Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Alternative's to current Digital Cinema projectors for smaller venues (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Alternative's to current Digital Cinema projectors for smaller venues
Steven J Hart
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: WALES, ND, USA
Registered: Mar 2004


 - posted 02-12-2009 10:44 PM      Profile for Steven J Hart   Author's Homepage   Email Steven J Hart   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We recently installed a Panasonic PT-D5100U single chip DLP projector for pre-show ads and entertainment. I'm knocked out by how good the image quality is on our smallish (20 ft) screen.
As a single screen exhibitor in a very small town, I'm concerned that the upcoming conversion to DC is going to leave me behind because it will simply be to costly. The VPF scheme that the CBG is working on does me very little good because we play most titles a couple weeks after the break.
Is it possible to connect a Digital Cinema server to a lower cost projector for use in a smaller venue? I understand that 3D will not work, but I don't have 3D in my theater now because 3D titles are not currently released on 35 mm. I'm the only theater within 60 miles any direction, so the lack of 3D should not put me at a major disadvantage.

 |  IP: Logged

Phil Ranucci
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 236
From: Carpinteria,CA, United States
Registered: May 2006


 - posted 02-12-2009 11:02 PM      Profile for Phil Ranucci   Email Phil Ranucci   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think so, as the encryption is on the hard drives so they can only be played on a DCI compliant server. IIRC the SD/HDI feed is also encrypted to the projector. The studios are so worried about piracy that I doubt they'd let an unencrypted copy out.

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 02-13-2009 12:21 AM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Indeed it is not possible not because it technically couldn't be, but because many security measures totally forbid it.

Hollywood wants to make sure the data is encrypted everytime it leaves a machine (and remains well encrypted and/or hidden while inside of it).

As a result, it only handles out keys to projectors which meet their specifications. If a projector meets their specifications, then it's a "big-ass" DCI cinema projector already ...

But DCI projectors are not that expensive and you would still need DCI servers and the like. Take a look at a recent thread that mentioned Sony offering b-stock of their 4K machine for less than $40k for a limited time. (Not that I'm recommending the Sony over any other, quite on the contrary).

The cost of converting a small screen to digital today could be as low as $75k or so.

As you noticed, many inexpensive home consumer projectors are capable of incredible images and light levels. Carefully calibrated etc, and some people would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between a movie in a blu-ray in one of those and in a 2K dci package in a cinema one ...

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 02-13-2009 05:23 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Stephen,

Nope, DCinema content will never play on a non-DCinema projector...period. For DLP, the content is "Link Encrypted" such that the final stage of decrypting the image data is actually performed inside the projector itself (you can't even hook an HDSDI moniotor up to the HDSDI lines and get an image).

Furthermore...you may be knocked out by your single-chip DLP but I would walk out on it. The rainbow effect of single chip DLPs is downright nausiating. 1280 x 768 is also a bit sub-par.

The cost of DCinema systems for smaller venues has been coming down a bit...I'd say by the time you add up all of the tidbits to make everything funcitonal...for a smaller screen...it is closer to $60K now (2D system).

If every studio got on the $1K per title bandwagon...you could probably set up a reasonable leasing deal such that would have you profiting on the scheme by the end of 10-year agreement.

That said, DCinema will not sell you 1 extra ticket and will not look any better than a well maintained film system (in fact, it is likely going to be worse). So why worry about it at this stage? There is no need to early adopt such a thing.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Steven J Hart
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: WALES, ND, USA
Registered: Mar 2004


 - posted 02-13-2009 07:46 AM      Profile for Steven J Hart   Author's Homepage   Email Steven J Hart   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for the information concerning encryption. I'm in no hurry to move to digital, but print availability in my area has really suffered since Carmike moved to all DC projection. I now have much more trouble getting prints shortly after the break.

I'm not saying that the panasonic projector rivals my film image, but it will put a really bright picture on the screen with pretty good contrast. Color and resolution suck compared to film.

It is interesting to note that the studios don't dictate any standards for film projection apart from aspect ratio, film gauge, and cyan sound track. I could be using a Simplex standard projecting 3 fl on the screen through 1920's era lenses with a 6X9 car speaker behind the screen and they would not care as long as I'm paying them their rental terms.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006


 - posted 02-14-2009 12:04 AM      Profile for Ron Curran   Author's Homepage   Email Ron Curran   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The newer generation 1.3 projectors do an excellent job on modest size screens. The rainbow effect is noticable on some files but not on others. And they are strictly 16x9.

For specialist venues they are essential for obtaining copies of movies before they go to retail dvd. This is not a pirate dvd market so you only have to get ahead of the stores. Even then, the stores get minimum numbers of non-mainstream films.

The quality is not 35mm until those prints have been to several other venues when the digital file then will usually give superior image and sound. Provided the server is up to the task – most are 2K now.

 |  IP: Logged

Tristan Lane
Master Film Handler

Posts: 444
From: Nampa, Idaho
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 02-15-2009 03:27 AM      Profile for Tristan Lane   Email Tristan Lane   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Color Wheel = [fu]

I owned a DLP television for roughly 1 month before craigslisting the turd and going to an LCD panel. Not to mention that color wheels make a high pitch noise.

I don't care how good people claim it looks, I always notice the shimmer. I'll stick with 3-LCD projectors until 3 chip dlp projectors become affordable for the home market.

Simply put, there is no substitution for a true Digital Cinema projector. Pricing-wise, it make no sense. Runco used to sell a projector for over 100K that had 4000 lumens and lower resolution that 2K. This was at a time when you could get a ZX for around 75K with lens included.

Aren't Runco's LCD projectors just re-badged Sanyos?

 |  IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003


 - posted 02-15-2009 11:17 AM      Profile for Brian Guckian   Email Brian Guckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There's an interesting and provocative school of thought that holds that lower resolutions for d-cinema are in fact OK.

Some will be aware of the 2002 study involving the CST in France (copy kindly sent to me recently)

ITU-R Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation

that concluded that the observable resolution of 35mm release prints was equivalent only to 685 to 875 video lines per picture height, with an average of 750 lines per picture height cited.

This would seem to imply that displays of less than 2K resolution would be acceptable if one merely wished to "match" the "quality" of 35mm.

In short, it could mean that it would be OK say, to use a 3-chip DLP HD projector for theatrical presentation.

However, bearing in mind that image quality is dependent on several factors besides resolution (e.g. contrast ratio, colour gamut, etc.), it would be interesting to read opinion and / or other papers counter-challenging this research.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 02-15-2009 11:58 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I dunno Brian...I've seen that report before...I can tell you, without much effort...I can pick off a release print, EK print and digital print pretty easily from the booth...with no other reference than looking at the image. Never once has the 2K digital image come out on top...except when it comes to color stability...in which case digital beats a releaes print most every time. But in terms of image depth, the release print always looks better than the digital. In terms of steadiness...the digital beats release prints but is not necessarily perceivably better than the EK print.

Recently, unintentionally, I was doing a QC prior to a screening and a release print reel was subbed in place of an EK reel...I picked it off in about 2-seconds (or less....I called the booth immediately to ask what happened). I think that is one of the arguements of DCinema...the fact that the release prints have a such a wide range of quality whereas Digitals are very uniform. That said...my preferred viewing remains: EK........Release film, Digital. That is...unless the release print is notably sloppy (really wacked color, very poor stability or poor focus). Furthermore...anything that goes through a 2K DI process looks like dog...regardless of the release format. 2K DIs are to images what MP3s are to audio...just nasty compressed BS.

Steve

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 02-15-2009 12:37 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Tristan Lane
Simply put, there is no substitution for a true Digital Cinema projector. Pricing-wise, it make no sense. Runco used to sell a projector for over 100K that had 4000 lumens and lower resolution that 2K. This was at a time when you could get a ZX for around 75K with lens included.
Those times are long gone. Now you can have a non-color wheel, 4,000 lumens, 1920x1080, for $10k. If you don't mind newer-color wheels, you can do better than that [Smile]

But indeed most of the "home" projector market is way out of touch with today's reality, when you can have an awesome 50" HD LCD TV for $1000.

Then again, if large screens are not needed, you can also get in the home market a non-color-wheel projector with 1920x1080, 1800 lumens, 18,000:1 (dynamic) contrast ratio, for less than $2,000.

 |  IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003


 - posted 02-15-2009 02:55 PM      Profile for Brian Guckian   Email Brian Guckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
Never once has the 2K digital image come out on top...except when it comes to color stability...in which case digital beats a releaes print most every time
I guess Steve this shows the flaws of using only perceived resolution as a comparator.

Translating the random grain structure of a film frame into a set of video lines must also be fraught with compromise; in other words, how reliable can it be to say that the resolution of a film frame is truly "equivalent" to X number of video lines?

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 02-15-2009 04:55 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Brian Guckian
Translating the random grain structure of a film frame into a set of video lines must also be fraught with compromise; in other words, how reliable can it be to say that the resolution of a film frame is truly "equivalent" to X number of video lines?
Only when there are enough pixels/lines to accurately (within the resolution limits of the human eye) represent the grain structure. [Wink]

Since more and more Hollywood origination is coming to (grainless) 4K-and-beyond digital capture, it would be interesting if they start adding routinely artifical grain in post-pro to give 4K projections a "film-like" texture for a while to satisfy the older people like us that are so accustomed to film-grain that we think we are worse off without it [Embarrassed] .

Some peeps in Hollywood, Cameron being the most vocal about it, is giving serious talk to changing 24fps to something higher (48fps seems to be the most convinient). Now that they are planning on doing more 3D and they notice how weird the fast pans and fast motion looks in 3D at 24fps, they are no longer able to obtain the needed results at such low temporal resolution.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?categoryid=2868&cs=1

quote:
Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.


Nothing new though. TV's been 30/60-25/50 "fps" for ever. About time cinema gets some talk of a temporal resolution upgrade as well. We all remember the (brief) Imax 48 and the Showscan 60.

If you ask me, I would do 4K/48fps 3D and call it a day. To me, that's all the film-quality I need to watch a story w/o having to pull out of it due to visual problems (bandings, aliasings, judder, moire, pixelation, blur, noise, strobing, compression artifacts like ringing, etc). Of course you can have all those in a 4K-48fps system, but you would have to do a blotchy job at it. While on some stuff lesser than that, like 2K/24fps, some of those defects are harder to hide and limit creativity.

Of course, it will never happen. Upgrading to 48fps brings a whole lotta of new problems with compatibility with home/tv systems, etc. It would have to be downconverted for the home-market, etc, and most of the advantage would be gone. Not to mention the added costs associated with this "dual stock" 48 and 24. The whole schmoola, TV/Bluray/Cinema would have to change to 48 nearly all at once.

It ain't going to happen soon. Waste of $$$ for little gain to Joe 7pack that is happy, at least in Europe, watching movies and TV at 720x576 50hz in his 42" screen.

 |  IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003


 - posted 02-16-2009 07:39 PM      Profile for Brian Guckian   Email Brian Guckian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's good to raise the idea though!

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-16-2009 08:38 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Julio Roberto
If you ask me, I would do 4K/48fps 3D and call it a day. To me, that's all the film-quality I need to watch a story w/o having to pull out of it due to visual problems
Thats sad that you are so fussy that you can't just sit and enjoy the story once in a while!! I'm pretty fussy too but when I bother to actually go to the movies its because I'm there for the story, not the image or sound. Not that poor image and sound or crappy seats don't bother me...

Mark

 |  IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008


 - posted 02-16-2009 09:39 PM      Profile for Julio Roberto     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Thats sad that you are so fussy that you can't just sit and enjoy the story once in a while!!
Yeah, I know, it's a curse. It happens to a lot of people in the industry I know. I guess when you are watching images 8 hours a day for 20 years ... a lot of us pretty much can't avoid thinking where the lights were placed, the microphone ... or seeing the changeover cues ... the crapcode ... the hotspot ... the xenon flickering ... [Wink]

I was owed into Imax for a while, but even that dissapeared quickly as the strobe, or the ghosting (in 3D) started to overpower my suspension of disbelief.

[uhoh]

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.