Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Is the DCI slipping?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » Is the DCI slipping?

Author

Topic: Is the DCI slipping?

Peter Castle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 220
From: Wollongong University, NSW ,Australia
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 09-09-2006 07:15 AM

I understand there was an announcement on Wednesday that the six major studios who formed the DCI have announced that digital is not being installed fast enough and are now, individually, going to specify the systems a cinema must install to be able to show their digital features. Does this mean that all those first-generation 1.3k systems will be able to show the new 2K "prints"? Are they going to allow "large venue" DLP projectors instead of the DCI-compliant ones? Is MPEG back on the agenda?

I see NATO is now trying to get a uniform set of criteria. But is it too late?

(Source: Hollywood Reporter and dcinematoday.)

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-09-2006 11:32 AM

quote: Peter Castle
Does this mean that all those first-generation 1.3k systems will be able to show the new 2K "prints"?

1.3K is dead as far as cinemas go. It is not part of the DC Standard at all and studios are not allowing any content to be run on them. Theya re also not at all DCI Compliant nor were they really designed to be. In reality nothing out there is DCI compliant yet but the Dolby Server is probably the closest piece of gear to being there. Its all about the studios telling YOU when to wipe your ass! I've always felt that both NATO and ITEA, and CBG are all pretty worthless organizations..... just a couple of social clubs really with the latter being a self promotiopnal platform that continues to do absolutely nothing. Now what can you name that any of these groups have ACTUALLY accomplished over the years except drink and eat [beer]

? SMPTE is the only actual acomplishing arm of the industry that really does anyting at all. Soon they MUST drop that MP from the name though since they have all but abandoned film..... Going to STE will save them printing costs on ink anyway.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 09-09-2006 02:28 PM

Why? MP stands for Motion Picture, and digital cinema is motion pictures, too.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 09-09-2006 09:10 PM

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
1.3K is dead as far as cinemas go. It is not part of the DC Standard at all and studios are not allowing any content to be run on them.

There is truth and fiction here. 1.3K is a dead format for sure. TI no longer manufactures the SXGA (1280 x 1024) chip set. For A/V, they have SXGA+ (1400 x 1050) and for others 1920 x 1080 and for DCinema and some upper end AV 2048 x 1080.

I did a studio screening 2-weeks ago on a 1.3K system. Is it their preferred? No, but the screening was done on a 1.3K system because that is what the facility had.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Theya re also not at all DCI Compliant nor were they really designed to be.

Again...half truth there. They are not DCI compliant in that they are neither 2K nor 4K but they do accept 2K resolutions. Whereas they predate DCI, it would be kinda hard to hold them to a non-existant spec. However, these machines WERE sold on the premise that they WOULD be DCinema machines and would be able to be used for the foreseeable future. They do have Link-Decryption that is required of all DCinema projectors and is not found in A/V projectors.

Personally, I think the abandonment of the 1.3K machines is absolutely stupid on everyone's part. These are the machines that the current machines stood upon to get where they are.

More importantly, the DCinema industry has now shown that they will render useless any investment anyone makes in the industry in as short as 12-months time.

By abandoning the 1.3K machines they kill a secondary resale market. Someone that invested in the state-of-the-art technology should be able to sell that technology as they replace their equipment to remain state-of-the-art. Alternately, if one wants, they should be able to move a 1.3K machine down from their larger theatres to their smaller ones where the lower resolution will have less of an effect.

To claim that 1.3K is not good enough as a reason for not supporting it is absurd. It was good enough when it came out...it has not gotten worse...there are no just much better alternatives. To put this in film terms...it would be like the studios saying that if you don't have Schneider or ISCO lenses made within the last 10-years, you can not play our films since the older lens designs did not resolve as well.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-10-2006 11:19 AM

quote: Steve Guttag
Alternately, if one wants, they should be able to move a 1.3K machine down from their larger theatres to their smaller ones where the lower resolution will have less of an effect.

To claim that 1.3K is not good enough as a reason for not supporting it is absurd.

I couldn't agree more with that.

quote: Michael Schaffer
Why? MP stands for Motion Picture, and digital cinema is motion pictures, too.

Soooo.... SDCTE might be a more appropriate name for the group in the very near future since photographic film will ultimately vanish.....

Mark

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 09-10-2006 11:51 AM

ITEA recently changed to ICTA = Cinema Technology vs Theatre Equipment [Razz]

I have seen great changes in the 34 years being a member of SMPTE....MP does just fine for the time being [Cool]

Film as an origination format got another "kick" at the IBC convention this week with the demos of the RED digital camera with a 5+K imager rezzed down to 4K. Screenings are being done with a Sony 4K projector. The founder of Oakley sunglasses is the financer of the camera system with a price point for the camera body of...under...$20,000 [Cool]

DCI is a solid start....35mm film was around for years until standards where "established" by SMPE and other groups in the early part of the last century. [beer]

| IP: Logged

Tim Reed
Better Projection Pays

Posts: 5246
From: Northampton, PA
Registered: Sep 1999

posted 09-10-2006 02:22 PM

quote: Richard Fowler
demos of the RED digital camera

Justin and I have been watching Red for a long time, and plan on buying a system. Can't wait.

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 09-10-2006 03:40 PM

Who is Justin?

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Soooo.... SDCTE might be a more appropriate name for the group in the very near future since photographic film will ultimately vanish.....

I think it can stay SMPTE *because digital cinema is motion pictures, too*. There is nothing in SMPTE which says it can only be film. The point is that the pictures are moving. Sure, originally the MP automatically meant that it was film. But then the T originally automatically meant it was an analog technology. But a lot of TV is digital today, too.

| IP: Logged

Paul Konen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 981
From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-10-2006 09:38 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Alternately, if one wants, they should be able to move a 1.3K machine down from their larger theatres to their smaller ones where the lower resolution will have less of an effect.

To claim that 1.3K is not good enough as a reason for not supporting it is absurd.

Me Too!! I've been saying that since they said that we couldn't use our 1.3K system anymore.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.