backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 83 comment(s) - last by PrezWeezy.. on Oct 22 at 8:03 PM

Sony SXRD 4K Digital Cinema System  (Source: Sony)
Sony installing 54 projectors into AMC Theaters' cinemas with 4x the resolution of home theater projectors

Sony announced today that it will equip four of AMC Theaters’ new movie theaters with its CineAlta SXRD 4K digital cinema systems. The theaters using the projectors will be 12 screens in Dallas, 14 screens in Indianapolis, 16 screens in Riverside, and 12 screens in San Diego.

The Sony SXRD 4K Digital Cinema Systems to be installed will include the Sony SRX-R210 10,000 lumen model and the SRX-R220 18,000 lumen projector. Sony says the systems were designed specifically for theater use and will be paired with its LMT-100 Media Block Servers.

The SRX-R220 projector is capable of projecting films on screens of 55-feet or larger. The projector has rack space for the previously mentioned media server from Sony as well as RAID arrays. Color management software for calibrating color balance and alignment is included and automated zoom lens positioning for multiple-format screen fills are used.

Both the projectors in the AMC installations are capable of 4096 x 2160 pixel resolutions providing approximately 8.8 million pixels or four times the resolution of common HD home theater systems.

“This inaugural effort with AMC Entertainment is the latest example of the exhibition and motion picture industries’ continued adoption of 4K digital cinema technology,” said John Scarcella, president of Sony Electronics’ Broadcast and Business Solutions Company.

The motion picture industry has recently announced, according to Sony, that it is working with major cinematographers to start production on 4K originated features and the camera industry has accelerated the production of 4K cameras.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By kyleb2112 on 10/18/2007 7:09:26 PM , Rating: 3
It drives me crazy that they'll chase resolution improvements to the very last bit of diminishing returns, without even MENTIONING the pathetically low frame rate of movies. We've got all these gorgeous, million dollar shots turning into a stuttering mess with every camera pan, and everyone's just cool with it. Is 24 frames per second were written on a stone tablet somewhere?

I can't wait to see how trillion pixel holograms look at 24 fps.




RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By oab on 10/18/2007 7:32:47 PM , Rating: 5
24FPS was picked because that was the lowest frame rate you needed for speech and picture to be able to synchronize properly without looking funny. Back when movies turned into talkies.

And movie cameras don't turn into stuttering messes when they pan, because the scene is recorded blurred, so your eye can't tell. That's why comparing video-game FPS and movie/TV FPS doesn't work. Video games always have static images with no motion blur (until very recently), and therefore the low frame rates are visible to the eye.

However, the vast, vast majority of people have no problem with 24FPS video. They can tell the difference an increase in resolution offers (less grain, less pixilation, etc).


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Scrith on 10/18/2007 8:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, 24FPS is a serious limitation. Film that is projected at higher speeds (as in some motion simulators, such as those by a company called Showscan) is MUCH more believable for action scenes involving rapid movement and/or camera panning. Even in subtle scenes, such as a close up of a face that is talking, the difference is quite noticeable when compared side-by-side with 24FPS (I know because I have seen this demonstration several times, at the Showscan studios). Hopefully in the future movies will not only be shot in high digital resolution (high enough to approximate the resolution of good 35mm film) but also at higher frame rates.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By someguy123 on 10/18/2007 9:30:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Scrith on October 18, 2007 at 8:04 PM
No, 24FPS is a serious limitation. Film that is projected at higher speeds (as in some motion simulators, such as those by a company called Showscan) is MUCH more believable for action scenes involving rapid movement and/or camera panning. Even in subtle scenes, such as a close up of a face that is talking, the difference is quite noticeable when compared side-by-side with 24FPS (I know because I have seen this demonstration several times, at the Showscan studios). Hopefully in the future movies will not only be shot in high digital resolution (high enough to approximate the resolution of good 35mm film) but also at higher frame rates.


completely agree. 24fps turns any high motion pan (or even just high motion camera movement) into a blurry mess. Personally I think 60fps is the butter-zone - Incredibly smooth and maintainable at the same quality by current technology (although the technology is much more expensive than something viable for the mainstream).

