|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: DCI spec brightness for 3D?
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 09-04-2009 05:40 AM
Just what Steve said.
Theoretically, DCI wants images bright (14fl) and uniform.
They also want equipment (projector and server) to meet FIPS 1.3 level 3 specs.
But since projection equipment that can meet that security level does not yet exists (perhaps Sony will pass, don't know) and 3D projection has a hard time getting anywhere near that brightness level for 3D, Hollywood is looking the other way for the time being and allowing cinemas to use non-(full)DCI equipment and lower light levels for 3D.
For the time being, they are making their 3D movies thinking they'll be projected between 3.5 and 5.5fl.
Like Steve said, because many of these systems either require either a polarizing-preserving screen, usually a silver screen, and these are high-gain, the uniformity levels are also not obtained.
Other systems like XpanD or Dolby, which do not require silver screens, often times also "cheat" and use very high gain screens to obtain the target ~5fl illumination level sacrificing the illumination uniformity.
They are also allowing for 3D films to be displayed at 4:2:2 10 bits color resolution/sample against their "own rules" that dci images be 4:4:4 12bits.
Hollywood seems to allow a free buffet when it comes to 3D, with, like you said, an "anything goes" attitude.
For the time being. Just keep in mind that they do not meet DCI specs (image or security) and they can refuse to serve movies at any time in the future or force an upgrade later on.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-05-2009 02:56 PM
Funny how the studios never gave a rat's astrological sign about light unifornity or brightness level or "color space" when they were distributing 35mm prints and there were to many theatres to count that didn't meet ANY benchmarks specs at all. With film, it was, here's a print, run it and pay us the percentage. There was no demand to meet any spec. Hell, till very recently there was a theatre here in Brooklyn running mono sound and projecting on a 2:1, one-size-fits-all screen -- he seemed to have no trouble whatsoever playing first run on opening night.
So why all of a sudden this police state mentality about quality....well, maybe not so much about quality as it is security, but still. It's a different approach with digital. I am not saying it's a BAD thing demanding specs be met, at least for the customer, but I am wondering why all of a sudden since they never were remotely concerned about quality or standards before. Studios never "approved" film projectors, and especially given how hard they want exhibtion to convert to digital, you would think they wouldn't be all that gungho about telling an exhibitor who comes money-in-hand, ready to convert to digital, that he can only buy from this list of equipment which the studio approves (for NOW!) and if he buys some other, they will not service him with product. Doesn't seem like the way to go when they would much rather not have to make film prints for him.
I mean, for example, even if his color space is off slightly with digital and he is displaying 4:2:2 10 bits color, when he was projecting film, he could have conceivably been showing a terrible image -- and who cared? He played the run, he made money for the studio; end of story. Seems now they are telling him, if you are not x % compliant, you don't get product. To which he could easily say, "Then I am back to showing film."
The thing I find fascinating is that the studios can let an exhibitor use equipment that is not 100% DCI compliant NOW, but sometime in the near future they can decide they won't book product to him because they changed the rules and now they want 100% compliance. Seems counter productive if the goal is to get as many screens converted to digital and to eliminating film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 09-06-2009 03:30 AM
Yeah, I've wondered about that too.
What I think, is that DCI is using the quality measure as an EXCUSE to force the security measures, the single format delivery, and a reduced crop of projectors they can easily control.
When they "designed" DCI the EXISTING equipment pretty much already could do 4:4:4 12bits easily by adopting JP2K and manufacturers where touting the capability, along others like watermarking (I remember philips running ads in trade publications, or the microcode developers touting their JP2K-in-a-chip FPGAs), etc.
DCI wanted three things: a SINGLE DELIVERY FORMAT that, if possible, would surpass home viewing so they didn't get too-much a direct competition from blu-ray, and a HIGHLY SECURE system, which would make it "impossible" to (digitally) copy the movies and easier to trace them when videotaped, and MORE CONTROL OVER THE EQUIPMENT (i.e. internet "spy" connections to projectors, KDM, etc), so they could track what theaters where projecting what/when/how/why.
The quality part of it was just an excuse to justify why theaters had to use expensive (secure) equipment rather than $1000 home projectors, capable of virtually exact quality levels as DCI when doing 3D today, and to move away from the existing-at-the-time MPEG compression, as independent distributors could charn those out too easily.
By requiring a system based in absolute color coordinates with no convertion from master to the screen (i.e. 4:4:4 xyz all the way), they avoided the problem of having to deliver but a single file fits all. Less mastering, even less hussle and cost for them on "print" delivery and archiving. Less trouble for video servers to comply with security on simplified code.
But I think quality only comes fourth to them. First, it's security. Second, it's single-delivery-format. Third is "print control" and theater (projector) surpervision. Fourth is quality, partly because why not? and partly because it's an excuse to go into single-format and more expensive "exclusive" equipment that it's easier to control (FIPS security, fewer serial numbers/server types, KDM, network "spy" connections, etc).
Otherwise, they don't really care if you DCI projector is doing 4:4:4 or 4:2:2 or 12bits or even 8bits or out-of-focus or lower lamp or high-gain screen or 14fl or 5fl or wathever. They are more likely to cut you off for not having a network connection that they can check to see what you are projecting on what screen at what time than on the quality of your show.
It's said that early Sony's didn't meet color accuracy targets. Did DCI banned Sony? I think quality is mostly a red herring. They DO care about it, of course, but it's not what drives DCI, but just a last-minute-afterthought when everything else in their agenda is met, presented as an excuse to justify the cost of everything else.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-07-2009 01:07 PM
What you guys said....my gut should have told me that it was much more about security control than presentation quality cause like I said, they never were any too concerned about presentation in the past (unless it was for their exec and press screenings when with film, those screening invariably would get EK prints).
And hey, like you say Steve, putting a digital projector in a booth that was sloppily run when there were film projectors in it won't change much -- give it time and they will find a way to degrade digital presentation as well, although it might take a little longer give they won't need anyone to "handle" the digital equipment as much as film. But you're right -- a cheap exhibitor can run the bulb in the digtal projector long after it darkens and can barely strike, just like he did in his 35mm projector lamphouse.
Thing is, the DCI compliant thing is where they do seem to have an powerful hold on the exhibitor's gonads. This business about what percentage of DCI compliance they will or won't allow and when and where is the kicker. I mean Disney, which has never been shy about kicking exhibitors' gonads, came right out told exhibitors that the current digital equipment, even the stuff on their "approved" list, was ok FOR THE TIME BEING, but it's not 100% DCI compliant, so in the future when equipment DOES become 100% DCI compliant, the exhibitor will have to upgrade or not get Disney product. They also added in that memo that if for some reason the venue was not being serviced Disney film product, shelling out a hundred grand to convert to digital, even the digital stuff on the approved list, the guy STILL won't get Disney product. Not exactly the kind of thing you would expect a company that would just as soon sell its toon grandmother down the toon river to get more digital penetration, would say to exhibitors.
Besides, if I were seriously contemplating converting to DCinema and heard that statement, I would say, "Hey, you know what? My film projector runs just fine....keep supplying me with those dastardly 35mm prints which you distributors now seems to collectively loath and I'll wait until everything is totally 100% DCI compliant when The Rodent nor any other studio will be able to tell me I have to spend even MORE money on NEWER equipment or they will pull the plug. Then again, for just such an eventuality, maybe I will already have put Quik-Connect plugs all the connections on my film projector and put it on a dolly so I can roll it right back to the port, plug it in, and before I can finish cussing distribution from here to next Sunday, I can be showing 35mm prints again.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic