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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » digital projection & perforations

Author Topic: digital projection & perforations Matt Hale Expert Film Handler Posts: 123 From: Vancouver, Canada Registered: Dec 2002 posted 10-09-2003 04:03 PM                        So the screen went up in our new mixing theatre last night and we fired up our brand-new lcd projector (a Sanyo PLC-EF31N) and got a major interference pattern between the pixel grid of the image and the perforation grid of the screen. It looks sort of like wavy rainbow plaid. The only way to get rid of it is either zooming the image to about 75% of the screen size or defocusing the lens - neither of which is very appealing to us. The screen is an ordinary matte white film screen with standard size perforations. My question is to those of you have digital projectors and micro-perf screens - does it get rid of the interference pattern or do more holes make it worse? Also, my logic tells me that a micro-perf screen should attenuate the high-frequency sound from the screen speakers less than a normal perforated screen, but our installer insists its the other way around. Any experiences either way? Thanks,  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 10-09-2003 04:25 PM                     LCD projectors have more pronounced grid affect on perforated screens versus DLP / LCOS type of machines. The screen perforations, based on the hole pattern ( in addition to size )produced by the manufacturer's punching die, can also make this more pronounced. Micro perf is better but they do require EQ changes for audio due to the less net space for the holes. Microperf, if not a one piece sheet, will have a tendency to have the seam joints more noticable compared to standard perf. You should have demoed different type of projectors and screen samples. SXGA resolution or better is the why to go to future proof yourself.  |  IP: Logged Ian Price Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1714 From: Denver, CO Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-09-2003 06:21 PM                     I have this exact same projector. We have a 14' high Hurley screen with standard perforations. I have not noticed this "grid interference." But so far we have only been running NTSC video off of a Sony Betamax SP deck and one DVD. Running in this way, the pixels are much larger than the perforations.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 10-09-2003 06:57 PM                        Whenever two regular patterns (the projector pixels and the holes in the screen) have about the same frequency, they can alternately reinforce and interfere with each other, causing moire. You either need to change the frequency of the pattern (change magnification, increase the number of pixels) or have less of a pattern (other types of projector, defocusing, use smaller holes) to make the pattern less noticeable. The screen manufacturers have been working to develop screen perforations that minimize aliasing patterns with digital projectors, while not significantly attenuating the sound or requiring extreme equilization, but ultimately, better projector technology is being developed. Interference can also occur with regular patterns in the image itself (the classic moire seen in herringbone suits or venetian blinds on television or digital displays). In this case, anti-aliasing filtration is used to attenuate the offending image detail, at the expense of at least 1/2 of the resolution (Nyquist criteria): Berkeley Moire Rice University CMU Aliasing Stanford Lecture  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-09-2003 07:03 PM                        One thing that would help is if screen manufacturers would, instead of using a regular lattice, would use a random distribution of perforations. The lack of a rectangular or haxagonal (or other regular) pattern in the holes would eliminate the beat pattern formed by the pixel pattern of the projector interacting with the regular lattice of perforations on the screen.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 10-09-2003 07:19 PM                     The random aspect for the perforations are limited due to the fact since most screens are assembled from panels that are seamed together. There is matching involved so as not to see a obvious repetition. The random pattern is also limited to keep the gain reflectance even on the surface. Years ago there was one screen manufacturer which used a random pattern that was so broad that at about 4 meters or less the pattern was visible while watching the image.  |  IP: Logged Gordon McLeod Film God Posts: 9532 From: Toronto Ontario Canada Registered: Jun 99 posted 10-09-2003 07:31 PM                     Also a random patern might interfere with consistent sound spread and attinuation  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-10-2003 10:45 AM                        Right. There's no easy solution. The reason that the screen perforations haven't caused too much of a problem for film presentation is due to the random distribution of the grains in the film media. I can only notice screen perforations if I'm less than 20 feet from the screen and the focus is very sharp when I'm watching film. The perfs give the appearance of watching an array of pixels. The interaction between digital projection and screen perforations should only be a big problem if the spacings of the pixels of the image and the spacing of the perforations on the screen are similar. For example, let's say your digital projector has 1280 pixels across the image and you're showing a movie on a screen 24 feet in width. That's one pixel per 0.225 inch. Suppose your screen has perforations every 0.2 inch. Then you have a beat pattern that is the difference of the frequencies of these two patterns: 1440 cycles per screen width for perforations minus 1280 cycles per screen width for the image pixels, which is 160 cycles per screen width, or a moire pattern that will have 1 "wave" every 1.8 inches, which may be very noticeable. Edit: For those of you who notice interference patterns between your projector and screen, please post your screen perforation pitch, screen dimensions, and projector resolutions. This is interesting.  |  IP: Logged Paul Mayer Oh get out of it Melvin, before it pulls you under! Posts: 3836 From: Albuquerque, NM Registered: Feb 2000 posted 10-10-2003 12:23 PM                        Here's a thread from last year on the same subject for those that want to read further: Digital projection and perforated screens  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 10-10-2003 01:43 PM                        Sure there's an easy solution, Evans, USE FILM! (Sorry, couldn't resist). Frank  |  IP: Logged Evans A Criswell Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1579 From: Huntsville, AL, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 10-10-2003 01:56 PM                        Wow. I'm beginning to see what being 35 can do for my memory. That thread that Paul is referring to last year is one that I started, and I had no recollection of it.  |  IP: Logged Matt Hale Expert Film Handler Posts: 123 From: Vancouver, Canada Registered: Dec 2002 posted 10-10-2003 03:01 PM                        Oops... I guess I should have done a search of old threads before posting. Anyhow, our installer brought a sample of microperf by for us to try and if anything it made it worse. Strange thing is the micro-perfs were smaller and denser by at least a factor of 10 than the regular screen, so I guess we just have great misfortune in hitting pixel/perf harmonics. Our old theatre had the same problem too, with the same resolution projector but a 10 foot bigger screen. I wonder if throw distance (or perhaps throw:screen ratio) has anything to do with it. The other theatre at our old facility had a 30 foot longer throw, but only a slightly larger screen, and never showed a hint of a problem. As far as I know the screen material (and therefore perf density) was exactly the same. After much fiddling we have reduced the pattern on our new setup from wavy rainbow plaid to a mild horizontal bar thats really only visible in large areas of solid colour, but the image is just a little imperfect. In other words its not film...  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.