Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 4k Sony vs 4k JVC, did you see them?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » 4k Sony vs 4k JVC, did you see them?

Author

Topic: 4k Sony vs 4k JVC, did you see them?

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 03-18-2005 10:49 AM

From ShoWest it was reported that both Sony and JVC were going to show 4k projectors. Did they show any projectors and how did they fair compared to eachother?

Also
Did you witness 3D from a single dlp projector?
Did they use passive 3D with circular polarization or some other solution?

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-18-2005 03:26 PM

Sony had a demo theatre in the Las Vegas ballrooms at Bally's. Who was showing the JVC projector? They were not a listed exhibitor.

Kodak had Digital Cinema screenings over at the Century Orleans 18 theatres on Monday evening, and demos in the Palace 3 room at Bally's.

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema

quote:
Please join Kodak Monday, March 14, for "An Evening of Independent Film" featuring a special digital pre-show and full-feature digital experience, at the Century Orleans 18 Theatre. Screenings at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., with a reception following the first screening.

Ongoing demonstrations of the Kodak Digital Cinema Solution during tradeshow hours in Palace Room 3 at Bally's (across from the tradeshow floor). RSVP for Monday night or schedule a day/time to visit the Kodak demo room.

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-18-2005 04:45 PM

I saw the Sony demo.

The ballroom was medium size at best with a non-perfed 1-gain screen with speakers below. The projector sat on a stand at the back of the room. There was a technician sitting at a laptop computer handling the show. The screen was about 10' high and I sat about 10' from the screen. There were four rows of chairs and the last row was about 20' from the screen.

The test material consisted of a Sony sourced digital series consisting of the usual color saturated shots of an attractive woman in a bikini jumping into a pool all in rather slow motion. The ripples of the pool were mesmerizing. Then she sits at a counter and strokes a glass of water. The next sequence was the woman descending a staircase. Then there was the couple overlooking an attractive landscape from their balcony.

In the woman descending the staircase sequence I noted a bit of motion artifacts on one of her arm movements. All of the sequences looked to have originated on video.

The next sequence was taken from the camera negative of the Sound of Music with Julie Andrews. It is the picnic scene after she has sewn the kids play cloths out of the curtains and she sings Doe a Deer.

Our first thought was "Oh my god is that great photography!" Then you think, "Hey, Julie Andrews wasn't a young as we thought in this movie." That's because the image is so crisp that you can see the lines in her face. Then you start watching the grass blowing in the wind and note how truly hideous those play cloths are. Another tech though that the image was very flat and two dimensional. He also had trouble with the way the projector played with light. Once again I noticed motion artifacts during a movement of Julie Andrew's arm.

Then there were a series of glitches while they tried to bring up the next file for the demo. I chalk that up to probably piss poor planning and the suits changing the order of things during the show. Eventually we got to watch a bit of I Robot with Will Smith. At this point I was looking for motion artifacts but the screen was too busy and the action was all computer animated so I didn't see anything amiss.

The next sequence was a mind blowing series of shots from an 8-70 production about India. The colors were rich and saturated and we were stunned to watch what was going on the screen. I think most of us forgot about what we were watching because we were involved in the image. But we were watching a 10' image of material that was made to be projected on a 60' to 80' screen.

After that they projected some still images and invited us to approach the screen and try to find the pixels. Well there they were plain as day and square to boot. Even if they were only 5'millimeters across, they still have a square aspect and I wonder if that still affects the image with it's artificial sharpness and what I have come to think of as hyper-realism. That no matter how small the pixel that there is an unreal edge to each image that the brain rejects as unreal.

Certainly it was a great video projector with all the usual video attributes like a very still picture without any motion. Good uniformity of light. Very good focus across the image.

In the end they projected a nice test pattern and were gathered around discussing the detail of this and that. I noticed that the panels were out of alignment but about half a pixel.

In the end, I feel that this will be a very good staging video projector but it is not a good cinema projector. Even though it has twice the resolution of the current TI projectors, the TI projectors have been optimized for the cinema environment.

| IP: Logged

Mike Olpin
Chop Chop!

Posts: 1852
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 03-18-2005 05:28 PM

I noticed that while most of the ripples in the pool with the girl swimming were good, the ones directly behind her were full of artifacts. That said, I was mezmorized by the India sequence. My conclusion is that 4k is a sufficient resolution for cinema use. The major obstical now is in the video processsor. We need to have a system that can fill all of the pixels with no artifacts, distortion, or blur.

| IP: Logged

Paul Mayer
Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under!

Posts: 3836
From: Albuquerque, NM
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 03-18-2005 06:25 PM

Dammit! Hopefully Sony will have one of their 4Ks set up at NAB here next month.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-18-2005 06:44 PM

No matter how good the Sony looked I can only think SDDS [Mad]

.

Mark

| IP: Logged

Mattias Ohlson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Falun, Sweden
Registered: Mar 2003

posted 03-19-2005 09:59 AM

Ian Price
I wonder one thing about the pixel edges.
With d-ila pixels affecting neighbouring pixels, a kind of bleeding that should give more natural transitions. This is not strange with one continous liquid crystal layer. Sxrd is not that different. Were pixels not affecting each other on the image you saw? It might be difficult to see since you would probably have to look at the pixel edges. Also the state of focus might also affect this. Is it not practise with dlp cinema to apply a slight defocus.

| IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-19-2005 02:33 PM

Sorry Mattias, I can't answer your question. I don't know the answer. All I can report is what I saw at a very short demonstration. I might be able to answer those questions if I had a week or a month to look at the projector instead of 17-minutes.

All I gave were my impressions, other technicians saw other things. All agreed that it is a very nice video projector and all agreed that it isn't film.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-19-2005 03:12 PM

quote: Ian Price
The next sequence was taken from the camera negative of the Sound of Music with Julie Andrews. It is the picnic scene after she has sewn the kids play cloths out of the curtains and she sings Doe a Deer.

Our first thought was "Oh my god is that great photography!" Then you think, "Hey, Julie Andrews wasn't a young as we thought in this movie." That's because the image is so crisp that you can see the lines in her face. Then you start watching the grass blowing in the wind and note how truly hideous those play cloths are. Another tech though that the image was very flat and two dimensional. He also had trouble with the way the projector played with light. Once again I noticed motion artifacts during a movement of Julie Andrew's arm.

Interesting that they chose to use a 40 year-old 65mm film production to show how sharp a 4K digital projector is, only to find that better quality was probably achieved 40 years ago using a 70mm film projector costing much less than the new system. [Cool]

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 03-19-2005 03:28 PM

It is not the practice to defocus a DLP projector. Some may defocus an LCD projector to minimize the screen door but not so on a DLP.

The next thing I'm seeing for LCD is making the pixels so close together that the screen door pratically vanishes. DLP and DILA/LCOS are reflective technologies so there is no screen-door persay though they all have pixelation and have potential Morie` problems with perforated screens.

Note too that Sony chose to use a non-perf small screen. Probably the best demo room was Panasonic. They used a high-dollar Stewart screen and had their projector dialed in (just a baby DLP with 1366 x 768 resolution). They combined that with a cinema sound system to present themsevles extremely well for a projector and lens system that can be had for under $30K.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-19-2005 05:08 PM

quote: Steve Guttag
Probably the best demo room was Panasonic. They used a high-dollar Stewart screen and had their projector dialed in (just a baby DLP with 1366 x 768 resolution). They combined that with a cinema sound system to present themsevles extremely well for a projector and lens system that can be had for under $30K.

What was the true lumen output for the Panasonic projector they showed? Was it a gain screen? Is that low resolution likely to meet the DCI and SMPTE DC28 specifications, or is the intent for pre-show material and independent features with less than 2K resolution?

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

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

posted 03-19-2005 06:37 PM

It was a matte-white screen. They only had 1 of the two lamps running for the demo and the theoretical maximum lumen output on the Panasonic PT-DW7000U/U-K was 3000 lumens though it would be 6000 Lumens if both lamps were used.

The dynamic iris and gamma were used to make this projector seem like it had a better range.

Their current target use is Preshow and independant films though they definately were claiming that it would work for DCinema.

Its input include the capability for 1080p at 24, 24sf, 30 and 25.

Again, this projector does not look as good as the true DCinema projectors, but at $30K or less...it doesn't cost nearly as much either. I would say, in a smaller screen situation where 6000 lumens or so is sufficient, it can provide a rather decent show for video. Is it film? Of course not...but it probably will do better than what typical low-end exhibitors are doing with film with bargain basement projection and operated poorly.

| 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.