A Few Words About A few words about...™ Digital Projection in the wild (1 Viewer)

[Doctorossi]

You scanned the masters at 8k?
What happened to the negative?

Robert, I feel your frustration, but this is going to go waaaay over the heads of exhibitors who advertise a 4K DCP "in Panavision".

 

[bryan4999]

I wondered the same thing and emailed The Astor.

Thanks for taking the time to email them; I was really curious. At least it explains the use of the word "Panavision" (not that it makes it right).
Could "masters' be another term for negatives? Just wondering - not sure what "masters" means exactly.

 

[TomTom]

[quote name=" and this Todd-AO ratio has been adhered to in the aspect ratio of the 4K SOM file: that is 2.2:1[/quote]

What is SOM stand for?

 

[Brian Sharp]

Sound of Music

 

[TonyD]

A new theater is opening in Wilmington De and I asked them on their FB page about the IMAX screen here is the answer.
"Penn Cinema Wilmington commented on their Wall post.
Penn Cinema Wilmington wrote: "Digital... nothing but the BEST for us! (I know you might be a purist and say 70mm is the real best but I disagree... particular case in point- I saw The Dark Knight Rises last week on a 70mm IMAX screen and there were little fuzzies and occassional blips- on a brand new print! Modern day digital projection kills 70mm anyday. And apparently IMAX agrees with me since they aren't installing 70mm projectors anymore)."
I asked if e IMAX will be film or digital.
https://www.facebook.com/penncinemariverfront

 

[Doctorossi]

little fuzzies

Oh noes!

Modern day digital projection kills 70mm anyday. And apparently IMAX agrees with me since they aren't installing 70mm projectors anymore

Yeah, the matter of an order of magnitude saved in construction and installation costs and the requirement of a building large enough to accommodate a screen of real IMAX dimensions wouldn't have anything to do with it...
Tony, if you can devise a way to slap this guy around via email, give him one for me, eh?

 

[JeremySt]

In my opinion, there are pros and cons to 70mm and 4k projection... with no clear winner.
There is this:
4k DLP vs 70mm shootout...

When the audience was asked which image they liked best, the overwhelming response was that they preferred the digital projection. As an IMAX 70mm veteran, I found that quite astounding.

sourcehttp://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?57068-Digital-Cinema-Symposium-4K-digital-vs-IMAX-15-70mm-shootout-DCS-report

 

[Doctorossi]

Jeremy, I think the test you cite would've been far more *ahem* illuminating, had it been performed on a screen of traditional IMAX dimensions. With "IMAX" screens the size of those found in today's typical mall installations, the difference between 4K and 15-perf 70 is probably a lot more negligible. That said, those mall "IMAX" installations aren't even 4K, anyway- they're 2K.

 

[Worth]

There's an interesting interview with Panavision's Senior VP of Advanced Digital Imaging. According to him, in the real world, IMAX filmed presentations fall below 4K.
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels

The 4K system that most people know is IMAX -- and it doesn't quite make 4K, which is a surprise to people. "How can that possibly be?," you say. "It's an enormous big frame." Well, because of what I was talking about earlier: the physics of optics. When you take the entire system into account - from the lens of the camera, to the the movement of the light through the projector, all slightly reducing resolution -- you wind up with less than the full resolution you started with.
A number of years ago some IMAX engineers - and I don't think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.
Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!

 

[TonyD]

Oh noes!

Yeah, the matter of an order of magnitude saved in construction and installation costs and the requirement of a building large enough to accommodate a screen of real IMAX dimensions wouldn't have anything to do with it...
Tony, if you can devise a way to slap this guy around via email, give him one for me, eh?

I included the FB page so go right ahead.
Also....
"The Penn Cinema IMAX opened on November 18th at 11:59pm for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows - Part 1: An IMAX Experience. The theater is state-of-the-art featuring highback leather chairs and a 70 foot wide by 40 foot tall screen! There are 430 seats and plenty of easy parking."
I'll ask if they are 4k or 2k

 

[TonyD]

Anyway this new theater posted that the theater is 4k and will present The Hobbit also in 48fps

 

[Rob W]

Anyway this new theater posted that the theater is 4k and will present The Hobbit also in 48fps

I talked about this in another post as well, but be aware that the number of feature films currently being mastered and released in 4K is extremely low. There are a lot of 4K machines out there that never run anything but 2K content.

 

[Adam_S]

it would behoove studios to drop a 'please enjoy this 4k presentation' or 'please enjoy this 2k presentation' at the header of the digital files for various 4k and 2k releases.

 

[DavidJ]

While I've had many disappointing digital AND film presentations recently, I just had a fantastic digital experience at the Moore Warren IMAX for a showing of Spiderman. I went specifically to see the quality of the theater (I'd already seen the movie at our local AMC 24 on one of its largest screens). It was better than I was hoping. It was by far the best presentation I've seen in years and the sound was fantastic. This is not one of the faux-IMAX screens that have been shoehorned into existing multiplexes like the one at the AMC 24 mentioned above. They built a new addition to their free-standing theater specifically for this auditorium. It is a 600 seat auditorium with a screen that is six stories tall. It is the largest digital IMAX in the world (I think it has a twin in KS) and well worth the up-charge. Especially since it costs about the same as the faux-IMAX at the AMC 24---sometimes more, sometimes less.

 

[bryan4999]

I just came home from seeing the new Star trek film, and the projection was way off. The picture was stretched horizontally; the aspect ratio looked like maybe 2.7:1 instead of 2.4:1. I complained to the manager, who said, "Oh, that happens sometimes." I asked why. He just looked at me blankly. I won't go back to that theater. On a positive note, they had Dolby Atmos and it was a very expansive and convincing sound field. So they go to the trouble and expense to install Atmos but can't get the AR right (in addition, there was no masking, so the white screen around the image was very distracting). And it was $18 for a matinee!