|
|
Author
|
Topic: Imax releases at Showest ... and Sony's '4K' 3D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 04-02-2009 11:20 PM
Well, while I also consider Sony's current crop of projectors "inferior" overall they are not inferior in principle and definitely not in resolution or contrast ratio, quite on the contrary.
As we know, they do deliver 4 times the amount of pixels of 2K offers and a contrast ratio that could be superior if DCI didn't limit the specifications to 2000:1.
With their 3D solution, they can also do 3D at 60hz for live sports and the like, while all other systems, except dual-projection, would not be able to do this.
But they are indeed a "work in progress" and the projectors are not without engineering (rather than design or theoretical) capabilities issues and they are by design more limited in useable light output FOR 2D. They have an advantage for 3D in that the light coming out of the engine is already pre-polarized and thus can be used almost 100% w/o loss for 3D instead of taking a (say) 50% additional hit for some other systems.
So they have problems and they are not "polished" and you find plenty of units with uniformity, linearity, response or even registration issues. They are less bright for 2D and they are expensive. They are also potentially less durable.
But they are also 4K, they have a nice image quality (when you hit a non-defective unit ), they do 3D at full 2K 4:4:4 12 bits w/o flicker and up to 60fps while the competition does 4:2:2 10 bits and even less than 2K if they are older non-triple flash models and max. 48fps with even more flicker at 96hz in dual-flash (like XpanD).
So I wouln't label them totally as "an inferior product". It's a superior product on the paper than then fails to properly deliver what it's meant to do because of technical issues rather than specifications or theoretical performance.
It's sort of SDDS. It's a better product than Dolby digital in theory. And when it works well, it produces superior results.
But in practice ... One could say SRD is an inferior product but more solid, more practical, durable and cheaper.
DLP's are without doubt a more solid and reliable solution for digital cinemas, specilly on large screens. But unfortunately, they are also "inferior" in resolution and thus, in certainly one of the main parameters by which image quality is measured. You can't argue that when color gamut and contrast are similar, 8 million pixels is a lot better than 2 million pixels.
But I agree we all wished there were a 4K DLP projector in the market. Unfortunately, I don't think it will come and, if it does, have the €€€€ or the $$$$ ready.
| 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.
|