quote: Frank Bruno

---

I caught one of those Fathom Events presentations of the old Star Trek Menagerie 2-parter at a nearby Regal, and that looked DTDS preshow quality.

---

quote: Frank Bruno

---

I can't seem to find a list of digital screens in the central/northern NJ/NYC areas. Does anybody know where one could be found, or know what digital theatres in my area are running what equipment?

---

I don't know about other listing sites, but Fandango should tell you if the movie is in DLP, so just check the listings for the theater you're interested in. (Of course this won't tell you what equipment is being used, but at least you'll know if it's digital.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-25-2008, 04:31 PM:
 
Mitchell, it's in house 6 at Kinnelon. "Bolt" is playing. It's an NEC 1600 with a Doremi DCP-2000 server.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-25-2008, 05:48 PM:
 
How much of a difference is there in image quality between, say, Christie, Barco, and NEC projectors, all other things being equal and asssuming competent setup? (Some makes/models may be easier to install/repair or have greater light efficiency or whatever, but I'm not counting that here, since none of these issues would make a difference to the moviegoer.)

Also, I've seen posts here that suggest that the DLP chips come in different sizes; does that affect image quality, or just the amount of light that can be put through it (or something else)?

Finally, does the server make a difference in any factors other than reliability and operator convenience? Doesn't it just send bits to the projector? And are those bits the same if they come from a Dolby server vs. a Doremi server vs. some other server (assuming the same input file)?

I've been showing lots of video (NTSC, PAL, HD) for the last couple of years and I've made peace with it for material that was never shot on film or made available on film, but DCI really hasn't affected my life in any way. There are relatively few DCI houses in this area and all are in mainstream multiplexes, as far as I know.

From what I've seen of DCI, the picture is good enough to be an improvement over 35mm film run by popcorn kids, but I think that the 2k standard was standardized too early and is inferior to a good 35mm print. Also, it blows my mind that anyone has installed equipment, since it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint, except maybe for 3D, and that advantage is only good until every other theatre has 3D capability as well.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-25-2008, 09:46 PM:
 
Scott,

In truth, there is less difference between the projectors (from the theatre perspective) than the installers and their equipment putting them in...not to mention the screen quality, ports...etc.

It may be me, but I think the .98" chips have a bit more pronounced dark space between pixels than the 1.2" (the only two sizes currently in use in 2K DLPs for DCinema).

The imagers, boards are all TIs doing as is the software that drives them (so sayeth TI)...Lens wise, they are all on a level playing field too...particularly on the 1.2" varieties

Some will claim superior contrast from one brand or another due to some special process of manufacture...in typical cinemas...you aren't going to get any real contrast above 500:1 (And probably a lot less) and be fire legal. In a screening room or other controlled environment...there may be something to it.

I'll say this, when I've set up identical projectors within a complex using the same equipment...when you show an image out of the various projectors, aside from maybe size...they look IDENTICAL color wise.

So, to make a long story shorter...I doubt you could advertize that we use "ABC" brand projectors and get ANY patron loyalty over another brand. I've also never had a studio question or be disappointed that one brand was in over another in terms of image quality.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-26-2008, 12:08 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Lens wise, they are all on a level playing field too...particularly on the 1.2" varieties

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Also, it blows my mind that anyone has installed equipment, since it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint, except maybe for 3D, and that advantage is only good until every other theatre has 3D capability as well.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

For example, in one of our locations a nearby regal installed 3D last year. Since them we can't get a decent gross on anything that plays day and date 2D (at our location) and 3D. Guess what is getting installed in a few weeks.........

---

quote:

---

BOLT was playing on two screens.
One was in Digital 3-D; one was 2-D 35mm.
The tickets were $12.00 for the 3-D presentation.
Tickets for regular shows are $9.00
This theatre has only one digital projector and it is beside a 35mm. There were more people seated in the 2-D house than the 3-D.

Todd
Riverside D-I

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

collusion is not allowed

---

quote:

---

BOLT was playing on two screens.
One was in Digital 3-D; one was 2-D 35mm.
The tickets were $12.00 for the 3-D presentation.
Tickets for regular shows are $9.00
This theatre has only one digital projector and it is beside a 35mm. There were more people seated in the 2-D house than the 3-D.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Nothing better than shooting yourself in the head! I don't know of any out here that are also running a 2-D version if they are running 3-D.

---

Speaking of shooting oneself in the head....

Not EVERYONE wants to see things in 3D, period (well, at least cinema 3D). There are some that just wont wear the glasses...take my son (age 3) that simply won't do it. As such, a 2D version was sought out and, again at 3...he sat all of the way though the movie and wants to go see it again, in a theatre.

The theatre he saw the film in did have both 2D and 3D versions available too.

Presumming Frank's data is correct...it indicates that 3D is not the selling point for EVERYONE. In fact, it may indeed be a distraction.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 11-30-2008, 08:20 PM:
 
A few studies show that aprox. 8% of the population have some eye problem that affect their stereopsis perception.

Stereoscopists have long agreed that, for many different reasons, most of them medical (amblyopia, strabismus, etc), about 10% of the general population would NOT enjoy (or even dispise) stereoscopic 3D projections.

On the other end, there is a number of people (which I haven't read any studies to figure out what percentage) that have very little trouble fusing stereo images and no eye-strain from separating convergence and focus (something that never occurs in nature, only when watching stereo images that are focused on a screen at some distance but are to be fused at a convergence point in front-of or behind said screen).

Just to give a general idea, of the 3D projections I have done, I'd say about 10% of those watching have no problem whatsoever with even bad presentations (extreme ghosting, huge convergence angles or even DIVERGENT ones, vertical parallax, etc).

So for a minority, 3D is great and without shortcomings. Those people just don't understand what others are complaining about and don't understand why doesn't everybody just love 3D.

For another minority, 3D is painful, bad, and not satisfying (or even perceived) at all.

For the rest, it's somewhere in-between.

So a few people would not want to miss a show in 3D and would go out of their way to actually watch it. They would even watch a movie ONLY for the 3D, even if it's bad. They'll even hapily pay a higher ticket price.

Another similar set of people would NOT make any effort to watch the movie in 3D and, given the choice or any advantage (such as cheaper price), would much rather watch it in 2D.

For the rest of the population, 3D may add something but not enough to make them "3D fans".

Those that enjoy 3D movies the most are usually young people with supple visual systems (children 9-13, their heads are smaller than adult-size therefore their eyes are closer together therefore they see an exagerated 3D effect since it has been shot with the eye-separation of an adult in mind). But other types might also enjoy it, such as people with unusually large heads that are used to fuse "difficult" images with large parallax due to their eyes being so far apart from each other, i.e.).

I have also found that people that watch stereo films for the first time often get a more satisfying feeling that quickly wears out after they've see a few films and start to complain of eye-strain, etc. Once the novelty wears out, they no longer want to put up with dim images, uneven/mismatched illumination/color (silver screen axial aberrations), ghosting, flickering, you-name-it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2008, 10:34 PM:
 
Julio... You are 100% correct!
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-03-2008, 09:51 AM:
 
Julio, excellently stated.

Since I am one who falls into the "...a few people would not want to miss a show in 3D and would go out of their way to actually watch it. They would even watch a movie ONLY for the 3D, even if it's bad. They'll even hapily pay a higher ticket price" catagory, and because I certainly can no longer consider myself "young" by any stretch of the imagination (I used to call myself "middle aged" until a friend pointed out that would only be true if I planned to live to 120), then I must conclude that my inordinate love of anything 3D can only be attributed to my unusually BIG HEAD and my wide-stance eyeballs"...other types might also enjoy it, such as people with unusually large heads that are used to fuse "difficult" images with large parallax due to their eyes being so far apart from each other...." Sweet.
 

---

Posted by Frank Bruno (Member # 1871) on 12-03-2008, 03:49 PM:
 
Does anyone know the next release to have a digital 3D release? I can't get too excited for Bolt; my own theater has a 2d print i havent bothered with, and Ive heard ok things about the movie. I know the Jonas Brothers are getting the Hannah Montana treatment come spring, but I'm not a teen girl. Pixar's Up & Cameron's Avatar are looking like must-sees in 3D. One of these days I'll probably head to that Morristown Clearview, I've enver been to that theater and I'm not that far away.

Do we have a good "digital-for-dummies" resource here on film-tech somewhere? If you can't tell I'm plenty curious but can't keep up with the (inevitably) technical direction conversations on it take.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-03-2008, 04:07 PM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Nothing better than shooting yourself in the head! I don't know of any out here that are also running a 2-D version if they are running 3-D.

---