Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sony exhibiting Da Vinci Code in 4K

This is topic Sony exhibiting Da Vinci Code in 4K in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=001698

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-19-2006, 04:59 PM:

From here:

quote:
The company has installed one of the projectors at a theater in Los Angeles that will show Sony Pictures' "The Da Vinci Code." The company, in conjunction with National CineMedia, a joint venture of AMC Entertainment Inc., Cinemark USA Inc. and Regal Entertainment Group, will install projectors in two other theaters next month in yet to be determined locations.

...

The 4K projectors promise richer color and better contrast that draws moviegoers into the image. The major difference, however, will be seen by those who sit closest to the movie screen, who will see sharper images without noticing individual pixels, which can occur in a theater with 2K projection.

Sony recently tested its system using a clip from the 1965 classic "The Sound of Music." When it was projected in 4K, viewers were able to pick out two hairs sticking up from Julie Andrews' head and see details of the weave in her dress.

"Anything that enhances the visual experience, that better supports the artistry, the story of the motion picture being exhibited, anything that raises the bar of higher quality is a benefit to the moviegoer," said Andrew Stucker, general manager of the digital cinema systems group at Sony Electronics.

I'm surprised any company would still do business with Sony when it comes to theatrical equipment, after getting burned on SDDS. Still, I'm glad to see 4K moving forward, even if it's just a baby step.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 05-19-2006, 07:42 PM:

What theatre has this?

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-20-2006, 05:33 AM:

None of the articles I looked at mention the location or name of the theater that is supposedly showing it.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 05-20-2006, 01:21 PM:

I am told the theatre is the AMC Century City 15.

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 05-21-2006, 03:40 PM:

I also believe the venue is the new AMC Century 15. The movie is being promoted in the local papers as a digital projection presentation, though there's no specific mention of 4K.

I plan to see it in the next couple of days.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 05-21-2006, 05:25 PM:

I'll chime in as a third person to hear it's 4K at the AMC Century City 15.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-21-2006, 07:29 PM:

Michael, hope you (or someone) checks it out and gives us a report.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-22-2006, 12:13 AM:

quote: Aaron Haney
I'm surprised any company would still do business with Sony when it comes to theatrical equipment, after getting burned on SDDS.

quote: Mark Lensenmayer
What theatre has this?

quote: Adam Martin was the last to post
AMC

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-22-2006, 02:06 AM:

And here is from an "official" source:

From Variety.com :

Sony Pictures isn't the only division of its parent conglomconglom banking on "The Da Vinci Code" this weekend: Sony Electronics is looking to it as the first test of its digital cinema strategy.
Pic will be the first to play commercially in the U.S. on one of Sony's 4K digital projectors. While other d-cinema companies are producing so-called 2K projectors, which are lower-quality but easier to manufacture and deploy, Sony is competing with its bigger, better and more expensive alternative.

Sony's 4K projectors have lagged behind 2K projectors, which are already in the market. The first one has been installed at the AMC Century City 15, however, and will play "Da Vinci" on its opening night.

Sony is installing projectors at Regal and Cinemark theaters in the next few weeks and plans to use the three to test its technology, thus far used only in Japan.

"This is our opportunity to test how our equipment works in the real world," said Sony digital systems group manger Andrew Stucker. "We're anxious to talk with all the studios about playing more movies on them throughout the summer."

(end of article)

Interestingly, the Cinerama Dome at the Arclight has dropped all references to DA VINCI CODE being shown in 2K Digital Projection from their ads and website (where they have been "hyping" the 2K). Could this be because they fear hyping an "inferior" presentation? (The Arclight is a prime example of a theatre where digital might improve things. They seem to LOVE splotches of dirt and scratches on their prints, including brand new 70mm ones).

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-22-2006, 09:06 AM:

Not to mention 35mm Cinerama ones.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-22-2006, 06:43 PM:

I guess I have a reason to go see this movie now.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-22-2006, 08:08 PM:

This is great news if the projectors work in day-to-day operation as advertised. Somebody that saw the Sony demo last year described it as looking as good as 35mm dailies that he had seen.

If AMC and Regal get in bed with 4k (through National Cinemedia) it will go a long way to getting 4k product available. 4k is what the industry needs. Unfortunately, it's Sony supplying it.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-23-2006, 07:51 AM:

What technology does the Sony projector use?

What format was this film originated in? If a film format, has it been through a digital intermediate before the 4k transfer was made? If so, what resolution was this?

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-23-2006, 08:55 AM:

The Sony projector uses Sony's SXRD (Silicon Crystal Reflective Display) technology. It is Sony's variation of LCOS, which in a nutshell is an LCD with a mirror behind it. I've never seen SXRD in action but apparently the pixel spacing is very small.

From a Doremi press release:

quote:
Doremi Cinema's DMS-2000 is the first digital cinema mastering station to create 4k movie files for major Hollywood Studio releases. The DMS-2000 was utilized to encode DCI / JPEG2000 4k masters for the new Da Vinci Code and RV movies.

Da Vinci was shot on film. It can only be assumed that there was a 4k DI used.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-23-2006, 11:58 AM:

quote:
"Anything that enhances the visual experience, that better supports the artistry, the story of the motion picture being exhibited, anything that raises the bar of higher quality is a benefit to the moviegoer,"

ANYTHING that enhances the visual experience? How about shooting in 65 and installing 70mm in a major way around the country? What make me think they are not THAT concerned about enhancing the visual experience for benefit of the moviegoer. As for the "bar" of higher quality -- it's already set, no one needs Sony to raise it. And the bar is 70mm. Beat THAT with zeros and ones and whatever number of Ks it takes and then you'd be saying something.

Just a reminder to Mr. Stucker -- you can see those two hairs in an original Super Panavision presentation. The Sony 4K projector couldn't have shown those hairs if they weren't already there on the FILM.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-24-2006, 04:30 PM:

Saw DVCODE last night at the AMC Century City 15 and they are advertising it in theatre as 4K, it's also printed out on the ticket. There's a brief snipe for SXRD 4K Digital Projection right before the movie.

Trailers looked good for the most part, although I have no way of knowing if those were at 2K or 4K resolution. Trailer for CARS was the most stunning, althought the Jet Li trailer looked really nice, too. LADY IN THE WATER had easy-to-spot issues with its subtle zoom-ins on white text over black screen. Those text shots looked like video. Interlaced, even.

The movie -- as an aside, I liked the movie a whole lot, which is a relief because now I need to see it again on film and also at 2K resolution (and then probably one more time in 4K). I'll also say that the sound quality in the auditorium was very good. DVC was the second movie I've seen at this new AMC and the other movie (WALK THE LINE in 35mm) had a good presentation as well. So, it appears that someone's doing something right at that location.

Back to the movie...

Obviously, the digital image was rock-steady and devoid of dirt, etc. I'd like to see it on film now because the darker shots seemed to be consistently out of focus and there are some shots where grain appears to have been added. And I'm not referring to the b/w flashback shots. No. There are some closeups of faces where the grain doesn't seem to behave like film grain. I'll try to provide a more accurate scene reference following my next viewing.

Subtitles were a bit on the huge side. Actually looked like DVD subtitles. Anyway, those big, bright subtitles literally outshone the dim shots that they so often accompanied. The credit scroll at the end was like watching big screen TV. This may seem counterintuitive but somehow I think it might help to simulate jump/weave for tail credits in digital presentations.

I haven't yet seen this particular movie in 2K but I can't honestly say that I was more impressed with the presentation quality than I was with any of the 2K shows I have seen to date. It certainly didn't look "twice as good," although I doubt if anyone was expecting that. I think that resolution is the least of the issues at this time. I was really unhappy with the way the darker scenes looked, they looked kinda muddy and smeared...not like poor focus, but like we needed more latitude and contrast ratio.

Anyway, I'll probably have more to say after seeing a 2K and 35mm show.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 05-24-2006, 05:10 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
I was really unhappy with the way the darker scenes looked, they looked kinda muddy and smeared...not like poor focus, but like we needed more latitude and contrast ratio.

I have to say that's been my experience with digital projection as well. While it was still playing, I saw the most recent Harry Potter movie in 2K DLP at the Century 22 in San Jose, and while bright scenes looked okay, dark scenes looked like mud. I'm sorry to hear the Sony 4K system has the same problem.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-24-2006, 07:11 PM:

Would a print off a DI manifest a similar apparent lack of latitude/contrast as this digital presentation?

In other words, at what point in the chain does the problem emerge? Is this a limitation that goes as far back as the initial scan or is it a special problem pertaining to digital projection? Or somewhere in between?

I guess one would have to see a show print to be sure.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-25-2006, 09:36 AM:

Manny,

What was your viewing distance and how does that compare to your viewing distance for 2K? What 4k should allow is viewing at closer distances. Basically, the 4k image should look as good from 2 screen heights as 2k looks from 4. At an equivalent distance, 4k may or may not look any different than 2k depending on how far back you are. I don't have time to calculate it now, but I believe that at 5 screen heights, your eye "runs out" of resolution viewing a 2k image. So if you stay in the same spot, you won't really see any improvement even if the image is 100k.

Also, did 4k get rid of the stair-step jaggies on large titles? I've only seen one thing in 2k (Narnia) at about 2 screen heights and the opening logo had clearly visible stair steps.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-25-2006, 11:44 AM:

In both cases, I sat about one-third the way from the screen to the back wall, which is about as close as I care to get if I'm actually going to watch the movie. Anyone who sits closer than that is out of their mind.

There was one showing of NARNIA where I sat in the fourth row but that was because I had already seen the movie a few times and was looking for trouble. Still, even from the 4th row of El Capitan -- granted, there's some extra distance from the apron of the stage to the screen itself -- NARNIA looked great in 2K.

Anyone know the cost of Sony's 4K system versus 2K DLP?

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-25-2006, 03:07 PM:

The Sony SRX-R105 (5000 lumen) was listing at $67,000 plus lens and boards. And the Sony SRX-R110 (10,000 lumen) was listing at $98,000 plus lens and boards.

There are 4 types of optional lenses available for the projector.

LKRL-Z115 1.5- to 1.9- times zoom lens
LKRL-Z120 1.9- to 2.3- times zoom lens
LKRL-Z125 2.3- to 4.0- times zoom lens
LKRL-Z140 4.0- to 7.0- times zoom lens

The LKRL-Z125 lens lists at $13,770

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 05-25-2006, 06:43 PM:

Are there any pictures or brochures/literature for these 4kw projectors?

All Google seems to be giving me is home theatre products.

And here's a question I've been dying to ask: Are you still restricted to a maximum wattge of 7k? You'd think that with digital needing twice the wattage, the technology might actually make it easier to create 80' screens, because you could increase the wattage to say 10kw. But, who knows?

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-25-2006, 07:03 PM:

Go to this site. Sony Then click products and then projectors and then Digital Cinema for the information on the projectors.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 05-25-2006, 07:34 PM:

Thanks Bill! Just what I was looking for.

Could you imagine how small projection booths would/could be with these projectors in them? It just doesn't feel right.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-26-2006, 12:32 AM:

What could there be that's different in making lenses for video as opposed to film that would make it cost $13,770? Couldn't a film projector lens with the same focal length still focus on the imaging module that the manufacturers lens focuses on? Why would you need a proprietary lens? I guess the reason they are so expensive is that 1) Sony is not actually manufacturing them -- perhaps they are ISCOs or Schneiders, so Sony has to make a profit on them and 2) Sony may figure that any exhibitor who commits to plunking down $98,000 for a projectect must have another 14K lying around for the lens. [Eek!]

Are these lenses universal as are film projector lenses? In other words, can they be interchanged with say a Christie projector or Barco, or are you bound to buying lenses from the manufacturer only.

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 05-26-2006, 05:35 AM:

It is interesting to note that Sony's website does not show the extra (huge) stand that is required for the SXRD projectors to satisfy the DCI security requirements. This was on show at Showest and I doubted that the stand would fit through many projection room doors.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 05-26-2006, 08:11 AM:

Film lenses are small, magnify a fixed dimension, film is the same size and there is a legacy of 100 years making lenses for film.

Video lenses are quite a bit larger. Custom glass prices grow exponentially with size. Video chips are all different sizes. There are that many units yet so economy of scale doesn't exist for video lenses. You can't use the lenses from film for video.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-26-2006, 09:27 AM:

Thanks Ian.

Man, isn't that a kick in the butt for the exhibitors who thought digital will save them tons of money.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-26-2006, 11:01 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
Man, isn't that a kick in the butt for the exhibitors who thought digital will save them tons of money.

I don't think that any exhibitors think digital will save them money. The studios think it will save them money and that's why this whole thing is happening. If the studios didn't save money long term, we'd be seeing 3 perf prints or something else to save money.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-26-2006, 11:32 AM:

In addition to what Ian said, all of the Sony video projection lenses appear to be zooms. High quality zooms with short zoom ratios, but corrected very well for geometry at any setting within their ranges. So they're going to cost a lot more than fixed-length primes. The prices quoted are right in line with good ENG-grade zooms as used in video production from companies like Fujinon, Canon, or Schneider.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-26-2006, 01:30 PM:

Also, lenses for Digital Cinema projectors are usually projecting an image formed by three modulators (red, green, and blue) combined optically, usually with some sort of prism block. Any lens would therefore need to have a long back focus. Likely a telecentric lens design would be needed. So the lenses usually need to be specifically designed for Digital Cinema projection, as opposed to the simpler case of a single image on a piece of color print film or on a single chip.

For background on typical optics used, here is a technical paper about a digital projector design using reflective PDLC light modulators from NHK in Japan:

http://ao.osa.org/ViewMedia.cfm?id=78325&seq=0

quote:
High-definition imaging system based on spatial
light modulators with light-scattering mode
Hiroshi Kikuchi, Takanori Fujii, Masahiro Kawakita, Yoshiyuki Hirano, Hideo Fujikake,
Fumio Sato, and Kuniharu Takizawa
We have developed a prototype high-definition imaging system using polymer-dispersed liquid-crystal
PDLC light valves, which can modulate unpolarized light with high spatial resolution and exhibit a high
optical efficiency, based on the light-scattering effect. We fabricated high-definition light valves with a
fine polymer-matrix structure in a PDLC film by controlling the curing conditions used during the
photopolymerization-induced phase separation and formation process. This device has excellent characteristics,
such as a high resolution, with 50 lpmm for a limiting resolution and greater than 20 lpmm
at the 50% modulation transfer function point, and a reflectivity of greater than 60%. An optically
addressable full-color projection display was designed, consisting of three PDLC light valves, a schlieren
optical system based on shift-decentralization optics with a xenon lamp illumination and input-image
sources with 1.5 million pixels, including electrical image compensation of the gamma characteristics.
We succeeded in displaying pictures on a 110-inch screen with a resolution of 810 TV lines and a luminous
flux of 1900–2100 American National Standards Institute lumens.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-26-2006, 07:15 PM:

Well, since I won't be in LA anytime soon to see the 4k SXRD, I did the next best thing. I went to circuit city and looked at a SXRD TV set.

I was extremely impressed with the tight pixel spacing. I had to get really close to the screen to see the grid pattern (I'm talking maybe 1' away). I had to get a little closer than I do to a DLP TV to see the grid. With SXRD, you don't see the little dot in the middle of each pixel like DLP.

I hope Sony expands the trial a little bit. AMC Pleasure Island was a beta site for 1.3k DLP as well as 2k Real-D (on 2 screens). Maybe Sony will put a 4k unit there so I can see it.

Question for Manny (or anybody else that might have seen it by now). How do the colors, contrast and black levels of SXRD compare to DLP?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-27-2006, 04:18 AM:

can video lenses be used for film?

can video lamphouses be used for film? could one be cannibalized from a 1.3k projector?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-27-2006, 04:06 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
I don't think that any exhibitors think digital will save them money. The studios think it will save them money and that's why this whole thing is happening. If the studios didn't save money long term, we'd be seeing 3 perf prints or something else to save money.

Lyle, I should have put an eyes roll [Roll Eyes]

there....I was being sarcastic. I don't think digital is going to save exhibitors a penny, even after they pay off the bank loans and the second mortages, nor do I think digital will increase attendence one iota. Which is a puzzlement for me as to why this usually stingy bunch would even consider it, let alone actually buying into it.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-27-2006, 04:57 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Which is a puzzlement for me as to why this usually stingy bunch would even consider it, let alone actually buying into it.

Because they're not the ones who are paying for the bulk of it.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2006, 05:19 PM:

Large exhibitors figure they will save money by not hiring projectionists or other booth-monkeys to do film-handling. They might also save in repairs, because uncaring idiot high school kids won't be handling and damaging the expensive equipment. They'll save in freight, not having to ship film. And, they figure they will see increased attendance because people will stop seeing scratches, dirt and other film damage and so on. After all, one of the big perceived problems with the theatre experience today is "scratched film." (Gotta remember, a huge percentage of booth people have unfortunately never heard of Film-tech.)

I think the studios will see about 90% of the savings. Theatres will see about 10%. Myself, being a small operator and doing my own booth work, will save nothing in $ (except for the shipping), but it'll save me some time.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-28-2006, 06:00 AM:

quote: Paul Linfesty
Because they're not the ones who are paying for the bulk of it.

I keep hearing that. How much, exactly, do they pay for say a $100,000 projector with an additional $13,000 lens and the labor to remove the 35mm projector and the install and alignment of the digital system? What exactly is meant by the "bulk" of cost -- 90%, 80% 50%? So then whoever is paying the bulk percentage, then are they the ones who keep ownership of the equipment? Or are you saying that they pay the bulk of the cost and then, what, they turn the equipment over free and clear to theatre owner? The theatre owner owns it outright, unencumbered, thereafter? He gets to do what he wants with it? I find that pretty hard to believe and if it's true, who do I ask to buy me one of those 4K digital projectors? [Big Grin]

Then again, the cost of the initial equipment and the install and alignment, even if it were free, still doesn't address the other operating costs, such as the increased wattage needed for equivalent screen brightness for a given screen size vs. 35mm projection (typically 7000w for a 50ft screen vs. 4500w for film). That's a lot of energy costs when you multiply that over however many digital installs are put in a multiplex. And we still haven't seen a definative, real-life projection of digital vs 35mm maintenance and operating costs out over 1yr, 2yrs, 5yrs. To say that digital will not cost the exihibitor more than a film-based system by looking only at what an install costs which will be partially paid for by whoever (who that is hasn't been defined yet either), to me seems flawed at best.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 05-28-2006, 10:22 PM:

BUMP!

I asked this question before, and no one answered me... so here it is again:

quote: Andrew McCrea
And here's a question I've been dying to ask: Are you still restricted to a maximum wattge of 7k? You'd think that with digital needing twice the wattage, the technology might actually make it easier to create 80' screens, because you could increase the wattage to say 10kw. But, who knows?

What would limit you from using a 10kw or even 15kw bulb for a drive-in?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 05-28-2006, 10:57 PM:

My guess is that the heat tolerance of the DLP chips would come into play for wattages over 7k.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-30-2006, 09:55 AM:

quote:
Sony may figure that any exhibitor who commits to plunking down $98,000 for a projector must have another 14K lying around for the lens.

In my earlier post I posted plus lens and boards.

The cost of the boards are around the below figures:

LKR1001 (Analog input) board $1,370.
LKR1002 (HD SDI input) board $2,648.
LKR1003 (Dual Link HD SDI input) board $3,337.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-30-2006, 12:19 PM:

These Sonys are stand-alone machines. They don't mount on an existing film console or pedestal, so the operator doesn't get to choose lamp sizes. The 10,000 lumen SRX-R110 uses two 2K xenons while the 5,000 lumen SRX-R105 uses two 1K xenons.

Advances in short arc gap lamphouse design make any of these newer 2K DLP or 4K SXRD digital projectors much more efficient than the first-generation 1.3K machines of a few years ago, which did require external lamphouses of up to 7KW. Sony is working on higher wattage machines for bigger screens. It'll be interesting to see how much more light and heat they can reliably bounce off of these triplets of 1.5" diagonal SXRD imagers.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 05-30-2006, 01:22 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Question for Manny (or anybody else that might have seen it by now). How do the colors, contrast and black levels of SXRD compare to DLP?

Well, it would take a butterfly + a/b "shootout" to see a true comparison. But, my gut reaction is that the Sony system has similar contrast and black level issues as DLP. The colors look great, especially in brighter shots/scenes.

I really think that pixel count is the lesser issue at this point. They need to develop the ability to reproduce true black and better shadow detail. Resolution isn't everything and, yet, since it's easily quantifiable, I am concerned that these numbers (2K and 4K, etc) will become -- or already have become -- marketing buzzwords (just like Megapixels) whereas exposure latitude and contrast ratio are at risk of being downplayed or ignored because they come across as gobbledegook.

I'm going to see a 2K showing tonight and then back to see the 4K again tomorrow since it's been a while. At $12-$14 a ticket, and a running time of over 2hrs, I'm not sure it's worth checking out a film print since they are off of 4K DI's. It should look just like digital...but worse, since it's now week 2 for this title. [Frown]

I really should've gone earlier.

[ 05-30-2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Manny Knowles ]

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-30-2006, 08:29 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
After all, one of the big perceived problems with the theatre experience today is "scratched film."

With your quotes around "scratched film" I don't know if you are being sarcastic in that the public calls most film-related problems "scratched film" but in my experience (and perhaps colored by my own personal gripe with it) the worst problem exhibited by just about every film-based presentation I've seen in the past several years is jump and weave.

I attended a show of X-Men: The Last Stand yesterday at one of the better theaters in the area (at least, the most consistent in providing acceptable presentations anyway), and there was the usual amount of both jump and weave. If I had to pick one over the other, I would say that the jump was worse.

The thing is, this is pretty standard, and I think the public just expects it. It's almost like a jittery image will be the thing people will "miss" if/when digital cinema gets a foothold in the area.

Thing is, once you get used to a rock-steady image, watching a film presentation jump around on the screen like Hammy the Squirrel from Over the Hedge isn't going to cut it. The more I watch in my home theater, the more irritating it is to go to the theater. I feel like having to take Dramamine beforehand! (Maybe the concession stands could sell it for $1 per dose.)

As far as black level goes, digital is already there. The sconces in the auditorium yesterday were illuminating the screen well enough that the masking cast a shadow. If it were just this theater, that wouldn't be so bad, but I attended a film showing of Star Wars 3 last year that had a very high black level as well, and I don't think it was the room lighting that did it.

For all the vitriol about digital cinema, one cannot complain about something and say that it has no marketable advantages until one has seen it firsthand. Once you become accustomed to not seeing the flaws of film that's "not done perfect" those flaws are that much more evident.

I welcome the onslaught of digital cinema. It can't come fast enough for the paying public!

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 05-30-2006, 09:00 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
Thing is, once you get used to a rock-steady image, watching a film presentation jump around on the screen like Hammy the Squirrel from Over the Hedge isn't going to cut it.

That's the fault of the labs for cranking out high-speed prints. If the theatres pulled out their aperture plates and let you see the sprocket holes, chances are they'd be rock steady. Unless their machine is junk...junk machine+crappy print= [puke]

Fortunately I usually end up running Showprints and don't have to deal with that sort of thing. Those are printed so well the studio logo and titles could be mistaken for seeing a slide. [thumbsup]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-31-2006, 08:49 AM:

Does anyone know if the 4K DLP version of DVC is being presented in eight channel sound?

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-02-2006, 10:18 AM:

In my opinion jitter and weave are much less of a problem than scratches--here's why:

We are conditioned to notice changing phenomena, not fixed phenomena. Jitter/weave manifest as a certain kind of unsteadiness, but it is a continuous unsteadiness that is always there in the background, and you can tune it out. It does not "come and go."

Scratching, in general, is most noticable and apparent because it changes. A single black line that holds its position perfectly is far less annoying than a single black line that comes and goes every frame. Similarly, scratches whose color changes (because depth changes) or position changes (platter scratches) are much worse.

Similarly, CAP codes are really bad because they are sudden. (I wonder what it would be like if CAP codes faded in and faded out over a 10 second period. Hrmm...)

I must say, I'm not impressed when film people go around evaluating presentations and claiming they are "rock steady." For film, that's never true (of course it is true for digital). The question is really how jumpy it is in each direction, and to evaluate that, you need a measurement, i.e. from the RP40 checkerboard).

[hmm. That would be a great use for "cheap" test film. No need to worry about the registration, as long as the magnification didn't change, it would be useful. High-speed contact printing, 30c/foot, here we come!]

--jhawk

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-02-2006, 11:17 AM:

Note that registration is only "perfect" for digital projection systems when showing material that was photographed electronically (not necessarily digitally, as analog video recordings are also free of registration issues). Material shot on film is subject to the mechanical limitations of the camera movement and the lab equipment used to produce whatever intermiediate element is used to produce the digital master.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 06-02-2006, 11:42 AM:

If a person who knows something about film technology and mechanics says the image is "rock steady", it's a declaration that jitter and weave were at worst not objectionable and at best not noticeable. I think everyone here knows that "rock steady" is a relative term when discussing film.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-02-2006, 01:11 PM:

Do motion picture film cameras have a way of printing "fiducial" symbols so that the scanner will be able to perfectly register the image? I know that is how automatic component placement machines work for PC Boards. Each board is not printed in the exact same location relative to the edge but the fiducial markings are have the same location relative to the landing pads all the time.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 06-02-2006, 10:15 PM:

Lyle's point sure seems valid.

Intelligent telecine software should be able to find the frame boundary (between the edge of the image and the unexposed film that is outside the camera aperture), and thus correct for any unsteadiness. [Of course, I have no idea if this is actually done...]

--jhawk

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-03-2006, 11:00 AM:

quote: John Hawkinson
We are conditioned to notice changing phenomena, not fixed phenomena. Jitter/weave manifest as a certain kind of unsteadiness, but it is a continuous unsteadiness that is always there in the background, and you can tune it out. It does not "come and go."

Exactly. We mustn't underestimate the power of the human eye/brain system in removing extranious information and compensating for what it has learned is unnecessary and possibly distracting changes. White-level compensation is a remarkable example of how we correct for changes in the environment in away that makes them nearly transparant. Same with geometric distortion -- we can sit to the left and right side of the screen. In absolute terms, the picture is skewed and geometrically distorted, but our visual compensitory system says, ok, this is the steady-state for this image. You will only take a moment or two for the distortion to fade and for the picture to look "normal" to you.

Try this -- remove the anamorphic lens and watch a scope film for a reel or two. Although you see the compressed image with people compressed and skinny, it will shortly become more of something that can be intellectual acknowledged, rather than something that cannot be tolerated. Now put the anamorphic lens back in -- everything will look wrong....people will look fat even thought in absolute terms, the image is correct. It will take time for your compensation mechanism to "turn off." Nothing in our perception is "absolute."

In real life, your head is bobbing and weaving all the time; shake your head from side to side, what you see remains steady --it's your eye/brain system constantly correcting for extranious information. You drive your car, jitter is a constant, yet you are able to tune it out so effectively that you hardly notice it is there. Put a camera in that same spot and record what it sees without compensation, i.e., an absolutely correct record of what you see, and you will quickly appreciate how sophistocated our ability to "normalize" the perception of our environment really is.

Rock-steady, then, is much overated, unless of course you are watching UNITED 93 -- then your eye/brain just gives up and tells your stomach to punish you for taking them all to this movie.

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 06-04-2006, 08:27 AM:

Have you noticed that if you look at the screen during the entire end-credits roll and then the "rock steady" studio logo comes up, it appears to be moving? Thanks, brain.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-05-2006, 09:58 AM:

There's so much seizure-cam work done these days that jitter and weave problems in the projector are becoming irrelevant.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-05-2006, 06:32 PM:

In the past, using the term "rock steady" for film was fine because nothing was *truly* rock steady. That has changed. Digital is indeed "rock steady" so, in my opinion, the term should never again be used to describe a film presentation.

My suspicion is that the more digital presentations one sees, the more apparent and annoying jump, weave and breathing will be...however slight.

BTW, I'm not used to seeing the term "jitter" to refer to these presentation "phenomena" (see also, "irregularities").

You don't really need a special test film to check for jump/weave...simply remove the aperture plate and observe the steadiness of the sprocket holes.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 06-06-2006, 10:27 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
You don't really need a special test film to check for jump/weave...simply remove the aperture plate and observe the steadiness of the sprocket holes.

I once did that with a 16mm test film on an Eastman 25B. I was amazed to find that the test image was weaving while the image of the sprocket holes wasn't -- talk about projector specs exceeding the ability of the test equipment...!

Posted by Tommie Evans (Member # 2674) on 06-06-2006, 04:35 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
The sconces in the auditorium yesterday were illuminating the screen well enough that the masking cast a shadow. If it were just this theater, that wouldn't be so bad, but I attended a film showing of Star Wars 3 last year that had a very high black level as well, and I don't think it was the room lighting that did it.

I just need to clarify something I'm a little unsure about with DLP. . .
If a black pixel is created by the same corresponding mirror on each chip pointing away from the light source then surely the pixel on-screen would be 'pure-black'. Is the mirror switched over all the time black is present or is it running at a frequency so low as to simulate black?
And can the xenon line-up affect the blacks/contrast on screen the same way that it does with film?

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-06-2006, 05:45 PM:

Tommie,

I think the issue is that when the mirror is reflecting the light away, the light still hits (and is therefore reflected off of) the substrate underneath the mirror. Also, when the mirror is "off" it is only tilting slightly away so some stray light will also be reflected off the mirror. Then some of the reflected away light from all mirrors will "stray" back into the optical chain.

Everything has tradeoffs. You could theoretically make an LCD (or SXRD) panel that can reach the same black level (and contrast) as film. The problem is that the "switch" time for the pixel would be too slow for motion pictures.

The part of the DLP concept that I don't understand is how our brains know when each frame begins to start integrating the color. I understand how quickly flashing a light can change perceived intensity but I don't know how we know when the frame starts and ends.

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-08-2006, 01:23 PM:

Lyle, your point about when each frame starts and ends is an interesting one. Assuming the frequency of each mirror turning on and off remains constant through a single frame, any sudden change in that frequency could signal to our eyes' light receptors that a change has occurred. I suppose it really depends on the precise physiology of how the eye integrates such rapid light flashes.

As for the term "rock steady", I agree that it is often used too loosely, but I also think that a valid, rigorous definition for film could be formulated. For example, one could define a "rock steady" film image, based on 35-PA, as one in which the movement due to jump and weave is less than the distance between lines in the highest resolvable line pair. Such a definition would take into account all factors in presentation except for the minimum screen distance of the viewer, which could be added in as well.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-08-2006, 02:04 PM:

Lyle, DLP frames are just like Film frames. Each frame is on / off. Pixels are not steadily on until it needs to change color.

Did I misunderstand your comment?

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-08-2006, 02:33 PM:

Paul,

You might have misunderstood my comment. DLP creates a color by flashing each pixel on for a certain period and off for a certain period to change the intensity of the light from that pixel (of each primary color).

It's the same concept like if you wanted to make an LED vary intensity. One way is to vary the current running through it constantly, another way is to flash it on and off rapidly and varying the on and off time will vary the percieved intensity.

The concept I have trouble grasping is how your brain knows when the pixels are beginning a new frame. For example (X for on, O for off) let's pretend 4 flashes per frame (for simplicity) and this is your mirror response

XXXOXXXX

How does your brain know that XXXO is frame 1 and XXXX is frame 2? How does it know that XXXOXXXX isn't just 1 frame or that it isn't 4 frames? I assume the flash rate is set based on persistence of vision but since all humans won't have the exact persistence of vision, how does it work?

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 06-08-2006, 03:35 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
How does your brain know that XXXO is frame 1 and XXXX is frame 2? How does it know that XXXOXXXX isn't just 1 frame or that it isn't 4 frames? I assume the flash rate is set based on persistence of vision but since all humans won't have the exact persistence of vision, how does it work?

3-chip DLP creates color by sending each of the three primaries for a certain amount of time to attain the depth of color needed. I would imagine that the refresh rate of each DLP mirror is extremely high to correctly modulate the right amount of light per primary.

Here is a description from dlp.com:

quote:
A DLP® chip's micromirrors are mounted on tiny hinges that enable them to tilt either toward the light source in a DLP® projection system (ON) or away from it (OFF)-creating a light or dark pixel on the projection surface.

The bit-streamed image code entering the semiconductor directs each mirror to switch on and off up to several thousand times per second. When a mirror is switched on more frequently than off, it reflects a light gray pixel; a mirror that's switched off more frequently reflects a darker gray pixel.

In this way, the mirrors in a DLP® projection system can reflect pixels in up to 1,024 shades of gray to convert the video or graphic signal entering the DLP® chip into a highly detailed grayscale image.

When things get really hinky is when you use only one DLP chip and add a color wheel to rotate between the colors. I was able to see rainbows in many of the first-generation consumer 1-chip DLP units, but not with the faster wheels and multi-segmented wheels used now in consumer products.

Fortunately, all D-Cinema DLP units are 3-chip designs!

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-08-2006, 03:49 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
3-chip DLP creates color by sending each of the three primaries for a certain amount of time to attain the depth of color needed. I would imagine that the refresh rate of each DLP mirror is extremely high to correctly modulate the right amount of light per primary.

I understand that but what I don't understand is how my brain knows when that time period has begun so that it will correspond to each frame. With LCD (or SXRD) my brain knows that the frame has changed because the intensity of each color component of a particular pixel has actually changed. With DLP, the intensity isn't changing, the amount of on/off time is. So how does my brain "syncronize" to the display and know when it is time for the next frame to begin?

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 06-09-2006, 03:42 AM:

i think, depending on how you define the word, that you're overestimating what your brain "knows", and certainly you're overestimating what it cares about. a lot of pre-processing of visual information happens before it reaches the optic nerve. i'd be surprised if your brain had any inkling of the temporal granularity of the dlp image.

on the other hand, a spinning color wheel is slow enough that those rainbow fringe effects happen when the brain (or whatever) fails to properly delimit the frames over which to "integrate". another related illusion is the slanting of crawling text on led signage.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-09-2006, 12:59 PM:

maybe i'm misunderstanding the question but i think you're overthinking this.

we don't experience the real world in frames, so the brain doesn't go looking for that when we see a movie.

quite the contrary. we don't perceive the frames even when they are in fact what we are seeing. we perceive motion and continuity.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 06-11-2006, 12:16 PM:

Our eyes retain things for about a tenth of a second. This is why we don't see the black screen while the shutter is in the light path. This is why we don't see the scanning of a CRT (along with a little retention that the CRT has). And this is why you see the very quick on-off cycles of the DLP mirrors as differences in light level, instead of on-off flashes.

Posted by Tommie Evans (Member # 2674) on 06-12-2006, 08:53 PM:

Bruce. . .I believe you are talking about Persistance Of Vision [Big Grin]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-13-2006, 08:03 AM:

There are a few things I feel are a bit well silly about Digital cinema, The main one being why 24 frames a sec? Films biggest compromise. Any one who has seen Showscan at 60 frames a sec knows how much more realism is possable this way, to me its more like looking out a window. IMAX did attempt 48 frames per sec but 12 ft of 70mm per sec proved too much !!!!!! but aparently it was the most stunning 40 secs ever on a IMAX screen :-)

Ultimatly what we want is cinema to have a image better than avaliable at home.
Also I have been told that the 4K projector is made up of 4 seperate panels joined together, aparently you can even see the seams, any truth to this do you think?

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-13-2006, 08:26 AM:

The 4k projector is not 4 separate panels joined together. If it was it would actually be 12 panels (3 each color).

If you want to see IMAX at 48 fps, go to Disney's California Adventure or Epcot and ride Soarin' (Soarin' over California is the name of the original at California adventure). And, yes, it does look great.

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 06-13-2006, 12:46 PM:

Oh-my-god! I went on the "Soarin' Over California" Ride about three times in February... I was pretty sure that was an IMAX dome, but didn't know it was 48fps.

Quite an experience! You have to try it out.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 06-13-2006, 04:49 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
aparently you can even see the seams, any truth to this do you think?

no.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-14-2006, 04:08 AM:

Its quite amazing what salesmen will tell you (re no actual ie 4k panel,) The only d cinema projector I have seen, is the latest barco , which I actually thought looked great, but not as good as filmguarded 35!!!!! I look forward now to seeing the sony!

Im glad to hear that IMAX can do 48 frames now, Its been 7 years since I last worked with it. 12 ft of 70mm a second would be scary to me. I look forward to one being built in my hemisphere sometime. I imagine an eight story tall window!!

We just purchased a e cinema projector, a projectiondesign cineo 3 which looks suprisingly good with HD Tv on our 30 ft screen even though it is only 720 lines native. we can now run 35,16 & video.

I noticed that the Panasonic varicam HD camera shoots at 60 frames a sec and outputs 24 frames (allowing film like slow motion,) I think it would be far more interesting if they could somehow project this image at the 60 frames.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 06-15-2006, 12:38 AM:

4K capture, 2K presentation?

Many films are now being scanned in 4K. Devices like the Red Digital Cinema camera with its 12 megapixel sensor will be capable of 4,520 x 2,450 acquisition.

Does this mean that, by the time DC rolls out further at its 2K standard it will be like showing 35mm movies with 16mm projectors?

I am still getting my head around the whole Digital Cinema proposition.

Meanwhile, Fuji has emulated Kodak with some brilliant new film stocks and Arri has introduced a new Super 16 camera … looks like we are in for parallel film/digital development for quite some time.

Posted by John Koutsoumis (Member # 1855) on 06-15-2006, 02:59 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I noticed that the Panasonic varicam HD camera shoots at 60 frames a sec and outputs 24 frames (allowing film like slow motion,) I think it would be far more interesting if they could somehow project this image at the 60 frames.

Why HD? The Panavision / Photosonics 4E Camera can shoot up to 360 f.p.s variable (non-sync though). There are 16mm camera's that can whiz up to 500 f.p.s. [Wink]

Now try and project that on your 30ft screen [Eek!]

There is endless possibilities with film no need to go digital. But this is the fast paced "convenience" age.

quote:
Ultimately what we want is cinema to have a image better than available at home.

Bleh, you can have as much "resolution" on your screen as you like but it won't get me off my comfy sofa.

I'll wait until the impending return of 70mm (and better ideas/stories). Ah...yes...waiting "Hey Marge...get me a refill...coffee" [Embarrassed]

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 06-29-2006, 01:55 AM:

I have double checked, the Sony 4k is made up of 12 panels. 3x 4 panel. Apparently if it crashes you can see the 4 separate panels. It is seamless in operation normally. This occurred during a demo at the Australian Television and Radio school. Issues of low light level were raised. Overall it was considered impressive. At A$8 dollars per hour for the bulb very expensive to run.

[ 06-29-2006, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Cameron Glendinning ]

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-03-2006, 11:18 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
I have double checked, the Sony 4k is made up of 12 panels.

I'm 99% sure that it isn't 4 physically separate panels per color. The single 4k chip (per color) can be driven with 4 "panels" of 1080p resolution content.

The projector can display either one 4k image or four 2k images simultaneously.