| Author | Message | ||
     Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
Check here http://www.comingsoon.net/news/starwarsnews.php?id=9034 C. | ||
| Neil Rating: N/A |
Why don't you post the entire story as it appears in Variety? The point made in the coverage was simply that Lucas wants to see a significant amount of Digital 3D Cinemas installed in time so that he can recoup his investment on the 3D releases. He is still quite committed to doing all 6 movies with us. And yes, he only saw the Episode IV material just before the show. But he had seen numerous clips of other material from Episode II (some of which was also shown at ShoWest) for many months running. | ||
| Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
### Why don't you post the entire story as it appears in Variety?### The complete article in Variety is only accessible for subscribers. The short message on variety http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117920413?categoryid=13&cs=1 is very short and more negative. ###The point made in the coverage was simply that Lucas wants to see a significant amount of Digital 3D Cinemas installed in time so that he can recoup his investment on the 3D releases. ### And that's what the article behind the link basically says. "until the industry gets its act together and pushes digital cinema forward." By the way that's something I never understood entirely. We often heard statements like if the movie theatres go digital we can do 3D. Well, digital will help a lot, but for stereo the theatre needs either a single projector which can handle stereo in some way (active or passive) or a second projector for each showroom which is a major investment. Plus the screen may have to be replaced for a non-depolarizing one. So the equation digital = 3D-enabled doesn't seem entirely accurate. Or is it a standard to have 2 projectors already for each showroom? Christoph | ||
| Neil Rating: N/A |
The idea, as demonstrated at ShoWest 2005, is only to purchase a single 2K (Christie, Barco, or NEC) or 4K (Sony) Digital Cinema Projector and feed it from a single dual-stream server (QuVis, GDC, Doremi, Dolby soon) with no change AT ALL to the standard Matte screen already in the theater. All components are "off the shelf" devices available today. The cost of this entire system, including all the LCD Shutter glasses and suitable cleaner will be around $120K to $150K total. That comes in at about 1/10th the cost of the cheapest IMAX MPX projector ($1.6M). That was point of the show. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
It was only 2K resolution ? 2048x1024 ? Is this the resolution the digital cinema will follow ? Looks like a step back in comparison to film material (I do not count IMAX) ... | ||
| Neil Rating: N/A |
The Texas Instruments devices are at 2K - 2048x1080. The Sony is at 4K. But it is not shipping yet. Their projector is coming along, but it is still considered a prototype. Not so with the TI products. At the present time the TI DLP projectors look far superior to Sony's, even if they only have 1/2 the native resolution. There is a lot more to making credible pictures than just resolution. Regardless, in no way is Digital Cinema "a step back" as compared to viewing 35mm release prints at this point in time. There is plenty of debate on 2K vs. 4K resolution. But both are supported in the DCI specifications. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
I thought the resolution of 35 mm projection is at least 3500x2500 or so (I do not speak about the IMAX monstrous resolution again). I do not understand how can DLP technology at 2K resolution be comparable ... Better contrast ratio + dynamic range ? Better colors ? Do the color centers in the film material realy work so bad in comparison to DLP chips ? I understand that the cinema industry is pressed to use DLP from economic reasons (film material is expensive, films are not durable, cost of distribution in comparion to wired one e.t.c.). But is it 100% clear the quality will not fall down ? | ||
| Neil Rating: N/A |
The key is what is actually real. The criteria is what actually makes it to the screen. So re-read what I actually said, "as compared to a 35mm Release Print". Yes, original film negative has much higher resolution than either 2K or 4K. But you do not view the 35mm film negative in the theater. You view a 35mm Release Print - which is several generations down from the original. Each copy causes a loss of resolution. If you doubt my claim that 2K/4K Digital Projection is at least as good as any 35mm Release Print, go find a 2K Digital Cinema installation near you and then judge for yourself. Note that in a theater only those patrons sitting in the first 15 or 20 rows (depending on the theater and the screen size) would ever be able to discern 4K detail over 2K detail, and only if it were projected properly. There is no need to get into a philosophical discussion about all this here, though. Dimensionalization is a resolution independent process. We support whatever the Studios and the Theater Owners decide to go with. Incidentally, an IMAX DMR of a 35mm commercial film is generally done at 4K resolution. So only material originally shot on 15perf/70mm negative film has the "montrous" resolution you speak of. | ||
| Anonymous Rating: N/A |
Another thing...a lot of films are using a digital intermediate these days for color correction, effects, etc. As far as I understand, this means the entire film is scanned at 2k (not 4k, though some films are doing this), color corrected, and output back to film. So the highest resolution you will see is <2k. Also, a lot of CGI animated films (Shrek, Antz, etc.) are not rendered at even 2k resolution. I don't know the exact resolution but it isn't even 2k because rendering to 2k would take too long. I think it was around 1500x or 1780x something like that. So what you see in the cinema isn't always going to be higher than 2k resolution. And don't get started on crap like Blair Witch, Michael Moore's documentaries, Open Water, that zombie movie 13 Days or something like that...these were all shot with VIDEO cameras at a resolution of 720x480... | ||
| clyde Rating: N/A |
thanks all for this thread, I really learned something from this. Reminds me of the debate that I used to face back in India when the studios all were boasting of Digi-beta etc for shooting ..and the end content was crap.. thats when i used to tell 'em to look at cable tv in the US shooting and deliveing in composite video BUT producing entertaining content. Same holds true for stereoscopic content.. mostly you *can* imo, get away with a lot of things as your actually capturing a whole new world that the user can "visually roam" around in. so storyline fights for first place in a 3d film. ...yes yes.. that brings us to the previous debate, that its better to shoot with 2cams and capture the world in 3d... But then again.. as im slowly begenning to see, its really tough to manage this "3d world" for the audience to raom around in, what with parallax issues etc causing eyestrain and fatigue.. so actually manipulating a 2d film into 3d will serve two purposes. 1) allow the user to enjoy the vista as great eyecandy and 2) allow control in a new way about "what" exactly the point and storyline of the film is.. I mean its no sense shooting the grand canyon with 3d cameras, but meanwhile the object of interest is a couple "making out" in the bottom right hand of the screen on a cliff is it? I mean I'd probably miss the story of the scene, and get eye-strain to boot (for the wrong reason) from trying to converge on the background mountains and chasms from the scene. So actually manipulating the scene by assigning controllable and tweenable "depth maps" to backgrounds will allow a director to "shift focus" in a new way to subject matter in a 3d film. Am I making sense? no? ah well... Cheers Clyde | ||
| Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
Isn't there the danger some theatre owners buy digital projectors now which aren't stereo-compliant for some reason? I figure to be active-stereo-compliant the projector has to process 48 fps and display them at 96 or 144 Hz. And there has to be a sync-out to drive the glasses. And they should have at least double the light-output as usual to compensate for the glasses. Do all digital-theatre-projectors sold at the moment already adhere to these requirements? Are the theatre owners already willing to pay extra for this future 3D-option? Which models are stereo-compliant and which not. I'd like to check them out on projectorcentral. BTW I'm very happy to hear that shutterglasses are the preference, but I fear for economic reasons we'll see a lot of polarizations. Look most IMAX-theatres work with polarization. (I know there may also be patent issues with Sony.) Thank you. Christoph | ||
| Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
I checked the Christie, NEC and TI websites. Although not all the technical specifications are available I got the impression that current 'DLP-cinema' projectors aren't fit for active stereo3d. They seem to be optimized for 24 fps. http://www.dlp.com/dlp_cinema/dlp_cinema_technical_specifications.asp "FRAME RATE The TI DLP Cinema™ prototype projector displays at the standard film rate of 24 frames/sec. Since the DMD is not scanned like a CRT but is a virtually continuous display device, the display can be driven at 24 fps with no objectionable flicker. SHUTTER RATE Unlike a film projector, DLP Cinema™ technology does not involve the use of a shutter. Since there is no film being mechanically pulled through a film gate, there is no need to douse the light. This results in a continuous flicker-free display and a more efficient use of the lamp output. " The NEC projector seems to accept up to 30 frames in hi-res. 72 frames can be reached by sacrificing resolution. Sounds like a DLP-interface/memory bandwith issue. http://www.nec-pj.com/products/dlpcinema/is8_2k.html Christoph | ||
| Neil Rating: N/A |
Christoph, Any TI based 2K Digital Cinema Projector (from either Christie, Barco, or NEC) will be capable of running at 96fps. A TI software release will be issued at the end of this month. The software we were using at ShoWest 2005 was a beta-release. In addition we have been told that, most, if not all, of the 1.3K Digital Cinema Projectors already installed can be upgraded to 96fps as well. | ||
| Joseph L. Kleiman Rating: N/A |
The projector used for the ShoWest demonstration was a Christie CP2000, projecting at 48fps, which falls within the DCI specs. www.worldenteractive.com/christie.htm | ||
| Christoph Bungert (Admin) Rating: N/A |
Thank you both for the info. It surprises me that the TI DLP's have that much 'reserve' build in. So far my impression was that the DLP is always already maxed out in standard mode. Isn't flicker an issue at 48fps or was this a polarized presentation? What about projectors which use LCoS or similar technology, like the Sony? Will they work as well als DLP for active stereo? Thanks Christoph | ||
| Neil Rating: N/A |
Christoph, Although the DCI spec is for dual streams of 2K data at 48fps, the projector doubles that internally to a "flicker rate" of 96fps. The Sony 4K LCoS-based projector will be able to do 120fps. The new JVC 4K LCos-based projector was reported (at NAB just last week) to be able to do 200fps. Both of them should do as well as DLP as regards 3D display, but neither of them have been tested - yet. |
