Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Can Sony with Real-D lens present 4k 2D with it in place?

This is topic Can Sony with Real-D lens present 4k 2D with it in place? 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=001193

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-17-2012, 09:49 AM:

My gut would say no, but I was wondering if there is something designed into the adapter that lets both outputs show the entire imager simultaneously to allow 4k 2D to be shown with the adapter in place.

If not, how difficult is it to switch back and forth between 3D and 4k 2D?

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 08-17-2012, 10:15 AM:

No. The RealD XL-S splits the 4K Sony light engine image into 2 2K halves, puts a 2K image on each of them, then superimposes the two 2K images. I suppose in theory you could divide a 4k image into two 2k images, and then superimpose two different 2k images and get a sort of 4k on screen but I don't think this is done. The normal 2D projection with the XL-S in place does about the same but the superimposed 2k images are identical in 2D rather than being L and R eye 3D images.
Changing the XL-S front plate to the Sony single lens one takes a bit of time, you need a Sony technician level login to do the system changes (or else you will have a stacked two-image picture on screen) and the XL-S requires a bit of fine tuning after installation, even if it was previously set up: the tolerance of the attachment is not perfect and the 3D alignment has to be re-optimized.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-17-2012, 11:05 AM:

So basically any projector that has the attachment has really been turned into a 2k projector.

The reason for my question was that I saw The Amazing Spiderman at a regal in 2D and assumed I'd get to see it in 4k. The picture didn't look any better than 2k does and when I looked back up at the booth I saw the adapter in place (and the associated double image)

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 08-17-2012, 11:33 AM:

Not even 2K. The picture in 3D is a bit less than 2K, can't remember the numbers on top of my head. Say 1.8K [Smile]

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-18-2012, 07:51 AM:

Every 3D movie is actually 2k, on ANY projection system. Even the 2D version of 3D movies will only be 2k.

To change a Sony from 2D to 3D, that is, change the lens and do the necessary adjustments, it takes about 5min for an experienced operator. Depending on staff skills, dedication and company policies, this may happen in some theatres or not.

- Carsten

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-19-2012, 06:15 PM:

Some locations that have twin lens SONY units, have their twin polarizers on a swivel bracket that allows the two polarizers to be swung out of the way for twin lens, 2D presentations.

A technician has to install this bracket assembly to align the polarizers and mark their stops so the polarizers are in perfect alignment when being returned back to 3D presentations.

The big drawback with the twin lens system: removes the 4K option with the imager being split for twin lens usage.

The DCP content for "Spiderman" was 2K content. "Dark Knight Rises" was 4K content.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-19-2012, 08:15 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
The DCP content for "Spiderman" was 2K content.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I just assumed that a Sony movie shot with the 4k Red Epic camera would have a 4k DCP. You know what happens when you assume....

One thing I will definitely say. When I've seen 2k DCPs presented with a 4k projector (without the 3D adapter on it) I don't see the jaggies on text. I usually sit in between the front 1/3 and 1/2 of the auditorium. When I saw "The Amazing Spiderman" with the adapter in place (therefore showing 2K) as well as 2K DLP presentations I always see the jaggies.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 08-20-2012, 02:17 PM:

Again, it's not 2K. If it was, you would not see anything different from 4K, scaling from 2K to 4K is harmless (1-2K pixel becomes 4-4K pixels).
Being the resolution scaled because of the 3D - and the electronic alignment - loss of resolution is the consequence.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-20-2012, 09:37 PM:

Is it scaled or do they just chop a few pixels off. I thought it is single digit pixels between the two "eyes" and they are just eliminated in flat leading to a slightly lower resolution and slightly wider aspect ratio.

Also, scope is full 2k resolution right? There should be plenty of space between "eyes" in scope format.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-21-2012, 09:45 AM:

1998/1060 flat vs. 2533/1060 for scope (side masking)
2048/1060 flat vs. 2048/858 for scope (top/bottom masking)

So yes, they need to sacrifice some lines between the two images.

Pretty sure they don't scale 1080 to 1060 but crop instead.

- Carsten

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 08-21-2012, 04:31 PM:

If not mistaken there are two settings available: the normal one and the "scaling" one. If you use the normal one you're chopping off something. It may be "just" 20 pixels, then you have to add the pixels chopped off because your screen is not the right ratio though.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-21-2012, 05:07 PM:

Scaling would preclude DCI compliance since scaling down always results in visible loss of resolution (use any target with lines in it and you'll see what I mean).

I could have sworn that Sony was using 858 height for all formats with the dual lens in (3D). I'd be happy to be wrong on this though. One would think they would need more than 20 pixels to prevent flaring the lens...picture a scene with a bright sky but dirt terrain...the bright sky on the lower image needs to be kept from entering the lens for the upper image as stray light.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 08-22-2012, 05:18 AM:

I have two Sony papers describing this layout. If it WAS 858 for both formats, then it certainly wouldn't go without downscaling flat.

