Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Return To Neverland

This is topic Return To Neverland - Digital Only Presentation in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=000694

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 02-11-2002, 01:57 PM:

This is a first.

I will be showing "Return to Neverland" only on both DLP projectors. (At least for a while).

No film presentations.

This should be interesting.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 02-11-2002, 02:51 PM:

It'll probably flop! I have no desire to even see this "video".

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-11-2002, 04:31 PM:

I'm open-minded about d-cinema but I swear, if the final product turns out to be a dumbing-down of the image quality below what 35mm can do (on a good day), somebody deserves to be strung up. That applies to the current DLP stuff, whose pixel count needs to be at least doubled if not quadrupled. And everything else (contrast etc) better be at least as good if not better than film. THEN they might have something.

Paul, What size screen are you doing DLP with?

------------------
- dave
I want that North American cable deal!

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-11-2002, 06:50 PM:

David, I'm 1000% in agreement. Amelie was a lesson for me, because I didn't know about the digital components until after I saw it. When I first saw digital I was ga-ga.

Digital. Fe! Pitooie! Gag! Digital needs a new slogan "Bits done right." I haven't seen it done yet.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 02-12-2002, 12:07 AM:

<CRAZYRANT>

Digital can look truly awsome, but ONLY WHEN THE FEATURE IS COPIED DIRECTLY FROM A DIGITAL SOURCE. So far only a handfull of animated films have been realeased. The rest are transfered from a 35mm strip, in which case digital projection sucks. I am a PIXAR nut, so i saw Monsters, Inc. and Toy Story 2 several times on 35mm, then went to my local DLP theater and PAID to see the movies digitally. In both cases, Digital kicked the ass off 35mm.

I then went to see Jurassic Park 3 in DLP, which was transfered from a 35mm source, and it looked like

Star Wars EP2 will be a great digital showcase, as it was "filmed" digitally and will be transfered to DLP without ever touching film.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, do not pass judgement on DLP without seeing a feature that was created, edited, and transfered digitally.

</CRAZYRANT>

BTW, i dont know if return to Neverland will be transfered digitally or not, but if it is, the image quality will be great.

You have *2* DLP projectors at your theater???? Lucky Dog.

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 02-12-2002, 04:41 AM:

Well, ShoWest is coming up soon and we will see what the digital people have in store for us. From what I understand, for digital to even rival 35mm, the pixel dimensions would have to reach the 4k by 4k level. Also, I hear the contrast and black levels are not quite up to par yet either. Can anybody confirm this? I am sure John P. could. Correct me if I am wrong, isn't the common pixel ratio is approx. 1k by 1k? I can only see this looking decent on small screens.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-12-2002, 10:01 AM:

AFAIK, currently available DLP-Cinema technology is only 1280 x 1024 pixels. We'll see what announcements are made at ShoWest.

FWIW, my personal experience is that you could cast a very distinct shadow on the screen in the beam of a DLP-Cinema projector showing "black" on the screen. (AMC Empire 25, NYC, August 2001, after "Planet of the Apes" showing).

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 585-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 585-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-12-2002, 03:32 PM:

FWIW, Return to Neverland will be running in

and Dolby Digital at the El Capitan in Hollywood as well.

Just down the street at the ETC theater they've been testing the latest generation of TI's "black chip" imagers. 1920x1024 (or is it 1920x1080?) with improved blacks. Unfortunately I moved away from SoCal before I got a chance to see them--perhaps we'll get to see them at ShoWest. Supposedly the new chips will make their public debut with Star Wars II.

Cheers from a ShoWest (raw) fish eater!

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section
Underemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad Japanese pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-12-2002, 03:45 PM:

Paul said: "Just down the street at the ETC theater they've been testing the latest generation of TI's "black chip" imagers. 1920x1024 (or is it 1920x1080?) with improved blacks."

Are the fifty or so existing 1280 x 1024 pixel projectors obsolete, or can they be upgraded?

AFAIK, 1920 x 1080 pixels would match the current Sony HD cameras, with a HDTV 16:9 aspect ratio.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-12-2002, 04:02 PM:

I dunno..... DLP looked REALLY nice when I saw it at Paul's theater. They were playing Ocean's Eleven which I had seen on film the night before. I honestly had a hard time telling the difference. Only when you got REALLY close to the screen could you see aliasing and the like. DLP seems to be getting better all the time. Shouldn't be long before they can surpase 35mm resolution. Let's just hope they keep going and at least match 70mm resolution. Audiences deserve it!

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-12-2002, 06:28 PM:

Mike, I've seen both computer generated and film-originated images projected with TI's 1280x1024 DLP chips, and I've been disappointed in all cases. I can see the pixels. I can see jagged edges. It doesn't matter how good the source material is, there simply isn't enough resolution.

Paul, have you actually seen these higher resolution machines, or at least talked to someone who has worked directly with them? I hate to be skeptical, but I've been hearing rumors about TI having a higher resolution chip for about 4 or 5 years now. Until they actually have a public announcement and demonstration, it sounds like vaporware to me.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-12-2002, 06:40 PM:

Paul,

Do you think by any chance your two TI machines have the new "black chip"? I ask because you ARE in their hometown and I agree with Joe, that picture did look pretty good. The only problems I had with it were that in front the pixelation was still noticeable unless you stared into a bright area of the screen, but 1/2 of the way back it was not noticeable, at least in the couple of scenes we saw of it. Also, TI never did do that "electronic aperture" they told me about a few years back. You could see where the keystoning was throwing the corners off of the screen. Something that definitely stood out to me was the "digital sharpening". Granted it looked good and I'm sure it added a lot to the overall image, but there is definitely some "cheating" going on in the resolution department. It is kind of like sharpening a picture in Adobe PhotoShop. Sure it *looks* sharper, but it really isn't. It also could have been a bit brighter, even though I think you said it was a 7K DLP vs. a 4K 35mm film. Finally was the issue of contrast. Upon comparing it to a 35mm print, the film revealed a lot more details in the image and had a lot of "bite" to it that the DLP did not.

Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 02-12-2002, 06:55 PM:

Hey guys (Brad & Joe), I'm pretty sure I saw the same DLP presentation you saw ("Ocean's Eleven" at the Cinemark Legacy), and I have to disagree. I thought it needed serious improvement. The contrast and color looked very video-ish at times, and I could see pixels all throughout the movie. There were details in people's faces during longer shots that were quite clear in the 35mm version, but were lost with the 1280x1024 DLP version.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-12-2002, 07:18 PM:

Even though this is a "digital only" presentation, will your theatre still get one or more 35mm backup prints? This seems to be standard practice at the only DLP installation that I'm familiar with (Framingham). What happens if you want to move the "print" to a smaller house? I assume that the DLP machines are set up only in the two largest houses, correct?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-12-2002, 08:37 PM:

I wouldn't presume to question the good things some of you are saying here about your impressions of seeing films shown in the current version of DLP. I haven't seen DLP myself. But I have a few comments.

This article by Kodak sums up the current state of digital technology fairly well (with a Kodak slant of course): http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/digital/kennelP.shtml They say the horizontal resolution of "typical" 35mm release prints is about 2000 pixels. The 35mm camera negative is 4000 pixels. Current professional digital cameras capture about 1500 pixels and have far less "dynamic range" than film.

Current DLP projectors have 1280 x 1024 resolution, or about 1.2M pixels total (not all are used of course). Kodak's competing D-ILA system has 2048 x 1536 pixels, or 3M pixels total.

So just looking at the numbers, I am baffled as to how a 1280 x 1024 digital display on a typical multiplex-sized screen (say, 40 feet wide in scope?) can look anywhere close to 35mm film. It doesn't seem remotely possible based on the facts.

Is there something else going on? Most people look at a DirectTV broadcast and think it looks good. But their impression is maybe being colored by the fact that satellite signals do not suffer from snow, ghosting, faint herringbone patterns, or other artifacts that are normal with cable or over-the-air TV. But funny thing is, you NEVER hear DirecTV talk about the RESOLUTION of their picture. Why? Because the resolution is actually terrible. (Pay-per-view broadcasts seem to be given more bandwidth and better resolution, but still nothing to get excited about.)

For a while, I had DirectTV with a subscription to the major networks (ABC, NBC, etc), as well as a conventional analog cable TV hookup for local stations. I was able to easily switch between satellite and local cable for the same content. What I discovered is that even though the cable TV signal had some ugly artifacts coming along for the ride, it also had FAR better overall picture resolution. Details in people's faces that were easy to see on cable were missing on satellite, things like creases in the skin or small blemishes. On satellite, it looked like closeups of faces were "homogenized" or painted uniformly. The detail was just not there.

This doesn't necessarily prove anything with regard to d-cinema. But you can't help wondering if favorable impressions about d-cinema are at least partly due to the absense of jitter, weave, etc. and don't fully take into account the actual resolution on the screen. Same as DirectTV and "digital cable" can claim "Delivered with Digital Clarity!!" but they refuse to talk about the real resolution. The "digital clarity" is superficial if you look hard.

Brad mentioned artifical sharpness and other "tricks" to spiff up the digital image. Is that what they're doing? You can't get "something" from "nothing". Visual trickery doesn't cut it.

------------------
- dave
Look at this! His chin strap has been cut!

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-12-2002, 10:21 PM:

John asked if the present machines are upgradable to the new chips. Personally, I don't know. But I would think that the machines can be upgraded. BTW that question was also asked over on the DCinema Zone forum and so far there's been no answer over there either.

Regarding Aaron's question, the new chips have been mentioned at a couple of the SMPTE Hollywood Section meetings I've attended. (3rd-generation I think. Sounds like a detergent ad, "Now with blacker blacks!") As John mentioned, the new chips match the resolution of the Sony cameras used to originate Star Wars II. Sorry, I have not seen the latest chips myself nor have I talked to anyone who has, but I don't think they are vaporware. The last chips I saw were the current 2G ones at the El Capitan about six months ago (Atlantis) and the ETC a little over a year ago. These 2G chips looked a lot better than the 1G ones used for Star Wars I at the AMC Media Center in Burbank. Those 1G chips suffered from very visible scalloped fixed-pattern noise. Since the summer of 1999 there has been quite an improvement in these chips.

Yes, you can still see pixels with the 2G chips if you sit too close or if you are really looking for them. At the El Cap (screen ~50' wide for scope) I like to sit in the balcony, and at the ETC (~60' wide for scope) near the back, in order to minimize this. At those distances (roughly 4-5 screen heights) with the current chips I believe the average theater-goer wouldn't notice the pixel artifacts.

Oh, don't get me started on edge enhancement! Seems like everyone uses too much. Too much detail or too much aperture correction (boy am I dating myself) are just fancy ways of adding noise to a picture.

Anyway, here's hoping we get to see the latest 3G stuff at ShoWest!

Paul
SMPTE Hollywood Section; temporarily sloughed in Las Vegas
Underemployed mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-13-2002, 01:16 AM:

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention:

7k bulb for DLP vs 4k bulb for film on the same screen? They really need to fix that. Xenons not be cheap! While what I saw looked pretty good, they still do have a long way to go before it is cheap enough for exhibitors to consider it as a replacement for film.

Like I said, they need 70mm quality and they also need to be able to project it on HUGE (80 foot +) screens with the same size or even smaller xenons. I wish we had a registered TI rep we could throw our questions at.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 02-14-2002, 12:08 AM:

I will answer the questions asked here. The only one I don't have the information handy on is the screen size.

Scott: Yes, we will have 35mm film prints for backup. I have one setup in the big house (563 seats) and the other in a medium (266 seats). This is how we were able to keep Oceans 11 running for 9 weeks on DLP and other titles. Schedule will probably work out the the large house is occupied for 2 weeks before being release to a new film print. Medium house will run for at least 2 more weeks before attendance forces to go to film prints.

Brad: The chips are the original black chips. I do expect that the heads will be replaced with the new Mark VII heads in time for EP 2.
I have not heard anything about a new chip with "Blacker blacks" although I wouldn't put it past them and being developed.

Screen size I will have in the next couple of days.

Paul.

Posted by Wes Hughes (Member # 981) on 02-14-2002, 02:47 AM:

Dave, I agree with you about satellite and digital cable. The cable company came around a year or so ago and offered us a FREE upgrade to DIGITAL cable! We took the new reciever box and hooked it up. It SUCKED! The only thing good was the channel guide! I called them back and told them I didn't want the digital cable anymore...i wanted my old cable back. They acted very surprised !

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-14-2002, 10:28 AM:

Digital cable (at least the version offered here) is a total joke if you care about picture quality. It looks like bad VHS. DirecTV isn't much better. I was so disillusioned with DirecTV at one point that I called them to cancel the service. They asked me why and I told them it's because on their "standard" channels, the picture looks like crap on my 53" TV (pay-per-view is acceptable). They were "shocked" to hear this -- why, there must be something wrong with my receiver or dish. No, sorry guys, it's your picture. I know you're just a service rep, but tell your engineering dept. that at least 1 customer knows what you're doing with bandwidth allocation tricks that reduce resolution. I finally scaled down the subscription to their most basic service, which gets me pay-per-view movies and not much more, for $8/mo.

------------------
- dave
Look at this! His chin strap has been cut!

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-14-2002, 10:41 AM:

David, I'm very surprised with your report of problems with Direc-TV. We have it going into a Hitachi Ultravision and the picture is outstanding on TCM and most of the other channels, to the point that differences in origination feed can be apparent.

I wonder if your area has a bad transponder aimed at it, or perhaps this could somehow be linked to Direc-PC usage? The only times we get poor reception is during heavy rain fade or the spring/fall sunouts.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-14-2002, 11:10 AM:

Jerry, not to be argumentative, but it's definitely not a transponder or receiver problem. Like I said, pay-per-view movies and events actually look pretty good. But the standard fare such as Fox news, AMC, etc. all look like the resolution is no better than VHS. To see what I'm talking about, you need to do a direct comparison of the same broadcast via satellite vs. good analog cable or over-the-air. The satellite picture looks superficially good, but detail is sorely lacking.

DirectTV and DishNetwork have a fixed amount of bandwidth available for all their channels combined. That is, the transponder has "n" megabits total, which has to be split up between all the channels being carried. The more channels they carry (like when they add local TV stations), the less bandwidth is available for each channel. They can dynamically increase or decrease bandwidth to individual channels, and ppv shows get more than, say, news channels.

------------------
- dave
Look at this! His chin strap has been cut!

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 02-14-2002, 11:27 AM:

Hmmm. What I thought could be origination differences in picture quality could be allocation issues? Interesting. Our viewing habits may just happen to hit on channels that get decent bandwidth. I'll admit to Tivoing stuff like "Who's Line Is It, Anyway?" at a lower quality anyway, so I wouldn't notice the difference on those channels. I don't consider it argumentative when someone with a greater knowledge brings me up to speed.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-14-2002, 08:08 PM:

I guess the topic has drifted a bit, but regarding DirecTV, I used to be a spacecraft software engineer for PanAmSat, the company that flies the DirecTV birds. DTV uses varying amounts of compression depending on the service--movies get more BW than the other services, so movies tend to look a little better than the other services.

When DTV won the right to carry local programming, they had to increase the amount of compression they use on all services in order to fit the new traffic aboard the then existing payloads, resulting in an increase in visible compression artifacts. Very soon the new DirecTV 4S will be on-line (maybe it is already). The D4S bird (the 'S' means 'spot') will carry the local traffic for the 26 designated markets with a spot beam for each. That will allow the other birds in the constellation to return to lower levels of compression, which should result in better pictures. BTW the DTV HD services weren't affected by any of this--they're on a separate bird.

As for other signal degradations, all of the DTV services are at Ku band, which is somewhat more susceptible to rain fade than C band. I'm not sure about sunspot effects at Ku band, but there are sun outages, which are another issue entirely. Basically you only have to deal with those for a couple of minutes on a couple of days during each equinox. Ephemeris predicts for sun outages are readily available for use by TVRO owners or earth station operators.

And now, back to the movies!

Paul
Mercenary film/video projectionist/engineer
Member, Otakus Over Forty
"Otaku wa tsurai yo" <-- Yeah I know, bad pun. Sue me.
It's tough being a fan!

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-15-2002, 12:24 AM:

I have also observed that digital compression on Dish Network has been much more distracting lately than it was several months ago. For example, if you watch a typical interview and the man who's speaking is moving his head while speaking, his eyes might not move in synch with the rest of his face. He nods and his eyes (which are a different color from his skin) take a half a second to move in relation to the rest of his head.

It's awful! I don't know why they even bother to put an S-Video output on the receiver because that just makes it look worse! On the other hand, watching a DVD from an S-Video connection looks great.