Hello, I am a long time lurker, first time poster.

My questions are as follows. Are DLP chips limited to the 2048 x 1080 (2K)resolution. If they are what is the technical reason behind this.

If they are not, are there any DLP chips in development that would incorporate the 4k (or higher) resolution?

Could the current 2K chips incorporate wobulation to reach the 4k res?

Thank you for your time. :)

Bump - I'm curious about this as well.

Hello, I am a long time lurker, first time poster.

My questions are as follows. Are DLP chips limited to the 2048 x 1080 (2K)resolution. If they are what is the technical reason behind this.

If they are not, are there any DLP chips in development that would incorporate the 4k (or higher) resolution?

Could the current 2K chips incorporate
to reach the 4k res?

Thank you for your time. :)

When wobulation first appeared it was proven in theory on the forum it works but for some reason it only stayed around one year and was soon replaced with true 1080p chips.
On a 50" rear TV it may pass but Im wondering if wobulation would hold up on large cinema screens.

When wobulation first appeared it was proven in theory on the forum it works but for some reason it only stayed around one year and was soon replaced with true 1080p chips.
On a 50" rear TV it may pass but Im wondering if wobulation would hold up on large cinema screens.

A Sony 4K projector engineer told me the competition couldn't go to 4K because it would make for optics that are too big. Sony and LCoS on the other hand have other limitations, 3D using a single set of chips/lightengine, is a very long way of and may not happen.

Projectionists said: 2K DLP Christie is better than 4K SXRD Sony :)
with 2K and 4K JPEG2000 source from server.

So is 4K DLP on it's way ?

Art

A Sony 4K projector engineer told me the competition couldn't go to 4K because it would make for optics that are too big. Sony and LCoS on the other hand have other limitations, 3D using a single set of chips/lightengine, is a very long way of and may not happen.

Donald.

Thanks for the info. Might I ask if the size of the optics is the only hold up over 4k DP then why wouldn't TI DLP persue a 70mm (imax) optical system configuration?

This is assuming that the size of a 4k DLP chip would be that of the 70mm film.

Projectionists said: 2K DLP Christie is better than 4K SXRD Sony :)
with 2K and 4K JPEG2000 source from server.

Virtually ever theatre tech I've spoken to has the same setiment.

Well at least larger than the current crop of 2K/HD chips. If the size of the individual mirrors is as small as they are going to get on this new 0.98 inch DMD mirror chip then a 4K chip will have twice the diagonal (and four times the surface area), 1.95 inch, as the new chip, the mainstream 2K chip being 1.2", I was told that the integration optics would have to become too large to make a viable projector. Of course this was bij a LCoS projector vendor. But there has been talk of an 4K DLP for years now, and Sony itself has been trying to come up with a 4K cinema projector since 2004. DLP success seems to also depend on first mover advantage and aggressive pricing, and in the first few years a large amount of cross-promotion deals, barter deals, demonstartion units and plain ol' (permanent) loaners, and today vendor financing (through financial entities). So, I can't blame the DLP guys for trying to reap from their efforts over the past decade, as mass conversion programmes have only recently taken off. A clear promise of a 4K DLP would risk stalling this conversion.

And a Sony (USA) VP told an audience at IBC 2006 that Sony had a working 8K LCoS chip in its labs, so in case of LCoS, we could ask if and when is there going to be a 8K Sony projector. The 16 Kbit/s MP3 of that panel session may still be available somewhere on www.ibc.org, but he did not expand on this statement.

I wonder how the relative strenght of 2k DLP and 4k sxrd will be affected with future effective 4k resolution masters. What really made an impact was to scan 4k from 65mm origination vs a 4k scan from a 35mm negative. What does this tell us.
1 35mm capture is not good enough for 4k digital
2 4k sxrd really has to hope that 4k digital cameras can capture enough detail to make that resolution apparent.

Bus dev goes to where the money/market is. the DCI spec says... 2k. so while TI is working on more and better, it is for the Bus world. boardrooms, command and control, etc.

The money in the cinema world is in the area of making the replacement proj for all the cinemas that just drops into the environemnt for the least amount of money and the best specs.

the obsession with 4 K is (to my mind) ridiculous. for HT and even D-cinema, we are not even close to maximizing what we have. Cineramas's little project in fla shows this. If you can get a proj that has been built correctly form the ground up, and is able to take in that HD signal from Sat, BR and higher (broadcast sources) the reality is that it can be so good you would question why anybody could ever ask for more.

Just like with good old nasty ole NTSC. take a first gen transfer from a rank or some other transfer unit, put it on a digital betacam, then tweak a real solid display and it will liekly look far better than many HD displays with off air feeds.

The reality is that we are so far down at the bottom of how good HD CAN look, that talk about 4k is just silly.

It is like cars, butting a bigger engine with more HP is no guarantee of anything other than a higher gas bill. to really improve things, you have to strip that car down and build it back up with attention paid to all the elements.

Or digital cameras. i have an 8MP camera that takes crappier pics than my old 2 MP camera. and if we compared the 10 MP consumer camera to a 6MP PRO camera (which for some odd reason is twice-4 times the price...) the image quality cannot even be compared.

