World-first acoustic transparent LED cinema screen debuts

[Marco Giustini]

Steve,
I think we are on the same page here. Yes, let's begin with 108 as it's there already but let's allow Barco to come up with their 300nits projectors (which must be able to play 108 as well) and see where that goes. I see your point that Barco could also release a 108nits projector as well at a much lower price.
Of course having multiple versions of HDR content would not be great.

[Steve Guttag]

There is nothing to "allow." Barco can develop whatever they want. If people use it and studios master to it...eventually, it will become a standard. I don't know where the perception is that somehow if the industry standardizes on one format that it precludes advances that would lead to future standards.

What is going to stop 300Nits from being used with projectors is its financial lack of viability. it is WAY too big an ask to get mainstream cinemas to have a projector that is over 6 times brighter than what they currently are paying for. Even if the price increases were linear as one goes up in lumens (and they are not), the cost of maintaining that sort of projector goes up geometrically. The kinds of theatres that could offset the big price tag due to the volume of business (PLFs) are excluded because the ask is so much that one has to limit the size of the image or get into stacking/warping to get the lumens up...which makes it even MORE expensive (less profitable). Conversely, starting with 108 as the next step is already established. They are already mastering for it and it will have an immediate impact on even the casual movie goer. Mind you, even doubling ones lumens can be a pretty big "ask" for exhibitors that are losing money. But, as one has boutique theatres, having bright images would be a good sell and not as crazy a price.

[Marco Giustini]

But 108 is 2.25 times brighter than standard and does require stacking projectors and does require warping
Still, it's here and now we're talking about getting that in more cinemas.

[Steve Guttag]

I'd say a fair number of my cinemas could double their light without double stacking.

[Lyle Romer]

Emissive screens are definitely the future for large displays. The issues to be addressed are:

1) Cost
2) Cost
3) Cost
4) True acoustic transparency (as was mentioned up thread what is the passband and can speakers be angled)
5) Protecting the screen from people throwing food and drinks at it

As far as the magic of a projector beam, it was born out of necessity as it was the only way to create a large moving image. It wouldn't have been practical (probably impossible) to have a giant flip book in the front of a theatre. With digital cinema, the loss of the flicker of said beam makes it lose the magic anyway.

No matter the display technology (projection vs. emission), I have a theory that movies would be more magical if imperceptible flicker was introduced to digital presentations. My theory comes from the fact that my wife often has trouble not starting to doze when watching movies at home on our TV or watching them in theatres. However, when we saw Oppenheimer in 15/70 IMAX last year her eyes were wide open and she was engaged for the entire length. My theory is that something about the flicker engages the brain at a higher level.

I don't know if DMD chips could even "flash" black that quickly so a mechanical shutter would probably be needed. My great idea would also suffer from the issue of hurting brightness which would need to be compensated for.

[Martin McCaffery]

It wouldn't have been practical (probably impossible) to have a giant flip book in the front of a theatre.

I want one!

[Carsten Kurz]

DMDs can certainly perform any level of black flashing. It's built into current software and is part of 3D configurations.

[Ryan Gallagher]

Conceptually I like the challenge of introducing a flicker to a DCI image. Just as a thought experiment. I would wager you can't get there by merely strobing though. A mechanical shutter has more analog to it, it's not actually strobing but diming up and down extremely rapidly due to the how the shutter crosses the beam. Faking it with black frames (say via the 3D capabilities of the DMD) would probably only result in headaches and complaints. Doing it "right" would require more work I imagine. (And kill a bunch of brightness in the process, hah).

[Lyle Romer]

Conceptually I like the challenge of introducing a flicker to a DCI image. Just as a thought experiment. I would wager you can't get there by merely strobing though. A mechanical shutter has more analog to it, it's not actually strobing but diming up and down extremely rapidly due to the how the shutter crosses the beam. Faking it with black frames (say via the 3D capabilities of the DMD) would probably only result in headaches and complaints. Doing it "right" would require more work I imagine. (And kill a bunch of brightness in the process, hah).

I guess you'd have to try and "wipe" the black across the frame like a mechanical shutter. If somebody has an old digital projector laying around and a shutter from a film projector I wonder if it can be hacked into the light path and synchronized to the digital frames.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I guess you'd have to try and "wipe" the black across the frame like a mechanical shutter. If somebody has an old digital projector laying around and a shutter from a film projector I wonder if it can be hacked into the light path and synchronized to the digital frames.

I wouldn't entirely call it a wipe either, or at least not a "sharp wipe". The shutters are not at the focal point (the film/gate is). So what you actually end up with is a dowsing/dimming effect, albeit a very fast one. It may progress top to bottom mechanically, but it is so out of focus that you can barely tell that aspect. Although I say this and I haven't tried turning a shutter assembly with a lamp on at anything slower than 24fps, I'm just speaking from my lighting fundamentals knowledge.

It's not unlike where the dowser is located in a spotlight, it too is a flag, perhaps with feathering on the leading edge, but it evenly dims the field. The spotlight "chopper" on the other hand is closer to the focal plane, and is a visible pair of shadows that progress towards the center.

However you are correct that a mechanical shutter beyond the lens of a DCI projector would perhaps mimic the effect, being far enough out of the focal plane. As long as you had a stable variable speed motor... timing it should be easy. Just shoot the image and adjust the shutter speed until it matches. Certain images images will be easier to set timing with (such as credit crawl). Might even have the same tells as film projectors such as smearing when the timing is off (when you are revealing two frames in each light opening). Although smearing is the wrong word, cause the image is not traversing while being shown... but a doubling of visible frames per opening would be the result. Knowing that you could make a test pattern that has rapid movement of a target to exaggerate the doubling when the shutter is out of tune.

Getting it to achieve that sync on startup without tuning it every time is another topic. ;-) Also existing film shutter assemblies might only work on small consumer projectors. You might need something with larger shutters for in front of a DCI lens because i expect the light field you are trying to interrupt to be larger out there.

[Lyle Romer]

I wouldn't entirely call it a wipe either, or at least not a "sharp wipe". The shutters are not at the focal point (the film/gate is). So what you actually end up with is a dowsing/dimming effect, albeit a very fast one. It may progress top to bottom mechanically, but it is so out of focus that you can barely tell that aspect. Although I say this and I haven't tried turning a shutter assembly with a lamp on at anything slower than 24fps, I'm just speaking from my lighting fundamentals knowledge.

It's not unlike where the dowser is located in a spotlight, it too is a flag, perhaps with feathering on the leading edge, but it evenly dims the field. The spotlight "chopper" on the other hand is closer to the focal plane, and is a visible pair of shadows that progress towards the center.

However you are correct that a mechanical shutter beyond the lens of a DCI projector would perhaps mimic the effect, being far enough out of the focal plane. As long as you had a stable variable speed motor... timing it should be easy. Just shoot the image and adjust the shutter speed until it matches. Certain images images will be easier to set timing with (such as credit crawl). Might even have the same tells as film projectors such as smearing when the timing is off (when you are revealing to frames in each light opening). Although smearing is the wrong word, cause the image is not traversing while being shown... but a doubling of visible frames per opening would be the result. Knowing that you could make a test pattern that has rapid movement of a target to exaggerate the doubling when the shutter is out of tune.

Getting it to achieve that sync on startup without tuning it every time is another topic. ;-) Also existing film shutter assemblies might only work on small consumer projectors. You might need something with larger shutters for in front of a DCI lens because i expect the light field you are trying to interrupt to be larger out there.

It's an interesting thought experiment at least!

[Carsten Kurz]

I'd try a simple fan.

[Ryan Gallagher]

I'd try a simple fan.

Haha. a fan and a variac. The experimentalists version for sure.

Depending on the frame update times from the DMD, one could probably have pretty narrow blades compared to the "open time" to claw back some light output, no need to wait for film to finish moving. But at risk of reducing the intended "flicker" effect.