quote:

---

.....fine-tuning the initial microphotonics breakthrough as it applies to the field of digital cinema. On the fast track is a development program to create the most true-to-life cinema experience possible. With Panorama Labs technology, cinema projectors will be able to deliver brighter images, higher resolution, and more intense, more accurate colors than anything the competition offers – and all at a lower cost.

---

I sure wouldn't want to be the exec who put the final stamp of approval on the purchase of 1000 digital DLP-based projectors with this seemingly superior technology coming down the pike. I don't know what "at a lower price" means....20% less? 30%...50%? but whatever it is, it will change the DeeCinema economic model drastically, especially given the claims of much better image quality.

I guess film industry guys who are used to film technology with its incredible backward compatible over the course of a century, they just can't get their brains wrapped around the fact that in the digital world, you are an idiot if you buy first generation technology.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-05-2006, 05:59 AM:
 
Frank
I am not up to date on conversion deals. Do you know if these signed deals explicitly states that DLP is to be used?
I think they are trying to target a film projector price level but I doubt they will succeed but it is a good ambitom.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-05-2006, 09:11 AM:
 
Ahh... well, it's nice to see that what a lot of folks familiar with both computer technology and cinema technology (including myself) have been saying is coming true already. Technology is always changing. And "state of the art" today will be "junk" in a couple of years.

Very nice to see. Anything that makes the decision to go digital seem like a stupid decision is ok with me.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-06-2006, 05:56 AM:
 

quote: Mattias Ohlson

---

I am not up to date on conversion deals. Do you know if these signed deals explicitly states that DLP is to be used?

---

Mattias, I am not privy to how these deals are drawn, but my guess is that if Regal is committed to purchasing a slew of Christie DLPs, in two, three or five years from now when a totally different technology -- Magneto Photonic Crystal or some other technology what hasn't even been invented yet -- becomes available, the DLP equipment manufacturers aren't about to buy back those lesser DLP units so Regal can swap inferior technology for the new state-of-the-art stuff. They will be stuck with DLP, and at 2K quality.

I can't imagine that the current economic model which is allowing these chains to fund a committent to DLP, somehow also includes provisions that would allow the chains to dump those $120,000 DLPs and convert them to a totally different, albeit highter quality, technology like MPC or whatever better technology comes along. Any installation of 2K DLP units surely will be stuck there for decades not matter how obsolete it becomes. After all, if you listen to any of the spokesmen for exhibitors who are installing D-Cinema, they claim 2K DLP technology is BETTER than film and that implies that it's all that audiences should ever need. The introduction of a BETTER imaging technology would be seen as superfluous, ESPECIALLY if it is going to cost them even MORE money.

Mark....I am not against digital per se. In fact, my anti-digital stance has not come about because it's digital and not film. I am an exhibitor -- I don't care what technology is in the projection booth. I've always said if they come up with a digital projector that will allow me to present LAWRENCE OF ARABIA with the same impact and quality that I experienced with I saw it in 70mm, I would embrace it in a second, especially given the growing decline of good prints. But 2K DLP technology will never do that. The insidiousness of it, IMHO, is that once someone buys a $120,000 2K projector, that's what's going to stay in that booth until the building falls down around it. Because of the cost of this technology, the standard is being set in stone and it's a standard that will rob furture generations the ability to experience the power of film as we have known it. That is a very sad, unfortunate result of jumping into digital before it can REALLY match film.
 

---

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 12-06-2006, 08:19 AM:
 
I was kind of asking about MPC to possibly learn if it really is something that can give a better display system than current dlp-systems. The MPC people say they can do a high brightness and high resolution picture. But what about all the other parameters. For dlp it can possibly be argued it can do one of the two first paramters I mentioned, brightness. However 2k is not the resolution of the future.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-06-2006, 08:48 AM:
 
I'm with you on that Frank. I should amend my comment to say "Anything that makes the decision to go digital at this point in the game...."

Any of the digital technologies being proposed right now will have a very hard time matching the 100,000:1 contrast ratio of Vision Premier film stock. But once someone comes up with a way to match that, AND match the resolution of 35mm, AND provide a life expectancy and support cycle of at least 20 years (or at least provide an ability to upgrade without ripping the whole thing out), I'll start getting excited.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 12-06-2006, 09:24 AM:
 
Ah, the vitriol against Digital Cinema flows freely once again...

I would be interested in attending a theater that was able to produce 100,000:1 contrast ratio on the screen. Could you point me in the right direction?

While I understand the concern of exhibitors about the capital investment in Digital Cinema hardware and the speed at which improvements are being made to the technology, at some point, you just have to say "This is where we jump in" and do the deed. If you're afraid of the water, by all means, stay on the shore.

If only I had a time machine so I could go back to the time when "talkies" were first introduced, and many in the industry was probably all up in arms about why anyone would want to hear what the actors were saying.

What about the in-house orchestras? How will they feed their children? Who's going to pay for speakers? What happens when this new-fangled sound equipment goes down? Oh, the humanity!

Bah, humbug.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-06-2006, 09:40 AM:
 
Scott I now many theatres that there film presentation has better contrast ratio than their TV ubit has

On a second note the conversion to sound did not represent near as large capital investment nor obsolescnece factor even Vitaphone disks stuck around for more years and played more film titles than the 1.2K machine have
 

---

Posted by Marc Hansen (Member # 705) on 12-06-2006, 10:01 AM:
 

quote: Frank Angel

---

The insidiousness of it, IMHO, is that once someone buys a $120,000 2K projector, that's what's going to stay in that booth until the building falls down around it.

---

quote: Louis Bornwasser

---

Cost of Vitaphone in 1926: $25k down payment/25k per year for maintenance. Double that on "Large" systems.

In todays dollars: mult times 10. Louis

---

Louis,

Actually the cost for digital taking inflation into account into 2006 is the same as Vitaphone was.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 12-08-2006, 10:16 AM:
 
But there were many other companies marketing off brand working solutions
Now when will the Ballantyne model 6 Dcinema with a PD50 server be available
 

---

Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 12-08-2006, 01:32 PM:
 
I picture a large self-contained lens barrel that slides into the front of your XL, Brenkert or what have you. The light from your Mighty 90 or Magnarc would fire through the empty gate into a prismatic lens splitting it into 3 beams for each colour of the LCD. It then goes through another to bring the image back together before hitting the lens with the focal length of your choice. Of course, by replacing this unit with your old B&L lens, you can still run film. Problem solved, and completely backwards compatible. I'm sure Jaxlight is working on it.....
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-09-2006, 05:12 AM:
 

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

Actually there was a lot of concern about the reduced sharpness and brightness when the print area was reduce to allow for the optical soundtrack

---

There couldn't be a better example of how the industry in its infancy really did have presentation quality as one of their highest priorities. Contrast that with only a few decades later. Can you imagine --those early pioneers worried about loosing just the miniscule amount taken up by the new soundtrack? Yet by the time we decided that wider was better and went to 1.85, the impact THAT much more draconian move would impact image quality raised no ruckus at all (OK, Disney resisted and stuck with 1.75 for awhile, but other than that.....) No one was concerned enough to move to the 1.85 "IscoVision" idea -- using a mild anamporphic that would allow the use of the entire frame geography for 1.85; such a simple, inexpensive change, but did anyone by this time consider it? Not many.
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 12-09-2006, 06:04 AM:
 
Frank, masking down the frame to produce a wide aspect ratio, up to about 2:1, was being proposed as a cheaper alternative to wide film systems like Fox Grandeur, at just about the same time that cinemas were converting to sound. It wasn't generally adopted at that time, but the idea was there. I agree, it's a stupid system.
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-10-2006, 10:52 AM:
 
Frank is correct. The response to my SMPTE presentation and demonstration showing the use of a 1.5X anamorphic that used the full scope image area to produce a 1.85:1 or 16:9 aspect ratio was positive, but at best "lukewarm", due to the cost of equipping all theatres with new lenses. Not only was the image sharper and finer grained, but it was 1.5X BRIGHTER than the current 1.85:1 cropped format. Changing formats would only involve a lens change, not an aperture change. SMPTE Members can download my presentation here:

http://www.smpte.org/members_only/library/download.cfm?file=pytlak.pdf

Glenn Berggren and IscoOptic had it right in 1984 with ISCOVISION. Physics and optics work -- larger image areas offer better image quality, so why not use all the area available within the 35mm frame?
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 12-10-2006, 12:16 PM:
 
John (welcome back by the way!), what about 2x compression instead? That would allow use of existing 'Scope lenses and plates. I'm just thinking of many multiplexes where they have just two lens barells in their turrets. Introducing a second anamorphic (1.5x) in addition to the existing infrastructure could be problematic for them.

This idea would be the same as when running hardlocked 1.85 trailers printed in at the head of 'Scope features. It would work for screens with Common Height, but admittedly with Common Width you would end up with a 1.85 image within the smaller 2.39 area. But this is in fact correct!

I'm sure this has been discussed before here - just an aside.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-10-2006, 12:32 PM:
 

quote: Gordon McLeod

---

But there were many other companies marketing off brand working solutions
Now when will the Ballantyne model 6 Dcinema with a PD50 server be available

---

quote:

---

John (welcome back by the way!), what about 2x compression instead? That would allow use of existing 'Scope lenses and plates. I'm just thinking of many multiplexes where they have just two lens barells in their turrets. Introducing a second anamorphic (1.5x) in addition to the existing infrastructure could be problematic for them.

This idea would be the same as when running hardlocked 1.85 trailers printed in at the head of 'Scope features. It would work for screens with Common Height, but admittedly with Common Width you would end up with a 1.85 image within the smaller 2.39 area. But this is in fact correct!

---

quote:

---

John Pytlak: It sure would help increase light efficiency a bit. Typically "flat" 1.85:1 is about 20 percent less efficient than "scope" for light --- this proposal makes them equivalent for light. Yes this idea is very feasible today, and used for 1.85:1 aspect ratio on "scope" trailers.

---