Resolution of the proj has very little to do with the image onscreen.

Thank you everyone for the responses.:)

I'm glad we were able to get an informed discussion going.

one other note, 4 k masters have nothing to do with anything other than the editing world and the archiving world.

As late as the early fifties most Americans went to the movies two or three times a week. I (as a little kid) could be counted on to be in that theater seat week in and week out.

Lately however (since I installed a Home Theater system) I don't go much. I went to see Constantine a couple years ago and I went to see Beowolf a couple months ago. I wanted to se Constantine (a truly lousy movie) so as to compare DLP projection with standard film projection. I went to Beowolf so as to see digital 3D.

Indeed the DLP (2K) projection was noticably better than film projection in the same multiplex. At the time that theater advertised DLP projection and may have charged more. However since that time they show fewer and fewer movies in DLP.

I saw Beowolf so as to keep abreat of 3D technology. I doubt if I will ever see another.

I would probably go to see a 4K DLP projected movie - once. I am the only person I know who goes to the movies for the technology although I'm sure this forum is full of such people. Are we enough?

Will theater owners put up several hundred thousand dollars to upgrade, if they can only count on the patronage of a handful of hobbiests?

"Virtual Print"!

Bus dev goes to where the money/market is. the DCI spec says... 2k. so while TI is working on more and better, it is for the Bus world. boardrooms, command and control, etc.

The money in the cinema world is in the area of making the replacement proj for all the cinemas that just drops into the environemnt for the least amount of money and the best specs.

the obsession with 4 K is (to my mind) ridiculous. for HT and even D-cinema, we are not even close to maximizing what we have. Cineramas's little project in fla shows this. If you can get a proj that has been built correctly form the ground up, and is able to take in that HD signal from Sat, BR and higher (broadcast sources) the reality is that it can be so good you would question why anybody could ever ask for more.

Just like with good old nasty ole NTSC. take a first gen transfer from a rank or some other transfer unit, put it on a digital betacam, then tweak a real solid display and it will liekly look far better than many HD displays with off air feeds.

The reality is that we are so far down at the bottom of how good HD CAN look, that talk about 4k is just silly.

It is like cars, butting a bigger engine with more HP is no guarantee of anything other than a higher gas bill. to really improve things, you have to strip that car down and build it back up with attention paid to all the elements.

Or digital cameras. i have an 8MP camera that takes crappier pics than my old 2 MP camera. and if we compared the 10 MP consumer camera to a 6MP PRO camera (which for some odd reason is twice-4 times the price...) the image quality cannot even be compared.

Resolution of the proj has very little to do with the image onscreen.
The logic in this post is ridiculous and to the point where the motives are called into question. A prime example of a tailored rationalized thread. Comparing a $200 cost cut camera to a $100,000 projection system is absurd. :o
Is Digital Cinema taking a leadership position and offering the consumer a better movie experience than we have now and especially at home?

Or is the business model like "HD" radio where the main focus is to deceive, reduce the quality and to increase the profit for the owners?
Don't get me wrong its ok to make a profit, but there has to be something in it for the consumer too.
So what in it for the consumer that we don't already have?

Let start the DCI improvement list:
1) contrast quality?
2) resolution quality?
3) color quality?
4) bit rate?
5) bit depth?

Try to be objective please and just state the facts so we can make an informed decesion. Thanks,

And how is a nominal resolution of 4K in the display device going to help improve these items?


d who wants his Super Hi-Vision (aka UHDTV, aka 8K).

The logic in this post is ridiculous and to the point where the motives are called into question.

That is totally unwarranted and out of place in this forum. I know you have a history of this and have had dozens of posts removed, but please leave the 'tude at the door.

You will find most regular posters in the Ultra Hi-end forums, including the person you insulted, to be infinitely better informed and knowledgeable than you have shown to be. You would do well to avail yourself of this.

These forums are very welcoming and are a great source of information. They also have a slightly different tone to some others.

Show some respect, you'll get on far better and may actually learn something.

My point was that we are not even close to getting a display to show us all that there is in a current HD source. On the most part, the displays have a long way to go before they can really show us all that is there.

THen the sources can still go a ways. better compression settings, etc.

So talking about "when will i get my 4K?" is just silly.

Having said that... what the heck is your point?

My point was that we are not even close to getting a display to show us all that there is in a current HD source. On the most part, the displays have a long way to go before they can really show us all that is there.

I, for one, agree with you. (But then, what does my opinion matter? I have only a dozen or so posts here and we all known importance and "wisdom" is proportional to posting volume, right? ;-))

In another thread in this particular forum, someone mentions some tests that showed that many pros couldn't tell the difference between 2K and 4K on a 50-foot wide perforated screen. But let's ignore that and assume everyone in the theatre can see the difference. What about uniformity and contrast ratio? What about frame rate? I don't know about you but I find the 24fps image update rate even more annoying in digital than film, perhaps because in digital we're seeing each frame for almost the entire frame time, whereas with film we typically see it for ~half the frame time. All the dcinema projectors out there can handle 48 fps. I'd take 2K 48 fps any day over a 24 fps 4K one (so would James Cameron: http://www.variety.com/VR1117983864.html)