like to see on the screen. If it ends up being economics driving this train then I would imagine that the overseas market will be the first stations stopped at first. I'm ready. I need it. My customers will demand it and I believe Hollywood and the individual theaters will benefit. The only losers will be the print shops and truck/plane companies. And oh yeah, Technicolor reel makers.

Are there any far remote mom/pop operators out there like us who could really benefit from the direct delivery aspects of Digital??
Some of us just don't live on a well beaten UPS route.

I really love these forums. I am learning so much about how the "other half" lives. Thanks to you all for being so verbal.

Bill Bunch
Misawa, Japan

 

I'm not sure how the Navy does things but I do know they have only gotten into 35mm in the past 12 years. Until then it was mostly 16mm even in the shore facilities. I have visited some of their operations in Guam and here in Japan. All Strong/Simplex.

Would you believe that all AAFES theaters in Europe, Pacific and CONUS are still using the Simplex XL ? 50 years old most of these and still purr like kittens. It's true what some have said about the Simplex, "they last forever as long as you keep oil in them".

Bill Bunch
Misawa, Japan
 

4. Projectionist will be needed for Digital Cinema just as they are needed for Film.

The major exhibitors in this country (Australia) are already planning digital multiplexes, both new plexes and the conversion of exising film plexes. The most popular concept is to have a central control room (like a mini TV station), normally unmanned, except when the manager wants to reprogram sessions or change an automated sequence etc. The projection booth is to be reduced to the width of a corridor, just wide enough to fit the projectors and allow access for maintenance personel. This will allow existing auditoriums to be lengthened to add more seats at the back - a more efficient use of exisiting real estate for the beancounters. There doesn't seem to be any allowance for the occupation of "projectionist" in this scenario.

Digital processes have gained such rapid acceptance worldwide for three main reasons, cost, convenience and a general perception of quality improvement, (in that order). It is an unfortunate paradox that any improvement in quality from the use of affordable digital processes necessarily requires a reduction in quality somewhere else for the medium involved. For example digital audio offers significant quality improvements when it comes to storage, but this has the trade off of reduced high frequency resolution and low signal level resolution in affordable digital systems.

Like digital cinema sound, D-cinema offers significant improvements in reduced noise and improved stability, but this is at the expense of resolution, and unfortunately in the case of the latter, jobs. Of course all manufacturers are keen to benefit from digital technology and Panalogic is no exception. We already make a digital projectionist. His name is "computer automation".

It would be nice to see D-cinema introduced purely for asthetic reasons, when and only when it offers a better experience for the audience. Unfortuanely, economics dictate that it will not happen this way.

------------------
Ray Derrick
President
Panalogic Corporation Pty Limited
44 Carrington Road
Castle Hill NSW 2154 Australia
Phone: 61 (0)2 9894 6655 Fax: 61 (0)2 9894 6935

The movie I saw in Tokyo last month was very much hyped as being shown in DLP so would have to assume it was some configuration of TI equipment.

I am amazed that NTT has been able to achieve this with LCD technology. If I can find a demo somewhere in my neck of the woods I will seek it out and report back.

Seeing is believing. Wonder how long it will take to stamp out a standard. In my lifetime I hope.

Bill BuncH
Misawa, Japan