Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Imax releases at Showest ... and Sony's '4K' 3D

This is topic Imax releases at Showest ... and Sony's '4K' 3D 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=000341

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-01-2009, 09:03 PM:

I'm not sure if Sony's digital 4K and Imax dual enhanced-2K digital systems qualify as the "Large Format" of the new decade, but since traditional IMAX is basically dying, we either start to re-use the forums or soon most-everything will be in the "direct to video" sub-forum [Wink]

First link is to a video from showest with Imax movies lineup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHpsu_0Q3Zw&fmt=18

Second video is from a Sony presentation on their 3D solution for their digital cinema 4K systems:

http://sony.http.internapcdn.net/sony_vitalstream_com/Dig_cin_1280.wmv

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7230/sony3d.jpg
[Link is to Sony's 3D system publicity display]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-01-2009, 10:25 PM:

There is to be no talk about video in the LARGE FORMAT Forum.

[ 04-01-2009, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-01-2009, 10:26 PM:

SONY 4K hahahahahahaha

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 04-02-2009, 10:19 AM:

I propose a new forum called "Big Screen Video".

[Razz]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-02-2009, 10:46 AM:

If Sony can do the 4K thing right it could work well for auditoriums with large screens, not IMAX sized, but in the 70'-80' wide range I see in certain places.

I definitely saw noticeable resolution limits with the 2K projection in one of the grand auditoriums at Moore Warren 14 in Moore, OK. The picture seemed adequately bright and focus was good -unfortunately too good really. I was sitting about mid-way in the rows of seats and could still see evidence of a pixel grid. That probably wouldn't be the case with 4K projection and native 4K material.

Speaking of which, does Sony's "SXRD" 4K projectors have some sort of interpolation feature for up-scaling 2K or HDTV material up to 4K? If not, that 2K pixel grid is still going to come through (perhaps even more noticeably) when projected in 4K.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-02-2009, 12:20 PM:

Bobby...I can say that from my experience, YES, the Sony SXRD does do some form of interpolation (cubic spline?) such that you don't perceive a 2K image superimposed on a 4K grid. Furthermore, the 4K grid is MUCH tighter spaced.

2K images often look quite impressive when projected on this system. Now as to color and color uniformity? That I have not been as impressed with...particularly on motion images.

Steve

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-02-2009, 05:40 PM:

All I'll say as to not get my self in trouble, Sony 4k where it stands now. Is not capable of projecting a solid strong image like the Barco at 70+ feet.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-02-2009, 09:35 PM:

Obviously there is room for improvement with Sony's 4K system, which is why I prefaced my comment with: If Sony can do the 4K thing right...

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-02-2009, 10:17 PM:

I'm not taking a shot at you Bobby. Just stating a fact about the 4k as it stands now, it is a inferior product right now. Sony has a long road ahead before this system is even a legitimate possibility.

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-02-2009, 11:20 PM:

Well, while I also consider Sony's current crop of projectors "inferior" overall they are not inferior in principle and definitely not in resolution or contrast ratio, quite on the contrary.

As we know, they do deliver 4 times the amount of pixels of 2K offers and a contrast ratio that could be superior if DCI didn't limit the specifications to 2000:1.

With their 3D solution, they can also do 3D at 60hz for live sports and the like, while all other systems, except dual-projection, would not be able to do this.

But they are indeed a "work in progress" and the projectors are not without engineering (rather than design or theoretical) capabilities issues and they are by design more limited in useable light output FOR 2D. They have an advantage for 3D in that the light coming out of the engine is already pre-polarized and thus can be used almost 100% w/o loss for 3D instead of taking a (say) 50% additional hit for some other systems.

So they have problems and they are not "polished" and you find plenty of units with uniformity, linearity, response or even registration issues. They are less bright for 2D and they are expensive. They are also potentially less durable.

But they are also 4K, they have a nice image quality (when you hit a non-defective unit [Wink]

), they do 3D at full 2K 4:4:4 12 bits w/o flicker and up to 60fps while the competition does 4:2:2 10 bits and even less than 2K if they are older non-triple flash models and max. 48fps with even more flicker at 96hz in dual-flash (like XpanD).

So I wouln't label them totally as "an inferior product". It's a superior product on the paper than then fails to properly deliver what it's meant to do because of technical issues rather than specifications or theoretical performance.

It's sort of SDDS. It's a better product than Dolby digital in theory. And when it works well, it produces superior results.

But in practice ... One could say SRD is an inferior product but more solid, more practical, durable and cheaper.

DLP's are without doubt a more solid and reliable solution for digital cinemas, specilly on large screens. But unfortunately, they are also "inferior" in resolution and thus, in certainly one of the main parameters by which image quality is measured. You can't argue that when color gamut and contrast are similar, 8 million pixels is a lot better than 2 million pixels.

But I agree we all wished there were a 4K DLP projector in the market. Unfortunately, I don't think it will come and, if it does, have the €€€€ or the $$$$ ready.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 04-04-2009, 09:24 AM:

Sony's 3-D demo flopped at Showest. It was extremely dim on just about a tiny 20 foot wide screen. That helped convince our customers that Sony 3-D was definately NOT the way to go. After the demo they in turn bought other manufacturers 3-D systems.

The other thing is that the AMC deal is not going to help Sony one iota. It may actually hurt them big time in the long run(if there is a long run at all). Now theater owners in general know that they can sell them for $63,000.00 each to AMC. Another small US based chain is paying about $70,000 per system... yet they want to get just under $84,000 for them to any other chain. We had one customer tell them he can have their whole chain and equip it... about 130 screens... the price was still just under 84,000 per screen. He ended up buying 2K systems for alot less than $84,000. Very definately Sony has shot themselves in the foot, they seem to do this at every Show East or West and even at NAB!!

Julio... Whats to make 4K the standard if Sony keeps this attitude? The theater owner is 99% of the time going to buy the equipment thats the least expensive... Don't forget, thats what AMC has done at $63,000 per screen!!!

Mark

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 04-04-2009, 10:34 AM:

Yeah, I don't follow Sony's logic myself. They can most definitely sell the top systems at under $65k (and make nice profits), but I guess they are foreseeing many guarantee repair issues and upgrades and are thus nailing in advance.

They shouldn't have problems with a 20' screen. Someone calibrating those shows totally screwed up (or was given a defective unit and was trying his best to cover up any problems which led to the low light levels and perceived low contrasts).

Regardless, the whole Sony operation is a bit of hit-and-miss. They should just had offer a product through traditional dealers etc.

But anyway, at least it will get some butts moving for 4K distribution and mastering. Maybe.

[ 04-06-2009, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]