I honestly wish the resolution or bitrate of current gen movies were dumbed down to meet atleast a 40fps standard.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/19/2007 7:43:03 AM , Rating: 2
How much would it cost to film a an entire movie, plus the junk they cut out, at 60fps? 24fps is also to save film. And since this media is film digitized, they go with the long time standard. Rendered images don't have motion blur, so they need a higher frame rate to look believable.

Even with 24fps on emulsion film, the screen is dark 2/3 of the time since the aperture is only open for the stationary stutter of the frame, and then closes (rotating aperture, actually) for 2/3 of the time to move the frame out of the way and bring in the next. At least this method will keep the screen light the entire time, which is why it probably looks messier than an emulsion film. Unless it is out of synch, an emulsion film can't blur between frames, so it seems more seamless. This method hops from one image to the next, so that is where the stutter comes in.

I am not sure if this method will also allow you to actually focus the image on the screen. That would be nice for a change. Since a 35mm wide emulsion image is never truly focused (imagine spreading that small image across a 50 foot screen!) becuase of attenuation, no one has ever seen a focused emulsion film on a large screen. By focus I mean an image as sharp as real life.

Anyway, I never heard anyone complain about the duplicate 3rd frame in video tape, so I don't think the brain can pick up most of the roughness.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Mitch101 on 10/19/2007 9:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
The issue may be that it can cause motion sickness. 24fps might prevent that in motion scenes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/technology/circu...
The realism creates other complications. The NHK is studying the physical and psychological effects of UHDV on audiences. One concern is a kind of motion sickness, which researchers attribute to a combination of the wide viewing angle, the massive image and the on-screen motion.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Mitch101 on 10/19/2007 9:16:03 AM , Rating: 5
Here is a second statement aboout 60fps

Well first of all its resolution is a massive 7,680 by 4,320 pixels. The video runs at 60fps . The audio is 22.2ch audio, 9 above ear level, 10 at ear level, 3 below ear level and 2 low frequency effects. So who would be crazy enough to try and test this out? NHK researchers in Japan of course! They conducted a test using an array of 16 HDTV recorders to capture the 18-minute-long test footage with a camera built with 4 2.5 inch (64 mm) CCDs. So what did the lucky people who witnessed this test get out of it? They got motion sickness, in area's where the camera would move fast.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By erikejw on 10/21/2007 7:39:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it probably take some time to get used to it like other things in life.

If you don't like it avoid it.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By erikejw on 10/21/2007 7:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
IMAX HD is run in 48fps.
If high fps is so bad why is IMAX shot that way.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Darnell021 on 10/22/2007 1:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
at the imax in boston they give instructions before every movie on what to do if you experience motion sickness.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 10/19/2007 8:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. The stuttering during horizontal camera pans is very noticeable on big screens. It annoys the hell out of me, but I guess some people can't see it, just like some people couldn't tell the difference between 60Hz and 100Hz on CRT monitors...


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Zurtex on 10/19/2007 8:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's a big part about what you're used too, I never used to be able to notice these little details in quality. But now I regularly watch High Definition stuff on my monitor, I've become very quick to appreciate failings in picture quality under certain circumstances.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By pranilm on 10/21/2007 3:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
Cant wait


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By erikejw on 10/21/2007 7:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Your eyes can't tell?
Maybe 60 years ago. Now when the kids play 120Hz fps games they notice and I see stutter. 24fps is a joke.

I can see if a screen is 60 Hz, 75 Hz ,85 or 100 when I watch a movie, no problem there. Did you read research from 100 years ago or what.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By xdrol on 10/22/2007 12:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
Stop beeing ignorant and read. CG 24 FPS != film 24 FPS. You can see if the CRT is on x or y Hz refresh rate, but you can not tell if the film is actually 24 or 30 or 60 FPS. Go ahead, and make a blind test.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Oregonian2 on 10/18/2007 8:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Unless these are compatible with one or both of the two 3D projection add-on systems then it'll probably be a limited unit. 3D projection in commercial theaters is really taking off (the one with passive polarizing "sunglasses" being in the lead I think). There are biggies in Hollywood pushing and so it'll likely succeed (needs differentiation from the growing HDTV theaters in people's homes to get folk into the theaters).


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By augiem on 10/18/2007 8:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
Amen! I always get a funny sensation watching a movie in the theaters from the flickering. Kinda distracting, like a flourescent light bulb. It's very noticeable to me the lower frame rate, though it is what gives movies that movie feel I suppose.

Anyway, you can sure see a heck of a lot more detail in Transformers at home on a DVD than in the theater. Many of the action scenes were a bumpy blur, but now I can actually see the robots in the mess. I wonder if they shot and rendered for 30 fps and cut it down to 24 for the film release.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By DragonMaster0 on 10/18/2007 10:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
No one talked about fps... Maybe it will be 30fps since there's no film going to be used with these projectors.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By scrapsma54 on 10/18/2007 11:09:24 PM , Rating: 2
DLP is just as capable as this stuff. What you don't know is that Sony has been fruitlessly trying to compete With dlp since its release but is full of fail. DLP outputs more contrast, more color, and accurate response time. DLP is Crt's successor in every angle possible, and sony is afraid since Dlp has been wiping the floor with every concept and Release that sony made. Sony, you guys need to start thinking outside the box.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 10/19/2007 8:29:47 AM , Rating: 1
Only problem is that basically all but the most expensive DLPs still have the awful color rainbow crap...


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Spivonious on 10/19/2007 8:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
Totally. I remember trying to watch a hockey game on a DLP TV. The ice kept changing colors!


By DigitalFreak on 10/19/2007 11:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
DLP projectors in theaters are a 3 chip solution, so there is no rainbows. Same reason you don't see rainbows on SXRD sets.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By P4blo on 10/19/2007 11:39:02 AM , Rating: 2
In my experience that's totally untrue. Maybe the early units that had few colour wheels but I bought an Optoma HD70 DLP for the bargain price of just £650 ($1300 approx) when they came out and I've been floored by its quality. 1080i and 720p movies, TV and Xbox / PC gaming are all unreal. Zero latency issues, never detected any rainbows and the contrast is awesome. I love DLP!

Have to agree with many people here about film's 24fps. I think that's an acceptable FPS for lower quality output but with 1080p and above it's quite a let down. We're also used to TV's interlacing up to 50 (PAL) or 60 (NTSC).

Motion sickness at high FPS? I'd like to see what % of people suffered this. They're probably the same people who get sea sick, air sick and car sick. Some people just aren't up for the thrill! They probably stay away from roller coasters too :)

With all the cool home HD tech we have now let the softies rent HD-DVDs (or Blu-Ray if they HAVE to ;P). I would like to see the cinema remain a unique experience that's worth going out for. If they dont rise to the challenge the comfort of home 1080p projectors and popcorn you dont have to mortgage your home for will be too appealing. Oh and you can get it on with your squeeze without some 10 year old staring at you and flicking M+Ms.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By DOCDAT1 on 10/19/2007 11:58:48 AM , Rating: 1
I haven't seen a home theater DLP projector yet that I couldn't detect the rainbow effect on. Yes, even the ones with 7 segment color wheels...

Of course, many people can't see them at all, including on the early DLP units.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By P4blo on 10/19/2007 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it is a personal thing it seems. I think I read that with 5 and above wheels it was pretty rare to be effected though.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By FastLaneTX on 10/20/2007 2:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
DLP movie projectors don't have color wheels; they use three separate DLP chips. There is no "rainbow" effect; that's only on the comparatively cheap consumer "home theatre" products.

I happen to live near the TI lab that developed DLP and worked in the same building (for another company) when it came out. The first movie projector was installed in the Cinemark theatre across the street, and even that first model was absolutely stunning. One of the guys put up a 50% black/50% white image on the screen, and even with 20/15 vision I couldn't even see the pixels until I reached the front row. They stuff they're shipping now is much better. That's why AMC is starting their rollout in Dallas -- trying to compete with DLP on its home turf.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By erikejw on 10/21/2007 8:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
DLP outputs more contrast, more color, and accurate response time


DLP has less contrast, the same color and higher response time
compared to SXRD, D-ILA or whatever you want to call it.

DLP has better ANSI cotrast though and is better in low contrast shots with much light. At dark scenes SXRD is clearly better.

DLP is or at least was very good. They have had a rough time improving their technology at the same rate as LCD and SXRD.

