|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Alternative's to current Digital Cinema projectors for smaller venues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-15-2009 12:37 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-15-2009 04:55 PM
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.
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 .
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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.
|