Scaling and DCI compliance - I don't know, the whole 3D thing is not actually covered by DCI, and quite sure all units have been under CTP in 2D modes only.
That a lot of Sony units in the field then do 2D through the 3D lens - maybe no one cares ;-)

- Carsten

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-01-2012, 08:05 AM:

Yesterday I went to see The Imposter in a multiplex belonging to one of the UK’s big chains. The chain boasts everywhere with posters and trailers that they have Sony’s pristine 4K digital projection system, I think they say it is the best projection system ever, or something like that. I got into the small auditorium with a fairly small silver screen with no curtains and no masking and the 1.85:1 ratio. The trailers looked rather bad and the main feature did not improve much either. I looked at the booth and there were two light sources. When the film finished I walked up the corridor to the booth window and the Sony projector had the polarising lenses. It is bad enough to show flat films on a silver screen, I know no one cares about curtains anymore, but no masking! To see a letterboxed presentation in a cinema is dreadful but to see a flat film through polarized filters on a silver screen is appalling. An overpriced dreadful experience. By the way, they now call their sound system profound sound. Whatever that is.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 09-01-2012, 08:40 AM:

According to the company "Profound Sound" is defined as followed (from a leaflet):

"Immersive sound. Professionally mixed by one of the country's leading sound engineers to bring you a new level of sound quality so powerful it'll blow you away".

Yes, they claim their "profound sound" is "mixed". No, I don't have an explanation, you may want to show them your ticket and ask them what that does mean.

If your 2D film was shown with 3D lenses, it was not shown in 4K and the inevitable convergence drift would affect sharpness.

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-01-2012, 10:24 AM:

quote: Marco Giustini
Yes, they claim their "profound sound" is "mixed". No, I don't have an explanation, you may want to show them your ticket and ask them what that does mean.

If your 2D film was shown with 3D lenses, it was not shown in 4K and the inevitable convergence drift would affect sharpness.

Would the studios allow a cinema chain to tamper with their sound mixes? I doubt it. If I asked anyone at the cinema I doubt they would have a clue about what profound sound is. It did not sound anything special or different to me. Mind you, The Imposter is not the best film to judge image or sound but this does not justify the poor exhibition standards.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-01-2012, 12:21 PM:

What are you talking about? Theatres have been "tampering" with sound since they got sound! Too high, too low, playing mono movies in stereo, stereo movies without left/right, fake noise reduction, making their own surrounds, no center channel but only surrounds, bad EQ, bad speakers, bad acoustics...good grief!

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-01-2012, 01:25 PM:

quote:
What are you talking about? Theatres have been "tampering" with sound since they got sound!

True, but what I meant is allowing a cinema chain to produce their own sound mix of a movie, a bit like what IMAX does. I am curious as to what profound sound is. Probably it is as good as advertising 4K projection and screening flat films through 3-D polarisers.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 09-01-2012, 01:37 PM:

I would ask the company. They are advertising it, there must be something behind. Otherwise it would be misleading advertising, wouldn't you think?

Posted by Ramon Lamarca Marques (Member # 3621) on 09-01-2012, 01:53 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
I would ask the company. They are advertising it, there must be something behind. Otherwise it would be misleading advertising, wouldn't you think?

I have asked them about the polarizers, if they reply I will ask them about the profound sound.

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 09-01-2012, 03:07 PM:

The same company also has Barco 2K projectors in their larger 3D screens, yet still advertised as 2K.

It would be worth referring the situation to the Advertising Standards Authority to get them to correct their publicity. (on a less serious note their competitor who claims to be "fanatical about film" could also be referred)

Adversing 4K projection implies that 4K content will be shown despite a lot (most?) of the current releases being 2K

quote: Marco Giustini
Professionally mixed by one of the country's leading sound engineers to bring you a new level of sound quality so powerful it'll blow you away

Alternatively a CP750 connected to the existing amplifiers and speakers, another one for the ASA I think.

quote:
It is bad enough to show flat films on a silver screen, I know no one cares about curtains anymore, but no masking!

A lot of the screen will have masking, it was disconnected with the move to digital (looks particularly good when showing 2.39:1 content on a 1.85:1 shaped screen)

quote: Carsten Kurz
I don't know, the whole 3D thing is not actually covered by DCI, and quite sure all units have been under CTP in 2D modes only.

My understanding is that Sony projectors, with 3D lenses, are not DCI compliant. The specification requires a 2048:1080 image area for 2D content (with lens changes being automated). Having said that a lot of the AAM installs (for the UK Film Council funded network) used scaling, rather than adjust the zoom on the lens.

From the DCI spec:

quote:
8.2.2.4. Single Lens
The projection system is required to provide either a single lens solution or an
unattended changeover if more than one lens is required.
...
8.2.2.6. Pixel Count
The sampling structure of the displayed picture array (pixel count of the projector) is
required to be equal to or greater than that of the specified image containers (either
4096 x 2160 or 2048 x 1080).
8.2.2.7. Spatial Resolution Conversion
The projector is required to display either a native resolution of 4096x2160 or
2048x1080. If the projector's native resolution is 4096x2160, and the incoming spatial
resolution of the content is 2048x1080, then the projection system is required to perform
the up-conversion of 2048x1080 content to 4096x2160. All spatial conversions are
required to be done at an exact ratio of 2:1 in each axis, i.e., a projector with a horizontal
pixel count of slightly higher than the image container is required to not convert the
projected image beyond the image container to fill the array, nor is an image to be
converted to something less than the 4096x2160 or 2048x1080 image container size.
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.
...
8.3.3.3. Screen Characteristics
The screen is required to be non-specular and equally reflective over the entire visible
spectrum. The screen is required to have variable black masking, adjustable to tightly
frame the projected image. This is required to minimally include 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 image
formats. Masking for other formats is optional.