|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Are the Big Chains Still Committed to Sony?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 11-02-2015 10:13 PM
I guess and hope (someone out there might be able to confirm this for me?) that more recent Sony 4K projectors might be better in contrast than what they originally put out. The originals were vastly inferior to DLPs, or is nobody able to discern crappy images any more? We recently attended a show at a Regal location in Alhambra (suburban Los Angeles, CA) and they ran the typical Sony 4K logo, etc. -- but the image ... OMG, washed out, dull -- just terrible! It's "4K", but a disaster.
We have just a basic 2K (series 1, yet) where I work, and the image is FAR more satisfying. I have to say, I feel sorry for any folks who seek out a show in "4K" resolution* because, if it's one of those early 4Ks, the picture sucks. (That's a technical term.)
*Such as the recent BYE presentations of "My Fair Lady" in the 4K restoration version. The resultant experience of viewers across the country must have varied wildly, even "in 4K".
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 11-03-2015 04:33 AM
Hard to say what and why you experienced what you saw then. The recent Sony machines boast 8000:1, which is even more than todays typical latest laser-projectors.
Earlier Sony machines, 220/320 were quoted in the 2000:1 range, just like most DLPs.
I would admit that DLPs have higher chances for a more consistent image over a longer time span, although I have seen washed out DLPs as well.
Very early Sony machines, like the 105 and 110, are said to have deteriorated pretty quickly. I know a cinema still running a 220, and I heard it is still on the first light-engine. I guess I should go there and see it myself.
Washed out images on these multiplex screens could be due to the machines being to dim, with 4.2kW delivering not enough light for a large screen, through the 3D lens, bad portglas, and maybe with the bulbs running all day. And the owner/operator giving a shit in general.
Concerning dim images from Sony (but probably not exclusively) projectors, that was even a news story 3-4 years back, e.g.:
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/the-dying-of-the-light
As most news stories about technical things, there are quite a few flaws in these descriptions and citations, but, there's always some truth behind it.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marco Giustini
Film God
Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 11-03-2015 05:43 AM
quote: Paul H. Rayton
The originals were vastly inferior to DLPs, or is nobody able to discern crappy images any more? We recently attended a show at a Regal location in Alhambra (suburban Los Angeles, CA) and they ran the typical Sony 4K logo, etc. -- but the image ... OMG, washed out, dull -- just terrible! It's "4K", but a disaster.
Then your projector was faulty.
I agree with Carsten that DLP can be more consistent over time - Sony do need extra calibration steps, it's detailed in the service manual. And if you put DLP and SXRD side by side you really need to look closer to find a difference - on bright image.
But on darker image the black level of a Sony 51x machine is just vastly superior to a 4K chip, which by definition has a lower contrast ratio than a 2K machine.
There is nothing wrong with picture quality on a Sony machine, in fact it's great and if you put an SXRD and a DLP side by side there is no "hands down" winner as someone says. You may like the DLP more or the SXRD but the bottom line is that you will need to pause the content and look carefully for any difference.
If you see a Sony with 'terrible' picture quality, then it needs calibration/parts. Projector do break down, including DLP's. As Carsten says, I've seen washed out DLP's as well.
I have seen old 220's and picture quality was still very good, not more washed out than new 320's. This is a fact.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 11-03-2015 06:46 AM
quote: Steve Kraus
Surprised they stuck with 2K when 4K DLP came out. Regardless of whatever gee-whiz things they do between the two projectors (or do they even do something?) when running 2D, if the content is 4K it may be higher resolution in the hall next door.
Someone familiar with IMAX on a technical level told me they actually switched to Barco 4k XENON machines for larger screens, not only because of the 4k signal resolution, but because of the slightly increased brightness of the larger imager.
They still went into these machines over HD-SDI in 2*2k, because they needed to go through their 'black-box-raster-image-secret-saucer'. So that whole 2*2k system was not IMB or 4k compatible. That was also the reason they built their own secure housing around the LiMAX system, because they needed the HD-SDI signals without encryption to be processed by their black box. And the only way 'they' would allow this was to use secure boxes, secure harnesses, etc. The Doremi servers used on those systems had HD-SDI encryption disabled and thus were blacklisted.
Of course, these 4k machines, even when fed with 2k, also had the added benefit of a less visible raster pattern on those larger screens.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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