|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: How the West was Won at the Bradford Widescreen Weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-20-2009 07:58 PM
Just to make clear, 3 x 2K projection is not 6k. 3 x 2k is (at best, if full frame is used) 6144x1080 pixels.
-2k projector = 2048x1080 pixels (aprox. 2.2 Megapixels)
-3 x 2k "cinerama" = 6144x1080 (aprox. 6.6 Megapixels)
-4k current projectors (i.e. Sony) = 4096x2160 (Aprox. 8.8 Megapixels)
-Theoretical 6k projectors would be = 6144x3240 (Aprox. 19.9 Megapixels)
Remember that a 4K projector is not "twice the resolution of a 2K projector". It's FOUR times the resolution of a 2K projector.
This e&s projector is almost 8K (36 Megapixels), so it would be feasible for such a thing. Please note that a 17m recut of the movie Fly me to the moon 3D is available for such a projector (in stereo 3D, BTW).
http://www.es.com/products/displays/ESLaser/resources/ESLP_Datasheet.pdf
Also, that evans&sutherland projector, being laser illuminated, doesn't have a focus problems with any curved screen. In fact, it's used for domes all the time.
The rest of the parameters meet or surpass DCI projectors, like contrast=2500:1 (DCI projectors are only 2000:1)
Brightness is about half of most DCI projectors, similar to Sony's DCI projectors, but sufficient for a small (say 5m) screen or for really dark theaters. On the other side, light loss in 3D polarized applications is very low due to the laser light being already polarized. So light levels from this projector are already about the same as small DCI projectors with Real-D. It only used 3.2 Kwatts.
Also, if you want more brightness, just use two of them ... The main reason why the brightness is not higher is not a real technological hurdle but the fear of safety of using high-power pulsed lasers, thus low-power continous ones are used instead, trading light level for safety (i.e. someone getting accidentaly hit in the eye by a laser).
Why isn't (a brighter version of) this projector available for Digital Cinemas? Well, the manufacturer E&S only obtained a license for the technology for Simulators, Platenarium and Digital Dome use. Sony is the one that holds the license for Cinema use. Unfortunately, it's FAR more profitable for Sony to exploit their Lcos SRXD technology instead of the LGV one ...
[ 01-20-2009, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-20-2009 10:32 PM
Here is some info on the process probably used. It contains the usual journalistic errors, I guess.
http://www.in70mm.com/news/2008/west_digital/index.htm
Basically it seems each 35mm "pane" was scanned at 2k. Again, 3 x 2K is NOT 6k. It's not even 4K. 4K is FOUR times 2k.
The resulting scanned image, after some edge blending and whatnot, was pbbly something like 6000x2000 in resolution (due to cinerama frames being taller than academy), but screwed up in aspect ratio. It was pbbly resized to aprox. 4096x1560 for projection in a 4K (Sony) projector (which can project up to 4096x2160 in 1.9 aspect ratio).
It would, therefore, have about the same-to-a-bit-less resolution than a 4K "scope" movie (i.e. Spiderman 3) when seen in a Sony DCI equipped theater.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That's theoretical, of course. Spiderman had a lot of issues (i.e. not real "scope", but a bunch of spherical, super-35, vistavision and all sort of digital intermediates) that would lower the real-world resolution below those 4K, while How the West was Won had more REAL resolution to begin with and just had to be resized to fit the (smaller-in-one-direction) projector resolution.
I doubt they went through the trouble of making a custom anamorphic lens for the Sony for this and thus use more available vertical resolution, but regardless the projected resolution would still be 4K at best.
Also, I'm counting they were projecting 2.55:1. If they decided to go the 2.89:1 route, then the resolution is even lower - unless, again, an anamorphic was used for the Sony.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 01-21-2009 03:26 AM
quote: Thomas Hauerslev
I'm excited to see how it looks
I'm an old man, I don't get excited; I'll be interested to see how it looks.
Has anything been shown digitally on the curved screen at Pictureville in the past? I have to say that I'm not a great fan of Cinerama; for me the disadvantages of the mis-matched panels, joins and strip screen outweigh the advantages. The DVD did a very good job of hiding the joins, and the digital 'print' should be able to do the same, but how do you project onto a curve that deep with a single digital projector? I assume that it's not possible to use the strange lens that's fitted to the DP-70 for 70mm film on the Cinerama screen. Is the depth of focus great enough to cope? How do the geometrics work out, is the image pre-distorted in some way to correct for the distortions that would occur projecting onto a deep curve? How much of the 2k projection panel is actually being used, is it being cropped to whatever the Cinerama aspect ratio is, or is an anamorphic lens being used? If so, this would still sem to involve some cropping to match the Cinerama ratio.
I've seen five different 3-strip prints; the original John Harvey 'This is Cinerama' print which ran at Bradford when it first opened, the 'new' print which normally runs there, the old prints of 'How the West was Won' and 'Windjammer', and the few reels which were restored of one of the Kinopanorama films, which were shown at the Widescreen Weekend last year. All of these have problems; the Russian material was in good condition, but was not very interesting, also, my Russian is not good enough to be able to understand much of the dialogue. In terms of content, this was more like a conventional film than a typical Cinerama one. The three original prints are not in very good condition, the 'Windjammer' one is the least worn, and would be good if it wasn't so badly faded. The 'new' print of 'This is Cinerama' has serious grading (timing) issues in places.
