Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Bolt 3-D Projection Info

This is topic Bolt 3-D Projection Info in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000276

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-19-2008, 08:08 AM:

Just in case anyone needs this info or was left out of the chain here is the link... Bolt 3-D Info Link

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 11-19-2008, 08:32 PM:

These are Xcellent! Thx for the post!

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-19-2008, 08:55 PM:

Love the how to set up your projector clip. It's so simple even Jimmy can do it [Confused]

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-19-2008, 09:35 PM:

With the first step of ingesting...

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the software to tell you if the movie you're copying is too big rather than checking the label on the drive? [sarcasm]Surely computers have gotten to the point where they can check space remaining on one disk compared to space needed for copying something else to it.[/sarcasm]

Assuming the software does that check, it seems to me that is less likely to fail than the possibility of the label being wrong.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 11-19-2008, 09:42 PM:

The reason they specified to check your disk capacity, is due to the fact that there are many servers out there, with different capacities.

Most servers WILL tell you if there is enough disk space to ingest the feature you want. The problem lies in the fact that some players will exhibit playback issues if the available disk space becomes too low. Beyond that, I can't really tell you exactly how much space is required on said servers.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-20-2008, 01:47 AM:

To be honest I don't know off the top of my head if we have v2.5 or 2.4 of the AIX TCC but either way Disney's cue placement instructions for v2.4 software seem rather redundant. I fail to see why you need two identical sets of cues, one before the 2D trailers and one after. Also, at least at my location there is no 'open douser' cue, this function is taken care of by the DCA-21 automation.

I don't want ot give anyone bad advice, however, so if you have the v2.4 software make sure you test it both ways. I'd put money on it working with just the one set of cues though.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-20-2008, 08:19 AM:

quote: Tristan Lane
The reason they specified to check your disk capacity, is due to the fact that there are many servers out there, with different capacities.

Nonsequitur. It doesn't matter how much capacity the different servers have. Like I said, the server should tell you before you ingest that there isn't enough free space. For instance, I've seen it where on certain systems you could load a movie and it starts writing to disk and only mid-way through does it go "Oh shit, no more free space" then remove everything it had written to give back your free space.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-20-2008, 08:25 AM:

What blows my mind is that at the last minute they come out with a new version of the framing target... This after installing 4 new systems over the last three weeks. I can guarantee you they are probably not going to get re-set for the new target since it also involves days of time just driving to the locations

quote: Chris Slycord
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the software to tell you if the movie you're copying is too big rather than checking the label on the drive?

There are no other worthy servers in my book other than Dolby or Doremi. Both Dolby and Doremi will give you a pop up and ask you to delete the oldest content to allow adding the new content once the server has read the directory on the hard drive to be ingested. Doremi also has a small box that shows the amount of storage space left in GB. Of the servers out there Dolby has the least amount of room available. Doremi will pretty much give you as much storage space as you want when you order the server and they can use up to 1TB drives. Dolby is limited in drive size to around 400gb because of the bios on the 3-Ware RAID card. you CAN use larger drives but the RAID card won't recognize them and will format them to it's preset size. At any rate it doesn't really matter much in a large plex how much server space you have since normally you also have one or two library servers and can freely move content around.

Mark

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 11-21-2008, 12:55 PM:

3.5-5.5 fL is their target range??

Get ready to hand out free passes for eye strain.

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 11-21-2008, 02:01 PM:

Also, I liked the "Only use a bulb with at least 600 hours remaining and that has ran at least 100 hours" part. Reminds me of the instructions that came with Star Wars (and occasionally other movies) that says, more or less, "WE WILL EAT YOUR SOUL IF YOU DON'T RUN THE VOLUME AT 7!!!!!11!111!

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 11-21-2008, 02:51 PM:

Jack, 3.5-5.5 FL is standard for digital 3D. That is running a 6500W lamp on a 35-40 ft screen. I'd hate to see it on a 50 ft screen, which is the screen size limit Real D claims for their current system.

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 11-21-2008, 08:24 PM:

As of 5:00 pm west cost Bolt had brought in 1.5 million while Twilight total was up to 12.1 million. Bolt is preforming at 1/7 what the opening day for High School Musical 3 was. This is the 3rd or 4th film released in 3d in digital theaters this year that has flopped. Is it unwise to release them in 3d only in Digital houses? Should they just drop the 3d it doesn't seem to be working!

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 11-21-2008, 09:47 PM:

"Jimmy" reminds me of one of several reasons I decided to NOT persue becoming a booth tech: I would receive calls from people - often managers - just like "Jimmy."
Makes me ponder if "Jimmy" actually dresses himself...

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-22-2008, 03:26 AM:

Uh, maybe it's not a good movie, or just MAYBE people don't want to pay the extra money theaters are charging for 3-D. Doesn't mean that nobody wants GOOD movies in 3-D at reasonable prices!

I was hoping those videos would show how to run a digital show on those 2 projectors with changeovers.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 11-22-2008, 11:48 PM:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Jack, 3.5-5.5 FL is standard for digital 3D. That is running a 6500W lamp on a 35-40 ft screen. I'd hate to see it on a 50 ft screen, which is the screen size limit Real D claims for their current system.

It may be standard, but that doesn't mean it's right. 3.5 fL is a really DIM image, and a dim image is one of the contributing factors to eye strain in 3-D (aside from synchronization and phase issues).

RealD on a 50-foot screen is a bad idea. A dim, less-than-HD-resolution 3-D image on a 50-foot screen is no good. At 50 feet, you're talking super eye-strain for about the front 1/3 of the audience. Their eyes are going to be ripped apart trying to converge the images so far apart.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-23-2008, 09:56 AM:

quote: Jack Theakston
Their eyes are going to be ripped apart trying to converge the images so far apart.

We didn't have that problem with the two projector system operating on an 80+ foot wide screen but we are at 9fl! Your eyes do actually adjust to the low light levels that single projector systems use but it takse a little while, like when you work in a photographic darkroom. 3-D films seem to be made with a center of action in each scene and you tend to follow that part of the scene... similar to how Imax is done but the action is not necessarily in the bottom third like Imax tends to be. Also, today's 3-D while being capable of being in your face is more like a window box effect presenting depth into the screen. I have yet to see any 3-D thats been distracting because of it's image size nor because whats going on in the film, and I've seen ALOT of 3-D.

Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-24-2008, 05:43 AM:

Geez Mark, you seem to be very forgiving when it comes to poor quality if it's digital. If it were a film setup, would you forgive 3fl screen brightness with a simple, Your eyes do actually adjust to the low light levels that single projector systems use but it takse a little while, like when you work in a photographic darkroom. shrug of the shoulders? Come on....that's just BS. You know you've spent gazillions of hours during most of your career making sure film-based systems produced the standard 16fl brighness and you would never dismiss a 5ft screen brightness. Hell, you'd be the first to scream bloody murder at such an excuse; somehow I can't hear you saying to a theatre owner, "Hey, they'll get used to it....just let your bulbs burn till they won't strike anymore -- it's ok cause guys see fine in darkrooms -- just give your patrons the chance for they eyes to get used to the fact that they CAN'T FREAKIN SEE THE IMAGE." Would tolerate such a low light level and brush it aside in a film-based operation? If you would, tell me I am wrong.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
What blows my mind is that at the last minute they come out with a new version of the framing target... This after installing 4 new systems over the last three weeks. I can guarantee you they are probably not going to get re-set for the new target since it also involves days of time just driving to the locations

Ah, such is the ways of the non-standard nature of digital. What was the "standard" one day is obsolete the next. This doesn't encourage exhibitors as you say, to spend the money to "do digital right" if every month or so, systems need to be recalibrated to a new "standard." Imagine having to recut aperture plates at the whim of a studio changing specs for its particular feature. I know it would keep your company in money, but more likely than not, exhibitors won't spend that money and you'll have allot more deviation at the grass-roots level that affects patrons' theatre experience. Just another nail sending them running to their home theatres.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-24-2008, 07:03 AM:

In defense to the 3-5 fL of digital 3D vs 16fL film...The color was timed for the lower light level to the point it looks its most natural in that range. An imaged timed for 16fL shown at 3-5fL looks beyond dull.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-24-2008, 08:32 AM:

Hardly Frank... even the scaled down images actually don't look that bad, in fact its obvious you haven't even seen a digital 3-D show yet or you wouldn't be saying what you are. They look better in fact than any of the 80's film based 3-d systems did. With the release of the full frame triple flash ffib's for digital projectors image quality has actually gotten considerably better. Do you even know what an ffib is Frank? Myself, I am pushing stacked 3-D digital systems for those that want the best quality. Not only does it bring the light level up into the normal realm but it also aleviates eye strain and it's the favored system by all the studios except Disney. Now Disney has never been standard about anything ... starting with the 70mm film release of "Sleeping Beauty" which had it's own aspect ratio... but the funkiness of Disney has been discussed in these threads and on other film sites many, many times. So Frank, until you have two feet to stand on in regards to 3-D digital looking bad don't bother to speculate. Disney's failure to get it's new target out in time only resulted in many locations showing the film improperly but thats not the fault of the digital projection system!!

Edit: BTW Frank... Bolt scroed 27 million over the weekend... not too shabby considering the two huge titles it was up against.

Mark

[ 11-24-2008, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gulbrandsen ]

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-24-2008, 10:24 AM:

I saw Bolt in RealD at Harkins Northfield in Denver on a screen that was probably about 40' wide. (#10)

I thought it was a bit dim. Not unwatchable, but not bright and vibrant either. The fact that the auditorium lights were left on (at a low level) might have contributed. Of course, the dark glasses make the image even dimmmer.

I'm not really a 3D fan. I've always found it gimmicky and distracting. It wasn't too bad in Bolt. 3D seems to work best for me with animated films, where the "spectacle of the imagery" is often the priorty anyway.

My almost 5-year-old daughter watched about half the movie with the glasses off. (Her 1st 3D movie.) She didn't like wearing them.

For Monsters vs. Aliens, I would choose 3D only if my daughter is somehow really excited to try it again with the glasses. For Up, I will probably choose 2D, to avoid any distractions and really enjoy the storytelling and film-making. For Toy Story 1 and 2 & Beauty & the Beast, I would prefer 2D, but I'd be happy just to see them on the big screen again in any format.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 11-24-2008, 01:31 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
We didn't have that problem with the two projector system operating on an 80+ foot wide screen but we are at 9fl! Your eyes do actually adjust to the low light levels that single projector systems use but it takse a little while, like when you work in a photographic darkroom.

80 feet? Sorry to break it to you, Mark, but if no one complained that they didn't see anything within even the first thirty rows, I'd be surprised. At that point, your eyes would be REALLY crossed in order to see any 3-D.

Dim levels are simply not good for your eyes. Didn't your mother ever tell you not to read in a dark room? Your eyes are straining to see what's on screen.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
3-D films seem to be made with a center of action in each scene and you tend to follow that part of the scene... similar to how Imax is done but the action is not necessarily in the bottom third like Imax tends to be.

You're talking about the point of convergence. I'd be surprised if most filmmakers understood what that is, based on the latest 3-D films. Because no one seems to know (or care), I had to take my glasses off during the FLY ME TO THE MOON trailer before JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, it was so bad.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Also, today's 3-D while being capable of being in your face is more like a window box effect presenting depth into the screen.

What's different between today's 3-D and yesterday's 3-D? In fact, the focus during the '50s was NOT "in your face," but exactly the stereo window that you're talking about.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I have yet to see any 3-D thats been distracting because of it's image size nor because whats going on in the film, and I've seen ALOT of 3-D.

Try sitting in the front row sometime. Also track down a book called "New Screen Techniques" published in 1953. That sets the guidelines for what is or isn't comfortable 3-D, as outlined by people who knew what they were doing.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-24-2008, 04:46 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston
80 feet? Sorry to break it to you, Mark, but if no one complained that they didn't see anything within even the first thirty rows, I'd be surprised. At that point, your eyes would be REALLY crossed in order to see any 3-D.

Jack,

There are not 30 rows total in that theater... and there have been no complaints as of today... only compliments on how good the 3-D works and looks.

quote: Jack Theakston
Didn't your mother ever tell you not to read in a dark room?

Nope, in fact my parents both encouraged me to read and do work in the dark room since I have had a photographic interest since I was about 7... I started dark room work when I was 8 in fact! Of course I'm just kidding about dark room Jack! What I stated above is true though. However anyone that does or has done any amount of darkrroom work knows how well your eyes do adjust after about 10 to 15 min.... Not to the point like you're in a normally lit room but as though you're in alot brighter light than you actually are.

quote: Jack Theakston
What's different between today's 3-D and yesterday's 3-D? In fact, the focus during the '50s was NOT "in your face," but exactly the stereo window that you're talking about.

Actually the focus during the 50's with films shot with the NaturalVision camera could be in your face... indeed in Hitchcocks film Dial-M the scene on the desk! The scene in House Of Wax with the Paddle Ball! Etc., Etc. It is well known that Hitch intentionally shot that one scene to be in your face while the rest was shot as a normal film. Take the LF Film "Dinosaurs Alive", it was intentionally shot to be "in your face" buy it's producers. There are even artifacts as a result of doing so but the responce from the film was so good they continued to shoot this way but came up with a lighting scheme that minimizes those artifacts. The artifacts are also clearly visible in the 15/70 version as well. I have to admit that their use of 3-D is one of the best I've seen where you may be looking at the Dino sleleton from the outside and all of a sudden you're inside that same skeleton... or the Dinos mouth!!

quote: Jack Theakston
Try sitting in the front row sometime. Also track down a book called "New Screen Techniques" published in 1953. That sets the guidelines for what is or isn't comfortable 3-D, as outlined by people who knew what they were doing.

Ha! You should see the Pace Camera demo film! Its literally spectaculuar and encompasses everything one can do with their 3-D camera system.

The more common problem is how 3-D affects different individuals. Everyone sees it and perceives it differently. You may have a muscle problem (weak eye muscles most likely) that cause your eye strain. I personally don't know anyone that has eye strain from watching today's 3-D material but there are always going to be a some that do... you are one of them and should probably stick to 2-D. Don't count on everythng being filmed so its like inside a "window box"... producers and directors will contimue to exploit 3-D how they feel it should be exploited... not how those that write the books do. The 300 people that saw the demo one night of the stacked system on the 80 foot screen all loved it and no one complained of eye strain...

Mark

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 11-25-2008, 02:41 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
There are not 30 rows total in that theater... and there have been no complaints as of today... only compliments on how good the 3-D works and looks.

Probably no point of reference. How far away is your first row from your screen?

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
However anyone that does or has done any amount of darkrroom work knows how well your eyes do adjust after about 10 to 15 min.... Not to the point like you're in a normally lit room but as though you're in alot brighter light than you actually are.

My point still stands, though. Ever try to read that packaging in a dark room? Very hard to read fine print if at all.

A dim screen is simply not good, 3-D or 2-D, and 3.5 fL is an unacceptable level in my book.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Actually the focus during the 50's with films shot with the NaturalVision camera could be in your face... indeed in Hitchcocks film Dial-M the scene on the desk! The scene in House Of Wax with the Paddle Ball! Etc., Etc.

Those are two of the most extreme examples, and it's ironic that even after the Paddle-ball man in HOUSE OF WAX (which I might add "opens" part 2 of the film), Vincent Price makes the remark, "a couple of more weeks and we won't need that sort of thing." Trust me, the irony was not lost.

Look at films like ROBOT MONSTER, MONEY FROM HOME or SECOND CHANCE, which all have little to no gimmicks whatsoever. These examples typify 3-D photography from that era much better.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Ha! You should see the Pace Camera demo film! Its literally spectaculuar and encompasses everything one can do with their 3-D camera system.

Never saw it. Know where I can?

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The 300 people that saw the demo one night of the stacked system on the 80 foot screen all loved it and no one complained of eye strain...

No offense intended to your or your venue, Mark, because you may be doing it right, but McDonalds serves 4 billion people and their burgers still taste like shit. Just because no one has complained doesn't mean it's not wrong. It's just that they don't have a point of reference.

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 11-25-2008, 10:51 AM:

quote: Jack Theakston
It may be standard, but that doesn't mean it's right. 3.5 fL is a really DIM image, and a dim image is one of the contributing factors to eye strain in 3-D (aside from synchronization and phase issues).

RealD on a 50-foot screen is a bad idea. A dim, less-than-HD-resolution 3-D image on a 50-foot screen is no good. At 50 feet, you're talking super eye-strain for about the front 1/3 of the audience. Their eyes are going to be ripped apart trying to converge the images so far apart.

I never said it was right, just that it was what you got when you installed that system. In fact, when they were doing the install at my previous theater, I expressed some dismay and outrage, which can be found in a few other threads on the topic. The state of the digital system installed was a contributing factor to my disagreement with the company which led to my leaving.

When I go to see Bolt, I will be opting for the 35mm over DLP for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the poor light and the fact that the use of 3D in this movie is sure to be gimmicky and contribute nothing to the experience. I think there is great potential in digital 3D, but it is not being realized by the installations, nor the idiotic use to which the effects are applied by filmmakers. Also, I'll probably see it at my old theater, and not watching movies on that DLP is my own little form of personal rebellion from which I derive untold satisfaction.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-25-2008, 06:59 PM:

Mark, you missed my point entirely. I am not saying 3.5ftl looks good or not; I was asking how CAN it come anywhere what has always been the accepted benchmark -- and you are right, I have yet to see digital 3D other than IMAX, which wasn't as bright as 2D but SUBJECTIVELY acceptable. My point was that somehow we have gone from being about hitting hard specs numbers when evaluating systems to determining what is a well aligned system by what "looks ok."

I profer that is not a scientific approach at all and one I suspect you would never have tolerated in your film work. And let me speculating again, but I would bet that you would never use the criteria of "even the scaled down images actually don't look that bad...." if you were talking about a film-based system. If an exhibitor told you that he didn't need a tech to align his lamphouse or his sound system because his booth guy just fiddles with the adjustments and gets everything so it "doesn't look that bad" or "it sounds pretty good" and there are no complaints from the audiences, I think you would be the first to agree that kind of subjective tweaking is anatham to what professional standards are all about. Hell, Mark, you have been fighting that kind of unprofessional crap all your career.

Yet you don't offer reasons why 3.5fl is as good as 16fl or that there are technical reasons why it is just as good as the standing benchmark. Yet you offer a purely subjective evaluation as a good enough reason -- "They look better in fact than any of the 80's film based 3-d systems did." Well, he-lloo, the 80's over-under systems looked flat out terrible -- hardly a glowing benchmark for digital 3D. I am sure it looks better than anaglyphic too, but so what? My concern was only with the descrepancy of the two numbers and why the descrepancy seems to be quietly accepted by the technical community. When did we switch from evaluation based on proven specs to using personal, subjective observation? That's the change I've seen creeping into your posts ever since your espousal of the digital conversion. And sure, you can play hotshot by asking if I know what FFIB is (just explain it if you think it's pertinent, and yes I do know what it means) but that doesn't go to the heart of my question which was how can 3.5ftl to 5ftl be OK when 16ftl has been the standard benchmark half a century? And if tripple flashing or even 10x flashing or any other process can make 5ftl = 16ftl, please explain it.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2008, 09:53 PM:

Remember one thing Frank...unlike a film print that is timed at 16fL...a digital 3D is timed at 3.5-5fL. As such, the contrast and color saturation has been adjusted to accommodate...like Drive-In prints used to be.

As such, a Digital 3D is bound to appear MUCH more acceptable than a film print showing at similar light levels. You have some oranges in with your apples here.

I don't think anyone is saying 3-5fL is ideal...it is just showing the limitations of the technoloy vs the $$$$$ available and the desire (by some) for 3D content. It is a compromise.

Even 16fL is a compromise...certainly 22fL can look better on film...if that pesky flicker wasn't in the way...so go to 3-wing shutters (or better yet, 30fps!!!) and crank up the light...but that costs more...16fL is compromise of technical merit verus cost.

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-25-2008, 11:26 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
My point was that somehow we have gone from being about hitting hard specs numbers when evaluating systems to determining what is a well aligned system by what "looks ok."

Frank.. That hasn't changed a bit in my world. The numbers are still as tight... actually tighter! They are just different numbers to get you to a prescribed point based on what the equiment is capable of doing. There is a similar set of standards to work towards for film but in the film world I rarely get to.

quote: Frank Angel
but I would bet that you would never use the criteria of "even the scaled down images actually don't look that bad...." if you were talking about a film-based system.

I suppose the comparison I'd use is that scaled down digital looks similar to average run of the mill Super 16. Good but not quite there. The image on the chips is actually larger in area than Super 16 at 858x1500 pixels for flat 3-D . The main thing to remember here is that systems going in are now doing full frame 2048x1080 triple flash and don't require any scaling... there is a huge difference in both sharpness and light level capability. Those projectors are just now hitting theaters. One reason the stacked systems look so much better is that they are full frame... don't require flashing the DMD's and most other specs are the same as standard 2-D content... and they have the same resolution as regular 2-D D-cinema content has. The way it works is the server spits out left eye data on the 292A output and right eye data on the 292B output. Both are at 10 bits so the color spectrum is not as broad.

quote: Frank Angel
Yet you offer a purely subjective evaluation as a good enough reason

Yes, because everyone will perceive it differently, Ron Funderburgs perception and eye strain is a very good example. The standards have been set for 3-D for now... at least till light levels start comming up, and they will but it'll happen slowly. For now I can't say how 3-D will look to you... you just have to see it for your self and decide how it looks to you... subjectively because thats really the only way an individual can really evaluate 3-D, and you need to see more than one film... a variety of things such as the Pace camera demo film is a great way to see all the capabilities in one sitting.

Mark

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-28-2008, 04:09 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
The color was timed for the lower light level to the point it looks its most natural in that range.

And the color gamut files in the projectors are adjusted through the glasses and the Z-screen, to ensure color reproduction stays true for the spectator.

We were actually coming up with 9 and 10fL on the recent installs I did -- and had to iris them down to meet the specs. It really rubbed me the wrong way to have to do that, but the show was timed for it.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 11-28-2008, 08:13 PM:

Relax, guys; with the reduced contrast ratio, you really need to lower the ft/lm. Otherwise you will have that "washed out" look. Louis

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2008, 08:18 PM:

Tim.

Clearly sounds over-lamped to me... Why on earth waste all that light? Also, are you measuring the light on or slightly off axis as you should do the latter with a silver screen to arrive at some average light reading. If you don't people sitting at extreme corners are going to be seeing a very dark image.

I guess Louis speaks from having watched a variety of digital 3-D content at that high light level...Surprising he would claim that knowledge since he is so anti-digital [Big Grin]

.

Mark

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 11-29-2008, 01:36 AM:

The point is that Disney SHOULDN'T be timing these "prints" for such low light readings. The projectors shouldn't be reading anything under 9 fL, period.

I understand they're trying to "save the theaters money" by putting less tension on the bulb, but really, this is a point of cutting costs where you're going to end up hurting your presentation in the end. THIS is why people are going to IMAX over digital 3-D presentations.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-29-2008, 09:01 AM:

Jack, It actually does look good up to about 7 to 8 fl but anything above that does look washed out. You will see 3-D brightness levels creeping up slowly over the next few years with the release of the full frame FFIBs for the 1.2" projectors.

Mark

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-29-2008, 12:43 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston
I understand they're trying to "save the theaters money" by putting less tension on the bulb

That's not it at all, they're just being realistic. 3D has always been starved for light.

quote: Jack Theakston
THIS is why people are going to IMAX over digital 3-D presentations.

They are? We've sure been installing a lot of 3D over the past year or so, with more to come, for audiences to be going somewhere else.

You should go watch one of the Bolt presentations and see how you like it.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-29-2008, 02:01 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston

I understand they're trying to "save the theaters money" by putting less tension on the bulb, but really, this is a point of cutting costs where you're going to end up hurting your presentation in the end. THIS is why people are going to IMAX over digital 3-D presentations.

Jack... all of the locations I've installed are running 6kw ahort gaps!!! Less current... I don't think so....

Mark

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 11-29-2008, 02:04 PM:

quote: Jack Theakston
I understand they're trying to "save the theaters money" by putting less tension on the bulb

Not even kind of. As per my previous example, the install at my old theater was using a 6500w lamp at full power to reach maybe 4 FL on a 40 foot screen. The same theater's 35mm setup uses a 4kw usually running at around 3300w to hit 14-16 FL. I would say they time the files like that because the average installation is going to struggle to hit the top end of that threshold. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the most important goals of DLP projector manufacturers should be brightness and contrast ratio, with resolution in third place, maybe.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 11-29-2008, 10:13 PM:

Blah, blah, blah..size of hard drive space issues, screen illumination issues, two different servers that aren't compatible, targeting instructions that change with different releases, etc.

All the more reasons that this whole Dig cimena is such pure [bs]

So glad I'm gonna retire before that shit takes over completely.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-30-2008, 11:10 AM:

Tony...given comparable time in film's early history (and even every new sound format's history on film)...things have been relatively smooth.

The difference I'd give on DCinema is this mantra about HAVING TO UPGRADE to the LATEST incarnation at all times (or so sayeth Disney). Imagine on film if every time an improvement was made to projectors you HAD to buy the latest thing...it would bankrupt the theatres...which is a problem with DCinema...though many will likely bankrupt the "Deployment providers" like Access IT (or whatever they call themselves).

This is a business...it needs to be profitable. On thing that DCinema clearly misses...they don't increase ticket sales...they just cost more....and more more often.

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 11-30-2008, 02:45 PM:

quote: Tim Reed
That's not it at all, they're just being realistic. 3D has always been starved for light.

True, Tim, but never THIS starved in comparison. And as I've expressed, this is going to hurt exhibitors in the long-run.

quote: Tim Reed
They are? We've sure been installing a lot of 3D over the past year or so, with more to come, for audiences to be going somewhere else.

On at least two presentations I went to during prime time, only 1/3 of the audience was filled. Meanwhile, every IMAX show I've been to in the last six months has been sold out.

This might be demographics in my area, but I also live in the NYC area, so...

quote: Tim Reed
You should go watch one of the Bolt presentations and see how you like it.

I plan on it. I check out all of the 3-D systems that are out there today. But I already *know* what a dim image looks like with 3-D and I know how it's going to affect the audience. I'm commenting on a standard, not door-to-door presentation.

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Not even kind of. As per my previous example, the install at my old theater was using a 6500w lamp at full power to reach maybe 4 FL on a 40 foot screen. The same theater's 35mm setup uses a 4kw usually running at around 3300w to hit 14-16 FL. I would say they time the files like that because the average installation is going to struggle to hit the top end of that threshold.

That's why you shouldn't be projecting 3-D on a 40-foot screen unless you can support it with the light. Bigger is NOT better in 3-D.

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the most important goals of DLP projector manufacturers should be brightness and contrast ratio, with resolution in third place, maybe.

I think all three should be a major concern, and should have before TI and the rest debuted this garbage. RealD's resolution isn't even HD!

Then why do you think Disney has such a low standard for their 3-D system? Saving the exhibitor money is the only thing I can think of that's "nice to say," but it's my nice way of saying that their engineers are INCOMPETENT.

This is exactly why this 3-D fad is going to fail (and I'm a proponent of 3-D!)-- everybody's an "expert" and knows best. Hollywood breaks all of the rules and their system will die, and they'll blame it on the glasses, because they're ignorant to their own shit that they're sitting in.

Guess who get's to pay the tab?

As I said, the trailer for FLY ME TO THE MOON ripped my eyes apart-- and I was sitting in the back row! No respect for the stereo window, no concept of what the point of convergence is, and that was AFTER someone "fixed" the trailer for them!

Think Cameron and his cronies are any better and that AVATAR is going to save it? Think again. His ALIENS OF THE DEEP was just more of the same. I left with my eyes closed.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2008, 03:06 PM:

quote:
I think all three should be a major concern, and should have before TI and the rest debuted this garbage. RealD's resolution isn't even HD!

Thats why theaters that care about quality presentation have put in stacked systems. Also, the new FFIBs allow triple flash at full rez for 2K.

Mark

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-30-2008, 03:13 PM:

Actually...DCinema is every bit as bright as comparable film 3D. That is...I can hit, watt-for-watt every bit as bright a DCinema image as film when looking at typical film versus typical digital.

Furthermore...the 16fL of film is open-gate...not with film...even clear film. So a 3-5fL film reading is going to look darker than a 3-5fL digital image because you can actually hit the 3-5fL on the digital...the film version will be between 85-90% of that.

To compare a typical digital 3D to film 3D, you would need to compare a Real-D to an over/under film 3D. The light levels are going to be similar with a potential edge to digital.

Likewise, if you are going to use a dual-strip 3D on film, then you need to compare that to a dual-projector digital...digital, on a watt-for-watt basis is going to stand toe-to-toe on that and might even get an edge...again various projectors of both types will do better/worse than others.

They really should consider optimizing a 3D theatre with a curved screen (And use optimized optics too).

Steve

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2008, 10:37 PM:

quote: Steve Guttag
They really should consider optimizing a 3D theatre with a curved screen (And use optimized optics too).

Steve... It shouldn't end there! You also need a completely darkened room with as little stray light as is feesable and still meet local codes. Dark ceiling tiles, dark side masking, dark curtains and wall coverings, exit signs that also use controled light levels and dispersion... a completely black interior if you will... All these plus what you mentioned above would aid in optomizing a 3-D house.

Mark

Posted by Ron Funderburg (Member # 4561) on 12-17-2008, 03:07 PM:

Mark remember this little teaser line "During the last 3 minutes of this presentation there will be no light in the theater except that which is on the screen." Wait Until Dark

You couldn't get away with that today. The theater I saw it at even shut off the exit lights! "SPOOKY" Well sort of it was a great film wasn't 3D but still it was dark and scary!

Digital should be brighter as the light is continuous and not sliced up with shutter or is it? But from what I read you have to have brighter lights for it.

Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 12-20-2008, 02:52 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Steve... It shouldn't end there! You also need a completely darkened room with as little stray light as is feesable and still meet local codes. Dark ceiling tiles, dark side masking, dark curtains and wall coverings, exit signs that also use controled light levels and dispersion... a completely black interior if you will... All these plus what you mentioned above would aid in optomizing a 3-D house.

Mark

While we're at it, let's just enclose each patron in a black velour sack and put black paint on all exposed skin.... sheesh. [Roll Eyes]

Roxy and the great showmen of the heyday of cinema are spinning in their graves over the continued bastardization of the (formerly) fine art of FILM exhibition.

Makes me want to [puke]