|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Keeping up with the competition with Digital IMAX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.
Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 03-12-2009 05:44 PM
Imax refuses to differentiate between the giant-screen 15/70 systems and its new digital system, and has pissed off both film-based giant-screen theaters and chain-based digital theaters by claiming that it is not a giant-screen experience, but an immersive experience instead.
quote:
Is IMAX the next New Coke?
James Hyder, LF Examiner
... In September 2008, Richard Gelfond, co-CEO of Imax Corporation, told members of the Giant Screen Cinema Association that “we don’t think of [IMAX] as the giant screen.” Rather, he said, “it is the best immersive experience on the planet.”
The company takes this position because it has chosen not to differentiate its new digital projection system in any way from the 15/70 film systems it has been installing in giant-screen theaters since 1970. This despite the fact that, according to Imax VP Larry O’Reilly, its two major digital partners, AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment Group, both originally wanted to brand the new screens as “IMAX Digital.” And based on the reaction Gelfond’s announcement received in New York (and on many conversations I’ve had since) many, if not most, institutional IMAX operators would prefer this as well. In short, virtually all of Imax’s customers and partners would like to see a distinct new identity for the digital system.
But Gelfond flatly rejected this possibility, offering an absurdly flawed analogy with BMW automobiles. He said that the German carmaker offers the 7-series line of larger, more powerful, luxury models as well as the smaller, entry-level 3-series cars. “People don’t say ‘The 3 isn’t a real BMW because it’s smaller.’”
Of course, this ignores the fact that the model numbers, to say nothing of the prices, clearly distinguish BMW’s different product lines in consumers’ minds, while maintaining the unity of the brand. No car buyer believes he has bought a $125,000 760Li only to receive a $30,000 328i. ...
Furthermore, it is my understanding that (at least with some Regal and AMC installs mentioned in press releases) these new installs are joint ventures rather than licensed technology.
quote:
Under the terms of the joint venture agreement, IMAX and Regal Cinemas will share the cost and profitability of the new theatres.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-15-2009 07:23 AM
Julio,
from what I have been told, and it makes sense, the sony DMD, to archive 4k, use 4x2k wafers butted up together. This is what I have heard, and it would also back up the other info I heard about Sony projectors. They cannot archive consistent (To DCI spec) colour across the image. Which the above implementation would be the result of.
Ie, Can you get two TV sets, exactly the same. (No)
Try to get them to archive the same colour and gamma curve.
Ie same issue with 4x2k DMD butted up against each other. You archive the 4k Image, but also have colour consistency problems.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-15-2009 08:09 AM
The Sony DCI projectors do not use DMD's (Digital Micromirror Devices) at all.
They are a type of 3xLCos (Liquid cristal on silicon) panel design, which Sony calls SRXD (Silicon Reflective X-tal Display). Instead of chips made to behave like millions of tiny mirrors that can move really fast, they are made out of chips in which tiny cells of a liquid crystal material changes the amount of light reflected from them by changing the rotation of the polarization of the light coming out, which is them filtered based on this polarization variation pre-and-post reflection.
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/SXRD/cinema.shtml
[Link is to sony's page on their cinema 4K projectors]
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/ext/SXRD/pdfs/SXRD_VSAP_WP_v3.1.pdf
[Link is to Sony's white paper on SXRD technology]
Therefore, all the rest of the talk about color, etc, related to some theoretical 4xDMD panel projection design doesn't apply ![[Wink]](wink.gif) , not to mention that I don't think it's correct to begin with.
Sony's projectors or technology doesn't have an inherent problem with color fidelity or gamma uniformity in production. They do have manufacturing difficulties and other issues which Sony has not, in my opinion, "mastered" yet, but they are not "inherent" in the technology, except for your usual case of engineering and manufacturing capabilities limits on such "delicate" technology.
From my point of view, TI's micromirrors are a more "solid" and "mature" technology (i.e. all engineering quirks have been ironed out). But it's also a less "perfect" technology.
THEORETICALLY, Lcos can surpass DLP's in just about any quality measure (i.e. contrast, color gamuth, resolution, fill factor, etc). Only in raw light level, and possibly in absolute black performance, Lcos present a THEORETICAL dissadvantage over DMD.
In practice, most Lcos technologies are hard to make right and are not as polished an straight forward as DMD's, not to mention more expensive, and as a result DLP's fear quite well against them in PRACTICAL terms, even surpassing some real-life practical implementations.
In DCinema applications even more so, where the huge light levels that are sometimes required, play against one of the weaknesses of Lcos (more fragile to high temperatures) and in favor of the main advantage of DMD's (high reflectivity, virtually no absortion of light's energy).
| IP: Logged
|
|
James B Gardiner
Film Handler
Posts: 91
From: North Altona, Victoria, Ausrtalia
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 03-15-2009 08:40 AM
Julio,
Sorry I used the DMD acronym to represent the CHIP, be it Mirrors or a type of Sutter over a mirror.
Still looking at your documents, the PDF for example. The image on page 13, for example shows 4 separate data paths going onto the chip. This would indicate that the CHIP may be one big wafer, but that it may also be 4 x 2K engines butted against each other on the chip. Ie having, on chip, different voltage regulators for each 1/4. And as such, resulting in the problems as described above.
The document does also mentioned how you can drive a image to the 4 sections of the chip etc.
Maybe the next revision of this design from Sony, is a revamp of the Chip resulting in overcoming the DCI issues the TI people like to point out.
I am just speculating, but I know Sony does have some technical challenges with archiving DCI specs. But then again, it does not mean it does not looks amazing on screen. The issues may not be perceivable to most people if at all.
I have seen a Sony on screen, and it looked great, but have not had test images and analyzer etc.
I would also like to point out that LCos as a domestic product has completely failed, from my understanding, with all product being pulled from market. (They had a MASSIVE fail rate in field and cost Sony a packet on warrently return from what I heard) Can anyone back this up? I must admit, you don;t hear about Lcos projectors any more.
James
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 03-15-2009 09:47 AM
There are plenty of Lcos projectors on the market, with new ones recently introduced, specially from JVC.
Also, a new big player, Canon, has entered the Lcos projection market, with several models in the stores.
Lcos is not a "domestic technology" anymore than DLP is, as it's used for the highest definition projectors ever, including the sony DCinema's or the previous generation Dcinema by Huges-JVC, or the current 8K Super Hivision projectors.
Lcos is but a generic term used for all reflective liquid crystal technologies. Different manufacturer's call them different things, such as D-ILA JVC or Sony's SRXD. All just variations of the same thing and a way to differenciate between them and other image projection technologies such as transmissive LCD, GLV or DLP.
I don't know where you are getting the "4 chips". The need for four beam splitters is only due to the light having to be previously polarized. Look at page 25 from Sony's white paper and you'll see the usual simplified light path. White light is divided in three primary colors, reflected off the chips and recombined for the output. Same as DMD in essence, although in this case polarization is used as a necessity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCOS
[Link to wikipedia on Lcos showing a simplified light path]
quote:
LCoS technology has the potential to enable the manufacture of big-screen high-definition televisions with very high picture quality at relatively low cost. However, LCoS, while conceptually straightforward, can be a difficult technology to master; a number of companies have dropped out of the LCoS business in recent years. Nonetheless, as of June 2006, proprietary methods for mass-producing LCoS developed, and at least four manufacturers now produce LCoS-based rear-projection televisions for the consumer market.
Commercial implementations of LCoS technology include: Sony's SXRD (Silicon X-tal Reflective Display) and JVC's D-ILA (Digital Direct Drive Image Light Amplifier). Every company which produces and markets LCoS rear-projection televisions uses three-panel LCoS technology,[citation needed]. Sony and JVC both produce and market front-projection displays that use three LCoS panels.
Developers and manufacturers who have left the LCoS microimaging market include: Philips, Microdisplay Corporation, Spatialight, Syntax-Brillian.
Display system architectures
There are two broad categories of LCoS displays: three-panel and single-panel. In three-panel designs, there is one display chip per color, and the images are combined optically.
Three-panel designs
In a DLP device the light is separated into three components and then combined back: Two beam splitters are needed. In LCoS devices the light is additionally polarized and then analyzed; four beam splitters are needed.
There is no "4 chips" or anything like that going on Sony's projector at all, be DMD or any other type of device. 3 imaging chips, each receiving one color of the light splitted in 3 main paths. The additional path opened in some designs is to allow for the pre-polarization and post-absortion.
There is no "four sections" or "four imagers" or "four-anything" in this technologies that would yield any such potential problems you are describing. Even if there were, the issues of non-uniformity etc you are referring to would not be a real life issue at all.
You can calibrate two entirely separate (digital) projectors to match almost perfectly, so much more you could match "two projectors heads combined into the same machine" if such thing was necessary for some reason.
I have the feeling whoever told you about the "matching 4 imagers" didn't have a clue as to what he was saying or somehow something got lost in the translation. The four drivers paths to the chip are there because it's not practical to create such a large flat cable from such a small device. But claiming this would produce color uniformity issues would be like believing that two RAM memory modules split into two slots would yield a different result than 1 single module of twice the capacity. If you want to use all addressing lines at the same time, you would need twice the pins on the single module, which would not be practical. And regarless, the RAM would always produce the same (practical) result.
Even if internally the imager was made of 4 chips, which I don't believe they are, they could be from the same wafer even. Each wafer produces over 200 working chips, so no problem on picking 4. Even if they were from different wafers, semiconducting manufacturing capabilities have such small tolerances that they all would probably be a perfect match to begin with and not even any adjusting would be required.
Thinking that tolerances are so wide between chips in the same wafer to produce performance differences, and worse yet, significant and uncorrectable performance differences is the same as thinking that parts of one single imager chip perform differently than other parts of it.
Search on google images for D-ILA and you'll see JVC 8Kx4K imaging LCos chip. It only uses two flat ribbons cables, if that makes you feel better
Sony's problems with their SRXD stuff comes from the material used in one of his panels on their optical head not being able to stand the intended use, and degrading over time, leaving the colors from sections of that panel screwed.
Sony thought they could outdo other Lcos designs with their SXRD, but as usual over-estimated themselves and now are paying the price for putting out a technology that, "awesome" as it is, wasn't fully tested. Others have been developing for years and years, much longer than Sony, only to give up as it was too expensive to get it right. Sony came and thought it could outdo them all in no time, but was wrong.
| 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.
|
Home
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic