This is topic Best 3D for a HUGE screen 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=000717
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-19-2011, 12:45 AM:
Having just changed ownership, the theater I work at is looking into adding 3D. It is a former IMAX and has a HUGE screen (69'x29' matte white) and lighting it with a 6k bulb and 35mm film is enough of a challenge.
From what I'v seen here and herd elsewhere Dolby is the best but would be impossible to light on that sized screen even with 2 projectors. We are trying to avoid changing the screen out if possible.
As a single screen we have to have the best picture for both 2D and 3D in the area, which means going against RealD and a liemax.
So what would you recommend? Is Xpand going to blow peoples minds the way Dolby would, or is Dolby going to be way to dark?
Thanks in advance
Jake
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-19-2011, 01:06 AM:
Without a doubt I would go for IMAX Digital.
Check out a Cineplex Odeon AVX and you will see how dark RealD is on there massive screen
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-19-2011, 01:24 AM:
IMAX is not a choice as they are the completion and I know how bad RealD looks, It is in the local Carmike plus it requires a silver screen which we are trying to avoid because of the hot spotting and loosing the 3D effect in certain areas of the theater.
Also Worth Noting: Screen throw is 74' so people sit REALLY close to the screen, so 4K is a must as soon as it becomes available.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-19-2011, 01:38 AM:
So are you trying to re-create IMAX in your own way?
Big D, ETX, UltraAVX are all examples you should be looking at.
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-19-2011, 02:01 AM:
I wouldn't say that were trying to recreate IMAX, just that we are offering something different and better. Ironicly our screen is larger than our local lieMAX whose slogan, if In not mistaken, is "Think Big".
As far as AVX, ETX, and any other three letter "Premium" formats I would love to see and compare them myself, but there aren't any close to me. Do you know any details yourself other than opinions, what projector, what 3D, type of screen? Ill defiantly go re-read your review of the formats in the TRON movie review.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 01-19-2011, 02:14 AM:
IMAX digital uses a silver screen so the existing screen would probably need to be painted.
It's an interesting question as I do prefer the look of dolby 3d on a white screen. Can dolby and expand/ panastereo 3d work as a 2 projectors systems? Can a single 3d projector system fill a huge white sheet?
I have seen real d fill a 70ft wide silver screen quite well!
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-19-2011, 02:23 AM:
The EXT, AVX, and Empire Extra theatres in my area are about the same size as the smaller IMAX or Liemax digital theatres. If you are trying to top IMAX 3D, I am not sure if it is possible as I personally think it is the best way to see 3D.
As for ETX, they are using 4K projectors. The AVX I think is a 2k upgradable to 4k...not sure what is was for sure, but I think it was 4k.
The big difference aside from picture is that the AVX/EXTRA screens have reserved seating. I think this is where you can gain an advantage over IMAX.
quote:
I have seen real d fill a 70ft wide silver screen quite well!
And coming right out of an IMAX presentation, the REALD AVX 70 footer looked terrible for the same TRON movie
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2011, 03:16 AM:
quote: Tom Petrov
Without a doubt I would go for IMAX Digital.
For a HUGE screen? Screw that, go with REAL IMAX instead.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-19-2011, 03:22 AM:
quote: Joe Redifer
For a HUGE screen? Screw that, go with REAL IMAX instead.
Does IMAX even install traditional 15/70 anymore?
quote: Jake Spell
they are the completion
IMAX does not really care how close you are to the next theatre. We have two sets of cinemas in the GTA. The Paramount vs AMC Yonge/Dundas and the Coliseum vs AMC Courtney Park. The theatres are very close. The AMC theatres are playing Green Hornet while the Coliseum/Paramount are playing TRON.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2011, 03:44 AM:
I'm sure they don't.
Posted by Kris Verhanneman (Member # 5562) on 01-19-2011, 03:55 AM:
a dual projection stack of 2 DP2K-32B Barco projectors can give you enough light for a great dolby 3D projection.
We have one on a silver screen of 250m² and have lots of light.
Now you should check how much light you lose sinds your screen isn't new. And given the fact that you are very close to the screen you should contact Barco to check with their technical staff. Theire may be a solution to use 2 smaller projectors. But that needs to be calculated.
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 01-19-2011, 05:21 AM:
Marcus uses Real-D on some of their Ultra-Screens. I've seen it and it looks good, but the screening I saw did not use the full width of the screen.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-19-2011, 10:08 AM:
Okay...lets say you have a Matte white screen (unlikely but certainly possible). Using a single projector and Dolby 3D...you will need 125,546 lumens to get Dolby 3D in spec. for your Scope image. That doesn't seem too likely.
Going to a dual-stack system, you can cut that number by MORE than half to about 56,500 Lumens...still more than any set of current projectors and muster. Use anamorphics (and I highly recommend them for side-masked screens for Scope) and you are down to just 43,500 Lumens. Still more than you can buy from current projectors.
The last bit will need to come from the screen. Use a 1.4 gain pearl and you are down to 26,100 and then you have your choice of all three DLP projectors, Barco DP2K-32B, Chrisite CP2230, or NEC 3200. You will be running 6-6.5K lamps in BOTH machines but you WILL hit 3D light specs WITH Dolby 3D and the lowest gain (greatest viewable angles with the best light). All of this is going to cost a bit...not only to buy but also to keep up with...buring 6K lamps x 2...the most expensive combined with the shortest lived. It will look spectacular though.
Now most will poo-poo the anamorphics and say use a higher gain screen (1.8 or 2.2). The FLAW in that plan is you really only hit your light in ONE place on the screen. Everywhere else you are below spec. Furthermore, even in that sweet spot, if you look even 20-degrees to the left or right, you are again below spec. The anamorphics are a good solution though they are pricey. However, you only need to buy them once. They also allow you to better match your light needs between scope and flat. Just remember, as far as your projector is concerned...when you are running scope, your screen is over 36-feet tall! Without the anamorphic, you are pissing away light to light the drapes.
Note too, if you wait a few months...all of this will translate into 4K (which is here now but I would avoid being on the first wave of most anything in technology). On a giant screen, the greater density of the pixels is going to improve the experience for those sitting closer...even on a 2K master as all projection artifacts are cut by 75%...including convergence.
As for Xpand...there is no dual projector solution, that I am aware of, since they are an active glasses solution..they depend on only one eye showing at a time. As a single projector solution, they could work. You are starting out needing 70,300 Lumens on a matte white. Using anamorphics, you are down to 54,100. With a 1.4 gain screen, you'll just squeak by...with a new lamp. A 1.8 gain screen should get you there with some head room, but not much and you are getting into a notably hot spotty screen. Likewise for the 2.2 gain offerings but you are down to 24,600 lumens...which gives you the proper headroom. However, you are now paying for expensive glasses and have effectively the same nasty dispersion as a silver screen...just that it is white and will have better colors. Your operating costs are lower than the Dolby solution but it certainly will be an inferior show, light uniformity wise.
-Steve
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-19-2011, 12:00 PM:
Thanks for the great info!! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Steve your vast knowledge in all things related with projection continues to amaze me!!
Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 01-19-2011, 12:41 PM:
I would also consider how close your front row is to your screen. If your screen is REALLY big, and the seating in the front rows is too close, you're going to end up ripping your customers' eyes apart trying to converge images.
Bigger does not equal better in 3D.
(Don't think this will be an issue if it was previously an IMAX theater, though.)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-19-2011, 03:26 PM:
As a customer, I avoid giant sized screens when digital 3D is in use. Digital 3D works far better on modest sized screens. Additionally, 2K DI sourced material and 2K digital projection works best on modest to small sized movie screens.
The only thing that really works well for showing 3D on giant sized screens: true IMAX 3D. We're talking dual 15-perf 70mm projection and material that was originated in IMAX 3D.
I have not been very impressed with all the 35mm to IMAX DMR blow ups. Video-sourced blow ups to IMAX are worse. Giant sized blur-O-vision. The 3D might be bright enough but the lack of native detail blown up that big is just too bad to tolerate. Throw in the hectic editing pace (and maybe even some shaky cam) typical of current Hollywood films and that makes the giant blurry mess even more confounding to watch. Movies made specifically for the giant screen demand far fewer edits; gotta give the viewer a chance to take in the huge image. But with the image looking like ass I guess it's necessary to hurry the hell out of the editing pace.
Obviously there's enough people out there who don't know better since various theater chains are installing more screens based on their own flavors of Lie-MAX. I'm just not going to pay the IMAX-style premium for that nonsense.
Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 01-19-2011, 03:36 PM:
So should using an anamorphic increase light output by approx. 1.3x for all digital scope set-ups?
What is the rough cost of an anamorphic for Digital Cinema?
Also all 2k scope films we get say their image is 2048x858, would a different file be needed for digital or do you just program either the server or projector to squeeze the image into a different shape/resolution?
Posted by Frederick Lanoy (Member # 5416) on 01-19-2011, 04:39 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
As for Xpand...there is no dual projector solution, that I am aware of, since they are an active glasses solution..they depend on only one eye showing at a time.
"Up" (Disney / pixar) was shown in a Xpand dual projector solution at Cannes in 2009. But, i don't have details on the set up of the machine (Christie's projectors).
I wasn't there but some people at Cine Expo in 2009 told me that it's was still too dark. Yet, the screen is not that massive (20 meters per 8 meters high).
According to me, the perfect solution doesn't exist in this configuration. Dual Dolby 3 D with a serie 2 projector seems to be the best alternativ but the light effeciency of the system is less than 11 %...
My two cents : forget the Real D XL on such a big screen. Silver screen = hot spot and two much noticeable ghosting.
Posted by Tony Bandiera Jr (Member # 2365) on 01-19-2011, 07:00 PM:
And for cripe's sake, whatever you end up doing INSTALL MASKING!!!
Remember that the perceived image WILL be brighter and sharper with black surrounding it instead of an expanse of blank screen.
IF you want to use one of American Moron Crapema's ETX screens try to find one with masking in use, if such exists.
I agree with Joe, go with IMAX 15/70 if you really have such a hard-on to do 3-D, which I predict will die out again in the next 3-5 years. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 01-19-2011, 08:25 PM:
Haha, the screen is currently running 35mm and DOES have masking which will stay. No matter how sharp the edge is.
As for IMAX 15/70 I wish. That is what was originally installed and we still have holes in walls from where they removed the old projector.
quote: Jack Theakston
Bigger does not equal better in 3D.
I remember seeing somewhere that the reason that IMAX 15/70 3D was so good was because it had huge screens, TONS of light, and it was dual strip film.
quote: Frederick Lanoy
forget the Real D XL on such a big screen
Already have, the screen curve and heavy downward tilt (~11 deg) would make aligning the optics impossible, and we would lose about 60 seats for 3D, at least IMAX did on the plans.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-19-2011, 11:08 PM:
Amanda,
If you use side-movable masking for Scope (scope is wider than flat), then yes, in a typical cinema environment, I always recommend anamorphics. You don't get 30% more light...it is closer to 23%...maybe a tad more.
The cost of them vary based on the manufacturer selling them. In the states, I think Christie is the cheapest, Barco the most expensive. In fact, Barco barely mentions them and only, sort of, supports them on the "B" series, not the "C".
The means to deal with the anamorphic is built into the TI boards/software. I don't think Barco is putting the anamorphic factor on their software anymore so that would need to be set on the TI software and saved to the appropriate Barco file. Christie definitely still has the factor as does, I believe NEC on their software. In any event, it is set to 1.26 (the amount of anamorphic squeeze). This will merely stretch the height of the image (only) by 26% so when the anamorphic comes down, the width will be spread by 26% to make everything proportionally correct again. Thus, you use all of the pixels on your projector to fill your largest screen. Note, this does NOT increase your resolution (you can't get detail from what isn't there)...but you do reduce your magnification of your pixels in the vertical plane and you get the best light throughput.
-Steve
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-19-2011, 11:27 PM:
There is nothing saying you have to use the entire screen either. Since your room sounds like it is fairly shallow, it might solve much of your brightness quest by utilizing a more reasonable screen width. Better to have a smaller screen than a underlit image.
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 01-20-2011, 03:34 AM:
IMAX are still doing some 1570 installs. They are putting in a 3D GT system in to Toronto's Cinesphere replacing system #1. See thread in Large Format forum.
If you are interested in seeing a digital vs 1570 shoot out there's a 2 day event in Galveston next week that you should try and attend.
http://digitalcinemasymposium.com/
Posted by Pietro Clarici (Member # 4937) on 01-20-2011, 11:29 AM:
quote: Steve Guttag
(...) As for Xpand...there is no dual projector solution, that I am aware of, since they are an active glasses solution..they depend on only one eye showing at a time.
You can definitely use a dual projector setup with XpanD. One of the most famous theatres in Italy uses a stack of Christie XBs on a 30x16,5 *meters* Perlux 180 screen. Obviously, with shutter glasses both projectors still have to work in triple flash at the same time.
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 01-20-2011, 12:32 PM:
Steve,
I am skeptical about the anamorphic because of the scaling process: how is its quality?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-20-2011, 08:02 PM:
It isn't a bad scaling like you might think... it is a fixed linear type of scaling. Furthermore, it is only in one dimension. The anamorphics are where you are more likely to get artifacts. Only ISCO and Schneider, to the best of my knowledge made/make them. Their quality is pretty high.
But, aside from the light, when you merely zoom the image...you are enlarging all of the pixels and all of the artifacts within your projector (convergence, space between the pixels...etc) so you need to compare the zoomed image with the scaled/stretched image and honestly, in a typical cinema, nobody is going to pick off the anamorphic as the inferior image.
I would be less inclined to use an anamorphic in a review room situation. However, their screens are so much smaller as to not have as much of an issue with light.
However, in a conventional theatre...I'll go further to say, if you have side masking, you are doing it wrong to just zoom the lens...the anamorphic is the superior result when you add up all of the pros and cons.
Before you knock it...give it a try.
-Steve
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-20-2011, 10:01 PM:
Steve is absolutely correct. I did an anamorphic on a 65 foot screen not too long ago and the result was FAR superior to zooming.
Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-20-2011, 10:33 PM:
quote: Dick Vaughan
IMAX are still doing some 1570 installs. They are putting in a 3D GT system in to Toronto's Cinesphere replacing system #1. See thread in Large Format forum.
This is actually an upgrade from the previous system that was there, Good old #1. But as far as new installs into "new" locations. They don't do them, if you want to pay a good price. Sure they will be glad to build or refurbish a GT and install it for you. Its going to cost you 7 figures though, not really cost effective.
quote: Jake Spell
I wouldn't say that were trying to recreate IMAX, just that we are offering something different and better.
Your not going to be able to offer something better then what IMAX can, you may be able to offer something that is almost on Par with it. But not better.
quote: Tom Petrov
IMAX does not really care how close you are to the next theatre. We have two sets of cinemas in the GTA. The Paramount vs AMC Yonge/Dundas and the Coliseum vs AMC Courtney Park. The theatres are very close. The AMC theatres are playing Green Hornet while the Coliseum/Paramount are playing TRON.
If there are already multiple IMAX locations in the city/area your looking. Then the odds of you getting the brand name and equipment is slim to none. A friend and I called IMAX business development about opening a location in Phoenix to see what the chances were and get a ball part price on startup. Just to see what it would cost really, and they said that IMAX is happy with the number of locations in this market and would not be willing to open more. So if they already have some in OP's market, his option for LieMAX is gone.
Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 01-22-2011, 02:56 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Before you knock it...give it a try.
I will.
What is the final improvement in light emission, taken into consideration that the lens itself uses some of it?
I mean, has someone ever measured the difference in light on screen with or without anamorphic? Said that, I appreciate what you say about less artefacts due to the reduced magnification.
Thanks
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-22-2011, 07:46 PM:
If you believe the literature...it is one thing (higher)...I'm finding that it is on the order of 23% improvement over just zooming the lens.
Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-23-2011, 01:45 AM:
quote: Kurt Zupin
If there are already multiple IMAX locations in the city/area your looking. Then the odds of you getting the brand name and equipment is slim to none. A friend and I called IMAX business development about opening a location in Phoenix to see what the chances were and get a ball part price on startup. Just to see what it would cost really, and they said that IMAX is happy with the number of locations in this market and would not be willing to open more. So if they already have some in OP's market, his option for LieMAX is gone
I wonder about this. IMAX would love to have more screens and even screens that compete with one another. Here in the GTA we have 5 IMAX screens that play "Hollywood" fare. The Scotiabank/AMC compete for product while the Courtney Park/Coliseum Mississauga compete for product. Vaughn and Whitby are on their own.
Right now we have TRON and Green Hornet playing in either the Famous Players or the AMC. These compete for any film that is in the market.
Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 01-24-2011, 10:41 AM:
Can a 1.85:1 image be digitally squeezed and then projected using the same anamorphic used for a Scope image?
I assume this would mean the 1.85 image would be lower quality because it would be using up less of the chip than it normally would, but wondered if it would make for a quicker change from 1.85 to Scope when you need to run a 1.85 pre-show/trailers etc. with a Scope feature.
Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 01-24-2011, 11:35 AM:
3D for a HUGE screen? The Galaxy Drive-In in Ennis, Texas just installed digital projection with Dolby 3D on one of their screens right before Christmas. Might check with them to see how it's working on a drive-in sized screen. My screens at my drive-in are 25x60, but I have no intention to convert to digital any time soon. I will at some point, but not yet.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-24-2011, 02:48 PM:
Amanda, I "believe so". The scaling is done in the TI engine...it does not care what came before it (nor after it) but I strongly caution against it. You would need to be careful to specify the aspect ratio and the proper pixel count in the PCF/Screen files or it will merely crop the crap out of the height of the picture.
The projectors are capable of an automatic lens change and they do so reasonably fast too. The anamorphic attachment motors are normally done by the time a Macro, Title or Channel has finished its change. A DCI requirement of all projectors with lens attachments is that they can do their thing unattended.
Posted by Todd McCracken (Member # 4718) on 01-24-2011, 04:18 PM:
Seems there is a new realD option
Los Angeles, CA—Jan 20, 2011
RealD Introduces XLW Cinema System for 3D Projection in Premium Large Screen Venues
1.0 Throw Ratio Designed for Large Stadium Seating Auditoriums With Screens up to 82 Feet Wide
RealD Inc. (NYSE: RLD), a leading global licensor of 3D technologies for cinema, consumer electronics and professional applications, announced today that it has developed and begun deploying to motion picture exhibition venues the XLW Cinema System. An extension of the award-winning XL Cinema System, the XLW Cinema System can accommodate a throw ratio as wide as 1.0 (projection distance divided by screen width), and is designed for use in premium large screen motion picture auditoriums, theme parks and specialty theatres with stadium seating.
The XLW Cinema System is capable of delivering crisp, clear 3D images on screens up to 82 feet (25 meters) wide and maintains the industry-leading performance of the XL Cinema System by delivering to a screen twice the light of competing 3D projection technologies while utilizing a single DLP® digital cinema projector.
Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 01-26-2011, 10:31 AM:
How fast can the newer series 2 projectors/lenses do a change from 1.85 to Scope?
We have an NEC NC800C series 1 projector and this seems to take about a minute to change between 1.85 and Scope, which is too long so we don't do 1.85 to Scope changes within a show, especially as any image that would be on screen during this period zooms, moves up & down beyond the masking, and moves in and out of focus, it seems strange to me that both image position and focus point has to move past where it needs to be before it moves back to the correct position.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-26-2011, 10:19 PM:
That is because it is always having to find its 0,0 point.
Series 2 macines are MUCH faster than series 1s. Barco's series 2s are spooky fast.
Note, with an anamorphic, the prime lens does not move, typically....another plus, for you.
-Steve
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-27-2011, 03:37 PM:
@Amanda:
Are you actually using an anamorphic lens for scope on the NEC? Because that's not the usual way to do things on DCI systems. Usually there is only a zoom lens to go from 1,85 full panel to a zoomed/masked Scope image.
Some people used to state that DCI does not allow anamorphic lenses or anamorphically squeezed DCPs. I can not find this strictly in the current DCI spec - aside from tables with dominant 1:1 pixel aspect ratios. True anamorphic DCP projection would need dual-inventory DCPs, since not all cinemas would have anamorphic lenses.
@Todd: Interesting. Though, after reading the press-release, it seems this is just a redesigned Z-Screen-XL for use with shortthrow lenses. So the light-efficiency would be just as good as with a standard XL. It's just XL-Wide.
Short-throw/wide lenses on a stadium-seating metalized-screen. Ouch.
- Carsten
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-27-2011, 05:26 PM:
There is nothing in the DCI spec regarding a theatre using an anamorphic. Using anamorphics have always been "allowed" but you are correct the source files themselves must only have "square pixels."
Every DLP projector manufacturer has offered anamorphics/attachments. The means to allow for an anamorphic is built into the TI processing.
It all depends on where you are and who put in the system as to the popularity of the anamorphic. What has kept them out of many theatres is their cost. They will set you back over $10K, typically once you get the motorized mount for it. Also, they only benefit theatres with side movable masking.
-Steve
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-28-2011, 09:28 AM:
That means that using anamorphic on DCI system is only used to increase brightness.
The DCPs would still contain letterboxed scope features, and the projector would 'pre-stretch' them vertically to fill the full panel with active pixels, so that the anamorphic lens would then fill the whole scope screen estate. That way it really makes little sense. Unless maybe your projector has no zoom lens.
- Carsten
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-28-2011, 09:52 AM:
I don't know if that has been corrected, but the Uptown theatre's (DC) new 3D DLP system is having problems since it's a curved screen, the edges are bowed (the image doesn't fill the entire screen) - someone mentioned that the same problem is prevailent on the Arclight Dome's curved screen too, Seattle's Cinerama doesn't since the screen is not as curved as either of the former theater's screens.
From what I got from one of the managers (after seeing 'Tron Legacy') is that Christie is trying to resolve this, but I haven't been over to see 'The Green Hornet' yet to see if it's been corrected.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-28-2011, 10:43 AM:
Oh, the Uptown is going to have problems...they are trying a dual-projector 3D on a deep curved screen. Furthermore, they are using a Silver screen without regard to the screen's curvature.
It is possible to get the images to fit the Uptown screen but...DCI has a thing against scaling or "warping" as the A/V types know it. That is what is needed at the Uptown because the "proper" solution is to obtain custom ground lenses that would cost a small fortune. If warping were allowed, then they would pay a hit in resolution but will be able to represent the entire image with acceptable cropping. Without warping, all they can do is crop and they would have to crop too much.
It isn't Christie's fault, its DCIs and the industry that has not matured enough to have lenses to deal with such screens...an iconic trademark of the Uptown since it was installed 5-decades ago. Film, on the other hand has/had solutions for such screens to minimize the barrel distortion caused by projecting on such a deeply curved screen.
-Steve
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 01-28-2011, 03:01 PM:
From the DCI spec:
'Should electronic image resizing or scaling be used to support a constant height projection or constant width projection theater environment, then it is required that the image resizing or scaling does not introduce visible image artifacts. It is intended that the projector project the full horizontal pixel count or the full vertical pixel count of the image container.'
Now, what do you make out of that?
I also think that no current projector has the internal means to correct electronically for curved screens. Linear scaling, trapezoid, variable L/R/T/B masking, cropping, yes.
- Carsten
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-29-2011, 11:49 AM:
They allow the resizing but don't allow visible artifacts...define visible artifacts that are unique to the effects of resizing. I would call that "banding" and other like visible artifacts. I think that leaving an image with barrel distortion and severe cropping to "fit" the curved screen causes MUCH more of a visible artifact than the effect of warping. Getting to 4K and beyond will go a long way to allow warping and retain the resolution of the original container. If you have 4-16 times as many pixels to represent the original, you have a lot more flexibility on how you represent that pixel.
Note too...DCI calls itself a voluntary set of rules. The only thing that enforces it are the studios and even then only when it comes to VPFs (beyond only supplying content that is DCI compliant...it isn't like the studios come out to the theatres to see what they are doing...they only care about if you are stealing their content).
-Steve
Posted by Amanda Mundin (Member # 3386) on 01-31-2011, 09:31 AM:
If this isn't taking the thread too far away from its original theme, we don't currently use an anamorphic but we are thinking of upgrading our projector, in an ideal world we'd like to be able to project 14 footlamberts for both Scope & 1.85 films, is this even possible with a common height screen?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-31-2011, 09:33 AM:
Yes it is but you need the ability to adjust the lamp current between the two. The anamorphic lens narrows that margin by quite a bit though.
-Steve
Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 02-01-2011, 10:46 AM:
@Amanda: The current breed of digital projectors allow you to set the lamp current automatically through the server automation. That means you can easily set the current to a higher value for scope format within the format changing cue.
Some projectors even allow to scale the current setting from % or Amperage to fL values (after initial calibration). Means, you can actually tell the projector to create 14fL on the screen for both scope and flat formats - and even balance out lamp aging issues.
That's no big deal nowadays. The problems occur with 3D where e.g. the current spread between flat in 2D and scope in 3D increases beyond the useful current setting range for any bulb, especially if you have a 3D system with a very low light efficiency like Dolby 3D.
2D alone is certainly not a problem. The issues you have with the current unit occur because one should have invested into a larger/more expensive maschine with more bulb options for your given screen size right from the start.
- Carsten
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 04-03-2011, 05:42 PM:
UPDATE: After going to Cinemacon the owner is leaning toward a NEC projector and adding a RealD XLW system with a silver screen for the 3D, however I am worried that due to the large screen, short throw, wide viewing angles from the sides, and the curve of the screen that its just not going to be possible to get a decent 3D image out of the system. Am I just worrying over nothing or is this a legitimate concern?
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-03-2011, 05:58 PM:
Everything in the above post is a concern. It sounds like the decision-making process was all about "what is the price today" instead of "what will it cost me" and/or "what will the quality be".
It is no secret that Real-D is the lowest quality 3D out there, but it doesn't have higher upfront costs. Similarly, NEC is the least light-efficient DLP projector on the market. You did say HUGE screen, right?
Posted by Jake Spell (Member # 5294) on 04-03-2011, 07:10 PM:
You pretty much hit the nail on the head Brad, its about what they can make work while spending the least amount of money. And I guess its more like really big. 70'wide 29' high
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-03-2011, 07:56 PM:
Good luck on that Real-D XL box on a curved screen. You'll never get it aligned over 100% of the screen...your installer will have to make choices on that. if you go for the corners, you'll have double imaging in the bottom middle (where the curve will introduce a sag to the image).
You'll make more money with MasterImage in that application and have more light than a normal Real-D Z screen (but less than the XL).
Brad is right on the light output too of the NEC...it is least efficient of the various DLP projectors. As such, you'll spend more in electricity and lamps to get them to light up the same screen the other two companies can light.
If you are looking for the best 3D, it is none of the silver screen solutions...in fact, none of the silver screen solutions are DCI compliant (can't hit the light in the corners/sides as a percentage of the center).
-Steve
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-03-2011, 10:32 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
A DCI requirement of all projectors with lens attachments is that they can do their thing unattended.
It's a pity that requirement does not extend to Dolby's Show Player software.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-04-2011, 06:04 AM:
Fear not Buckaroo...later this month, Dolby will release version 4.3.x and it WILL, automatically, switch between 2D and your type of 3D!
The only catch is you need to instruct your people to make sure ALL clips are either 2D or 3D because it will switch clip by clip. I would have preferred it to switch based on the FEATURE within a show rather than clip by clip. So all of your blank clips too must be of the 2D or 3D variety.
This automatic feature is selectable for those that prefer the existing way.
-Steve
Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-04-2011, 08:27 AM:
Although this may seem counter-intuitive, has any consideration been given to the idea of reducing the current screen size, Jake?
There is considerable flexibility in design standards regarding viewing angles. As a former IMAX screen, I'm guessing the horizontal viewing angle from the rear seat of your theatre is / was 45 degrees. However one can reduce that down to 30 degrees, for example, and still provide a high-quality viewing experience.
Even a moderate reduction in screen size should open up a much greater range of equipment choices, especially where cost is a consideration.
It may also allow for improvements to the screen design, e.g. introduce an attractive proscenium, or even tabs.
It's a different approach, which as others have implied, recognises that trying to fill a former IMAX screen to an acceptable level of quality without actually using 15-70mm film is difficult and costly.
[EDIT: Apologies to Frank Angel, who also made this point earlier - I'd missed it]
Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 01-03-2012, 02:52 PM:
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I’m in a similar situation as the OP now and it seemed natural to continue the discussion here.
Quoting Steve’s wonderfully insightful post from the first page of this thread:
quote: Steve Guttag
Using a single projector and Dolby 3D...you will need 125,546 lumens to get Dolby 3D in spec. for your Scope image.
Was that calculation based on Dolby’s official recommendations? Just curious, since I haven’t actually seen those.