I've actually seen another print which I'd forgotten about, I saw something, but I can't remember which film, at the London Casino in the '60s, but I don't remember much about it.
It doesn't seem to be possible to see Cinerama at its best on film at present. Whether the digital presentation will look better is something I can't comment on yet. Of course, Cinerama is now shown not just as a form of entertainment, but also as a museum exhibit, and there is a case for saying that it should b presented as it originally was, including it's faults, rather than trying to modernise and improve it.
For those who haven't been to Bradford recently, the main projection room has seen major changes over the Summer. The way that the four projectors were on a raised platform with a drop behind them always seemed to me to be an accident waiting to happen, as it does in other places where I've seen a similar installation. At Bradford it got even worse when the DP-70 was installed with its huge Zenith lamphouse, and there was very little room to squeeze past it. Sadly, the accident finally happened; I believe it was Tony who fell, and while I haven't spoken to him since, he was in the box when I was there in October, so I assume he must be ok; I hope so.
The rest of the floor has now been raised to the level of the original platform, the door has been moved from the side by the window the the rear, actually there are now two doors, with an emergency one right next to the main one! The rewind bench is now where the door used to be, the power amps are now behind the screen, and the sound rack and Cinerama sound follower have been moved. A Kinoton reverse scan red light reader has been installed in the DP-70, and various other minor changes made. A couple of weeks ago I bought the latest edition of 'Cinema Technology' from the NFT bookshop, and there's an article on it by Dion Hanson.
[ 01-21-2009, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Stephen Furley ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 01-21-2009 04:19 AM
quote: Peter Castle
Why has resolution become a pixel count?
I always understood that it was the ability to resolve parallel lines. So doubling the number of pixels both horizontally and vertically does in fact double the resolution.
It also quadruples the number of pixels.
Well, resolution is not an absolute line-pairs, but line-pairs per degree of arc, but all this is academic, and I get your point.
Ok, then. As you know, it all depends on what you are talking about. Twice the resolution, 4 times the pixel count. 3 times the pixel count, 66% increase in resolution.
Also, please note that resolution doesn't only depend on pixel count, and twice the pixel count doesn't mean an automatic improvement of 50% spatial resolution. It would depend on the accuity of the rest of the optical system (perforation on screen, distance from the viewer, contrast-vs-spatial performance of the optical system (lens), etc.
As we all know, resolution is the ability of an image to resolve fine spatial frequencies through the optical system. You could have a crappy 8k system that, at 16 times the number of pixels of a 2K system couldn't resolve even that much resolution.
And perceived sharpness would be a function of the resolution and contrast available at resolutions below the limiting eye resolution, with detail describing the relative fine information on an image that seldom occur at the pixel level.
But all this is, of course, academic to us AV professionals ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Also, what is "2K"?
Is 2K the 2048x1080 resolution (sorry, pixel array count at 1.9 ratio 2.000:1 contrast) that a DCI projector can do or is it the 2048x1556 pixel scan area that a Digital Intermediate master can obtain from a Super 35mm frame area? Some scanners do 1616 lines.
And is 4K Sony's 4096x2160 pixel array or is it the 4096x3112 area of Digital Intermediates of Super 35mm at 4K?
How about the 3656x3112 of Scope 4K DI's?
Or the 1828x1556 of Scope 2K DI's?
Or the 1828x1532 of Academy 2K DI's?
So, anyway, saying that 4K is 4 times the resolution of 2K is wrong, but saying that 2x2K is twice the resolution of 2K or that it's 4K is also wrong.
Change the term "resolution" for "pixel count" in that single sentence and all the rest of the my post is correct.
So there is no doubt and we can all talk the same conventions, from now all, we'll speak of 2K flat films as 17 lp/degree (at 2 screen heights), and 4K ones as 35 lp/degree (non-anamorphic, DCI compliant) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm also not too happy with DCinema complacency on 2K. 2K, although about as good in resolution as your average projected (jittery) "3perf" 1.85 release print, is also too close to home's (blu-ray, HD) 1080p format.
2K is enough resolution only for those sitting farther than 4 screen heights, and this leaves plenty of patrons in a theater able to use more detail. At homes, viewing distances is often more than 4 times screen height, with the limiting resolution (the detail the eye can actually make-out per degree of arc) is about 5 times the height for HD.
So HD for home is fine. 2K for cinemas is fine to those sitting after 4 times screen height. 4K cinema would be fine for those sitting behind 2 times screen height.
Everybody sitting closer than that (aproximately), could see even more detail, if it was there and contrast was good.
I have only seen 1 Cinerama movie, HTWWW. It was some new cinerama print at a theater in LA close to Hollywood Blvd, not far from the Egypcian. I found it awesome, better than I expected.
I had seen plenty of circleramas and the like in amusement parks, but never cinerama since there was no theaters capable of it nearby. The best I had when I was a child was a Todd-AO theater with a slight curve and a 70mm proyector.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 01-21-2009 07:13 AM
At last year's Widescreen Weekend two features, plus various other material, were shown digitally. I saw 'The Great Escape', and I wasn't impressed. It looked as if somebody had taken an old release print off the shelf, scanned it, and then put that on the digital projector. I'm told that the other digital film, 'Blade runner' I think it was, looked better, but it was on late one evening, and I was feeling tired, so I didn't see it. If they're going to use digital projection they should surely be showing the best that the format is capable of, not what I saw last year which was frankly, a poor transfer.
I note that Darren is giving a lecture this year; it will be interesting to see what he comes up with.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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