Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Maybe 4k has a real chance after all

This is topic Maybe 4k has a real chance after all 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=005249

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-19-2007, 11:03 AM:

I'm a little surprised to see this press release. Maybe AMC is trading in all their SDDS units for credit.

I found the following release at AMC to install 54 Screens of Sony 4K

Sony to Install SXRD 4K Digital Cinema Systems in Four New AMC Theatres
A Total of 54 Screens to Use 4K Technology

Sony SRX-R220 Sony Electronics is equipping four of AMC Theatres' new movie theatres with CineAlta™ SXRD™ 4K digital cinema systems.

Sony will provide 54 SXRD 4K digital cinema systems at new AMC theatres in Dallas (12 screens); Indianapolis (14 screens); Riverside, Calif. (16 screens); and San Diego (12 screens). Work will begin next month, with the theaters scheduled to open in December.

The theaters will feature a combination of Sony's SRX-R210 10,000 lumen* model and the SRX-R220 18,000 lumen* unit. The systems, which were specifically designed for theater applications, will be paired with Sony's LMT-100 Media Block servers.

"This inaugural effort with AMC Entertainment is the latest example of the exhibition and motion picture industry's continued adoption of 4K digital cinema technology," said John Scarcella, president of Sony Electronics' Broadcast and Business Solutions Company.

Sony's digital cinema team will work with AMC to provide technical support for the systems and operations management at all four locations.

"Our goal with SXRD digital cinema technology has been to deliver unmatched levels of resolution, contrast and overall image quality," said Gary Johns, a Sony vice president in charge of its Digital Cinema Systems Division.

The 4K digital projection systems for the new AMC theatres are designed to be compliant to the Digital Cinema Initiatives specification – providing 2K and 4K playback/projection, interoperability with currently installed systems and full-wrap security. They will be linked to Sony's Screen Management System.

The motion picture industry recently announced that it is working with major cinematographers to start production on 4K originated features, and the industry has accelerated development of 4K cameras in recent months. Johns said that Sony also intends to build a complete system of digital cinematography production equipment, including 4K acquisition, storage and infrastructure solutions.

* ANSI Lumen is a standard measuring method of the American National Standards Institute IT7.228. Since there are multiple methods of measuring brightness, the way that brightness is specified will vary among manufacturers.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-19-2007, 12:03 PM:

Of course AMC isn't about to be outdone by a small chain like Muvico. The other thing is that the big three AMC, Regal, and Cinemark have all agreed that 4K is not yet ready, that was put in print in some article earlier this year but I don't remember where. At 190K a booth 4K won't get too far in other circles very fast. Prices still have to drop. Also, the big three have secured billions for conversion from Wall Street investors so all they have to do is write a check for what ever route(s) they decide to go.

P.S. You can bet that in this sales agreement AMC has stipulated that Sony sell them all the remaining 4K units in their warehouse when the 4K thing goes bust just like they did with Sony & SDDS!

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-19-2007, 12:33 PM:

Have there been any actual 4k releases derived from 4k scans of the camera negative, or are all the 4k units now being used to show upconverted 2k material?

Do upconverted 2k releases look better when projected with the Sony unit vs. 2k DLP? (I have yet to see a 4k presentation.)

Perhaps 4k could be the "digital 70mm" equivalent? In a way, that would be kind of sad, but I do like to think that there is a market for a high-end product, even if it isn't even close to the resolution of actual 70mm film.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-19-2007, 12:55 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Have there been any actual 4k releases derived from 4k scans of the camera negative, or are all the 4k units now being used to show upconverted 2k material?

I'm pretty sure Spiderman 3 was scanned at 4K (effects still done at 2k) and I think the DaVinci Code also.

quote: Scott Norwood
Perhaps 4k could be the "digital 70mm" equivalent? In a way, that would be kind of sad, but I do like to think that there is a market for a high-end product, even if it isn't even close to the resolution of actual 70mm film.

Although it won't look nearly as good as 65mm originated 70mm projection, based on extrapolating 2k digital projection (since I've never seen 4k) I think it has the potential to look almost as good on screen as a 35mm originated blow up to 70mm. Not looking as good as something 65mm originated is irrelevant since the only things being originated on 65mm anymore are IMAX films.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-19-2007, 01:24 PM:

Am I the only person who is giving Sony's system ZERO interest??? I mean I am all for 4K projection, but after SDDS and all those amazing quantities of 8 channel releases...nope, not me.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-19-2007, 01:41 PM:

Agreed about SDDS.

Still, I take the position that we all care about high-quality theatrical presentations. If the 4k Sony unit is capable of producing a better image than the 2k DLP units, then shouldn't we all support this? (Not as an alternative to film, but as an alternative to 2k DLP.)

A large installed base of 4k units will a) encourage film distributors to make releases available in 4k and b) encourage the development of a 4k DLP chip (or other competing 4k technology).

If Sony goes bust or otherwise prematurely ends support for the 4k unit, I don't necessary see a problem since a) it is not my money that is tied up in an unsupported technology and b) it might just encourage exhibitors to think twice about a wholesale conversion from film to digital projection. Since I happen to like film, I don't see that as a problem. If Sony does support these units properly, then at least we end up with better-looking images than if everyone bought the 2k DLP units.

If it were my money, I wouldn't consider buying any of the digital projection equipment that is presently on the market for presentation of feature films. The technology is still immature and I have no doubt that next year's models will be better and cheaper than what is available now. Since no distributor is yet trying to force a conversion, I don't see any need for theatre owners to rush into this just yet.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-19-2007, 04:26 PM:

There exists a 4K scan of Dr. Strangelove that ran at the Seattle Symphony Hall screening room.... where a Sony 4K projector also exists. Would they do any less for Stan the man.....?

quote: Brad Miller
Am I the only person who is giving Sony's system ZERO interest??? I mean I am all for 4K projection, but after SDDS and all those amazing quantities of 8 channel releases...nope, not me.

Brad... Now you're starting to sound like me. Now why do you hate Sony... please explain for Mike Heenan...

Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-19-2007, 04:39 PM:

It's not so much Sony, it's the fact that this industry for the most part (meaning there are exceptions), does not care about quality. Just look at the wildly varying level of quality in prints alone. Some release prints are bouncy, bouncey, bouncey while others are amazingly steady, and the offending prints can generally be traced down to a particular lab or labs, yet the studios keep printing there! Likewise the depots don't inspect any more and there is no penalty for a theater trashing a print, so again the studios don't care how bad their movies look (because a print that is returned in bad condition means that theater was presenting that quality to their audience). And this is just picking on the studio end of things. We all know what problems lie in various theaters in regards to quality, or the customers that continue to accept worse and worse presentations. Everyone talks it up on their press releases, but few actually deliver what they claim.

As such, TRUE quality in this industry hardly matters anymore. 2K is plenty fine for the task with the attitudes out there. To most people, it's all about money, not quality. Ultimately that attitude will be the demise of movie theaters.

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 10-19-2007, 04:55 PM:

There is another 4K option coming . . . . . last estimate I heard was a 4K chip in 3-4 months and a working prototype for field testing in an additional 7-10 months . . . . . if they can make it work it sounds like it could perform much better than all current solutions. The company is Photonica - they used to be Panorama Labs but they formed a new company and bought out the Australian side.

Link to Cinematech blurb about Photonica

I find it laughable that Sony's solution to DCI encryption and FIPS requirements is to lock the projector and server in a large steel box.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-19-2007, 08:39 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
it's the fact that this industry for the most part (meaning there are exceptions), does not care about quality.

All quality in the cinema died along with Michael Todd. But then he was way before your time.

Mark

Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 10-19-2007, 09:14 PM:

Mark--

You're not whistling dixie there! Mike Todd was THE KING of
SHOWMANSHIP and no one today can even approach his "quality"
of screen presentation.
[thumbsup]

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-19-2007, 09:40 PM:

Nah Mark, now you just sound like an old coot. There was quality in my time, just not in recent years.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-19-2007, 10:02 PM:

Sony should forget about making any money off 4K theatrical and instead use it as a powerful marketing tool to promote SXRD to the masses. Sell the projectors to exhibitors at cost, or even a loss, while using some kind of flashy SXRD promo snipe at the front of every feature to boost the sale of SXRD TVs. And of course this all assumes the Sony projectors & servers are reliable and that Sony properly supports them.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 10-20-2007, 01:15 AM:

quote: the article
Sony's SRX-R210 10,000 lumen* model and the SRX-R220 18,000 lumen* unit.

My opinion:
The numbers above are an indication of why Sony is going to fall behind. 18,000 lumens is only suitable for 40ft or smaller screens.

Some key points about these projectors:
To achieve 18,000 lumens, two high wattage xenon lamps must be used. Meanwhile, Christie and Barco are pumping out projectors that produce 30,000 lumens or more using a single 6.5K lamp. SXRD technology just isn't efficient with the light. The LCOS chips absorb much of the heat from the lamps, so cooling is an issue.

Also, Cinelink2 is a TI technology that isn't licensed to be used with the Sony Product. Therefore, Sony used their own proprietary media block (aka: server) that is incorporated into the projector unit. This had to be done to comply with DCI since the encryption is handled differently than in a normal DLP based setup. This adds cost to the projector, and eliminates the ability to select a different server (if a 4K server became available from a 3rd party)

I just don't see the point in spending the money on a projector that has the resolution to fill an 80 foot screen, but lacks the light to do so.

These key points are the reason that I've not had much interest in the product.

I've heard nothing but negative things about these in the field, and the AMC-Sony thing has been floating around here for a while. I seem to remember reading an article like this quite a while ago.

Also, there's still the lingering weariness in regards to how Sony supported the SDDS product.

quote: the article
* ANSI Lumen is a standard measuring method of the American National Standards Institute IT7.228. Since there are multiple methods of measuring brightness, the way that brightness is specified will vary among manufacturers.

This is choice. What is this statement for??? I get the feeling that the intention of including this was to make the reader think that "Oh, maybe the other projector companies are measuring their light in a way that makes it higher" [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 10-20-2007, 02:11 AM:

I swear when I read the title I thought it said "Maybe 4K has a REEL CHANGE afterall." Now that would have been interesting.

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 10-20-2007, 11:17 AM:

I've had one of those SONY 4K projectors for over a year now.

I hope they told AMC about how to play 3D with it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2007, 01:55 PM:

quote: Scott Norwood
Have there been any actual 4k releases derived from 4k scans of the camera negative, or are all the 4k units now being used to show upconverted 2k material?

Sony has done several 4K quality productions (both CGI and final digital intermediate). I could have sworn Warner Bros. has done so as well, but can't tell you titles from memory. I just remember seeing blurbs here and there in various articles. However, I think the occasional 4K work has been done more for the benefit of 35mm film print quality than that of digital cinema release.

Although companies like Sony could do so, I haven't heard of virtual print hard discs going out to theaters in 4K form.

Maybe someone else can confirm this, but doesn't the Dolby Digital Cinema server and Doremi DCP-2000 server both have the capability of ingesting a 4K DCI format virtual print and scaling the image down to 2K for projectors like Christie's CP2000?

I agree with Brad's comment that the people running the movie business only seem to care about the money and not about quality. With their business model so front-loaded as to get the movie onto sell through home video release as quickly as possible good quality movie theater presentations have become a casualty of that narrow minded business strategy.

Another random thought: does anyone know what digital projection system Warren Theatres in Wichita, KS have chosen (if any choice has been made yet)? Progress is really coming along on their huge new movie theater complex in Moore, OK. It's likely it will open with digital projectors on all 20 screens. I have a feeling Sony's 4K machine would be a long shot, although something in 4K native resolution would be far better on a 80' wide screen than mere 2K. Christie/AccessIT or Dolby appear much more likely to win the contract.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-20-2007, 03:38 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
Nah Mark, now you just sound like an old coot.

Thats because I am!

quote: Bobby Henderson
Maybe someone else can confirm this, but doesn't the Dolby Digital Cinema server and Doremi DCP-2000 server both have the capability of ingesting a 4K DCI format virtual print and scaling the image down to 2K for projectors like Christie's CP2000?

They have 4K playback capability but not right out of the box. I'm also not sure about the capability of the server scaling the 4K data back down to 2K...

quote: Bobby Henderson
I agree with Brad's comment that the people running the movie business only seem to care about the money and not about quality. With their business model so front-loaded as to get the movie onto sell through home video release as quickly as possible good quality movie theater presentations have become a casualty of that narrow minded business strategy.

I don't know what planet everyone else here is from but the entire world economy has been money driven for hundreds of years now. Quality has always been an option that few... even very few of the wealthy are willing to pay for.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2007, 04:32 PM:

Maybe the "quality" term needs a bit of paraphrasing. These days, "high quality" equates simply to doing a job correctly, not really at the highest possible standard.

Much of the movie theater business has been lapsing from doing a job at satisfactory levels to merely doing at little as one can to barely get by. Any business that lives by that anti-ethic is ultimately doomed.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-20-2007, 05:05 PM:

quote:
Have there been any actual 4k releases derived from 4k scans of the camera negative,

Not many but they exist. In Australia I believe a small art house film "10 canoes" was our first 35mm prints at 4k level. Ironically when released in the UK it was a digital 16/9 pan and scan version was shown?

A friend of mine just tested the new Red camera for a cinematography society. He tells me that its RED RAW output is actually 6k, but this level of output would only be used for scientific purposes.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-20-2007, 05:16 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
lapsing from doing a job at satisfactory levels to merely doing at little as one can to barely get by. Any business that lives by that anti-ethic is ultimately doomed.

Naaaaah...the fast food business has used that business model for 50 years and it just keeps growing! [Big Grin]

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 10-20-2007, 08:22 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Maybe someone else can confirm this, but doesn't the Dolby Digital Cinema server and Doremi DCP-2000 server both have the capability of ingesting a 4K DCI format virtual print and scaling the image down to 2K for projectors like Christie's CP2000?

In addition to Mark's comments. DCI spec requires that any 4K content be backwards compatible with 2K players, and that all servers are able to play back both 2K and 4K packages. This doesn't mean that 2K servers need to be able to playback 4K at full res, just that they are able to play the 4K package at 2K.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-20-2007, 11:27 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Much of the movie theater business has been lapsing from doing a job at satisfactory levels to merely doing at little as one can to barely get by. Any business that lives by that anti-ethic is ultimately doomed.

Bobby,

All types of buisnesses have been lapsing from satisfactory to barely acceptable all over the place.... This barely acceptable policy seems to have become the defacto standard of today's economy.... was also the norm in manufacturing since the beginning of manufacturing. Buisnesses that want to operate this way are hardly doomed.... buisness is booming in general for just about everyone and the sales index of goods was up last month quite a bit.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-21-2007, 12:54 AM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Buisnesses that want to operate this way are hardly doomed.... buisness is booming in general for just about everyone and the sales index of goods was up last month quite a bit.

If you're going to defend that profane bullshit then don't ever complain about poor quality product in anything ever again. And be prepared to have Red Communist China move you out of your job. When we want to do business in the vacant, pathetic level of not even trying, we absolutely deserve to be defeated.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-21-2007, 05:49 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
When we want to do business in the vacant, pathetic level of not even trying, we absolutely deserve to be defeated.

You think the Chinese aren't that way also... they invented it. Having been around many more centuries than we have. The latest rash of lead tainted toys is a very good example. In manufacturing providing the least product for the most profit possible is the de facto standard. Fix it later not now and slow production is another standard. There are many good examples of this... The big three auto makers are probably the best one with their recalls, airliner manufacturers are another example. The HD-DVD and Blew Ray thing is another... units were sold at first that would barely function... some options on HD-DVD didn't even work correctly until firmware upgrades came along with the fix. D-Cinema is another with its many firmware fixes... I could name a large list of others if you'd like but the school of making the most profit with the least input... even if the product isn't quite 100% yet school of thinking will never change.

Of course there are all levels of quality available in manufactured goods and thats why the better the product the more it costs to buy with optics being a very good example.

Mark

Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 10-21-2007, 11:40 AM:

did someone say China?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-21-2007, 04:57 PM:

Yea Richard... and speaking if China you might want to read what all your buddies are subjected to while working over there in those super modern commie run factories.... American Imports, Chinese Deaths

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-21-2007, 06:52 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
You think the Chinese aren't that way also... they invented it. Having been around many more centuries than we have. The latest rash of lead tainted toys is a very good example. In manufacturing providing the least product for the most profit possible is the de facto standard.

yes but wasnt it both Mattel and Walmart, American businesses that have pressured these factories to produce there products so cheaply that they were not up to a legal Chinese health standard so that they could not actually be sold in China ? Does that mean that Capatalism has pressured Commies to produce dangerious products to flood the world?

What a strange time we live in.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-21-2007, 07:16 PM:

I read it, about what I expected. One of the U.S. importers stated that it was like the U.S. in the '40s. More like the 1890s to mid teens I expect.

What we need to export to China is lawyers and plenty of them. The sooner we can have them sueing each other, their employers,
the government, the medical system, etc. the sooner they will have a safer work environment and the cost of Chinese goods on the world market will rise to the point where they will be competitive with the rest of the world.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-21-2007, 07:17 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Does that mean that Capatalism has pressured Commies to produce dangerious products to flood the world?

I'm sure that companies like Wal-Mart don't help the situation but over here in the U.S. all known tainted toys have been re-called and as far as I know returned to mainland China. With the tight restrictions we have here the manufacturers over there had to know that this would eventually bite them in the leg sooner than later. Even before Wal-Mart got to be what it is today China had horrible safety/health records for their working population. I can remember a report on 60 Minuites back when I was a kid in HIgh School that showed what the factory workers over there put up with every day... deplorable to say the least.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
to produce there products so cheaply that they were not up to a legal Chinese health standard

Thats the problem... there is no equivelent Chinese OSHA... if the Chinese had a workers health/safety standard to begin with this would have never happened in the first place.

Mark

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-21-2007, 07:29 PM:

Thanks for the earlier link Mark, very sad but informative.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 10-21-2007, 08:12 PM:

(not to continue off-topic, but have to put my 3 cents in..)

..almost sounds and looks like "white slavery"... And you wonder why the price of gasoline has risen...from the last statement in 'feeding the US Marketplace' due to the massive increase of oil purchases by the Chinese to fuel their factories.

and buying SUVS doesn't help in the matter..

What a viscious circle of events that has been created due to the 'supply and demand' syndrome that this country has fallen into.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-21-2007, 08:32 PM:

YAWN...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-21-2007, 09:41 PM:

quote: Monte L Fullmer
..almost sounds and looks like "white slavery"...

To say the least... And Richard thinks these folks are just like everyone else and that every things fine and dandy... I guess they are great illusionists towards us Americans and they sure pulled the wool over his eyes...

Mark

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-22-2007, 11:23 AM:

Back to topic.........

quote: Tristan Lane
Some key points about these projectors:
To achieve 18,000 lumens, two high wattage xenon lamps must be used. Meanwhile, Christie and Barco are pumping out projectors that produce 30,000 lumens or more using a single 6.5K lamp. SXRD technology just isn't efficient with the light. The LCOS chips absorb much of the heat from the lamps, so cooling is an issue.

Maybe you should tell sony that the projector requires 2 bulbs because that's not what the spec says. From the spec available online:

Lamp SRX-R220: 4.2 kW Xenon lamp x 1
SRX-R210: 3.0 kW** Xenon lamp x 1 or
2.0 kW** Xenon lamp x 1

According to the spec, the SRX-R220 puts out 18,000 lumens with one (1) 4.2 kW Xenon lamp.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-22-2007, 05:06 PM:

keeping it on topic

Now that the cheap $20 000 Red Camera has been released, with its raw data having a potential 6k resolution possible, which is clearly higher resolution than any 35mm camera! I feel 4k is going to be a real option, real soon.

Interesting to think that those that keep 35mm projection will be able, if film is done right, due to 4k internegs becomeing standard for 35mm prints, will allow a higher quality image than those that have spent a fortune on 2k gear (for close to hdtv or the emerging home standards.)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-22-2007, 06:36 PM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Now that the cheap $20 000 Red Camera has been released, with its raw data having a potential 6k resolution possible, which is clearly higher resolution than any 35mm camera! I feel 4k is going to be a real option, real soon.

Cameron,
The 20 grand is just for the camera head.... you still need glass and all the usual crap to completely outfit the camera. Well over 250 grand by the time you're done... you will still need the fancy Zeiss or Panavision optics to get good images and camera glass always costs about ten times the cost of the camera.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Interesting to think that those that keep 35mm projection will be able, if film is done right, due to 4k internegs becomeing standard for 35mm prints, will allow a higher quality image than those that have spent a fortune on 2k gear (for close to hdtv or the emerging home standards.)

There is no standard for digital intermediate... in fact most are still being done at 2K. I too hope that some day 4K is a reality but at this point in time you have to spend two fortunes to get it. Not the measly single fortune it takes to get 2K. $85K for a complete 2K booth and $190K for a complete 4K booth with only 16,000 lumens output... there is a slight difference there man, some 2K projectors can do around 30,000 lumens. I certainly don't predict being able to buy a 4K projector down at the corner drugstore any time in the near future. Then someone also has to build a goofy standards converter to convert that 6K camera RAW do-do to 4K. That will also be very expensive and may not be able to run in real time as thats one heck of alot of data! Ok, I'll predict 100 grand for that accessory.

It all sums up to that 4K projection is here before its time... sort of the Edsal of D-Cinema.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 10-22-2007, 10:08 PM:

quote: Lyle Romer
Maybe you should tell sony that the projector requires 2 bulbs because that's not what the spec says.

Ditch the sarcasm.

I was incorrect in regards to the 210/220. I was basing my knowledge on old information...and old models.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 10-22-2007, 11:16 PM:

Mark. Im not in the market to buy one! If your making a feature its always safer, cheaper and easier to insure, if you rent. For what its worth the RED its still just a glorified digital still camera sensor but $20 000 is a extremly low start price point for a camera head to do a 4k feature with, with the other notable finacal incentive of no need for a multimillion dollar raw stock budget.....

Personally I'm not a betting man, but I dont think cinemas are going to have it too easy when 2k reaches saturation point in both homes and cinemas.
Cinema has traded since the mid nineteen fifties on the reputation of quality "unseen on tv" with cinemascope, 70mm, digital sound ect. I only seems to be able to get an idea of how real the value and the scale of this commodity of "cinema quality" is by looking at the billions of dollars being spent in the growing home audio visual market.

Personally seeing the emergence of technology which will could evolve to exceed 35mm excites me. Its been a long time coming. A 4k camera and a 4k projector is a lot more exciting than a projector by itself. Perhaps its a chicken or egg story but the ideal of aiming to better seems like a good start. Any reason for an increase in 4k workflow will also improve the look of well projected 35mm eventually. Cinema can still claim to have an edge.

I guess Im just interested in seeing if or when cinema has its next fightback.

Posted by Ron Curran (Member # 3631) on 10-23-2007, 12:16 AM:

You have a point, Cameron.

Studios act as if theatrical is no longer important and point to the massive profits of the aftermarket. But if cinemas all became redundant, that aftermarket would collapse to about the state of commercial tv.

As for production, costs depend on many factors as you know. In some circumstances, you could buy a nice used Arri Super 16 and a lot of stock before you paid the rental on an equvalent digi set up.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-23-2007, 07:50 AM:

Cameron,
Have you actually sat and watched a presentation of a properly set up 2K system on a 70 foot wide screen? I have yet to meet anyone that hasn't been impressed.

As for rental instead of purchase... keep in mind that the average Panavision camera package totals well over a million $$ for use on the average feature shoot. While you have the virtual guarantee of the Panavision system behind you on the film indeed it may be less expensive to purchase... even with really good glass. Film stock and processing costs on a feature shoot are but a tiny dot of the total budget today. Shooting 65mm only doubles the stock costs but other costs such as the lab and opticals go out of sight. Shooting is often slowed down drastically as well because not as many cameras/lenses are available and reloads take a bit longer. I've seen 35mm reloads done in 15 seconds!

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-23-2007, 01:43 PM:

quote: Bill Enos
What we need to export to China is lawyers and plenty of them.

Here here!
[beer]

The United States doesn't need 70% of the world's attorneys!

To get back to topic, projection quality will get only so good based on the quality of the original material.

I'm all for 4K, even if it has Sony's brand name "infecting" it, so long as at least a decent amount of movie material is being rendered in native 4K resolution.

Unfortunately that's not the case right now -even despite the massive geometric levels of improvement in computer processing power that have been made during this decade. Hollywood prefers to translate all that increased power into ever faster and cheaper 2K renderings.

It even seems like it's a waste anymore to find really good 35mm film projection unless you're watching an older movie on it. Most movies these days are funneled through a 2K resolution digital intermediate bottleneck. You're not gaining anything watching a film print of a movie that was digitized at roughly HDTV resolution anyway. You have to go "old school" analog from film camera to film projector to preserve the quality (and do things correctly at every stage) -or perhaps have everything in the digital work flow rendered at higher levels like 4K or more.

Computer technology and Internet delivery may eventually smash the 1920 X 1080 HDTV barrier and propel movie storage formats well beyond that. Lots of new computer games are tailored for display on 30" monitors with 2560 X 1600 native resolutions. Computer monitors will certainly go bigger and sharper than that (along with pulling double duty as HDTV sets). The Internet can bypass the limitations of a 6MHz broadcast signal or the 30GB to 50GB storage capacity of HD movie discs. The Internet is going to get much faster and ultimately destroy traditional models of media broadcasting.

With all that potential out there, I think its foolhardy for Hollywood to have so much of its product locked into 2K resolution (or even lower with certain video-based origination). We're stuck with 2K now, but I don't think 2K will be able to hang around for a long time.

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Personally seeing the emergence of technology which will could evolve to exceed 35mm excites me. Its been a long time coming.

It will continue to be a long time in coming. Video cameras still have a ways to go to match 35mm on image resolution. But the even more challenging aspect is capturing superior color and motion quality. Portions of digitally originated movies like Miami Vice didn't look all that great due to image smear from the camera sensors struggling with low light subject matter. You can under-expose a film image, but not get any video smear at all.

One of the nice things with shooting in "analog" is you can scan that analog original at higher resolution levels without the image quality falling apart. It's not so easy to "up rez" a digital image without it turning into a soft, funky mess.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-02-2007, 03:48 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Have you actually sat and watched a presentation of a properly set up 2K system on a 70 foot wide screen? I have yet to meet anyone that hasn't been impressed.

Well no I have not! Ive only seen a demo on a more regular sized screen. Mark I do not doubt you when you say its good! My issue is how good Blue Ray and HD DVD are and the percieved value of cinema quality. ie will peoples movie going habits be affected.

Statistically here in Australia people see on average 45 movies per year, this figure has remained constant since the 1920's. The major difference today is that in the 20's all these movies were seen in cinemas! Today only 3 of these movies will be seen in a cinema with the other 42 being seen via cable and free to air tv or DVD ect.

If home 2k changes that balance even in the short term, like vhs did, many cinemas will be lost.

Personally I now tend to pay to watch more movies at home since I bought a big screen for the backyard, even though I can watch them for free at work.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-02-2007, 06:45 PM:

No, Mark I haven't watched 2K on a 70 ft.screen, but I have seen 2K on our 26 ft. 1.85 screen. Not bad I'll admit. In the first 2 or 3 rows pixels are about as visible as film grain at the same distance. No contest on steadiness, blacks are dark gray in most instances, I'd say film and digi each have their limitations. Shot to 70 ft. I think it and 35 would be just about equal except for the steadiness which is to say neither would be very good. The film demoed was Leagally Blond I. Was able to compare 35 & 2K.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 11-03-2007, 05:37 AM:

quote: Cameron Glendinning
My issue is how good Blue Ray and HD DVD are and the percieved value of cinema quality

Cameron,

I invite you, when you have a chance to play an HD-DVD or Blu-ray on a big screen, using a quality scaler, on a 2K project. You will see (as I have) how much of a difference there is between the user-grade stuff and what is presented on a day-to-day basis in d-cinema. The new HD-DVD/blu-ray stuff may look good at home on a 100+ inch screen, but will pale in comparison to JPEG2000 when shown on a 40 of 50 foot screen.

We recently watched "Batman Begins" recently in HD-DVD, scaled to 2K with a Cine-IPM2K scaler and it really wasn't that pleasing or impressive.

The two home grade formats just can't compete with JPG2K

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-03-2007, 11:51 AM:

People can talking about "scaling" or whatever.

The fact remains 2K d-cinema format is 2048 X 1080 pixels.

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray deliver 1920 X 1080 pixels.

There is NOT a great deal of difference there. Talk all you want about screen size, type of projector or whatever. That pixel count is a very critical issue that cannot be overlooked.

2K d-cinema looks decent on small to medium sized screens...for the most part. The 2K format can really fall apart when the movie has to display graphics on screen, like film titles and graphical effects in the movie. Graphical context can absolutely expose the hell out of any limitations of resolution. End credits often look pretty soft, and can still expose the pixel grid. The opening title for Michael Clayton looked terrible because a font with very small intricate serifs was chosen and slowly zoomed forward in the frame. The pixel dance that happened looked really really bad. There is no argument that opening title would have looked better in a pure 35mm treatment or in 4K. Perhaps Warner Bros. could have done some careful blur work and other tweaks on that lettering to make it work better in that coarse grid. They'll certainly need to do something before it goes to home video.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-03-2007, 11:56 AM:

quote: Tristan Lane
I invite you, when you have a chance to play an HD-DVD or Blu-ray on a big screen, using a quality scaler, on a 2K project. You will see (as I have) how much of a difference there is between the user-grade stuff and what is presented on a day-to-day basis in d-cinema. The new HD-DVD/blu-ray stuff may look good at home on a 100+ inch screen, but will pale in comparison to JPEG2000 when shown on a 40 of 50 foot screen.

That's a nonsequitur. He wasn't saying "HD-DVD/Blur-Ray are just as good as D-Cinema." He was saying that the average person is gonna go "What's the big deal; I can wait and see it at home for cheaper and it'll still have really good picture."

Like if people are ok with buying shitty mp3s why would they care about getting something that's a downgrade from D-Cinema?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-03-2007, 01:26 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
2K d-cinema looks decent on small to medium sized screens...for the most part. The 2K format can really fall apart when the movie has to display graphics on screen, like film titles and graphical effects in the movie.

Actually there is a big difference and it has to do with the encoding and decoding end of thigns. Neither format uses the entire 2048 width of the chips but close to it. The big differences are that these are inherently perfect chiops and the optical blocks and optics used are far-far more complex than any consumer stuff.

Also, at least when using the Dolby Server the artifact problems during graphics and titles are all but gone now. You must be seeing another brand of server in action with these
problems or a server still running an older software version. Also, 2K d-Cinema when done right looks fantastic even on a 70 foot wide screen.

quote: Tristan Lane
I invite you, when you have a chance to play an HD-DVD or Blu-ray on a big screen, using a quality scaler, on a 2K project. You will see (as I have) how much of a difference there is between the user-grade stuff and what is presented on a day-to-day basis in d-cinema. The new HD-DVD/blu-ray stuff may look good at home on a 100+ inch screen, but will pale in comparison to JPEG2000 when shown on a 40 of 50 foot screen.

We recently watched "Batman Begins" recently in HD-DVD, scaled to 2K with a Cine-IPM2K scaler and it really wasn't that pleasing or impressive.

The two home grade formats just can't compete with JPG2K

I agree 100%! The difference is startling and quite remarkable. Again its all in the encode/decode process and in the overall quality of the equipment being used. Just look at the difference between pre-show and D-Cinema playback at a location that uses the D-Cinema projector for both.... the difference there is amazing to say the least...

Mark

Posted by Peter Castle (Member # 1997) on 11-04-2007, 07:24 AM:

In a couple of posts recently, there's been mention of a HD-DVD of Batman Begins being shown on a DCI projector "scaled to 2K". Why? It's already there. Any scaling that is performed is introducing problems. I've seen BluRay on a 40' screen (with a 10,000 lumen fullHD DLP projector - just not DCI) and it looked pretty good. (And yes, I have seen both 2K and 4K DCI presentations.) Also, comparing pre-show material which (at least here in Australia) is likely to be at best 720p, and probably is 576p, against DCI is of course going to show DCI as streets ahead.

But that is not the point. The point is that it has to be way better. Otherwise HD-DVD and BluRay will look better on a home cinema setup - and that's what a commercial cinema has to compare to.

That to me means 4K.

Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 11-04-2007, 04:11 PM:

Firstly I should point out that in the photo in my last post, thats not my backyard! Its my screen at a good friends place, the idea of a dive in was something I just had to try!

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Just look at the difference between pre-show and D-Cinema playback at a location that uses the D-Cinema projector for both.... the difference there is amazing to say the least...

Is it like the difference between preshow and 35mm in a cinema where film is done right?

Mark, or are you saying that 2k compares with the 70mm prints of the 60's? Or are film makers today too dependant of some male actors use of eyeliner and cheap props to ever dream of moving to a higher resolution format again?

I see many giant screen cinemas with lots of seats way to close for the screen, wouldn't a higher resolution make these seats usable?

Codecs are another interesting point, Both Jpeg 2000 and home 1080p variations will be constantly improving from now on.

As film production work flow slowly moves to say 4k to start then 6k, as computers continue to go faster and gigabytes get cheaper ect. Are the cinemas that stuck with 35mm (done right obviously) are going to pass on more of this quality than the early converters to 2k? I have no doubt 2k will look much better as it evolves and higher quality masters evolve.

Let me say that those cheap companies that cannot run film (done right) anymore, 2k is really their only option for long term survival. But those markets that have not been affected by print damage/ piss poor projection could be better off by waiting for even better technology to develop.

Lets face the possibility that movie releases will continue to get shorter (ie less than 250 screenings) and repetory cinemas probably wont make a comback so many of the obvious advantages of d cinema are no longer relevent. I remember 20 years ago running some prints for 2 years in first release with no noticable wear. Unfortunatly seeing the classics in a rep cinema was usually a print damage type experience.

Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 11-05-2007, 08:53 PM:

quote: Peter Castle
I've seen BluRay on a 40' screen (with a 10,000 lumen fullHD DLP projector - just not DCI) and it looked pretty good. (And yes, I have seen both 2K and 4K DCI presentations.)

Peter,
A 10,000 lumen projector would be hard pressed to properly light a 40' screen, and in order to make an accurate comparison of the two media formats, a proper D-cinema projector should be used for both, in the same room, one right after the other.

When and where did you see these 2K/4K presentations? What were the movies? Were they MPEG or JPEG?

quote: Peter Castle
In a couple of posts recently, there's been mention of a HD-DVD of Batman Begins being shown on a DCI projector "scaled to 2K". Why? It's already there. Any scaling that is performed is introducing problems.

Why scale? Because it is NOT already there. It's close, but not quite there. The scaler was also used to test the difference between the performance of the analog video quality as well as the native digital output of the player.

To be clear, I also bypassed the scaler and passed the signal through, with no modification........my opinion was unchanged. The scaler used has never introduced any unwanted artifacts or picture anomalies, and works quite well.

DCI is a set guidelines and standards.........not the format or projector, It seems to be confused lately, with people referring to the projector as a "dci projector" or a "dci movie"

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2007, 10:09 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Actually there is a big difference and it has to do with the encoding and decoding end of thigns. Neither format uses the entire 2048 width of the chips but close to it. The big differences are that these are inherently perfect chiops and the optical blocks and optics used are far-far more complex than any consumer stuff.

A limited pixel count is still a tough thing to deal with. Type and graphics don't work as well in resolution-challenged settings as photographic content. I certainly know this from my own line of work.

You can get away with photographic imagery looking a little soft or noisy, grainy and even a bit jaggy with pixels. Type just tends to fall apart when it isn't given enough pixels in resolution. I really see this big time in the rapidly growing LED electronic sign and billboard market where native resolution is especially limited. I remember the botched end titles on the IMAX print of Fantasia 2000 where the pixel grid was very easy to see.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2007, 10:10 PM:

Double post, please delete.