Also, later in the same post you mentioned that with XpanD ”you are starting out needing 70,300 lumens on a matte white”. The numbers that I’ve seen would suggest that Dolby only needs about 50 % more light than XpanD to get the same amount of light through to the viewer’s eyes – but obviously you’re using different specs?
quote:
Use anamorphics (and I highly recommend them for side-masked screens for Scope) and you are down to just 43,500 Lumens.
…
Use a 1.4 gain pearl and you are down to 26,100
Another maths question, and possibly a stupid one: Shouldn’t that be 43,500 / 1.4 = 31,100 lumens? Or am I missing something?
Concerning dual projector XpanD: the option does sound tempting just for the light efficiency, but I’d really like to see how well the alignment can be made to work. It’s hard to imagine that such a setup wouldn’t hurt resolution, particularly in a short-throw situation such as mine.
Perhaps I should visit a dual XpanD venue to check it out myself. Someone mentioned that there’s one in Italy – anybody know of others in Europe?
Posted by Alan Gouger (Member # 543) on 01-03-2012, 03:52 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Use anamorphics (and I highly recommend them for side-masked screens for Scope)
Do the series 2 still offer the option for the anamorphic stretch specifically the Barcos, Thank you.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-03-2012, 05:30 PM:
Antti,
Yep, that was bad math on my part...it seems like I multiplied by .6 rather than divide by 1.4...they are NOT the same thing...like spell check...I don't always check my work on these sorts of posts...I tend to move fast.
As to XpanD, I have the least amount of real-world experience with it. They claim 17% efficient on the X101 and 37% efficient on the X103c (the newer glasses). I don't buy into the 37% one as I JUST put in a system and it did not yield 37% though put. When I did those calculations, I either was looking off a handy sheet or used a nominal 15% (which is what I have used for Real-D Z-screen and Master Image though Master Image can get higher...if the disc is clean).
I've gotten my math a bit more automated now so it shouldn't have those sorts of errors in the future.
Dual projector XpanD is probably not a great option since what you would really have to do is precisely overlap two images...it will be impossible to get it perfect and that will come off of resolution. Real-D can't do it with the XL but it does get close and you are never going to to get two projectors with lenses that close.
Dual projector Dolby or Polarization is another story. Each eye is coming out of a different projector...mis alignment does not come off of resolution but off of 3D accuracy and possible eye strain if you are substantially off. With this sort of dual projector you get a big boost in light too since there is no longer a "dark" time...both images are always on-screen.
Anamorphics in the the Series 2 era. Yes, you can use an anamorphic with any series 2 projector HOWEVER, Barco does not presently make a mount for their projectors. The software that handles the anamorphic part is in the TI engine so it is intrinsic to all DLPs. In fact, if you have a Kinoton projector with a Barco light engine and even Barco software, you will see they have the anamorphic factor window available. If you wanted to add an anamorphic to your Barco (and will make your own mount or adapt another mount), then set the anamorphic factor using the DLP ICP program and save the screen file there. You can call that file from the Macros however. Barco is clearly hedging their bets...note the 5-pin XLR connector on the Cinema Controller module...if you check the pin-out...it conforms to their Anamorphic connector as used on the DP100, DP3000. By all means, pressure them into making anamorphic available again...and encourage people that have wider scope screens to USE them (that is what really will drive the issue).
-Steve
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-03-2012, 10:00 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
Good luck on that Real-D XL box on a curved screen. You'll never get it aligned over 100% of the screen...your installer will have to make choices on that. if you go for the corners, you'll have double imaging in the bottom middle (where the curve will introduce a sag to the image).
oh so is that why the corner bow inwards on the curved Uptown screen? Will this flaw ever be corrected or is it a catch-22 situation as you have explained it. Rave Cinema promotes its custom 'Xtreme' screens as: "This special BIG SCREEN EXPERIENCE features an enormous wall to wall and floor to ceiling curved silver screen", granted the curve at the Uptown is pretty severe I'm curious how they accomplished this. The systems over at the Fairfax Corner 14 are all Barco DP systems.
Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 01-04-2012, 05:05 AM:
OK, thanks for the clarification, Steve!
quote: Steve Guttag
As to XpanD, I have the least amount of real-world experience with it. They claim 17% efficient on the X101 and 37% efficient on the X103c (the newer glasses).
XpanD is really popular in Finland; their market share is something like 85 % or even more. The rest is mostly Dolby with a couple of Panavision screens thrown in. There are no RealD or Masterimage installations that I know of – we’re not big on silver screens.
The way I’ve come to understand it:
XpanD X101 = 34 % glasses efficiency = ~17 % total efficiency
XpanD X103 = 37 % glasses efficiency = ~18 % total efficiency
So the actual glass will let 34 or 37 % of the light through when open – but since each eye is closed half of the time, you’ll have to halve the figure to get the total efficiency. There’s also the dark time, which shouldn’t affect the result by more than a percent or two.
It has been stated that Dolby’s efficiency is around 12 %, so I’ve been basing my ”Dolby vs XpanD" calculations on that.
I’m generally aiming for a 3D light level of 6–7 foot-lamberts, instead of the Hollywood-recommended 4.5 fL. People (including me) just seem to prefer it a tad brighter, and black levels and contrast are still acceptable at 6–7 fL.
So when using XpanD, I’m generally aiming for a peak light level reading of 40 foot-lamberts on the screen (measured using 2D, since 3D measuring is a bit tricky). With an efficiency of 17 %, that becomes 6.8 fL.
It might just be that with this giant-screen installation I’m going to have to compromise on those levels…
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-04-2012, 09:05 AM:
I would put Dolby's efficiency at closer to 8-10%...depending on color correction.
-Steve
Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 01-04-2012, 12:48 PM:
OK, good to know about your experience. I would assume that the color correction can eat quite a bit of light in some situations.
Some efficiency numbers that I’ve seen:
Christie’s Digital Cinema Configurator:
- RealD XL: 28 %
- RealD (Z): 15 %
- MasterImage: 16 %
- XpanD: 18 %
- Dolby: 11 %
Harkness’ Digital Screen Selector:
- RealD XL: 27 %
- RealD (Z): 15 %
- MasterImage: 18 %
- XpanD: 18 %
- Dolby: 12 %
…and Panavision claims 17 % for their system.
Posted by Jussi Siponen (Member # 5572) on 01-05-2012, 09:30 AM:
A bit more about the 3D landscape in Finland:
Like Antti said, XpanD is the market leader, then Dolby 3D and finally Panavision (the Panavision screens are probably evaluation installations at this point).
Since none of the glasses are disposable, most cinemas run them through a dish washer after every use -- very few cinemas hand out disposable wipes. However the new lighter and more efficient glasses from XpanD are *not* machine washable -- XpanD states there is no demand for it.
This may cause their market share to decline over time: especially if they discontinue the older X101 glasses, cinemas are likely to move to other systems as their current stock of glasses is depleted through the glasses getting dropped and breaking, etc.
In my personal opinion, Dolby struggles when it comes to saturated colors -- i.e. left and right eye do not match (or possibly I've only seen installations where the color calibration has not been done right). I've no personal experience if this is also true for the other wavelength based system (Panavision), the rest of the 3D systems seem more or less color neutral to me (or they at least distort color symmetrically for both eyes).
Posted by Antti Nayha (Member # 4980) on 01-08-2012, 07:04 AM:
Looking at how the Panavision filtering system is designed – splitting a broader spectrum to ten narrow bands – one would think it gives better color than Dolby. And if the light efficiency is really as good as they claim, they would seem to be the number one choice on a giant-screen installation…
Assuming that Panavision 3D is available as a dual-projector version, that is. I can’t really see why it couldn’t be done; it’s just that I just haven’t heard of such an installation or even a demo. Anyone?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-08-2012, 09:40 AM:
Panavision's problems:
- Late Entry into the "game."
- Like with Dolby, requires glasses to be returned, cleaned and reissued due to the cost of the glasses.
- Currently, most expensive passive glasses.
I'm wondering if Dolby had access to what Panavision is using when they jumped into the 3D game if they wouldn't have gone the comb filtering route instead of the Infetec route.
-Steve
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-26-2012, 03:09 PM:
Here is the latest entry by Douglas Trumbull on his website.
http://douglastrumbull.com/
January 11, 2012
Statement by Douglas Trumbull
Everything in a movie is an illusion, beginning with the simple idea of photographing and projecting photographs in rapid succession to create the illusion of motion. Literature can be transformed into movies. And stories can be written specifically for the screen. Photographing subjects that move includes the art and science of motion picture photography, which is now transforming from one of sprocketed film strips to streams of digital data. Editing a sequence of images together compresses time and tells a story via the linkage of ideas. Acting was once only for live performance on stage, and has now evolved into the craft of creating a seamless performance, even though weeks or months may be required to film a performance that can play out in an hour or two. Directors orchestrate all this into a film, which hopefully becomes a seamless compilation of illusions including makeup, wardrobe, sets, locations, performances, camera moves, precise edits, sound effects, and music.
I am a filmmaker, and have made it my responsibility to understand all of the associated arts of film making, and to question them in order to see if we can do things better.
For example, the simple idea of photographing a series of stills into a sequence emerged from early stage illusions, and became movies as we know them. A movie industry was born, and it has gone through a few iterations along the way from 18 frames per second (silents) to 24 fps (talkies), to color, 3D, and wide screen. Cameras used a mechanical pull-down claw synchronized with a shutter in order to advance the film from one frame to the next, closing the shutter to do so. And projectors have used a geneva type sprocket movement to advance the film, while using a double bladed shutter to show each frame twice in order to reduce the flicker (that's why early films were called "the flickers Ð or flicks", since they really did until the Lumiere Brothers invented the double shutter illusion).
I questioned all this beginning in the mid 1970's, studying every film format ever developed. The result was the SHOWSCAN process of photographing and projecting 70 mm movies at 60 frames per second, showing each frame only once, yet still using claw pull-downs in the cameras, and Geneva pull-downs in the projectors. I realized that it was not necessarily the shape or size of the screen that made enough difference, but a higher frame rate led toward a new kind of realism. Few professionals understood that by pulling down the film on every shutter closure we could get 48 fps without any additional stress or speed of the film in the gate. We only had to increase the speed 25% to get to 60 fps, and the technology was entirely compatible with existing film practices. Yet it created a profound sense of "being there", with what Roger Ebert described; "It is as though the screen has become a window, and you can look into that window and what you see seems completely real".
I fully intended to use SHOWSCAN for feature film production, and although the process was met with unanimous enthusiasm, and we did quite a number of expo films and simulation attractions, the movie industry presented a catch-22: no studio would make the first film in SHOWSCAN unless there were thousands of theatres to show it in, and even though all the exhibitors praised the process argued that it made no sense to invest in new projectors and larger screens unless all movies out of Hollywood were made that way. I had to move past this industry dead end.
The movie BRAINSTORM was my plan to introduce SHOWSCAN, but no studio would agree to that. And to compound my disappointment, Natalie Wood died under extremely suspicious circumstances during principal photography and that made it possible for MGM management to declare Force Majeure and terminate production, without even consulting me, the Director of the film, about whether or not the film could be finished without her presence. I was all that stood between MGM and a $15 million dollar insurance claim, but I still pushed on to finish the film against almost insurmountable odds and over strong studio objection. At the film's completion I came to the conclusion that directing movies was something I would have to do without at that point in my life.
I moved to Western Massachusetts and set up a studio designed to tackle difficult production challenges, soon thereafter getting the job to fix vexing problems on the BACK TO THE FUTURE RIDE for Steven Spielberg and Universal Studio Tours. They had hit a wall and no one in the industry could figure out how to make it work. Having invented the entire idea of entertainment simulation during my SHOWSCAN years, I eagerly set to work to make the ride an attraction that Universal and even Disney folks would later regard with the greatest respect. To me, BTTF (as we called it) was a grand experiment in extremely immersive cinema. Unlike a movie where viewers are non-participating voyeurs, and directors honored the "fourth wall" cinematic conventions of having actors always looking off-camera, this ride was a full blown first-person experience where audience members were yanked out of their seats and virtually thrown through the proscenium arch to ENTER INTO THE MOVIE. Having worked closely with Stanley Kubrick on 2001's ground breaking non-verbal first person "Ultimate Trip", this was my next chance to experiment in a totally new cinematic language.
It is the concept of exploring new cinematic form that has drawn me ever closer to reaching my holy grail of a movie that offers a profound and immersive, overwhelming personal experience. Not an experience empathizing with actors via a third-person voyeurism, but a direct first-person experience where each audience member feels that they are inside the movie -- participating IN the movie, not just looking AT the movie.
Of course every filmmaker and director wants the audience to become overwhelmed by their movie, and they will typically stop at nothing to try and provide powerful and expensive effects, locations, sets, fast-paced action, and amazing illusions to achieve their goals. This is why 75% of the total world box-office receipts are currently special effects driven "tent-pole" movies that are costing $200-400 million dollars each.
Jim Cameron made an amazing breakthrough with AVATAR, cleverly combining an intense effects-driven 3D movie, with intense 3D digital photography and projection. This is the most complex, technology driven film of all time (at least so far) and is also the highest revenue generating film of all time as well. Jim has delivered something close to an out-of-body-first-person-immersive experience, while deftly retaining tried and true cinematic language.
What does this mean? It definitely does not mean that all movies should therefore be in 3D. It does reveal, however, a frightening lack of industry-wide understanding of how to move forward toward a more powerful cinematic form and format that is more immersive.
I grew up on CINERAMA's giant 90 foot wide screens, as well as AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS using Mike Todd's TODD-AO at 30 fps. I fondly remember experiencing HOW THE WEST WAS WON, which used CINERAMA's ultra-wide aspect ratio and giant screens to tell the first dramatic story in that format. And I grew up reading about what a miserable creative experience it was for all concerned to work in the three camera/three projector process, how difficult it was to adapt to a new and different cinematic language, and how it gave way to 70 mm and SUPERPANAVISION, which Kubrick chose for 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.
CINERAMA and many other formats emerged as the challenge of television threatened to draw audiences away from theaters. Today, the very same thing is happening and the theater chains themselves are terrified that what they have to offer is little different from the home experience, and in some cases, maybe not even as good. And just as importantly, filmmakers must adapt and acommodate both markets, since the lion's share of revenues now occurs after theatrical release. The capability to entertain with all release formats is vital.
The theatrical movie business is beginning to suffer from youth audiences defecting toward the immediacy and low cost of downloading and streaming their entertainment. And now with major studio focus on "tentpole" and "franchise" content, I believe the industry is suffering from a severe bottleneck of quality reduction: small screens, dim images, low bandwidth standards, low frame rates, and an overall lack of showmanship at theaters. The vast money being spent on production is not getting to the audience.
Knowing this, I have made it my personal mission to not write, produce, direct, or provide special photographic effects for any movie project that does not help break new ground and point the way toward a new cinematic form. Now I find that all of my planets are lining up and I am about to launch a new endeavor to do all of the above, including writing, producing, and directing movies made with 3D, Virtual Sets, higher frame rates, larger screens, brighter images, and more showmanship.
And here's how:
Writing a script that meets the criteria of exploring a new set of cinematic conventions can be an exercise in futility if it is impossible to both explain and show what the new form is. So I have been writing scripts while simultaneously developing the enabling photographic, projection, sound, and screen technologies to support them. I am preparing demonstration films that show all the variables of 24, 30, 48, 60, and 120 frames per second, in 2D, 3D, and projected onto new and larger high-gain screens, using more powerful and higher resolution digital projectors.
I believe that a paradigm shift in the technology of experiencing a movie in theatres is urgently needed. Yet the exhibition industry is already reeling at the challenge of converting to expensive digital projection and the associated costs. They are extremely reluctant to install expensive new projection equipment, and even question the value of 3D, as both the novelty wears off, and most producers lack a comprehensive grasp of what 3D should be about. To me, 3D is a large step toward the first-person immersive experience I've been discussing, but unfortunately the content of films has stayed much the same. Producers too often think, "Just make the same film in 3D, and we'll make more money". 3D suffers from a profound lack of adequate viewing brightness as a result of necessary polarizers or filters on projectors and in glasses (and there is tremendous resistance to wearing glasses at all). There is a lot of talk about a workable "3D without glasses" technology, yet almost no talk about the language of cinema that is needed to explore more immersive and powerful experiences.
Higher gain "Torus" screens are one way to recover the lost light of 3D, yet there seems to be almost no institutional memory that Torus screens ever existed, or could be applied to this purpose. Now is the time to reconsider this, and the concept is an important element of what I am developing.
Few professionals are aware that digital projectors are regularly operating at 144 frames per second, since the movies are still shot at 24 fps, and thus each frame is projected several times in order to retain the "no flicker", while also accommodating the needs of 3D, where each frame is "flashed" three times for each eye alternately, so that each eye receives 72 flashes, thus the total of 144. This potential to dramatically increase the frame rate is being largely ignored, although modest increases to 48 fps (such as Peter Jackson's THE HOBBIT, in production) have been adopted, and Jim Cameron's AVATAR II & III may soon be shooting at 48 or even 60 fps. These filmmakers have realized that the old standard of 24 fps is inadequate to 3D's needs, and often results in objectionable blurring and strobing that diminishes or destroys the 3D effect altogether on fast action.
Yet whatever frame rate turns out to be better or best, most of these film's releases will still be at 24 fps, due to the inertia and infrastructure of industry broadcast, DVD, and Blu-Ray standards. It is also vitally important that all productions be down-converted to 24 fps without any objectionable flaws such as a 3-2 pulldown or other process used to match television standards. Making a 24 fps version of SHOWSCAN was a serious problem although it perfectly matched the 60i television process.
Television, as we know it in the US, uses a broadcast standard of 60i, which means 60 frames interlaced. Shooting and broadcasting in this format results in a "texture" that is associated with live news, sports, soap operas, and other "live" events, and is considered inappropriate for feature motion pictures. Nevertheless, the broadcast industry is implementing plans for 60-frame 3D content, for sports, news, and live performance.
I have been developing a new technical approach to digital photography and projection, which is now enabled by both digital cameras and digital projectors. For the sake of compatibility, I have used 60 as the most comfortable and compatible frame rate in order to retain long-term viability. However, I have been shooting at 120 fps, using a 360-degree shutter in the camera. This makes it possible to digitally merge any number of adjacent frames in order to recover the appropriate amount of blur necessary for 24 fps display. Keep in mind that the movie medium we are accustomed to has used a 160-200 degree shutter, resulting in the "texture" that we know as movies (not television). Having shot material at 120 frames with a 360-degree shutter, it is a simple and perfect conversion to digitally merge three frames into one, and delete the next two frames, thus resulting in a 24 frame movie without any artifacts, and while retaining the normal blur. This patented process will provide a compression of visual data that will bring immense improvement to the viewing experience, and also offers the unique opportunity to "embed" 60 fps object motion within a 24 fps overall "look", thus preserving the cinematic texture while enabling unblurred fast action.
Since most digital projection systems such as RealD use an alternating left-right cadence in their polarization technique, it makes sense to utilize this same cadence in photography as well. This way there are virtually no artifacts in projection, and what is perceived by the viewer is as close to reality as possible. Thus, it is possible to delete every odd or even frame from a dual stream of 120 fps material, so that a perfect temporal sequence of motion is viewed, while also providing 3D without any objectionable artifacts. Other current processes such as that being used by Peter Jackson have missed the important factor that the only way to get a real improvement is to stop double-flashing the frames, as will happen with the HOBBIT.
Higher frame rates will not be appropriate for all films, yet this technology is uniquely suited to films such as AVATAR where the director's vision is to transport viewers into another world or dimension. It would have been great for THE WIZARD OF OZ or 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, STAR WARS, and many other films, but absolutely inappropriate for CITIZEN CANE or THE GODFATHER, etc. Nevertheless, virtually all films, whether sci-fi, period drama, or any other, made in 2D, 3D, or IMAX, all will devolve to television, computer screens, tablets, and even smartphones in their final market iterations. This compatibility is vital, yet another opportunity also presents itself: OVERSAMPLING.
Oversampling is the concept of acquiring more information than is immediately needed to satisfy present exhibition needs, while retaining upward quality mobility as the various display technologies advance toward higher resolution, greater bit depth, more color gamut, higher frame rates, and so on. The technology proposed here captures more than enough information to satisfy any realistically anticipated media transport systems of the foreseeable future.
2001 is one of only a handful of films that have survived beyond 45 years and retained a strong value of extremely high viewing quality, because it was meticulously photographed on the 65mm negative, and designed for the largest possible screens. David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is another example of a film that includes vast detail and expanse as part of the cinematic palette, a quality lost on most of today's filmmakers.
Another important aspect of what I have been developing relates to production cost issues that have continued to worsen over time. Since the movie industry still retains and uses the arts and crafts of building sets on sound stages, or going on distant locations, the result is movies costing hundreds of millions of dollars, including the added expense of extensive visual effects. The problem here is that it is difficult or impossible to create the visions called for in "tent-pole" comic book extravaganzas, thus these require even more expensive visual effects, and many more cuts to create the desired sense of immersion. Computer graphics effects are only as good as the daily algorithms, resulting in quick obsolescence as the audience's expectations increase. Strangely, films I have contributed to such as SILENT RUNNING, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE, and BLADE RUNNER have not suffered from aging or obsolescent algorithms, since the effects were a combination of photorealistic miniatures and matte paintings. Today we have green screen digital compositing that has virtually no objectionable matte lines or artifacts, and digital compositing, which causes no image degradation with each layer's duplication. It is now possible to superimpose actors into virtually any environment, be it a set, location, or other dimension -- at quite low cost. What costs so much are the huge crews, long shooting schedules, and expensive location costs. And I believe that the use of CGI, which has inappropriately subsumed the use of analog miniatures, is resulting in higher costs and lower believability.
Virtual Sets and Locations are an important part of the answer, as they are inexpensive to build, require less space, need a smaller crew, and allow for faster shooting. This is now possible, and this is an important part of what I intend to do next.
I have developed and patented a "Zero Gravity Jib" that allows total camera freedom of movement throughout a defined stage space without tripods, dollies, grip equipment, shims, plywood, or tracks. The camera hangs weightlessly in the shooting envelope, and generates real-time metadata that informs a graphics engine that then produces a real-time set or location instantaneously. The stage space needed is relatively small yet can appear to be infinitely large. The cinematographer, actors and director see the action in the virtual environment in real-time. This enables real-time rehearsals in a virtual mock-up environment so that a complete "live action animatic" can be produced quickly. Stories, dialogue, characters, blocking, pre-lighting, and many other factors can be developed, debugged, modified, analyzed, and perfected early in the process. Metadata of all developments are then carried through the production pipeline seamlessly, resulting in an optimized "main unit" shoot that is truly informed and simplified. This will bring huge cost savings and efficiencies of production.
Think about having all this at 120 fps in 3D. For certain films, such as those mentioned above, this could be a powerful game-changer in the same way that AVATAR changed the landscape and became the highest grossing film of all time. It is what the audience wants. It is what exhibitors desperately need. This is not for all films, or even most films. For example there is a strong body of experience and talented people who will continue to make great crime movies, chase movies, love stories, musicals, etc. Although the costs of making those films will remain relatively stable, only somewhat reduced by the advent of inexpensive digital cameras, fewer lights, digital post production, etc. The balance of script, cast, director, crew, etc., will remain largely unchanged due to the nature of shooting on sets or locations.
Nevertheless, sci-fi/fantasy, effects-driven movies account for over 75% of worldwide grosses, but so far have remained the most expensive to produce. Even a 25% overall reduction in cost could mean many millions in savings.
George Lucas, one of our greatest writer-director-producers and a pioneer in the field of sci-fi/fantasy as well as advanced technology for film production, has concluded that today's marketplace for a television version of STAR WARS must be produced at 1/10th the cost of normal feature versions of the same material. He is experimenting with virtual sets and locations towards this end and doing so with great success.
Nevertheless, serious problems remain with theatrical and television distribution that disenfranchises creatives. It is now time to reexamine old business models and consider the advantages of digital distribution direct to consumers.
More revenues are currently generated each year by the computer game industry than the entire movie industry. Games are a first-person experience. A powerful accolade for a successful and exciting super hero movie is that it is a "great ride". Rides are first-person experiences, too. And "a new ride" is where the audience wants to go. That is where I have been focusing my energy, and how I now intend to make films.
AVATAR was the most technically complex movie production of all time and explored radical new technologies that put into question: What is a script? What is an actor? Where is the location? Where is it in space-time? What is an illusion? Is everything an illusion? Why have audiences been drawn to this other reality? How did this geeky film "Avatar" become the biggest grossing film of all time? How did one film earn more in one year than almost every other film that year combined?
I intend to make films that go into this new territory, at substantially less cost, less risk, and with higher rewards. It is possible to steer the motion picture theater-going experience in a new direction that not only brings back the showmanship of the giant screen epics of the past, but also surpasses them, while making the content compatible with virtually every known or anticipated emerging medium.
I recently participated in the Giant Screen Cinema Association's meeting, where I saw the most powerful all-digital 3D giant screen projection ever seen, using off-the-shelf digital projectors. This was extremely encouraging to me, and proved beyond any question that we can now make the theater-going experience even more powerful with higher frame rates, while remaining completely compatible with all subsequent forms of viewing, and we can do it now.
I believe that it is time to reconsider the spectacle and showmanship of the giant screen and reverse the small multiplex screen concept toward fewer yet larger and more spectacular theaters. This would be in sync with the Hollywood blockbuster direction, finally delivering all that production value to audiences, and keeping the exhibition business healthy and profitable.
Many thanks to Christie Digital, Barco, Vision Research, Stewart Filmscreen, the Visual Effects Society, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and many others who share my goals and who are contributing to this effort to reinvigorate the movie-going experience.
Now that I have finally recovered from the trauma of having to depart Hollywood, I am back hard at work toward my personal goal of directing again, and trying to explore the future potential of a new kind of intelligent science fiction movie that is epic in scale, and that transports audiences INTO the movie, and into a cinema experience that goes beyond the technical limitations of today, paving the way for a renewed audience enthusiasm to "go out to the movies" as an experience they can't get any other way.
Douglas Trumbull
January, 2012
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-26-2012, 05:07 PM:
quote: Victor Liorentas
Higher gain "Torus" screens are one way to recover the lost light of 3D, yet there seems to be almost no institutional memory that Torus screens ever existed, or could be applied to this purpose. Now is the time to reconsider this, and the concept is an important element of what I am developing.
To quote Will Smith "awwww hell no!" He just lost all support from me right there. Torus screens absolutely suck, both for geometric distortion and a decrease in contrast of the image and they DESTROY the sound. That's why AMC called it their Super High Impact Theater System...because it's the shits.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-26-2012, 05:58 PM:
Wouldn't a Torus screen make it even more difficult to get proper alignment in 3D?
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-26-2012, 07:09 PM:
Actually, you'll not be able to prove the contrast thing...lenses (and or scaling) can mitigate the distortion...but as to sound...that is something that is undeniable. It does make it suck and thus is something I can't support.
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 02-26-2012, 10:51 PM:
Still have some Torus screens at the local AMC. And the sound is especially bad in those rooms. And there is quite a bit of shape distortion...the credits look especially bad.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-27-2012, 02:31 AM:
But wasn't there a report where Trumbull raved about laser projection being able to produce exceptionally bright images, deep colors and contrast on huge screens? If laser can indeed do this, then he's got his brightness problem solved and can forget about the Torus monstrosity with their vacuum cleaners sucking away day and night.
Thing that bothers me about his "vision," is that on the one hand he seems to want to push the technology in new ways so that we are able to experience movies in new way, allowing the filmmaker to create this immersive, first-person world for the viewer. Yet, in the same breath, he seems be perfectly happy to have that vision deconstructed to the smallest of display devices down to iPhones, which to me seems antithetical to his espoused purpose. How do you maintain the immersive impact of a huge screen theatre experience, where you've gone thru the trouble of filming at super-high frame rates of 144 fps and at 8 and 16K resolution, if you are going to then reduce everything to the size of a cell phone? Either it is the high res, super immersive vision of the filmmaker and experience for the audience that films need to become, or it isn't -- it can't be both. You can't say LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and 2001 a fine experience when seen on an iPad. No matter what gains the industry might be able to accomplish toward this kind of presentation, he seems willing to completely devalue it by saying it's just peachy keen to watch those super-movie on a 5in screen. To me, that's disturbing.
Posted by Frank B. McLaughlin (Member # 6683) on 02-27-2012, 07:07 AM:
Why the motion picture industry stubbornly clings to the 19th century standards it so dearly loves is beyond me.
Excuse me, I forgot - it is only all about money.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-28-2012, 01:03 PM:
quote: Victor Liorentas
Today we have green screen digital compositing that has virtually no objectionable matte lines or artifacts, and digital compositing, which causes no image degradation with each layer's duplication. It is now possible to superimpose actors into virtually any environment, be it a set, location, or other dimension -- at quite low cost. What costs so much are the huge crews, long shooting schedules, and expensive location costs.
If you think ole Mr. Trubmull is kidding, I give you this --
Boardwalk Empire VFX - Season 2
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2