LCD competes well with their lower prices in home projectors. DLP chips costs very much compared to LCD.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By MPE on 10/19/2007 9:38:29 AM , Rating: 1
24fps is PART of the whole film experience.

Higher frame rates has been characterized to look like video and reality. That is not the point of the film medium. That is for video (aka reality shows, news, soaps, etc). You already have that at home.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By The Jedi on 10/19/2007 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
I see your point, but I think things are going to have to change. It may take the next generation of film makers though. But once it happens, something like 60fps, people will only want more 60fps content. It's a 'technological imperative'. I noticed in the theater Gone in 60 Seconds was hamstrung by the 24fps limitation. Say what you will about the movie itself. ;)


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By MPE on 10/19/2007 10:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
The biggest reason it never happened (increased fps from 24) is the cost of film - not only the actual roll but modification of cameras, development, post production and FX, distribution and archiving.

There have been *several* attempts (some dating back before WWII) - one of the most recent and logical one was to 48 fps. I also would love to move to 48fps. I just don't want to go to 30, 60, 120.

BTW - who ever said film deteriorates faster than digital is making a myopic statement. Although this is true for projection, physical film is a far better archival medium than ANY digital medium. Films can easily last for decades and there are no fears of finding the hardware to use it. 5 1/2" floppy anyone? And that is only about 2 decades old and there are already difficult to find - at least compared to CD-ROMs. 35mm projection is all over the world - even small towns.
And film scratches are also fixable to a large extent. Scratch on your CD-ROM - not so easily.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By Chernobyl68 on 10/19/2007 6:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
motion picture theater projectors DO show 48 fps. each frame is shown twice.


RE: I'ts the frame rate, stupid.
By gtrinku on 10/19/2007 3:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my god, I thought I was the only one who saw 24 fps as the biggest limitation/quality diminisher of the movie medium, glad there's more people out there who can actually tell when an accepted and prevalent standard just doesn't cut it. I mean, what's it been, over 100 years since movies began being filmed at 24 fps? I say it's time for a change, 60 fps for the masses!


You can buy one yourself...
By kirbalo on 10/18/2007 7:43:35 PM , Rating: 3
If you want to see this projector "relatively" up close, and you live in the North Suburbs of Chicago, make a stop at Abt Electronics, as they have one on demo.

Bring around $110K with Tax to take it home...I don't think they'll price match.




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 10/19/2007 12:02:34 AM , Rating: 3
Well, its Abt.

They'll probably sell it to you for 20 grand, but at the end of the day you'll have bought another $200,000 in peripherals :)


nice picture quality...
By mdogs444 on 10/18/2007 5:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
but too bad AMC movie theaters will only be showing movies that are owned by Sony studios....

JK.




RE: nice picture quality...
By mcnabney on 10/19/2007 12:15:51 AM , Rating: 2
After watching the HD-DVD vs BluRay fight, your little joke may not be such a joke in ten years.


high def commercials
By chhimp on 10/18/2007 7:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think movies will be projected. Prob commercials.




Finally, they can get a raise.
By wordsworm on 10/19/2007 3:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder how much money the studios will save. With these 1TB discs on the horizon, surely it won't cost much to ship these films. They'll finally be able to give those top rated actors, directors, producers, etc, the raise they desire.




The downside
By MPE on 10/19/2007 9:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
of going digital is of course current digital projection technology cannot match the dynamic range, handling of highlights, motion rendering of projectors and etc of film.

But I guess you got to start somewhere.




What's all the fuss?
By MADAOO7 on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: What's all the fuss?
By NickWV on 10/18/2007 6:14:15 PM , Rating: 3
what are you talking about? Why the heck would there be a finite resolution on digital?

FYI: most, if not all of the editing and especially gfx effects is done on computers, then it gets put back on film.

Seems to me like resolution on digital formats has been ever increasing, and bluray/hd-dvd is an excellent example of that.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By timmiser on 10/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: What's all the fuss?
By darkavatar on 10/18/2007 7:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
well, if there is a infinite resolution on analog, why don't I see more of it these days?


RE: What's all the fuss?
By DragonMaster0 on 10/18/2007 10:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Main reason (And why CD was invented in the first place) -- Digital's cheaper. Why do they care about using higher resolution? To sell you new TVs and players.

Analog is not exactly infinite, depending on the film's grade it will be more or less blurry.

An other reason why we don't have analog at home anymore is that it wears down with time. LPs are better than CDs when new, but play them a few dozen of times and the opposite will be true.

Digital also allows DRM to be used.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By PrezWeezy on 10/18/2007 7:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
you've obviously never blown up a picture too big. Film has a resolution, it's called grain size. If you get to big you see the grains of the film, same as you'd see the pixels in a digital photograph. Go watch a VHS on a 60" plasma. If you sit up close you'll see exactly how "infinite" the resolution of film is.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/18/2007 7:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
exactly. Film grain on a 35mm print get very noticable on bigger screens. Also, the bigger the screen, the more light you have to pump through the film, and the quicker it deterioates. (sp?)
There was a push for a new standard film format several years ago, a 70mm 8 sprocket frame size, rather than the old 70mm 5 sprocket size. This would greatly increase the weight of the film though, by a factor of 4 over the current 35mm 4 sprocket film. This would drastically increase studio costs for film shipping.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By timmiser on 10/19/2007 6:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Now we are getting somewhere! Grainyness is the term to describe the blurryness of the film when you "zoom in" but no matter how far you magnify it, you won't see individual pixels. That is the whole point. Sure you can say that 7 megapixels is the approximate picture quality equivelent to a 35mm film but that is just to make a comparison easier.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By PrezWeezy on 10/22/2007 8:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
And how, exactly, would you differentiate "zooming in" from "magnifying?" Because the only real difference is that when you magnify, you make the whole thing bigger, when you zoom, you pick a specific part to magnify. Sorry but try blowing up a picture taken on 35mm film to say 12x16 and tell me you can't see it blurred. That's the grain. It's not a term to describe something, it's a quality of film. Film is made up of grains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain
That is the best explaination of what film grain is I've ever seen. So, therefore, with some math we can figure out that some number of grains equal some number of pixels.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By zinfamous on 10/18/2007 6:35:45 PM , Rating: 5
Film is extremely expensive for movie theaters. a single film comes in what...4 of those heavy-ass steel containers? The theaters and studios spend quite a bit on shipping and insurance.

and film deteriorates waaaay faster than digital. you do realize that once the theater receives the canisters, it has to be physically assembled? imagine this happening several times over for one print (it always does). ever see a film at a secon-run cheapo theater? there's a reason the projected film seems to skip from place to place, is loaded with scratches, apparent scotch tape marks all over the image, etc. by the time a print makes it's way back to the studio, it's been spliced so many times it's unwatchable.

Film doesn't have infinite resolution. technically, it doesn't even have resolution in the sense that digital has a quantifiable numerb attached to it. for 35 mm, the "resolution" was extrapolated to be something on the order of 3200 x 1800 iirc. This was in order to make comparisons to digital, such that the longtime magic number became 6MP--the determining point where a CCD would finally reach film quality. well, we've since surpassed that. so in a way, digital resolution can easily surpass that of film (assuming the CCD is the correct physical size).

of course, there are other considerations. depth of colors, shading, all sorts of aesthetics that digital hasn't been able to fully reproduce. personally, I still prefer film for a lot of things. Too bad the major manufacturers have already abandonned it....


RE: What's all the fuss?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 7:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "for 35 mm, the "resolution" was extrapolated to be something on the order of 3200 x 1800 iirc"

If you use the finest-grained 35mm film, approximate resolution is about 6000 x 3400, or about 20MP per frame. For 70mm, I believe resolution is about 2.5X greater.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By timmiser on 10/18/2007 7:11:35 PM , Rating: 1
This is just not true. Nobody can "assign" a resolution to film. It's apples and oranges.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/18/2007 7:56:14 PM , Rating: 3
Of course you can assign an approximate resolution to film, based on either subjective (print quality) or objective (grain size to pixel mapping) grounds. The key word here is "approximate".

The idea that print film doesn't have a resolution is fallacious. There is no direct pixel count mapping, true, but remember that the world "resolution" derives from resolving power. And the resolving power of a 35mm print is approximately equal to a 20MP digital image.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Oregonian2 on 10/18/2007 8:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
No, what one does is approximate pragmatic equivalence. If one can't estimate the resolution of film then setting the DPI on one's scanner gets really random and hard (my film scanner goes to 5400 dpi - a Konica/Minolta orphan).

Such an equivalence is not a technical equivalence, but a user-one. It does NOT say the mediums are equivalent only the resolution is roughly similar. There are a LOT more aspects and specs than just resolution (some of which digital cameras do very well, some not so well)!.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By timmiser on 10/19/2007 6:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with both of you. The point I am trying to make that I think many people just don't get, is that any conversion from film to digital resolution will reflect a compromise of some sort. Maybe not distinguishable to the human eye, but a compromise nontheless.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By zinfamous on 10/19/2007 10:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
sounds about right. I was thinking in terms of 35mm still photography. I was going to try and get into 16mm and 70mm motion picture film...but then realized that I don't know enough about it! hehe.

The only thing I do know is that resolution for moving pictures is not nearly as important as it is for still photography. No real need to supercede the actual frame rate of the human eye, and such ;)

As good as digital can be, I think I will always prefer film. for simple aesthetic reasons.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Silver2k7 on 10/18/2007 7:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
Its 1 or 2 wooden boxes wich is usually 20-25 kg weight.

Some film ships in paperboxes too.. wich I dont really like, but I guess its cheaper.

Digital would be great if it was hooked up to a really fast internet where you could download selected movie to your server.. I guess they could be streamed too, but not too good if the internet decides to stop working for a while =)

Also distribution could be in harddrives or some kind of optical discs.. perhaps a couple of 50 Gb BD discs or Violet laser if they need more storage.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By SiliconAddict on 10/18/2007 7:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
It’s called satellite and I'm not talking that slow ass Hughes internet available to consumers. All that is needed is an encrypted satellite channel that allows individual theatres or regional offices to download a movie. Then it can be decrypted on the day its suppose to be released. Via a single use, time sensitive, key. (Read you need to use it within 12 hours or the key expires.)


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Etsp on 10/19/2007 12:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
The reason it can be much faster is because it doesn't need to be bidirectional to the theaters, they don't need to transmit anything over that connection, all they would need is a key to decrypt the signal and then receive it.

Plus, a multi-cast from a satellite is about as ideal as one can get as far as bandwidth savings are concerned.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/19/2007 2:38:35 PM , Rating: 2
I've worked projection at theaters for about 5 years while in college. I've seen film shipped on 2000 ft reels in 2 and 3 reel metal cans, and seen newer 6000 foot reels shipped in larger plastic containers. I've NEVER seen any studio ship a film in a wood or paper box.
not saying you're wrong, but we obviously have different experiences.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By MrTeal on 10/18/2007 6:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
Film most definitely does not have infinite resolution. Contrary to popular belief, film (and a vinyl record, for that matter) is very much limited by both the physics of light and optics, the material itself, and the baseline noise.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By timmiser on 10/18/2007 7:04:38 PM , Rating: 1
OK, first we must review the definition of resolution from dictionary.com as many older paper dictionaries don't have a definition of resolution pertaining to optics!

7. Optics. the act, process, or capability of distinguishing between two separate but adjacent objects or sources of light or between two nearly equal wavelengths.

I think the key here is the mention of "separate but adjacent" which supports the use of the word in digital measurements. This is not usuable in a film format and in my opinion is not applicable for film as no matter how far you zoom into a film, regardless of the quality of the film, you will never find the "separate but adjacent" squares or points of light that you will find in digital.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By kkwst2 on 10/18/2007 8:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Good grief. I suggest that when you look up and write down a definition, you actually make an attempt to understand it before you spout off about it. You quote an optics definition of resolution and then state that it doesn't apply to a modality that is all based on optics? Wow.

Of course you can distinguish between adjacent points of light. If you couldn't it would look like a big blur. There will be a point where you can't tell the difference between adjacent points, which would then define the resolution. In this scene, can you see 0.1 mm fabric pattern on someone's jacket? Perhaps. Can you differentiate the 10 micron threads that make up the fabric on the guy's jacket? Of course not. So in this instance the resolution would be somewhere between 10 micron and 0.1 mm.

Is the optical definition easily applied to a digital definition? Not really. It's always challenging to compare digital and analog because there is a lot of more to a signal than just resolution - both objective and subjective.

However, you're on little solid ground trying to argue that the principles of resolution cannot be applied to film, or analog signals in general. After all, as you've proven, the concept of resolution certainly predates the digital era.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By timmiser on 10/19/2007 6:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Your example is the perfect explanation of why there is no resolution on film. Your example indicates that all you need to do is zoom in farther until you find two adjacent points which is incorrect because you will never get there...You will always need to zoom in further.

You really want to lay a resolution over the film to prove your point but it can't be done.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Silver2k7 on 10/18/2007 7:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
"What's the benefit of making film digital?"

Cause film is large and bulky.. and costs money shipping in boxes at about 20-25 kg per film.

Film can get scratched fairly easily.. after a number of weeks film is usually scratched here and there.. no such thing with digital.

The machinist can cut together tha acts wrong accidentally.. sometimes the end of an act is almost black.

the time it takes to put together the film dissapears.. good riddance :)

Several mechanical errors I can think of will dissapear.. and making it easier for the folks running the theater and is better for the audience too.

Hopefully digital means better competition since there does not need to be limited number of copies on film.. i know some films in Sweden gets only 10-15 copies.. good luck for a small theater getting those.

The only negative I can come up with for digital cinema is the initial cost of the projection unit and the server.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By timmiser on 10/18/2007 7:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how the movie is delivered to the projectors. Will they ship on hard drives?


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Silver2k7 on 10/18/2007 7:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
I know some guys got them on DVD discs.. but this was some time ago.. like 10 discs or something that you put onto your HDD.

But a BD disc or Violet laser disc would make it even easier, then you only need one or a few discs.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By BZDTemp on 10/18/2007 8:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
They ship on hard drives in special locked casing to stop someone in transit to make a copy. The system has been used for a year or so now in a few select places here in Copenhagen and for some movies it makes a big difference - enough so that it's announced in the program listing so movie buffs can select where to go based on it.

It's not so much that colour, contrast or anything is way better but more that there is no scratches and stuff. You see the thing is that most US movies only get to Europe after they have left the theaters in US so we get the used films meaning even at premiere night some movies are not in good shape!

Apart form the movies having no scratches there are other benefits to projectors being installed all over.

1. High end projectors will get cheaper fast.
2. Theaters can now show other material like Sports, The Oscars... or even computer games (I heard a couple of operators played F.E.A.R. on a 40 yard screen!).
3. It's cheaper in the long run meaning more selection for theaters.
4. Not so much garbage (used film) to damage the enviroment.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Silver2k7 on 10/19/2007 4:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
"thing is that most US movies only get to Europe after they have left the theaters in US so we get the used films"

Maybe in denmark.. but not in Sweden that I know of.. almost every american/brithish movie is subtitled, the subtitles are printed on the film. And I dont think americans is watching film with Swedish subtitles =)


RE: What's all the fuss?
By BZDTemp on 10/19/2007 12:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well I also thought that the subtitles would mean new films but somehow that is not the case! It's either that or some operators are vandalizing the movies prior to the premiere.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/18/2007 7:51:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What's the benefit of making film digital?

Numerous.
Shipping costs, for one. A typical 6-8 reel 35mm polyester print weighs about 40-70 lbs, not including the reels and shipping containers. It costs studios lots of money to ship those things out every week.
Labor costs. When a movie theater recieves a new movie, it must be "built" (all the reels taped together) and then previewed to ensure that no sprockets have been missed so it won't jump out of frame during play. Also, defects (with sound, discolored picture, etc) with the initial print can be found at this time so that replacement reels can be ordered if they're severe enough. Building a print takes about 1-2 hours or so, including the "trailer package" (previews). Previews are typically done late thursday nights after closing. And of course, when the movie is done playing at a theater location, it must be broken down again and put back on its reels.
More labor costs. Multiple projection staff oversee the operation of the movie projectors. a 20 screen theater can run with as many as 3 people running shows at a time. With electronic storage and distribution of media, you can automate the process complete.
Mechanical errors. Most modern mega-plexes have "projection staff" or "booth ushers" not
"Projectionists" which are unionized. These are minimum wage college students mostly, and while it takes a good degree of mechanical aptitude to run a projector, things happen. Brain (on the film platter) freezes can lock a film cause a projector to melt it, static electricity can throw a film off a platter, a burred roller can stratch a film, etc...
So digital film projection is something that both Movie Theaters and Movie Studios WANT. The crux has always been who pays for it, what format it will take, etc. If you think the argument over Blueray vs HD-DVD is hot, you haven't seen that fight brewing.
quote:
And what genius picked these markets, wouldn't Sony want to showcase their new technology in LA where most of the studios and pre-screenings are?

AMC theaters and Sony have had a long cooperative working relationship. The standard digitial format in an AMC theater is SDDS - Sony Dynamic Digital Sound. Its an 8-channel format that in theory is better than either Dolby or DTS. In practice its anybody's guess.
Those locations are HUGE markets for AMC theaters. Do a google search for the AMC Grand 24 in Texas and you'll see what I mean.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Silver2k7 on 10/19/2007 5:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
Very very often read almost every week there is simply no time for preview of the movie before showing..

Sometimes you get 3-4 movies on friday and they all start on friday.. so no time to preview by theater personel.. sometimes this is unfortunate and errors have happened.. your most likley to catch an error if you see the film on the premier night.

lol I even got crap from one of the managers watching through a film the day before.. but it was almost sold out and I did want to ensure that there was no errors.


RE: What's all the fuss?
By Chernobyl68 on 10/19/2007 2:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose it depends on where you work.
At the places I worked (yes, an AMC theater) it wasn't an option to NOT preview the movies. At least one peroson had to watch it (even the Barney movie) but was on the clock for it, to write up defects and such. Sometimes they didn't get previewed until Early friday morning. If the prints came in early enough they could be previewed before opening on thursday. The problem comes with the midnight releases that occur mid week. these films might not be delivered until wed.! and so we would wind up cancelling a show to preview the film before showing to the public. this is what happened at my location when SW episode 1 came out. we had lines like crazy outside and we were inside watching the movie. my friends were asking me "how was it???" I didn't have the heart to tell them how dissapointing it was.


Riversippi?
By johnsonx on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: Riversippi?
By GlassHouse69 on 10/18/2007 6:55:26 PM , Rating: 1
hahah!

I thought the same thing. I was like, "Hm, map out ignorance, crossreference that with racism, remove all those with graduate degrees... apply those who still like Bush, apply all those who shoot animals and people out of non necessity... ahh, there we go. That's our demographic for Japanese technology."

Bling!


RE: Riversippi?
By michal1980 on 10/19/2007 2:32:26 PM , Rating: 1
GlassHouse69

Your comment by far was one of the most open minded, and accepting.

You are so much better and smarter then all those little people you just trampled over. Would you say the same things about a different race of people? or is that small minded?


RE: Riversippi?
By johnsonx on 10/19/2007 5:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
please don't agree with me any more


RE: Riversippi?
By johnsonx on 10/19/2007 5:14:03 PM , Rating: 1
Come on people, it's just a little Orange County humor. Laugh a little, don't mod me down! Or was it just the two guys who have the internets in Fontucky who modded me down for not mentioning them too?


That's ok Sony...
By JackBurton on 10/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: That's ok Sony...
By gradoman on 10/18/2007 6:13:53 PM , Rating: 5
Cause it's a moronic idea to want to get out of the house and enjoy a movie outside the house, eh?

Not all movie-goers are morons, just to let you in on a secret.


RE: That's ok Sony...
By Polynikes on 10/18/2007 6:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
It only takes one to ruin a movie-going experience.


RE: That's ok Sony...
By gradoman on 10/18/2007 9:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
How very true. :-(

I have to agree with you on that.


RE: That's ok Sony...
By sxr7171 on 10/19/2007 11:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
So Gradoman, I got a pair of SR-225s that aren't working, can you fix them?


RE: That's ok Sony...
By gradoman on 10/19/2007 4:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
WHOA,

I swear, I felt the hair on my neck standing up when I 1st read your comment. >.<;; I was all like, "HOW DOES HE KNOW MINE ARE BROKEN?!"

Then I realized that it is yours you're talking about -- still freaky though and mine remain in a drawer..


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki