From this quick article it looks like a new 4k projector is coming!
http://www.tvpredictions.com/sonymovies042507.htm

It is called Srx-r220 and a r210 is going to come as well.

key points
up to 65 feet wide screens at 14fL
4k resolution
single xenon lamp
built in media server and screen manager
built in UPS

I would like Sony to swap out the lamp for lasers. There should be plenty of space in this bad boy. One thing that big power sxrd projectors have to struggle with is uniformity. This is temperature dependent. Display lasers do not have UV or IR spectrum. With pure optical power to work with uniformity must be easier to control.

CineAlta 4K SXRD.

http://gallery.avsforum.com/uploads/7565289/cinealta4k.jpg


May 1st is the date that Sony hopes will usher in the era of digital cinemas. That's the date their CineAlta 4K digital cinema solution goes on sale in Japan. With the SRX-R220 at its core, the 5-foot / 660-pound CineAlta 4K system projects a 4,096 x 2,160 pixel image at 18,000 lumens off its 4.2kW bulb. The 300GB films are stored in an encrypted JPEG2000 format within Sony's 19-inch, LMT-100 "media block" RAID array. Sony is counting on about 1/3 of Japan's 3,000 cinemas taking on their ¥1.5 million ($12,651) per screen solution by 2010 with even higher hopes for the US market. They'll need lots of help since projection systems are just a tiny fraction of the total conversion costs required to move cinemas into the digital age.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/25/sonys-cinealta-4k-digital-cinema-solution-coming-may-1st/

http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/sony_cinealta_4k_srxr220_projector.php

All I know is if they do it right we could expect to be able to have better experiences in the commercial venues again. Who knows though really, will the implementation will be top notch or just high res and bright ?

Is there something wrong with that dollar number ?

Art

Art S.
Lets add a zero. It makes a great difference with the position system used when we write numbers. :)
Implementation is everything. That is why it is a good idea to get rid of lamps generating huge amounts of IR and some UV.
A true 4k work flow should give us a reason to visit some cinemas with the right gear.

"taking on their ¥1.5 million ($12,651) per screen solution"


Hey, that's only $1/lb!
I'll take one. It's dirt cheap!

Art. You asked a lawyer question! You asked a question where you already knew the answer! Was here something wrong with the price conversion? As big as your new screen will be, that projector would be too bright. Also itt would be a tough fit to place it where the G90's are. I think you might be able to construct and implement a hush box for it for the wrong price quoted. :)

Sony is counting on about 1/3 of Japan's 3,000 cinemas taking on their ¥1.5 million ($12,651) per screen solution by 2010 with even higher hopes for the US market.

That seems like a pie in the sky expectation. 1/3 of all Japanese cinemas, and even more in the US in less than 2.5 years? Yeah, and the US is finally going to switch to the metric system...

Art. You asked a lawyer question! You asked a question where you already knew the answer! Was here something wrong with the price conversion? As big as your new screen will be, that projector would be too bright. Also itt would be a tough fit to place it where the G90's are. I think you might be able to construct and implement a hush box for it for the wrong price quoted. :)

Well if that is the projector it won't be for me anyway but if JVC has a 4K for the home shortly it might be.

Art

I was going to purchase it until I learned it does not have a removable power cord. I would never purchase a PJ this expensive without being able replace the stock power cord with a high end power cord so I can get the sharpest picture possible ;).

I was going to purchase it until I learned it does not have a removable power cord. I would never purchase a PJ this expensive without being able replace the stock power cord with a high end power cord so I can get the sharpest picture possible ;).

I would have expected nothing less from you. Nordost however has a custom cord for this unit already in the pipe. The cord is 125,000 USD but it improves the contrast to 100,000:1 for subjectivists only.

Art

5' 600 LB BEAST!
How the heck would I hang this from the ceiling LOL!

5' 600 LB BEAST!
How the heck would I hang this from the ceiling LOL!

Perhaps Chief has a mount for this as well. :D

I'll take two cables, two 4k projectors and some fruit pizza.

Man I hope the JVC 4k turns out to be smaller, that thing is along the lines a G90 :). I got to see some of the 4k stuff at NAB that RED and others vendors have in the works. I wonder how long it will be before we make the switch to 4k sets and projectors as a standard from our homes.

Art if this thing thows 60fl with good contrast will you bite =8^)

I'll take two cables, two 4k projectors and some fruit pizza.

Man I hope the JVC 4k turns out to be smaller, that thing is along the lines a G90 :). I got to see some of the 4k stuff at NAB that RED and others vendors have in the works. I wonder how long it will be before we make the switch to 4k sets and projectors as a standard from our homes.

Art if this thing thows 60fl with good contrast will you bite =8^)


4K, 2000 lumens and 10,000:1 is what JVC is expected to give us, I might serve that with fruit pizza. :)

Art

4K, 2000 lumens and 10,000:1 is what JVC is expected to give us, I might serve that with fruit pizza. :)

Art

Actually, it's going to be 4000 lumens and 12,000:1.

Probably at $80K.

I wonder how long it will be before we make the switch to 4k sets and projectors as a standard from our homes.

I will bet money that we will not see the current HD standards replaced in homes for 30 years.

Plain and simply HD is not yet the standard in peoples homes. Hell, there is not even a MAINSTREAM solution for HD playback (as all the bits of the BD and HD DVD standards are not yet ratified, this means that we have to be honest and accept that they are not yet standard) , and the studios and the broadcasters have many billions to recoup before they even want somebody to suggest looking at the next thing.

However, just like widescreen was hollywoods way of competing with TV, 4 K and the like will be the way that hollywood attempts to compete with HD. However that will be a long way off due to the fact that there are so many things in the way of a true digital theatre experience. COst of projector replacement, distribution model not solid, the fact that a movie experience at home is far better than a movie experience in a theatre... etc, etc. Hollywood will have to give us something in the theatres that we cannot get at home in order to compel us to make the trek to the (increasingly bad) megaplex.

Actually, it's going to be 4000 lumens and 12,000:1.

Probably at $80K.

Im hearing between 60 to 80k as well. Unless we can talk them into a power buy but Im certain the PB would yield one or two sales at best if successful:)

That's just the cinema version. They're making 4K's that don't take a up whole projection room.

Here's a pic of the SRX-S series. So far they have four models on the books: 5000 and 10000 lumens with or without DVI connectivity.

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/images/product/front/srxs105.jpg

Here's the lineup page under Sony's broadcast/professional division:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/DisplaySubCategory?m=10007&p=12&sp=96&navid=projectors

Cheers,

~Phil

That's just the cinema version. They're making 4K's that don't take a up whole projection room.


If you're speaking about the JVC, so was I.

The $80K 4000 lumens version will be a very small UHP lamp based unit.

Interesting so the poop has changed in the past month. My understanding was the info I quoted was for a home unit is that what you guys are referring to ?

Art

Art S.
I think it easier to talk about a pro unit versus a consumer product. Do we consider 40k$ 3DLPs home units? I see them as professional products that end up in a few homes.

I find it interesting that the 4k 4000 lumen JVC will be using UHP. Sounds like multiple UHPs or one more powerful UHP like lamp. Some time ago I could have guessed a CPL lamp but news about CPL has died out.

One important aspect of the Sony srx-r2x0 series is the single lamp design.

Interesting so the poop has changed in the past month. My understanding was the info I quoted was for a home unit is that what you guys are referring to ?

Art

A $80K, it's a professional product, but with a small size (and hopefully noise level) that allows for easy home usage.

Hi

What are the professional use of such projectors? Besides small theaters? ... I truly would like ot know
I am also amazed and thankful to learn that these PJs are getting better, because from what I have seen in several multiplexes the general public does not seem to care a whole lot about quality...

JVC is not coming out with a home 4k unit. Rumor has it Sony will have one first but when?
I do not think the Sony will be meant to light a big screen:(

Probably not - and my suspicion is that they will use the same lamp assembly from the 004 to rape those of us who use our PJs almost every day. I certainly hope they don't, though.

Actually, it's going to be 4000 lumens and 12,000:1.

Probably at $80K.

Amazing specs if true. 6x the contrast of current d-cinema. It should be tack sharp compared to current d-cinema too because of the ~8x pixel count and the fact that most current 3-chip d-cinema setups are deliberately defoucsed to smooth out SDE. Once the price starts to drop this thing could really hurt 3-chip DLP sales.

EDIT: Oh yeah and I heard it's going to use the digital backplane. Hopefully they'll be able to improve on it over the RS-1.

It should be tack sharp compared to current d-cinema too because of the ~8x pixel count

Actually, it's 4x compared to 2K PJs.

But who's counting?

Actually, it's 4x compared to 2K PJs.

But who's counting?

Doh! Yes you're right - 4x greater resolution compared to 2k :)

Once the price starts to drop this thing could really hurt 3-chip DLP sales.


For the cinema house with a smaller screen this would be an ideal solution and priced cheaper then the DLP offering's
Cinema's will soon start entering the same projector game we've been playing for years as the projectors get smaller and cheaper they will see new models each year. The bottom will fall out from under these things.
Time to make a few quick friends in the cinema industry so I can get one of these when it quick becomes a toss away for a few grand :)

For the cinema house with a smaller screen this would be an ideal solution and priced cheaper then the DLP offering's
Cinema's will soon start entering the same projector game we've been playing for years as the projectors get smaller and cheaper they will see new models each year. The bottom will fall out from under these things.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. When I worked in the industry in the late 90's we tried to get theaters onto the d-cinema bus using the older ILA projectors and at that tiime they seemed keenly intent on two things: 1) reliability and 2) reliability. Most of the gear they use is 30 years old or more and it just never breaks. Times change though and as d-cinema penetration increases and PQ radically improves I think you're right in that the theaters will be forced onto the same path that we've been on as far as upgrades.


Time to make a few quick friends in the cinema industry so I can get one of these when it quick becomes a toss away for a few grand :)

See if you can swing two :)

The SRX-R220 will change the way people see movies in the theater. The problem is that it will take over 15 years for cinema owners to pony up the big bucks and install them routinely.

The SRX-R220 costs $126,650.00 US for the Chassis, >$19k for the lens, >$2.5k for each of four input cards, + Media Block Server (no list yet, but I suspect >$25k), and your off and running.

But, in my opinion, it is well worth the money as it represents a significant improvement over film, even under Academy Screening conditions!

The SRX-R220 costs $126,650.00 US for the Chassis, >$19k for the lens, >$2.5k for each of four input cards, + Media Block Server (no list yet, but I suspect >$25k), and your off and running.

Ouch! I guess it is not any cheaper then its DLP cousin.

Professional Broadcast Video for movie theaters, ets. is uniformly expensive! But I believe that 4k platforms are the near future, especially with it being an up and coming intermediate phase of production. :p

I have not seen SXRD 4K this year but last year it was FUGLY compared to DLP. If I were Sony I would have left it home as it was very sad to look at. Soft even nearly blurry compared to DLP. OH and DLP was 1/4 the pixel resolution just humble 1080P.

I find SXRD and DiLA both to be far less when compared good DLP.

The days of poor convergence and overly soft images are past. Those who know what good images look like will never settle for less.

Sony since Qualia 004 has continued to go backwards in picture quality in the ruby an now the pearl. As the price has dropped so has the image quality. I guess they are making money but not much as Sony is still showing small profits.

Sony is involved in the professional display business. They know the Video standards. Sadly they ignore them in the consumer side and shove these lame units off on Joe-Six-pack because he is video standards clueless.

And the world says wow 1080P it must be the best. Just another gimmick for those blinded by a world of gimmicks. The same here. Resolution will always play second fiddle to accurate images that follow the established video standards.

DLP knows this and overall is doing a far better job hence it's deservidly higher price tag. The best is always worth more and TI knows it. ;)

I have not seen SXRD 4K this year but last year it was FUGLY compared to DLP. If I were Sony I would have left it home as it was very sad to look at. Soft even nearly blurry compared to DLP. OH and DLP was 1/4 the pixel resolution just humble 1080P.

I find SXRD and DiLA both to be far less when compared good DLP.

The days of poor convergence and overly soft images are past. Those who know what good images look like will never settle for less.

Sony since Qualia 004 has continued to go backwards in picture quality in the ruby an now the pearl. As the price has dropped so has the image quality. I guess they are making money but not much as Sony is still showing small profits.

Sony is involved in the professional display business. They know the Video standards. Sadly they ignore them in the consumer side and shove these lame units off on Joe-Six-pack because he is video standards clueless.

And the world says wow 1080P it must be the best. Just another gimmick for those blinded by a world of gimmicks. The same here. Resolution will always play second fiddle to accurate images that follow the established video standards.

DLP knows this and overall is doing a far better job hence it's deservidly higher price tag. The best is always worth more and TI knows it. ;)

Some of this I agree with but implemented well ,4K would be better. It would finally be able to take film res and use all of it. It would totally illiminate pixel visibilty even at minimum SMPTE viewing distances and certainly would allow electronic adjustments for panel registration fine enough to make the subject moot in reasonable discourse. It would also make scope ratio projection without anamorphic lenses a reality and even loafing while doing so. Just because the Ruby and Pearl are lesser machines in some ways, they are a step up in others. Sony can't make a living with R&D that only gets used in devices sold in miniscule quantities even at 30,000 a pop.

If they make the effort to produce a great digital cinema unit and we get trickle down for the home that would make me happy compared to just saying 1080 x 1920 is enough as you contend.

I hear the same argument you are making regarding 720p being enough yet just walking into a room with 720 projection it's unaceptability, once one has seen 1080p, is in your face obvious.

Art

Art

You misunderstood me

In the course of REAL WORLD TODAY SXRD is main stream and sadly poorly implemented. It LOOKS AWFUL compared to other technology and that is JUST HOW IT IS. When implemented in a no holds bared projector it was not that great either. Sony knows this and so you now see they are selling it to the masses and not the highend. SXRD is, as of today, not a highend display device. If it were such I think there would be something there to prove it to be so. I would think Sony has made back their investment costs by now. So then they should be in a better position to release a videophile SXRD display device. Perhaps they will but this is pure speculation or WISHFUL THINKING.

I deal in today, reality, and not hopeful vaporware. I cannot sell wishes so I come from the real world. I understand that you are more wishful than me. But TODAY these Sony SXRD projectors are woefully lacking in every thing but light out put and pixels IMO.


720P done well is always better than 1080P done poorly the same is true as you move up the chart in higher resolutions the lower one done better is still better.

This is how it is for the most part.

If what you say is true then Sony through your trickle down theory will come out with an amazing projector that sets new HIGH QUALITY image standards.

I don't see this happening as Sony is releasing stuff that is moving farther away form this type of standard.

For them it is all about the uninformed masses buying non conforming displays. Joe-Six-Pack is an ignorant consumer and so is ripe for the fleecing so to speak. His needs are quite easy to meet as he is ignorant of the true potential of video standard conforming displays.


"If" is a wonderful word it lends itself to great POSSABLITEIS.

I see the high end video display going the same way that high end audio has gone. Small PASSIONATE companies applying good science and technology to their displays that are bought by knowledgeable folks with the means to pay for them. They will be like the CRT's of old. Pricey, but for those with the discerning eye and the means to pay for them, more than worth the cost.

RESOLUTION WILL ALWAYS PLAY SECOND FIDDLE TO ACCURATE IMAGES THAT FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED VIDEO STANDARDS.

This point is inescapable to those who know what it takes to make accurate images.

Wishful thinking will NEVER deliver good or accurate images.


We will see a continuing march for higher and higher resolutions. This is necessary for the market to want to spend money and make jobs and profits.

I know that most of these displays will be not that good.

However, some small companies will carve out a comfortable living offering those of discerning eye and the financial means some truly accurate and state of the art images. These are the companies I look to for the truth in image display. I doubt it will be Sony Or JVC

It will be most likely be companies using DLP technology. But if it is some other display device it is more about the images and far less about the technology.

Allen,

I'm not sure whether you intend this, but it sounds very much like your biased against SXRD (or LCOS) and towards DLP.

While I agree that the current commercial state of SXRD TV's pales (in most cases) against the other two projector technologies, there are some notable exceptions.

There was a very respectable and enjoyable Sony 60XBR2 SXRD RP selling at Tweeter, Etc. two weeks ago for less than $2k that easily bested other RP's on the sales floor costing 2-3 times as much. Had I been in the market, I would definitely have picked it up, knowing full well that some other RP (regardless of technology) is right around the corner.

Please bear in mind that I have been calibrating high end audio and video since 1975, and I own and continue to demonstrate a wealth of displays and projection systems in my lab that range over these 32 years. Some technologies get better with time, while others come and go as something new appears.

Given SMPTE standards for film and video, and proper 2k and 4k source material, current professional SXRD (in the form of the Sony SRX 4k projector series) easily produces a more realistic, film-like image than is available from similar 2k professional projectors made by a number of manufacturers and sold under several different companies.

I am not saying that SXRD is perfect (whether professional or consumer), I would like better black levels and contrast similar to the other technologies at >20,000:1. But face to face, on the same 18' wide Stewart Snowmatte screen, using a 2k Digital Master of the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean film, properly calibrated - the SXRD projector (in this case my Sony SRX-R110) produced a more accurate, sharp, and believable image than either of the most recent 2k Christie Digital or Barco DLP projectors.

Simply put, there was much more of the film on screen to see with SRX-R110 than with the Pro DLPs - in this controlled shootout.

Out in a real movie theater, it is totally hit or miss as to whether the film or DCI print is shown with any kind of quality or care. I have seen very good TI DLP Cinemas as well as bad, and the same is true with the Dolby 3D Digital system or the Sony SRX DCI solution. It depends who the projectionist is, etc.

If, on the other hand, we look at consumer TVs, I am definitely in favor of other technologies (for the most part) because they can and do produce better results - owing to a much longer R & D and many more sets being sold (more mainstream than Sony's SXRD).

In the final analysis, something newer, better and less expensive (eventually?) will always come along to replace whatever we really love right now. Otherwise, I suspect we would all have stacks of modified - color corrected Sony G-90's attached to our HD disc players! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Art

You misunderstood me

In the course of REAL WORLD TODAY SXRD is main stream and sadly poorly implemented. It LOOKS AWFUL compared to other technology and that is JUST HOW IT IS. When implemented in a no holds bared projector it was not that great either. Sony knows this and so you now see they are selling it to the masses and not the highend. SXRD is, as of today, not a highend display device. If it were such I think there would be something there to prove it to be so. I would think Sony has made back their investment costs by now. So then they should be in a better position to release a videophile SXRD display device. Perhaps they will but this is pure speculation or WISHFUL THINKING.

I deal in today, reality, and not hopeful vaporware. I cannot sell wishes so I come from the real world. I understand that you are more wishful than me. But TODAY these Sony SXRD projectors are woefully lacking in every thing but light out put and pixels IMO.


720P done well is always better than 1080P done poorly the same is true as you move up the chart in higher resolutions the lower one done better is still better.

This is how it is for the most part.

If what you say is true then Sony through your trickle down theory will come out with an amazing projector that sets new HIGH QUALITY image standards.

I don't see this happening as Sony is releasing stuff that is moving farther away form this type of standard.

For them it is all about the uninformed masses buying non conforming displays. Joe-Six-Pack is an ignorant consumer and so is ripe for the fleecing so to speak. His needs are quite easy to meet as he is ignorant of the true potential of video standard conforming displays.


"If" is a wonderful word it lends itself to great POSSABLITEIS.

I see the high end video display going the same way that high end audio has gone. Small PASSIONATE companies applying good science and technology to their displays that are bought by knowledgeable folks with the means to pay for them. They will be like the CRT's of old. Pricey, but for those with the discerning eye and the means to pay for them, more than worth the cost.

RESOLUTION WILL ALWAYS PLAY SECOND FIDDLE TO ACCURATE IMAGES THAT FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED VIDEO STANDARDS.

This point is inescapable to those who know what it takes to make accurate images.

Wishful thinking will NEVER deliver good or accurate images.


We will see a continuing march for higher and higher resolutions. This is necessary for the market to want to spend money and make jobs and profits.

I know that most of these displays will be not that good.

However, some small companies will carve out a comfortable living offering those of discerning eye and the financial means some truly accurate and state of the art images. These are the companies I look to for the truth in image display. I doubt it will be Sony Or JVC

It will be most likely be companies using DLP technology. But if it is some other display device it is more about the images and far less about the technology.

I don't know.. it sounds like you were referring to 4K as a gimmick with the comment about 1080p, which must be referring to 720p in comparison. I don't think I misunderstood this at all.

I think Sony ,just like JVC, sees no future in niche thus the Ruby,Pearl and RS1.
I hate to see it myself but lets face it , you've got to believe that the Runco transition is evidence of this. In the past taking CRT meant for board rooms etc and turning them into great home theater products is likely a passe model,unfortunately.

I don't disagree that I'm thinking wishfully but DLP ,as implemented, isn't flawless and likely TI would have still been sitting on the 1080 chip had it not been from the fire getting lit by Sony and JVC.

I think believing that companies are going to spring up to serve people like me is more pie in the sky than anything in my post.

We all need to piss and moan .. loudly, regarding what Sony's doing and hope JVC doesn't drop out, or even that the new Runco doesn't morph into a Faroudja and good can come of it. The model of smaller companies doing great things with video at least in the last five years is grim looking IMO.

My choice of SIM and DLP was based on some good things they did but I think SXRD and DILA could have been done just as well and perhaps in some ways better if SIM had chosen those technologies.

Art

The SRX-R220 will
But, in my opinion, it is well worth the money as it represents a significant improvement over film, even under Academy Screening conditions!
Not as far as On-Off contrast is concerned. Get these units to a decent level first before half the industry is swapping or I'll simply stay at home watching 1080p with decent contrast. :mad:

If the goal is to reproduce film transparently, then the SRX pro series has plenty of contrast: >4,000:1!

... and on enormous screens.

But I like the impression I get with the Barco TI DCI Projector, which is more like >10,000:1. Deeper blacks, but much less impact and slam then the ultra bright, ultra sharp SRX projectors.

I'm not sure whether you intend this, but it sounds very much like your biased against SXRD (or LCOS) and towards DLP.:
Every chance he gets. :D :D

Dlp is llike walking a line and sxrd is like walking aa tight rope. Dlp is more robust but not necessarily better.
It will be interesting to see if 4k sxrd contrast can be pushed to 5000:1 or so and if laser illumination can turn 4k sxrd into stable 20000 ANSI lumen projectors. mhafner, you will have to stay at home since no legel cinema will be able to offer you 100000:1. :)

If the goal is to reproduce film transparently, then the SRX pro series has plenty of contrast: >4,000:1!
... and on enormous screens.
But I like the impression I get with the Barco TI DCI Projector, which is more like >10,000:1. Deeper blacks, but much less impact and slam then the ultra bright, ultra sharp SRX projectors.

Which Barco digital cinema model has >10,000:1 CR? Which SXRD has greater light output than a model like the Barco DP100?

I was speaking of the Barco DP90P's TI Dark Chip internal Device Contrast Ratio (DCR) of 10,000:1 versus the Sony SRX-R110 DCR of 4,000:1.

Obviously, actual on screen (in a commercial theater) contrast ratio is somewhat lower, >2,500:1

As for light output, on screen brightness of the SRX-R220 is greater than the DP100, but the Barco DP-3000 presumably can put out >27,0000 lumens.

I also suspect that Sony will come out with a larger SRX model to accommodate 100' wide screens, and that JVC will offer a brighter projector in their pro line up that can produce the 20,000:1 DCR that they seem to have achieved but on a larger screen.

It can only get better, it's just a question of how and when! :rolleyes:

Last week i spent some time really going through the paces with the SOny 4K as i am looking to buy two of them for an upcoming command and control project.

With 4 K sources, there is no comparisons, the images from the 4 K are superb. Everything about it is spectacular. Although i think that the JVC 4K could best it with contrast. But since it is a product without a roadmap, there is no comparing.

When we look at the same two K images on the sony or a DLP, then it is a much closer comparison and it is true that the DLP has an edge. although i have to wonder how much of that edge is due to 4K not having possibly as good scaling engines available to it.


On the whole though, i have always felt that DLP is a fundamentally flawed technology. we have a mechanical solution to an electronic problem. Moving parts are not the eventual end game solution. Just as projection will go away as well. Look at the Barco 4mm that was on display at infocomm and try to argue that led has issues. I dare you.

In the Long Run, SXRD/D-ILA/LCoS will be seen as the superior technology with the lower cost of manufacture and the better long term prospects.

Just as Plasma is being supplanted by LCD.

Could you tell me, please, what program material and format you were examining, and what were your calibrated light levels for the two projectors: center and edges?

program aterial was simply the demo stuff they had. 4 K transfers, PC images, Vista Spyder processor.

We were simply going off the setup they had at Infocomm in Anaheim

Infocomm is Dawdle!

Until you have actually demoed both technologies on the same screen, with the same transfers (even 1080p HD-DVD and BluRay discs just for a start), and after a complete and thorough set-up and calibration featuring identical light levels and color space, you really won't appreciate the subtlety and range of performance that the SRX series of projectors is capable of.

I find that shows are rarely more than an opportunity to showcase hardware, never a suitable venue for serious comparisons.

If you are in the NYC area, you should drop by my lab ciné for a complete demo!

Look at the Barco 4mm that was on display at infocomm and try to argue that led has issues. I dare you.

Can you share a little more about this, thanks!!

Dawdle?

Whatever dude. I merely stated that on 4 k it is no contest. I am installing them for a command and control facility. I am simply looking for lots of pixels.


Barco has been pushing every better and ever more creative LED solutions. Personally i feel that LED is the future. It has all the theoretical upsides and virtually no downsides.

Barco has a new one shipping that has a true black substrate and 4 mm pitch. Even when you got up close, it still looked really good. So at that resolution, we are looking at an equivalent of about a 25' wide HD screen. OK, so that is a little big still, and sure it is bright enough to tan by... but it also looks killer, has true blacks and has a half life (based upon 24/7 operation) of about 11 years! But i have heard tell of two mm in the labs. That takes things down to the equiv of a 12.5' wide screen.

And if part of the image goes wongo (technical term that one) you replace just that module.

No lamps to burn out, backup power supplies, want a bigger screen, just add modules.

If you want the future of where all of this is going, forget about lasers and metal xenon or whatever. We have to look to the simplest, most ubiquitous device known to man... the LED.

Was this a panel or a projector ?

Thanks Dizzman :)

Was this a panel or a projector ?

Thanks Dizzman :)

Must be a panel. 2000 pixels at 4mm is 8m or about 26ft.

Graeme

The LED panel in question is the Barco NX-4:

4mm LEDs, indoor, SMD, 2000Nit. The true black LED display solution!

Black and bright

* Use of black silicon resin instead of the traditional white epoxy, plus radical new light trap shader design delivers the deepest blacks any product on the market
* When combined with a light output of 2000 Nit a phenomenal contrast ratio of 4000:1 is obtained

Seamless and lightweight

* The Structure of The NX-4 in made of carbon fiber and is designed in a framework — rather than a box.
* The result is a support system far stronger, far lighter, and ten times less sensitive to deformation extremely tight tolerances along all three structural axes (x, y and z).
* Weight of the NX-4 tile including structure and cables is 59kg/sqm, 21% less than ILite 6XP.

Consistent uniformity over time

* By using next generation, highly efficient LED dies and running the LED's at lower temperatures, extremely high brightness levels have been achieved at much lower currents. It’s simple — less stress equals longer life.
* Within the LED itself, the use of silicon instead of epoxy resin also slows the aging process, and provides a greater degree of reliability in humid operating conditions.
* NX-4’s new “tri-color” LED calibration further ensures display stability and uniformity over time.
* With the product’s brightness declining to only 85% after 60,000 hours

Brilliant colors, breathtaking grayscales

* 16-bit processing and new “tri-color” calibration on all three colors
* Reaching new levels of color depth (281 trillion colors), uniformity, and grayscale range
* With a tight selection of LED's and the 16- bit processing power of the NX-4, tiles can be calibrated to a larger color triangle – one that is actually wider than the HDTV standard, delivering vibrant images with deep, uniform colors across the entire display surface.

(From the Barco Website)

http://www.barco.com/corporate/en/products/product.asp?gennr=1839

It will be very interesting to see this technology mature into something truly amazing, and BIG!

It was indeed a panel. And it was gorgeous. Many of the previous ones were only really suitable for long distance viewing outdoors.

THis one was truly prime time.

Wow this is cool, the future. Looking at the brochure:http://www.barco.com/corporate/en/products/product_downloads.asp?element=3802
Looks like it can be configured for 235:1 by arranging the square panels as such and setting the setup software. I love it.

20 feet long and only 8"deep.

Is this available now? Im scared to ask the question everyone responds to in this forum with: If you have to ask you cant afford it:)

it is available... and you are VERY right.

However, if a client had deep pockets and a big game room, this would be the best thing you could imagine, or even around the pool or in the back yard... you would watch the game from your yacht!

heck alan 2.66:1.... 25:1 whatever you want.

I am sitting down to ask:

How much?

I am sitting down to ask:

How much?

Mark

Im guessing 25k per panel. Considering you would need a dozen panels and the software :eek:

You probably need to be sitting down.....

Each panel looks to be made up of a 96x108 array of LEDs, so for a full 1920x1080 display you need an array of 20x10 panels. Thats 200 panels. Cost aside, just getting them up may be a major issue. The full HD array consumes 26kW of power (average) and weighs in at 2520kg or 5,560lbs!

I think we need to wait for the next iteration of the technology and the 2mm spacing which should drop all those numbers by 4.

Graeme

Has everyone forgotten that new, unique, and ubiquious technologies take time to refine and make mass (or micro) market.

In 20 Years, we'll all probably be laughing at what counted for cutting edge today - like CRT rear projection, 20 years ago.

Remeber what that looked like, with NTSC LaserDisc, or (if you were really lucky) 1125i x 625 - the actual resolution of Sony's MUSE HDTV Analog system at the time.

I absolutely agree. I was simply trying to see how close the current version is in terms of practicality. As Dizzman pointed out the only way to get the economics of silicon (or perhaps GaAs in the case of LEDs) is to remove all the electromechanical and optics stuff.

If as Dizzman suggested they have a 2mm matrix in the works that would yield a 4x improvement in denisty. On top of that optimizing the packaging and brightness (and thus power consumption) for HT environments could yield a very interesting product.

What would be really interesting is to plot the cost of current HT technologies against this LED-based approach. I would think that the cost reduction curve for a reference setup such as a 3DLP + optics + screen + masking will be much flatter than the direct-view LED approach - even if that cost of the LED approach is much higher today.

Graeme

Has everyone forgotten that new, unique, and ubiquious technologies take time to refine and make mass (or micro) market.

In 20 Years, we'll all probably be laughing at what counted for cutting edge today - like CRT rear projection, 20 years ago.

Remeber what that looked like, with NTSC LaserDisc, or (if you were really lucky) 1125i x 625 - the actual resolution of Sony's MUSE HDTV Analog system at the time.

I believe that, if (not a fantasy or an optimistic hope), such fine and thoughtful work and thought existed (as it does here in this forum) in conjunction with and at the various companies and laboratories throughout the world, we would have had HDTV (2160 x 1125?) 25 years ago, and now there would be something along the lines that some have speculated about in the movie palaces of the world: >16k!

Are we talking about large panels instead of projection. So realistically getting solid panels between 10' and 15' long into peoples homes (and then out again when the next model comes along).

Art

here is a pic of one panel. THe weight issue is also related to the fact that they are all attached to each other and then you can just hoist it from the top.

http://www.barco.com/projection_systems/images/nx-4_02_l.jpg

What about SDE?

Well I guess I cold start with one panel. Each year for Xmas all I would want under the tree would be another panel. By time Im 80 Ill have a full blown 2k system.

mhafner, you will have to stay at home since no legel cinema will be able to offer you 100000:1. :)
I'm ok with something between 5000:1 and 10000:1 in cinemas. But not 2500:1.

I'm ok with something between 5000:1 and 10000:1 in cinemas. But not 2500:1.

The DCI specs recommend no more than .01fL of ambient in commercial cinemas. If this level is typical, that means a limitation of 1400:1, with white at the DCI 14fL spec and a projector with infinite CR. With current DC projectors, the CR would be about 825:1.

You should try going and measuring actual commercial cinemas for CR and light level.

You would be very surprised, I'm sure, to see that most fall well below 4,000:1!

And image uniformity is frequently lackluster, at best, being very uneven from the center to the corners of the screen - usually due to the gain structure and actual seating position.

I'd be surprised if cinemas have anything like 1000:1 or even 500:1 contrast. "Black what?"

The DCI specs recommend no more than .01fL of ambient in commercial cinemas. If this level is typical, that means a limitation of 1400:1, with white at the DCI 14fL spec and a projector with infinite CR. With current DC projectors, the CR would be about 825:1.
Unfortunately most cinemas are crap in the contrast department. Forced by law to have exit signs pollute the hall, showing poor prints with cheap lenses etc. I have seen 35mm projection though with an estimated On-Off contrast of ~7500:1 and it looked very good.

Resurrecting this thread....
The Sony 4K SXRD projectors are supposed to be used in ALL auditoriums in the new Muvico Rosemont 18 opening officially in the Chicago area on Friday September 14, 2007. Some local stories:
http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/localguide/suburbs/north/126492,1,7196334.venue
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=32835&src=1
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/546326,CST-NWS-movie07.article

Unfortunately most cinemas are crap in the contrast department. Forced by law to have exit signs pollute the hall, showing poor prints with cheap lenses etc. I have seen 35mm projection though with an estimated On-Off contrast of ~7500:1 and it looked very good.In principle and in an ideal control ambient light, what is the maximum on/off contrast ratio of a good 35mm film projector and film?

~10000:1 says Kodak.

I spent Saturday at IBC mostly in the auditorium watching a lot of stuff projected with the new Sony 4K projector (20000 Lumen) onto a large screen. All kinds of sources: 16mm, 35mm, 4K digital origination, 1080p HD, 70mm/IMAX. I was sitting in the third row which means probably 1.5 screen heights away. All source material was obviously projected from the server where it was stored as digital data, some in 2K, some in 1080p (I guess), some in 4K. The projector was upsampling on the fly to 4K when the input was not 4K already. There was no film projection. All film was shown not natively in that regard. All comments are to be taken with a grain of salt since I'm not familiar with the projector, and the choices for grading and compression can greatly influence the look of material. Whether the samples presented were able to bring out the best from the material I can not know. But given the fact the material was selected by the companies themselves to sell product and make a good impression one hopes they chose suitable material. biggrin.gif
The projector had relatively poor On-Off contrast and an elevated black level which did not flatter some of the darker footage. That it's capable of 4K detail was obvious though and detail and sharpness assessments were definitely possible with the set up. So was assessment of noise/grain levels.
So, does Red (www.red.com) look like film? They showed the Peter Jackson short in 4K. It did not look like 35mm film. I have never seen 35mm film look like that. The only film that looks similar to Red to me at this event and in general is pristine 70mm footage scanned for 4K resolution. And even that was not as noise free looking, but had the same amount of detail, maybe a bit more. The look of Red was very detailed, creamy and smooth. Very clean. It did not look like video. It's something else. It was visibly beyond what you can do with 2K data. Red is not a 2K camera. That is a myth. It looks like there is real resolution upto a limit somewhere between 3K and 4K. And I doubt you can have that look with 35mm origination at all, concerning lack of noise/grain and detail when projected at 4K. None of the 35mm material shown did measure up in that regard, whether from 2K or 4K DI. Several of the 35mm examples looked outright nasty in comparison. For example Spider Man 3 from 4K DI was a noisy mess. The elevated black levels did not help at all. Some of the 35mm footage looked very good, but still lacked 4K sharpness. And it never was really clean.
So, what if you don't like it clean? If you insist it's grainy? I don't know, but I think making Red footage grainy in post and behave like 35mm is doable, but does it work the other way around too? I don't think so. Not with today's fast stocks shot the way they usually are.
2 types of footage were far beyond the rest concerning detail and noise level: Red's 4K short, Dalsa's 4K short and some 70mm examples. Then there was the computer generated Ratatouille in 2K which was super clean but had no 4K detail.
Dalsa's short looked amazing. The kind of material that makes you wonder if 1080p is really the end of it all for home cinema or if we are not destined for yet another system change in 5-10 years, with 4K films on 4K projectors from 4K HD discs. It's overkill for home consumption of typical 35mm originated material but definitely not for 4K digitally captured material if you have a decent size screen and sit close. Demonstrations like this make it very clear that 2K is coarse compared to 4K. 2K should not be the cinema gold standard for the next 10 years. Not good enough.

mhafner
Did you talk to anyone about increasing the contrast of sxrd big gun projectors. I think it is pretty safe to say JVC is going to deliver 4k with atleast 10000:1. How about JVC contrast and Sony lcos lumen anytime soon.

mhafner
Did you talk to anyone about increasing the contrast of sxrd big gun projectors. I think it is pretty safe to say JVC is going to deliver 4k with atleast 10000:1. How about JVC contrast and Sony lcos lumen anytime soon.
I did not talk to anyone about projector developments. I basically went to see what Red can do. :-) The Dalsa and Red when used for feature films and released on HD will give us all superb looking HD fodder for our projectors.

I would have expected nothing less from you. Nordost however has a custom cord for this unit already in the pipe. The cord is 125,000 USD but it improves the contrast to 100,000:1 for subjectivists only.

Art

Don't worry Art. I understand that Richard Gray sincerely feels remorse over your complaints re how they treated you - and they will make a custom power cord for you and come out and hard wire it to your projector,
and give you a half price deal of only $1,000 per foot for whatever length you need. Enjoy!!!@@

I spent Saturday at IBC mostly in the auditorium watching a lot of stuff projected with the new Sony 4K projector (20000 Lumen) onto a large screen. All kinds of sources: 16mm, 35mm, 4K digital origination, 1080p HD, 70mm/IMAX. I was sitting in the third row which means probably 1.5 screen heights away. All source material was obviously projected from the server where it was stored as digital data, some in 2K, some in 1080p (I guess), some in 4K. The projector was upsampling on the fly to 4K when the input was not 4K already. There was no film projection. All film was shown not natively in that regard. All comments are to be taken with a grain of salt since I'm not familiar with the projector, and the choices for grading and compression can greatly influence the look of material. Whether the samples presented were able to bring out the best from the material I can not know. But given the fact the material was selected by the companies themselves to sell product and make a good impression one hopes they chose suitable material. biggrin.gif
The projector had relatively poor On-Off contrast and an elevated black level which did not flatter some of the darker footage. That it's capable of 4K detail was obvious though and detail and sharpness assessments were definitely possible with the set up. So was assessment of noise/grain levels.
So, does Red (www.red.com) look like film? They showed the Peter Jackson short in 4K. It did not look like 35mm film. I have never seen 35mm film look like that. The only film that looks similar to Red to me at this event and in general is pristine 70mm footage scanned for 4K resolution. And even that was not as noise free looking, but had the same amount of detail, maybe a bit more. The look of Red was very detailed, creamy and smooth. Very clean. It did not look like video. It's something else. It was visibly beyond what you can do with 2K data. Red is not a 2K camera. That is a myth. It looks like there is real resolution upto a limit somewhere between 3K and 4K. And I doubt you can have that look with 35mm origination at all, concerning lack of noise/grain and detail when projected at 4K. None of the 35mm material shown did measure up in that regard, whether from 2K or 4K DI. Several of the 35mm examples looked outright nasty in comparison. For example Spider Man 3 from 4K DI was a noisy mess. The elevated black levels did not help at all. Some of the 35mm footage looked very good, but still lacked 4K sharpness. And it never was really clean.
So, what if you don't like it clean? If you insist it's grainy? I don't know, but I think making Red footage grainy in post and behave like 35mm is doable, but does it work the other way around too? I don't think so. Not with today's fast stocks shot the way they usually are.
2 types of footage were far beyond the rest concerning detail and noise level: Red's 4K short, Dalsa's 4K short and some 70mm examples. Then there was the computer generated Ratatouille in 2K which was super clean but had no 4K detail.
Dalsa's short looked amazing. The kind of material that makes you wonder if 1080p is really the end of it all for home cinema or if we are not destined for yet another system change in 5-10 years, with 4K films on 4K projectors from 4K HD discs. It's overkill for home consumption of typical 35mm originated material but definitely not for 4K digitally captured material if you have a decent size screen and sit close. Demonstrations like this make it very clear that 2K is coarse compared to 4K. 2K should not be the cinema gold standard for the next 10 years. Not good enough.

Sounds like a very technical seminar. Nice to see all of this at one show to compare. I think many here would prefer to go to something like this then Cedia:) Thanks for sharing.

Another story on the theater here in the Chicago area where, starting next week, we can check out images from the Sony 4K projector any day of the week. [The theater is quite close to O'Hare airport.]

www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sunday/art/chi-0909_pop1sep09,0,4225528.story

....

But for dedicated moviegoers, the most intriguing feature is the Sony 4K digital projection system used for all 18 screens. 4K represents a leap in resolution from the standard 2K systems used elsewhere; Muvico and Sony officials said this is the world's only location with 4K in every auditorium.

But do standard 35-millimeter movies look better via 4K digital than regular film projection?

The answer is complex, local film projection technician James Bond said, because there are so many variables. A 35 mm print that comes directly from the camera negative and is projected under optimal conditions can't be beat, he said, but most Hollywood movies are reproduced by the thousands with a resultant drop in quality.

Digital projection removes human error from the equation (the movies are files), but because studios do their postproduction work at a lower level of resolution than 4K, you can't necessarily see the difference on screen. Also affecting the experience are such factors as overly bright exit signs. "It's a delicate recipe that has followed precisely in order to realize this exciting format's full potential," Bond said.

The sooner 4k becomes the standard in the Cinema the sooner it will trickle to HT so bring it on.

has anyone a photo of the JVC 4K machine ?

it is not a real product yet. it is a custom engineered proto inside a frankenstein case.

I spent Saturday at IBC mostly in the auditorium watching a lot of stuff projected with the new Sony 4K projector (20000 Lumen) onto a large screen. All kinds of sources: 16mm, 35mm, 4K digital origination, 1080p HD, 70mm/IMAX. I was sitting in the third row which means probably 1.5 screen heights away. All source material was obviously projected from the server where it was stored as digital data, some in 2K, some in 1080p (I guess), some in 4K. The projector was upsampling on the fly to 4K when the input was not 4K already. There was no film projection. All film was shown not natively in that regard. All comments are to be taken with a grain of salt since I'm not familiar with the projector, and the choices for grading and compression can greatly influence the look of material. Whether the samples presented were able to bring out the best from the material I can not know. But given the fact the material was selected by the companies themselves to sell product and make a good impression one hopes they chose suitable material. biggrin.gif
The projector had relatively poor On-Off contrast and an elevated black level which did not flatter some of the darker footage. That it's capable of 4K detail was obvious though and detail and sharpness assessments were definitely possible with the set up. So was assessment of noise/grain levels.
So, does Red (www.red.com) look like film? They showed the Peter Jackson short in 4K. It did not look like 35mm film. I have never seen 35mm film look like that. The only film that looks similar to Red to me at this event and in general is pristine 70mm footage scanned for 4K resolution. And even that was not as noise free looking, but had the same amount of detail, maybe a bit more. The look of Red was very detailed, creamy and smooth. Very clean. It did not look like video. It's something else. It was visibly beyond what you can do with 2K data. Red is not a 2K camera. That is a myth. It looks like there is real resolution upto a limit somewhere between 3K and 4K. And I doubt you can have that look with 35mm origination at all, concerning lack of noise/grain and detail when projected at 4K. None of the 35mm material shown did measure up in that regard, whether from 2K or 4K DI. Several of the 35mm examples looked outright nasty in comparison. For example Spider Man 3 from 4K DI was a noisy mess. The elevated black levels did not help at all. Some of the 35mm footage looked very good, but still lacked 4K sharpness. And it never was really clean.
So, what if you don't like it clean? If you insist it's grainy? I don't know, but I think making Red footage grainy in post and behave like 35mm is doable, but does it work the other way around too? I don't think so. Not with today's fast stocks shot the way they usually are.
2 types of footage were far beyond the rest concerning detail and noise level: Red's 4K short, Dalsa's 4K short and some 70mm examples. Then there was the computer generated Ratatouille in 2K which was super clean but had no 4K detail.
Dalsa's short looked amazing. The kind of material that makes you wonder if 1080p is really the end of it all for home cinema or if we are not destined for yet another system change in 5-10 years, with 4K films on 4K projectors from 4K HD discs. It's overkill for home consumption of typical 35mm originated material but definitely not for 4K digitally captured material if you have a decent size screen and sit close. Demonstrations like this make it very clear that 2K is coarse compared to 4K. 2K should not be the cinema gold standard for the next 10 years. Not good enough.
Thanks for this post. I know you know your stuff (even if you are contrast obsessed ;)), and this is a very informative read. Thanks again.

Yes, merci/danke. I saw the jvc 4k this week with THE TRIDENT (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1056480/), It looked sharper than 35 mm. I find that these high end projections sometimes lack the saturation of film by being calibrated too well to d65, i would have liked to get a hold of the saturation (color) knob on that jvc.

Could 4 blue ray discs be plated simultaneously to feed a 4k image?

Peter,
I did not get to go to CEDIA this year.:( I did hear that the JVC unit had motion lag did you notice this ?

Art

Yes Art we missed you guys at the party. I did not sit through the whole short film, so I missed the kung fu like battles (that would be the tell tale). Under normal film pace no motion lag was noticeable with (4k) camera recorded material. With the flight simulation stuff there were all kinds of artifacts, but that would be from the Evans and Sutherland unit. Still the runway lights on the seattle airport looked like miniature led's that appeared shinning so brightly that it gave it a "led poking through the screen" effect.

Yes, merci/danke. I saw the jvc 4k this week with THE TRIDENT (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1056480/), It looked sharper than 35 mm. I find that these high end projections sometimes lack the saturation of film by being calibrated too well to d65, i would have liked to get a hold of the saturation (color) knob on that jvc.
Could 4 blue ray discs be plated simultaneously to feed a 4k image?
The Trident on the Sony 4K looked quite saturated. Crystal clear too. Pin sharp. BR can not support 4K. While 4 discs in parallel at 40 Mbit/s VC-1 or AVC provide enough quality it's way too clumsy to try such a system. We need discs with > 100 Mbit/s bandwidth. No 4K for home cinema for a long time, except slide shows from a PC.

mhafner
Do you think this multi zone convergence in VW200 is something coming from Sony´s digital cinema efforts? If not this multi zone convergence technology could be very important for their 4k effort.

mhafner
Do you think this multi zone convergence in VW200 is something coming from Sony´s digital cinema efforts? If not this multi zone convergence technology could be very important for their 4k effort.
I don't know. If it's resampling I don't like it. I want 1:1 pixel mapping and properly positioned panels.

mhafner
Do you believe that perfect alignment of 4k panels is possible? Is it not that reality forces you to pick one poison or the other.

Last night I had the chance to revisit FP CRT again. It has been many years.
I must say I love the smoothness. I love it. Beyond 2k lcos. You can sit very close.

I cant wait for 4k :)

The sooner 4k becomes the standard in the Cinema the sooner it will trickle to HT so bring it on.

You think so?

In my opinion it won't, nto for a LONG while.

The #1 reason why it won't. Cinemas MUST have something to bring the customers in, hence DCI even coming to fruition.

Reason #2. Taking DCI 1.1v at face value, to pump in a native 4k image into those projectors takes 4 HD-SDI connection IN PARALLEL feeding the projector to feed the native uncompressed image file into these types of projectors. That is massive bandwidth. 1.5Gb/s worth. You would need 10 Gb fiber at this time. Of course this is assuming that DCI gets used for HD media and then in which case requires the content be encrypted with AES 128b key. If it is not a key pair, the overhead of doing that real time.......

edit:

sorry folks... had to edit the 10 GB/s to 10 Gb/s. Bits not bytes! 10 Gb/s is correct. 10 GB/s is not :)

Yes, merci/danke. I saw the jvc 4k this week with THE TRIDENT (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1056480/), It looked sharper than 35 mm. I find that these high end projections sometimes lack the saturation of film by being calibrated too well to d65, i would have liked to get a hold of the saturation (color) knob on that jvc.

Could 4 blue ray discs be plated simultaneously to feed a 4k image?

nope, read my post above to feed a native 4k image to the projectors and bandwidth requirements. It is alot.

Has anyone heard if Sony is bringing 120Hz sxrd to 4k resolution. It would make sense since 3D is partly selling the dcinema technology. With 120Hz Sony can provide 3D with a single projector as is the case with dlp.

i am not sure but lcos produce may more gost images in 3d
because the dmds are either on or off.
ther is nothing in between.
so therefore you have perfect separation from the 2 half pictures.
the only gost images comes from the shutter glasses.
if they are good it should be perfect.

i doubt lcos can do it as good as dlp.


and the new small 0.98" dmd cinema chip can do 2048x1080 with
2x72 hz thats 144 hz together.
because most source material is 24p 72 hz(3 times a frame per sec/eye) is
better than 60 hz.
btw 60 hz per eye is "only almost flicker free" 72 hz is flicker free.

W.Mayer
True that dlp has an edge there.
According to Sony the internal workings of the latest 1080p sxrd panel works at 240Hz but with a frame rate of 120fps. Being able to do 3D with one projector must be pretty important to Sony.

mattias

yes i am sure 3d will get very very important in future.
i read a investigation that real d make and they say that
the average cinema visiter prefer 2k 3d to 4k 2d.

i have since now almost 2 years 2k in 3d
first with 2 qualias now with 2 full hd dlps.

i use polarizer to do 3d "the old conventionel way" with a
silver screen.
problem is i hate silver screens because of the hot spot and the
visible surface that you can see with less than
6 or 7m distance.
so the shutter version with just one dlp pr.is better for me
because i can use my big 1.0 gain screen
and do not need to adjust one pr. always for the smaller screen for 3d
and back.

best will be some day 4k in 3d:):):)

Question: How many people will develop motion sickness watch 4k resolution images?

Aren't we beyond the visual accuity of the brain to resolve images and motion?

2K is just the roll out phase for digital cinema. I am sure the practise will be 4K and that is not overkill. In Japan they are working on 8K displays systems. That system induced motion sickness when showing motion around the streets. It has alot to do with how much of your field of view is within the screen.

Well I went to ABT Electronics last night and they had what appeared to be the Sony 4K on display (could not find a salesman to confirm). It looked like it from the pictures I have seen of it. I will be 100% honest, it did not strike me as anything worth the price. It was kind of funny how they how it displayed in their main showroom with floodlights everywhere. Has anyone else had any viewings of it?

-Matt

yes i am sure 3d will get very very important in future. i read a investigation that real d make and they say that the average cinema visiter prefer 2k 3d to 4k 2d.

i have since now almost 2 years 2k in 3d
first with 2 qualias now with 2 full hd dlps.

i use polarizer to do 3d "the old conventionel way" with a
silver screen.
problem is i hate silver screens because of the hot spot and the
visible surface that you can see with less than
6 or 7m distance.
so the shutter version with just one dlp pr.is better for me
because i can use my big 1.0 gain screen
and do not need to adjust one pr. always for the smaller screen for 3d
and back.

best will be some day 4k in 3d:):):)Just get the a single 2K DLP projector and use Dolby 3D color wheel after the lamp that Infitec (Germany, created by a group of engineers from Daimler) developed. The best 3D solution I've seen and I've tried everything out there. But you have to use either the Barco DP1500 or DP2000, or NEC NC1600C, as you've stated, there are using the TI's 2K 0.98" DMDs chip. Real D is not practical. With Real D, the movie master have to be color processed at Real D's site and then deliver to the theater. With Dolby 3D, you don't have to pre-process it. As long as the movie material is already in 3D format, the material can be directly put in the server and in real time the Dolby will synch' it to the color wheel. It doesn't use polarization, it uses color filter, so you don't loose lumens. You just divide the lumens between L and R eyes. And no!, you don't get rainbow effect! and no, you don't get fatigue too! Barco license it for thier VR and Simulation, and Dolby license for Digital Cinema. You can even do it with just one 2K DLP projector at 120Hz, but not optimal

.....best will be some day 4k in 3d:):):)You can only appreciate 4K resolution if you have with 40ft wide screen or larger, otherwise adjacent pixels cannot be differentiated by our eyes at standard viewing distance. The adjacent pixels are too close together. So 2K is going to stay for a while, unless we have larger theater. Beside using 4K digital camera and scale it down to 2K will give you greater dynamic range. 2K is good all around. Sony 4K is around the same price or may be less expensive than most 2K DLP anyway, if it's that good, then I would have bought them.

Not to mention that LCoS based cannot take the amount of heat that the high power lamp produces

Welcome to the forum Nano.

Welcome to the forum Nano.How are you doing Antonio 'Tony' Montana?

Welcome to the forum Nano.Thank you. Do you agree with everything I said ??
Why bother getting SIM2, Christie, ....., this is what everybody need.......

Dlp is llike walking a line and sxrd is like walking aa tight rope. Dlp is more robust but not necessarily better.Have ever seen 2K DLP? Have ever seen any of these projectors?
It will be interesting to see if 4k sxrd contrast can be pushed to 5000:1 or so and if laser illumination can turn 4k sxrd into stable 20000 ANSI lumen projectors.Even with laser illumination, it's hard to reach 5000:1. There's a company that did this with LCoS, they barely achieve >3500:1. Even then you are not solving the MTF issues of SXRD or DiLA.

Even then you are not solving the MTF issues of SXRD or DiLA.
The 4K models have no relevant MTF issues in a cinema. Plenty sharp enough.

nanohv

thanks for your info and welcome to the forum.

i have 2 christie hd6k and make 3d with polarizer.
i make 3d since 30 years:).
i have "the latest infitec filter system" and
i was one of the guys that tune with
infitec together since long time there system.

all systems (infitec polarizer and shutter)
have there pro and cons.
i can know it because i have infitec and
polarizer systems running and can compare it.

the latest small 2048x1080 dmd can do 3d at 144 hz in full resolution
with polarizer (reald system) or shutter.
the old big cinema dmds
can only display at 144hz (2x72 hz per eye flicker free) at about 1600x900.

i will look as soon as there is a nice way for me to make 3d with one single dlp with 1920x1080 or 2048x1080 with sutter again but so far there is no easy way to feed the signals i have but that will change soon.
2x 60 hz shows may be in bright seq. some small flicker but i will soon see
if this is a problem for me or not.
2x72hz like the new cinema units can do is flicker free but problem so far how to feed easy my content.
but i will wait for new dlp developments like dc4 and other upcomming
improvments because my christie set up is very very good for both
3d AND home cinema and i like when i upgrade to see a
big improvment.
but may depends on how the development for 4k pr. is i will change to
4k.as soon there is a nice good lcos pr. out that i can afford.

4k d-cinema would require 8 HD-SDI feeds. I haven't read about anyone planning on delpoying 4K into commercial cinemas (other than a few trials like Landmark and Muvico) It really hasn't been proven.

"You can only appreciate 4K resolution if you have with 40ft wide screen or larger"

no its not about "size" its only about screen size vs viewing disctance ratio.
at 1 times the screen wide in distance i can see much more than 2k.
my screen size is 7m and i sit back about 7.5m in the first row.
at the latest after 2 times the screen wide in distance more than 1920x1080
make no sense at all because no one can see it.

nanohv

thanks for your info and welcome to the forum.

i have 2 christie hd6k and make 3d with polarizer.
i make 3d since 30 years:).
i have "the latest infitec filter system" and
i was one of the guys that tune with
infitec together since long time there system.

all systems (infitec polarizer and shutter)
have there pro and cons.
i can know it because i have infitec and
polarizer systems running and can compare it.

the latest small 2048x1080 dmd can do 3d at 144 hz in full resolution
with polarizer (reald system) or shutter.
the old big cinema dmds
can only display at 144hz (2x72 hz per eye flicker free) at about 1600x900.

i will look as soon as there is a nice way for me to make 3d with one single dlp with 1920x1080 or 2048x1080 with sutter again but so far there is no easy way to feed the signals i have but that will change soon.
2x 60 hz shows may be in bright seq. some small flicker but i will soon see
if this is a problem for me or not.
2x72hz like the new cinema units can do is flicker free but problem so far how to feed easy my content.
but i will wait for new dlp developments like dc4 and other upcomming
improvments because my christie set up is very very good for both
3d AND home cinema and i like when i upgrade to see a
big improvment.
but may depends on how the development for 4k pr. is i will change to
4k.as soon there is a nice good lcos pr. out that i can afford.It doesn't matter how long you are experimenting with 3D, I have been following and reading your posts. I can conclude that you have been choosing the wrong 3D systems.

Besides, Infitect has nothing to do with polarizing the light. It works by color filter, that is, dividing the red , green, and blue spectrum into two. One for L eyes and the other for R eyes. This technique is possible because of Thin Film fabrication technology.

You should study it more and do your homework. It has nothing to do with polarizer. Beside polarizer is out for good.

All the past 3D system processing have been very poor, that's why I don't pay any attention....waste of time!

With your viewing distance to screen width ratio, you don't have enough to see the apparent increase MTF.

The 4K models have no relevant MTF issues in a cinema. Plenty sharp enough.4K in theory should have higher MTF, but SXRD, DiLA or LCoS is the problem with MTF. Just like 9"CRTs, they have problem with MTF. Now DiLA can produce high CR, but just like CRTs, MTF/ANSI CR is just very poor.

W.Mayer, we've tried the 2x60Hz, even at high brightness, no flicker. It's only anything at or below 50Hz that you'll have the EU TV flicker feel to it.

2K Digital Cinema projectors are not just having 2K DMDs, it's a lot more than that. The lens, prism coating have to meet DCI spec'. There's a reason why that until today all 2K DC pjs are only >2000:1 CR. It's not because the pjs are not capable of doing higher CR, it's the DCI spec'. You can make it higher by doing some modifications. But the coating, processing, the lamp, etc.... in cinema mode! Will produce very good colors and combine that with Dolby 3D, it's amazing. Went back and saw HT5000 in the other room....instantly, HT5000 looks like video. The colors are not all there.

As a new person here who is suddenly choosing to state how all others are wrong and you have all the relevant knowledge... why not a little bit of background as to why you are an authority. after all, anybody can pop in and rant and rave. Mr. Mayer is well known here as a person who has all the latest and greatest and is constantly experimenting with new systems. from one chip to 4K.

I am not saying you are not an expert in the field, but in order to be taken seriously, (especially on the internet) why not give a little background so we know where you are coming from.

As a new person here who is suddenly choosing to state how all others are wrong and you have all the relevant knowledge... why not a little bit of background as to why you are an authority. after all, anybody can pop in and rant and rave. Mr. Mayer is well known here as a person who has all the latest and greatest and is constantly experimenting with new systems. from one chip to 4K.

I am not saying you are not an expert in the field, but in order to be taken seriously, (especially on the internet) why not give a little background so we know where you are coming from.This is not characters judgement evaluation forum, nor a psychological one for that matter.

If you want me to provide you proves, then you have to get yourself motivated in this subjects and go try out and experiment yourself. Because who I am is irrelevant, and it's not how long you are in the forum. You just want me to provide you my background and experience, and just read every posts that W.Mayer, MHafner, ...... and myself, so that you don't have to do any work. Sorry, you want to know something, get up, turn on your head, and experience for yourself. The last post you've made is a waste of hard disk, you made zero contribution to the forum.

The last post you've made is a waste of hard disk, you made zero contribution to the forum.

I would say your post also fits your description. We are all friends here. No need to be so abrasive. You obviously have experience with some exciting technology which is evident from your posts but a little friendliness goes a long way !!
That aside, welcome to the forum:)

"It doesn't matter how long you are experimenting with 3D, I have been
following and reading your posts. I can conclude that you have been choosing
the wrong 3D systems."

"Besides, Infitect has nothing to do with polarizing the light. It works by
color filter, that is, dividing the red , green, and blue spectrum into two.
One for L eyes and the other for R eyes. This technique is possible because
of Thin Film fabrication technology."

no need to educate me in 3d.
i learn in 30 years very much about every 3d system how it
works where are pros and cons.
if you think that not counts well ist up to you.
you not must read my posts anymore.

"You should study it more and do your homework. It has nothing to do with
polarizer. Beside polarizer is out for good."

did you really think i dont know how infitec works when i was involved
to improve the system and infitec use me to demo there system to
vips in the industie since 2006.
you should better read one more time my posting i never say that.
or is my englisch so bad?

i think i have have been choosing the right 3d systems for me.

you should cool down a bit and stop your aggressive writing
here after so few postings.

I apologize W.Mayer if I sounded so aggressively! and I know you have experimented with 3D for a long time, but there are other people that actually try to develop many different techniques and have special facility for 3D work, not just played with it.

"nanohv"

is it possible that i know "you" because you send me between 9th and 13th sept.a lot of private mails?

that date is before you join avs at 09 22 07.

the way you write here at avs remembers me to someone.

as i said, i made no judgement on your knowledge. but in any area, if you want to be taken seriously and you want to call out others, you really should give some input as to why you are to be taken seriously.

After all, this is the faceless nameless internet. you could be a leader in the field or some nameless schmo who read an article last year in Popular science and feels he is a pro.

The abrasive nature of your response makes me personally lean to the latter.

I like him already. :D

The amount of technical data on this planet doubles (At this time) every 2 years. Two years from now, that number will change to about 1.75 or less years, for a doubling of the data.

Same goes for A/V, etc. Change comes fast. Too fast for things to even be implemented down some manufacturing pipeline and actually make it to the public.

We are now offically..internet driven, as an overall 'race' of 'humans'.

Manufacturing, historical, educational, learning, emotional development, etc timelines of human development and execution (of life itself) are no longer in the same sort of easily discernable characteristic "driver's seat" that they used to be. It's not just that I'm getting older, but the world IS speeding up! Drastically so.

I'd hazard a guess, that if Sony and Toshiba both don't get together and make kissy-face with one another, they are going to get sideswiped by another emergent techology of some sort, and loose the few $10 billion in sales they might have (at the end of the HD disc based technology run) made in the last few years of it's run. They have to load the system properly at the start, in order to have those few years of solid, near automatic sales performance. Right now, all they are engaged in, is extreme levels of profit loss, in the future. Which is a clear indication that both have shite for brains.

The problem is, they both have the old model of technological development and commercial execution in their minds; the minds of old men running giant corporations. And if they keep it up, they are both gonna get sideswiped, no..actually T-Boned by some 'out of left field' emergent technology.

Last night I had the chance to revisit FP CRT again. It has been many years.
I must say I love the smoothness. I love it. Beyond 2k lcos. You can sit very close.

I cant wait for 4k :)

That's why I still have 3 CRT projectors in the house. But, I'm still sitting on all the modifications and changes to the digital projectors I came up with, years ago! No one has even come close to implementing similar work in Digital projectors. the vast majority of the problems you have with digital..I can make them go away.

I approached a company about this subject over 1.5 years ago. (closer to two years). I was viewed as a bit of a nutbar. (gee..that's unusual!)

They are now taking me seriously, as the only discernable difference between two 1080P DLP projectors is that theirs is $10-100K..and the competition is at the same resolution and engine technology level..but for $2600.00. And that's too big of a difference, except in the case of advanced visual image quality.

That's what I created, years ago..in spades. Now that the resolution wars are essentially over..the only differences that will count, are the ones that I spent all that time developing.

That's why I still have 3 CRT projectors in the house. But, I'm still sitting on all the modifications and changes to the digital projectors I came up with, years ago! No one has even come close to implementing similar work in Digital projectors. the vast majority of the problems you have with digital..I can make them go away.

I approached a company about this subject over 1.5 years ago. (closer to two years). I was viewed as a bit of a nutbar. (gee..that's unusual!)

They are now taking me seriously, as the only discernable difference between two 1080P DLP projectors is that theirs is $10-100K..and the competition is at the same resolution and engine technology level..but for $2600.00. And that's too big of a difference, except in the case of advanced visual image quality.

That's what I created, years ago..in spades. Now that the resolution wars are essentially over..the only differences that will count, are the ones that I spent all that time developing.What's exactly you are developing and what modification are you doing to a Digital Projector? LCoS based?

4K in theory should have higher MTF, but SXRD, DiLA or LCoS is the problem with MTF.
Higher MTF compared to what? Certainly not 35mm film. DLP? So what? This is an issue once we have actually 4K sources that look visibly more detailed with that higher MTF of DLP. The current real 4K material looks very sharp and beyond 35mm already on Sony's 4K projector. It does not need a MTF improvement for now. It needs a contrast improvement. And DLP needs a 4K chip. Their stuff looks coarse compared to 4K projection.

2K Digital Cinema projectors are not just having 2K DMDs, it's a lot more than that. The lens, prism coating have to meet DCI spec'. There's a reason why that until today all 2K DC pjs are only >2000:1 CR. It's not because the pjs are not capable of doing higher CR, it's the DCI spec'. .
And how exactly do the DI specs result in contrast stuck at ~2000:1?

It needs a contrast improvement. And DLP needs a 4K chip. Their stuff looks coarse compared to 4K projection.


So now it is coarsness? Black levels and coarsness? Could you be rationalising a bit the reason not to get a 3dlp?

So now it is coarsness? Black levels and coarsness? Could you be rationalising a bit the reason not to get a 3dlp?

If you have native 4K material, DLP is now the wrong choice. Would you use a 720p projector to display 2K material on a large screen?

But with 2K material, 3DLPs are superb, no doubt about that.

And how exactly do the DI specs result in contrast stuck at ~2000:1?Here's the spec' www.dcimovies.com/specification/index.tt2

Due to the fire code's exit sign and other spec of the theater by law, even if you have high contrast the room's light will scatter and hit the screen. That could lower full field CR.

The Barco 909s that we have in here are really good in full field CR, but we have lots of issues with MTF/ANSI CR. We made special 9"CRT lens with high MTF and the fact that there are still too many glasses/lenses of the 9"/8"CRT FPs, it's hard to get high ANSI CR. Not to mention the fact that if you were watching 1080P (even you go around the DHCP), the fact that the video amp is only 180MHz (-3 dB), it cannot modulate that large of a voltage swing to achieve 1080P at 60Hz. That's it look soft, or some people interpret that as 'smooth', but it's the lack of the video amp to modulate the beam currents at the desire pixel time.

4K LCoS (SXRD or DiLA) can resolve more if you seat close enough, but LCoS have issues with uniformity, color accuracy, and if you fixed them, you loose lots of lumens. Efficiency goes down.

Lets see how the Chicago theater do with their Sony 4Ks they have installed. Of course, you know they get them at very very great deal, as SONY want to increase its installed base.

If you are happen to be in US, please see the release of BEOWOLF in Dolby 3D with Barco DP100. I don't think it would display at full resolution (2K), as it couldn't do triple flash at 2K.

mhafner, there are many ways to increase the full field CR in the new Barco 2K DLP with 0.98" panels. Barco improve the CR with the DP90 for the post houses.

After seeing the ANSI CR and high MTF of 2K DLP, I rather wait for the TI 4K DMD. Details and full field CR are just two factors of the whole image qualities variables. LCoS and 9"CRT have too many optical elements, every optical elements can lowered MTF or ANSI CR. Not to mention it also decreases lumens efficiency too!

"nanohv"

is it possible that i know "you" because you send me between 9th and 13th sept.a lot of private mails?

that date is before you join avs at 09 22 07.

the way you write here at avs remembers me to someone.I have recently join this forum just few days ago.

So now it is coarsness? Black levels and coarsness? Could you be rationalising a bit the reason not to get a 3dlp?
I was talking about really big screens where 4K projectors make (more) sense. At home with HD sources 1080p DLP is not coarse. At home the black level is the issue. Fix it and I'll have a very thorough look at a 3 chip DLP.

Here's the spec' www.dcimovies.com/specification/index.tt2
Due to the fire code's exit sign and other spec of the theater by law, even if you have high contrast the room's light will scatter and hit the screen. That could lower full field CR.

I thought you were talking about projector issues. The room is not the projector's fault if it screws up contrast.
I had and have a Barco. I know the good and not so good points of CRT projectors. Their MTF is lower than SXRD which is lower than DLP. The latter two have higher MTF than projected film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.Mayer
"nanohv"

is it possible that i know "you" because you send me between 9th and 13th sept.a lot of private mails?

that date is before you join avs at 09 22 07.

the way you write here at avs remembers me to someone.

I have recently join this forum just few days ago.

you as a person or the name nanohv or the other 2.
you damage the best home cinema forum and thats against 99:9% of all here:mad:

you as a person or the name nanohv. you damage the best home cinema forum and thats against 99:9% of all here:mad:I don't know who you are refering to, but that is irrelevant here.

You should say thank you for the infos I posted, I could be saving everybody a lot of money here. High End Home Theater system cost the same or a little less than good Digital Cinema systems. Ask any expert. If anybody budget is >$500K, then you can get a better system without having your dated 3D set up. Start looking at the Barco DP, NEC NC or Christie CP - series. You can get a really good system. I think Helene, from another thread, will be a very good home cinema, I don't know the person who set it up. But it is going in the right direction. Look at it and studied it.

mhafner there are other ways to improve full field CR from these projectors, but you have to do your own modification. It's easy and economical. If you opne up these Digital Cinema projector, there are many places you can modify and close many of the light leakage to the imaging lens. Most of all, the colours are so good. The prism block and lens are spec to Digital Cinema Initiative spec too.

i dont know was it that thread or a other wher i read some
posts regarding the demo from a 4k jvc at cedia 2007.

some people post the price of the unit.

as i post already that time it can not be as expensive as the sony 4k
because no one buy it than.
i get today a info from someone that talk with jvc at ceatec in japan
yessterday (he own and write artikels in home cinemas magazines for 20 years)
and he get confirm that the price will be cheaper than
the sony for sure.
jvc told him the unit will have 3500 lumen likely a xenon lamp
and above 10000:1 on off cr.
the look to start to sale the unit in spring 2008 but i guess
it more likely in summer to autumn 2008 with all my
experience about delays.

the big question for me is

WHO IS FIRST.

jvc with this 4k industry pr.or sony with the diamond home cinema unit.

or may ti suprise us all with a first 4k dlp pr.:)

Oddly enough, I have to now find and modify the right 4K projector for the creation of a cutting edge editing suite.

Is the Sony unit the only 'reasonably priced' 4K PJ out there?

Are there any other contenders?

Anything from Christie, JVC, NEC, TI (based), DP, etc? Screen will be about 15-20 ft wide. (TBD) I'm not looking for +15k lumen, something in the 5k to 10k lumen range.

I think JVC just demonstrated a 4K proj at CEATAC Japan 2007. (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20071005/140279/) Alas it's only 3500 lumens. :)

JVC has had many 4k versions.
3840x2048 analog backplane
4096x2160 ?
4096x2400 digital backplane?

I wonder if these latest 4k panels are going to get the 40000:1 panel native contrast treatment.

I will not be surprised if Sony comes out with a single lamp projector even for the lower light output models at 5-10k lumen. The R220 uses a single lamp. The original srx-r models with dual lamps must have been a necessary evil.
If TI could deliver a 4k prosumer projecor, that would be a shock!

W.Mayer
So the diamond what ever it is will be 4k?

"""W.Mayer
So the diamond what ever it is will be 4k?"""

yes i think so.
all other beside a true 2.35 format pr.will be a surprise.

lcos have a hug advantage over dlp.
its much more easy for them to increase the resolution.
sony and jvc know that and they will use this advantage for sure.
on the other hand they also know that they may killing there own high end pr.
full hd pr. segment.

"forgot"

....killing there own high end pr.
full hd pr. segment."THAT THEY ALMOST NOT HAVE AT THE MOMENT"

btw. the 4k jvc picture that was publish shows not the upcoming unit it
shows a old sample.
i hope i can get a new picture soon that shows the real unit for 08.

This may be a noobish question, but if you're considering 4k for the home, what sources can you use? Is there a next-gen HD disc format on the horizon already?

none... and no.

The argument is that it can scale out the 2K source and make it possibly look better.

we are 20 years from a 4K source for consumers.

i had a 4k sony at home for more than a week
and i cant see "a big improvment" when the pr. scale 2k content to 4k.

thats not the reason for me to go to 4k and i also not see 4k content
that soon.

the reason for me is to project my 3d pictures i made with a 3d camera
that have 13 mil. pixels per eye
with a 4 times higher resolution i can do today with a 2k pr.

W.Mayer
For your sake I hope Sony comes up with a 4k projector with a single lamp and a reduced form factor. 120Hz technology must also be high on your list to be able to do 3D.

When 1080p content actually starts to contain 1080p resolution 4k will be nice to make aliasing go away.

There is no question (after over 13 months of close observation, modification, and calibration) that the Sony SRX series of projectors can offer a significant improvement in fidelity while watching 1080P sources over any 2K projector currently available.

Please check out this thread (for more pictures) of:

The Kipnis Studio Standard Screening Experience


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11866765#post11866765


It's like nothing you've ever experienced before!

Cheers -

Jeremy

www.kipnis-studios.com


Below: Writer Steve Guttenberg and Designer Jeremy R. Kipnis inside The Kipnis Studio Standard

none... and no.

The argument is that it can scale out the 2K source and make it possibly look better.

we are 20 years from a 4K source for consumers.

Do you really think it will take that long?

Somehow, I see the industry being in a position of offering it in about 10 years, just as DVD was superceded by the two HD disc formats in 10 Years.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

4k material in

20years:mad::mad::mad:
10 years:mad:

here it is 13 mil. pixels per eye today with my 3d camera:)


http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/509/101_0259.JPG

i think it will take 6-9 years to see movies in 4k.
late 2008 or 2009 we will see first consumer 4k pr.at least from sony
and jvc.
2010/11 we will get first dlp with 4k and you can be sure that
if such pr. are out there will be source material for it.
hope that will not create a format war like we have today.

Seems that the new JVC will be available for the home market with 3500 ASNI Lumens, 4096 x 2400 resolution, and 35,000:1 Contrast Ratio.

Looks like things are starting to heat up!


http://celluloidjunkie.com/?p=68#comment-14


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

no it will be in the 10000:1 range cr.
may be a little bit more (i hear that yesterday) but not 35000:1.
its may the chip cr. ratio but sure not the pr.

also no desicion was made if the unit get hdcp witch is
a must if they like to sale it to consumers.

Ok. Sorry for the delay in response, but we only have the two types available at the moment..the Sony and the 'barely-maybe-to-be-soon-available' JVC?.

This is going into a very prestige location, so either might be willing to have rep show up with a pj for evaluation..when the time comes to make the purchasing decision. I think the company involved is pre-disposed to Sony due to technical professional choices..and that might be enough to have JVC show up with a sample, as well as Sony.

One PJ sale for JVC, for example, could and will be millions ($) in future sales, due to ..uhm..er.. exposure and direct purchases.

As for the super high CR claims..when we get down to that level..hell we can't even calibrate at those levels. So anyone's claim is another companies lie. Makes no difference, to the larger extent. What IS critical is the inter-scene CR at high brightness levels and down into the darker scenes.

In both technologies, the 'instantaneous' CR in any given scene is compromised due to the basics of the given technology. The most superior, in this respect, by far, is the single chip DLP..but..until this time, no-one has bothered to create a viable single chip engine that has high 'full screen' CR ratios. All the designs are 'cheats'. And the three chip technologies all have inferior instantaneous CR. If you can't see that CR loss due to those large prismatic blocks, well, not my problem. But I see it, and it's definitely there. I see it because I've done the work on such engines (three chip DLP, SXRD, LCOS and LCD engines) to improve this aspect of CR. I've seen the difference. Like anything, once you see the flaw, you know it and see it all the time, immediately.

Whichever 3 chip unit ends up being placed in this location, I'm at about a 50% level of chance of stripping it down and re-building it. If the owner of the business says go for it, I will. I believe I've already been given the go ahead, but it's one of those things you want to be sure of, well ahead of time. Once I get in there, no single soul will be allowed inside that PJ and the thing will be essentially without any warranty of any kind. And it's exploratory surgery, right from the first screw being removed. Always a blast.

What's a guy gonna do?

Do you really think it will take that long?

Somehow, I see the industry being in a position of offering it in about 10 years, just as DVD was superceded by the two HD disc formats in 10 Years.


DVD was superceded by the HD DVD's within ten years, BUT we need to realize that NTSC had 50 odd years until the next thing was a reality.

And while HD is now available... it is by no means mainstream in its adoption.

the networks are not even close to recouping costs of transitions to HD. nor are the studios. So we have lots of time for that to happen before we see people (outside this forum) looking to the stars for the next greatest thing.

So what i will say is that the various disc based formats have likley less than 5 years to gain a foothold. however i think that they have a MAXIMUM of 10 years total. likely far less. the reality is that the future will be downloadable full HD content. secure keys generated to lock playback to one device only, pay a small fee to get anothether key for your other device (a la MMC).

But in the long run, i really do not think that anybody will be looking at a higher res format for consumer use for a very long time.

I mean honestly, in a room with a ten foot wide screen (i cannot even begin to calculate what percentage of the planet this encompasses.. maybe 99.9999999999999999999999999%?) is anything more than 1080P needed??? Honestly!

KBK
Do you advocate a radical shift to 4-panel light engines or an evoluitonary tweak to existing components?

:p No comment. :) No hints. Apologies. But I am still sitting on a 100K:1 pixel-to-pixel CR design. (at the panel-optics would ruin that, of course)

:p No comment. :) No hints. Apologies. But I am still sitting on a 100K:1 pixel-to-pixel CR design. (at the panel-optics would ruin that, of course)Ha! but that's the whole challenge, the optics!

Ha! but that's the whole challenge, the optics!

No comment....it's all essentially optics. No further explainations... the information, even hints, is far too valuble. :)

:p No comment. :) No hints. Apologies. But I am still sitting on a 100K:1 pixel-to-pixel CR design. (at the panel-optics would ruin that, of course)

Let us know when you are ready to demo.

Art

Until then I'll send you a can of his screen goo.

Wow, from a can of paint to 4K projector against what Sony and JVC cannot solve!! Amazing feat

The Sony 4K SXRD projectors are supposed to be used in ALL auditoriums in the new Muvico Rosemont 18 opening officially in the Chicago area on Friday September 14, 2007.
I saw the Julie Taymor film "Across the Universe" on the Sony 4K projector at the Muvico Rosemont 18 today. Quite pleasing image quality. (And a very nice theater.) The Sony CineAlta 4K promo just before the movie started was quite impressive.

As usual, it appeared to me that the 35mm film source was the limiting factor.

BTW, Sony's sales efforts are paying off.... http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/b2b/broadcast_production/release/31919.html

"Sony to Install SXRD 4K Digital Cinema Systems in Four New AMC Theatres
A Total of 54 Screens to Use 4K Technology
ORLANDO, Oct. 18, 2007 - Sony Electronics is equipping four of AMC Theatres' new movie theatres with CineAlta SXRD 4K digital cinema systems.
Sony will provide 54 SXRD 4K digital cinema systems at new AMC theatres in Dallas (12 screens); Indianapolis (14 screens); Riverside, Calif. (16 screens); and San Diego (12 screens). Work will begin next month, with the theaters scheduled to open in December.
The theaters will feature a combination of Sony's SRX-R210 10,000 lumen* model and the SRX-R220 18,000 lumen* unit. The systems, which were specifically designed for theater applications, will be paired with Sony's LMT-100 Media Block servers.
....."

Well, the latest Pixar discs came in last week, and having looked at Ratatouille several times now on BluRay Disc connected digitally direct to the Sony SRX-R110, it totally smokes the Christie CP2000 DLP projector in several important ways:

1. 4k offers no visible interpixel spacing at seating distances between 1/2 and 1 1/2 screen widths :p, 2k does show visible pixel structure at the same seating distance, and this is particularly visible with very high quality material such as Ratatouille and Blade Runner - The Final Cut, which I just saw Tuesday at the AMC Times Square, NYC (same type of Christie CP2000 DLP).

2. Light output for both DLP presentations was adequate at around 12.5 foot-Lamberts on a curved 1.8 silver perforated screen, but this simply does not strike me as realistic light levels, anymore. After being able to set up the SRX-R110 properly, and going back and fourth between being outside on a bright sunny fall day and viewing the projector, I'm convinced that levels around 48.5 foot-Lamberts or higher is much more desirable, allowing for the full capability of our eyes and visual system to be utilized. Out of the box, DLP projectors at these calibrated light levels offer no significant improvement in Black Level or CR without modification to the optical path.

3. Color space on the DLP projectors can be extremely vivid and realistic, but is at the mercy of the calibrator and has a tendency to need more adjustment than the Sony 4k engines which are finally more stable than in the past.

Now I'm not saying that I have ever seen a Sony 4k set-up quite to the degree that I have worked with mine, but in general I find there are more inherent limitations to calibrating DLP and 2k professional projectors, in particular, than there are with the 4k Sony's (black level, ANSI CR, and lower gray scale tracking as a possible exception).

Hopefully, we will see all of these designs evolve to be much, much better!


Cheers -

Jeremy

www.Kipnis-Studios.com

3. Color space on the DLP projectors can be extremely vivid and realistic, but is at the mercy of the calibrator and has a tendency to need more adjustment than the Sony 4k engines which are finally more stable than in the past.




Not that I am forfeiting countering the above posts...;)

... but this post is just an ubsunstatiated cheap shot and untrue! It naively ignores the 5nm accuracy of the TIP7 autocalibration system. It is SRX whose color accuracy is all over the place. UNCALIBRATABLE.

Get your facts straight Definer Of Cinema Like*.

*LCOS is incapable of accurately portraying reality, for MTF reasons previously documented.

DVD was superceded by the HD DVD's within ten years, BUT we need to realize that NTSC had 50 odd years until the next thing was a reality.

And while HD is now available... it is by no means mainstream in its adoption.


I saw this statement i made before and i feel it unnecessary to correct it a bit.

I stated that DVD was superseded in ten years. this is a totally incorrect statement. the HD discs are merely another option right now.

The reality is that we have quite a ways to go until the new discs are equal in sales to DVD. anybody want to guess how long? I will throw out a guess that i would like to see beaten but i am sure it will be conservative.

5 years.

in reality i personally feel that for the most part, both of these will fail. I think that the reality is that we will see online sales of direct download to either our PC's or an appliance of some sort (by far a preferable option for Hollywood)

I think that all the pissing and moaning and waiting for features that will never show up may be the death knell for the HD discs long term.

Just my thoughts though

I would also like to agree with D O R.

The capabilities of the SXRD 4 K system is unreal.

DLP is a fundamentally flawed system. Do not get me wrong, i love the images. but when looking for solve problems, it is always best to keep in the same family. (sorry, this makes very little sense but i am not sure how else to describe it)

if i have a mechanical problem, i generally look to solve it with a mechanical solution.

The issue at hand is getting images on screen. an electronic and optical problem. DLP is a mechanical solution to an electronic problem. it introduces other things into the equation that have their own issues. LCoS is an electronic solution. (OK, an electrochemical solution) but electronic none the less.

i am far more interested in solving its quirks and getting down to business than slapping more lipstick on DLP.

Having seen both in plenty of applications (i just bought two 4k's) i feel that when given the best material, the 4K kicks ass. DLP still looks great, but there is a sense of realism with the 4 K that cannot be beaten.

Sure, ONE DLP model may have a better colour calibration system, but there is no reason why similar advances will not be made to others as they ALL evolve.

my other issue with DLP (and this will sound odd) is that it is too sharp. too crisp. it is almost like it adds a filter to the world. In fact, a friend who used to do all the demos when he worked at DP told me that for Digital cinema stuff, they would throw focus off a bit. i think it is odd that to make it look its best... we have to de focus it a bit. Now i will freely admit, i have REALLY good eyesight and i notice things that others miss (and i have been a projectionist for 19 years) so i am ultra sensitive to some of these things as well.

But in the long run, i have always felt that LCoS was going to be the long term champ. And for the record, i have been dealing with them for quite a while. i used to setup the 300 Series hughes/JVC projectors all the time. and while they were a pain (I hate shading) they looked so freakin sweet once they were dialed in. i think that they can still kick ass in a good setup. (they were a little too heavy though.)

I wish I could agree with your take but except pixel size ,IMO three chip DLP has a suprior image presentation including panel registration,shading ANSI and on/ off contrast.Perhaps this is just based on limited exposure but from what I've seen it is the case.

Art

This is looking like the AussieBob thread now.

Anyway, Seen the Sony 4k in Singapore cinema and found it to be poor. Seen them many times for HQ stills analysis, again very poor performers.

1. 4k offers no visible interpixel spacing at seating distances between 1/2 and 1 1/2 screen widths :p, 2k does show visible pixel structure at the same seating distance


Are you Steve Austin?

A 1080 signal will show no pixel structure at way closer than 1.5 sw.

Certainly, both technologies (DLP and LCOS/SXRD) can produce stunning images. And in certain models and from year to year, one technology can have noticeable strengths against the other.

I would always let the customer choose whichever particular technology they liked - after all, they are going to be watching it all the time.

But when I look at the very recent professional models (which often do not always excel in the same areas as consumer products) with the same material and under similar or identical conditions, I come to the following observations:

A) 4k and higher resolutions are required to paint a pixel-less image on large screens and with close seating distances.

B) LCOS (and SXRD in particular) is subject to thermal variations which require an extended warm-up period (> 1 hour). This requires very careful adjustment and calibration of both gray scale and shading to produce an accurate, uniform image. DLP is thermally stable and shows none of these aberrations.

C) In a commercial theater, DLP typically uses an anamorphic lens for CinemaScope DCI electronic prints increasing vertical resolution by 33% over the flat spherical lens resolution of 2160 x 1080 @24P. The SRX-R projectors do not (currently) use an anamorphic lens but instead scale the source up to the panel resolution of 4096 x 2160. Both adhere to the color space known as DCI, capable of showcasing 15 trillion colors and substantially more saturated in Red and Green than HDTV Rec. 709 or NTSC Rec. 601.

D) Home theater projectors, even though they use DLP, LCOS, SXRD, and LCD technologies that are substantially the same, are in fact quite different. Because these devices (both front and rear configurations) require substantially lower light levels (< 2,000 ANSI Lumens) to produce an acceptable image, it is much easier to control and improve upon the areas of CR, Uniformity, Convergence, Focus, Interpixel Spacing, Gamma, Color Temperatures, Black Level, Color enhancement, Noise Reduction, etc. Commercial Digitial Projectors must use between 10,000 - 100,000 ANSI Lumens to fill screens from 18 feet up to 100 feet.

E) In reality, the process of creating both DCI Cinema Masters and their home theater counterparts currently available on BluRay. HD-DVD. Cable, Satellite, and D-VHS can range from incredible to lousy, with most being better than 6 out of 10. But in spite of SMPTE Standards, it is rare to actually see a digital print much less an actual film print in quality that's much more than a 6 out of 10!


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

"Color space on the DLP projectors can be extremely vivid and realistic, but is at the mercy of the calibrator and has a tendency to need more adjustment than the Sony 4k engines which are finally more stable than in the past."

The digital cinema DLPs are color calibrated by taking only three measurements and entering the x y chromaticity coordinates into the system. The calibrator does not make any decissions at all and the system is automatic past that point. It could not be any simpler or more foolproof.

Digital cinema content includes a setup file that defines the color primaries, the white reference, the gamma, the aspect ratio, and other parameters, and the projector is automatically adjusted to match the source. The projectionist does not have to do any adjustment. The resultant colors are highly accurate.

The digital cinema DLPs are color calibrated by taking only three measurements and entering the x y chromaticity coordinates into the system. The calibrator does not make any decissions at all and the system is automatic past that point. It could not be any simpler or more foolproof.

Digital cinema content includes a setup file that defines the color primaries, the white reference, the gamma, the aspect ratio, and other parameters, and the projector is automatically adjusted to match the source. The projectionist does not have to do any adjustment. The resultant colors are highly accurate.

Highly accurate is not 100% accurate, which requires making manual adjustments, as any certified SMPTE or ISF calibrator will point out.

This is another reason why the Sony SRX-R series of projectors can be set-up so accurately. The explanation for your having never come across a properly set-up SRX-R image is clearly for the same reasons you pointed out with (which DLP projector?), the automatic set-up can get you to (at best) 96% of where you need to be. And that is also rare!


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

A) 4k and higher resolutions are required to paint a pixel-less image on large screens and with close seating distances.


You failed to address my counter to you stating that 2k images displayed pixel structure out to 1.5sw. That is simply wrong.

You failed to address my counter to you stating that 2k images displayed pixel structure out to 1.5sw. That is simply wrong.

Perhaps the DLP Cinemas you have attended follow the part of the calibration procedure that "defocuses" the image to avoid visible pixel structure?

Any 2k projector from consumer through professional will display a visible pixel structure up and until the interpixel spacing drops to below 2% of the total panel.

I suggest, if possible, that you observe a full screen white field pattern and then adjust your position to be exactly one screen width away. With the optimal focus position achieved, pixel structure appears as a fine grid pattern of semi-triangular elements (with or without the anamorphic lens).

With actual program material like Blade Runner - The Final Cut, I found the small lights in Deckard's apartment and building lights in the scenes of the Los Angeles skyline clearly were rendered with a visible pixel structure.

This does not happen under the same conditions with any 4k projectors.

I wish I could agree with your take but except pixel size ,IMO three chip DLP has a suprior image presentation including panel registration,shading ANSI and on/ off contrast.Perhaps this is just based on limited exposure but from what I've seen it is the case.

Art

Unfortunately, the DLP projector in Times Square had a severe Red panel misconvergence of 2 pixels down, resulting in a clear red line at the bottom of all otherwise totally white credits at the head and tail of Blade Runner!

The manager didn't get it, and thought it was part of the film - "that's what the director intended!"

WRONG!!! :mad:

Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Highly accurate is not 100% accurate, which requires making manual adjustments, as any certified SMPTE or ISF calibrator will point out.

This is another reason why the Sony SRX-R series of projectors can be set-up so accurately. The reason you have never come across a properly set-up image from one is clearly for the reasons you pointed out with (which DLP projector?), the automatic set-up can get you to (at best) 96% of where you need to be. And that is also rare!


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com (http://www.Kipnis-Studios.com)

Would you call accurate to within the tolerance of the measuring instrument, typically a Photo Research PR-650, good enough? I have a lot of experience with one of these projectors and the automatic system, called P7, produces primaries and white to within a +/- .001 of the required chromaticity coordinates. This includes correction for both the screen and the port glass. Of course, if you have access to a better measuring instrument, you can improve these results even further by having full access to manual controls, including 4096 point custom LUTs.

Regarding visible pixel structure with 2K digital cinema DLPs from 1.5 screen width viewing distance, it's just not true. This is with a Barco DP100, very sharply focused, with very high quality sources.

DOR, as someone else said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Perhaps the DLP Cinemas you have attended follow the part of the calibration procedure that "defocuses" the image to avoid visible pixel structure?

Any 2k projector from consumer through professional will display a visible pixel structure up and until the interpixel spacing drops to below 2% of the total panel.


I'm sorry, but at a normal viewing distance (1.6x screen width), this is just a non issue. I sit 7m from my 4,5m wide screen, my Christie is perfectly focused, I have 20/20 vision with my glasses, and there is zero visible structure pixel.

Now, if I watch at half this distance, I see the pixels of course. But why would I want to do that?

Perhaps the DLP Cinemas you have attended follow the part of the calibration procedure that "defocuses" the image to avoid visible pixel structure?

Any 2k projector from consumer through professional will display a visible pixel structure up and until the interpixel spacing drops to below 2% of the total panel.

I suggest, if possible, that you observe a full screen white field pattern and then adjust your position to be exactly one screen width away. With the optimal focus position achieved, pixel structure appears as a fine grid pattern of semi-triangular elements (with or without the anamorphic lens).

With actual program material like Blade Runner - The Final Cut, I found the small lights in Deckard's apartment and building lights in the scenes of the Los Angeles skyline clearly were rendered with a visible pixel structure.

This does not happen under the same conditions with any 4k projectors.

Again you avoid the issue. It is not possible to see pixel strucrure of a 2k image at 1.5sw. Basic science of visual acuity.

I'm sorry, but at a normal viewing distance (1.6x screen width), this is just a non issue. I sit 7m from my 4,5m wide screen, my Christie is perfectly focused, I have 20/20 vision with my glasses, and there is zero visible structure pixel.

Now, if I watch at half this distance, I see the pixels of course. But why would I want to do that?

To paraphrase the Wizard of Oz, "Where I come from, there are cinematographers and directors, responsible for the visual landscape that a film's narrative unfolds upon."

Pioneers like Bill Todd created and marketed 70mm Todd-AO "roadshows" beginning in 1955 specifically to allow for a certain select portion of the audience (that would be willing to pay a premium price for the premium "close" center seats) to be completely immersed by an image that filled their peripheral vision. The on-screen resolution (even on a perforated screen) could be as high as c. 18,000 x 10,000 pixels (9k x 5k line pairs) which meant you could easily sit closer than one screen width and still have a sharper and more three dimensional picture than with 35mm projection at twice the seating distance.

Given that cinematography usually follows the form and function of a movie theater's general design, as it is illustrated at any particular point throughout its short history as an exhibition room, we can conclude that many large screen movies today are actually created and intended to be seen at some greater distance from the screen, 1.5 to as much as 8 times the screen width, as is the case at the Ziegfeld DLP Theater in midtown NYC. It is always interesting speaking with directors to find out how they view and create their movies (or television shows).

But some movies (and television) created today and recently subscribe to the earlier CinemaScope, Cinerama, and Todd-AO specifications typified by films such as The Searchers, Forbidden Planet, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, Ghadi, JFK, The Incredibles, or Blade Runner - The Final Cut (Huh!). These films demand to be seen at a closer (than is normal today) seating distance.

The problem is that:

A) exhibition quality has dropped to an all time low in most theaters because few realize how to market better quality at a price, save IMAX! :p

B) which leads to audiences sitting farther back in order to make the image more viewable (that is, hide the defects and low print resolutions). The exceptions are special Academy Screenings, which are supposed to closely adhere to SMPTE standards, but have fallen in this area over the last ten years as more and more entertainment is designed with home video markets in mind from the very beginning of production, if not before.

I personally advocate a multi-masking zoom driven projection system (or two) with programmable memories to allow a client to choose exactly how big (or wide) the on-screen image is for each and every program source, adjusting for personal taste with respect to seating distance versus cinematography.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

To paraphrase the Wizard of Oz, "Where I come from, there are cinematographers and directors, responsible for the visual landscape that a films narrative unfolds upon."

Pioneers like Bill Todd created and marketed 70mm Todd-AO "roadshows" beginning in 1955 specifically to allow for a certain select portion of the audience (that would be willing to pay a premium price for the premium "close" center seats) to be completely immersed by an image that filled their peripheral vision. The on-screen resolution (even on a perforated screen) could be as high as c. 18,000 x 10,000 pixels (9k x 5k line pairs) which meant you could easily sit closer than one screen width and still have a sharper and more three dimensional picture than with 35mm projection at twice the seating distance.

Given that cinematography usually follows the form and function of a movie theater's general design, as it is illustrated at any particular point throughout its short history as an exhibition room, we can conclude that many large screen movies today are actually created and intended to be seen at some greater distance from the screen, 1.5 to as much as 8 times the screen width, as is the case at the Ziegfeld DLP Theater in midtown NYC. It is always interesting speaking with directors to find out how they view and create their movies (or television shows).

But some movies (and television) created today and recently subscribe to the earlier CinemaScope, Cinerama, and Todd-AO specifications typified by films such as The Searchers, Forbidden Planet, Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, Ghadi, JFK, The Incredibles, or Blade Runner - The Final Cut (Huh!). These films demand to be seen at a closer (than is normal today) seating distance.

The problem is that:

A) exhibition quality has dropped to an all time low in most theaters because few realize how to market better quality at a price, save IMAX! :p

B) which leads to audiences sitting farther back in order to make the image more viewable (that is, hide the defects and low print resolutions). The exceptions are special Academy Screenings, which are supposed to closely adhere to SMPTE standards, but have fallen in this area over the last ten years as more and more entertainment is designed with home video markets in mind from the very beginning of production, if not before.

I personally advocate a multi-masking zoom driven projection system (or two) with programmable memories to allow a client to choose exactly how big (or wide) the on-screen image is for each and every program source, adjusting for personal taste with respect to seating distance versus cinematography.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

None the less, although given the choice all things being equal, I think we all would want a higher pixel density but they aren't. Many other very very important picture parameters to consider some of which the Sony 4K projector is lacking.


Art

Again you avoid the issue. It is not possible to see pixel strucrure of a 2k image at 1.5sw. Basic science of visual acuity.

Basic Crap of Verbal Excuse, more like it!

I have lived with two Sony Qualia 004 since April of 2004, along with several visiting Christie, Barco, NEC, and JVC "2K" projectors from time to time. And I have always seen the pixel structure at seating distances between 1.5 and 0.5 screen widths.

It's not a problem of visual acuity (otherwise the 2 pixel south red shift of the Blade Runner DLP showing at the AMC Times Square would not have really been visible at 1.5x SW. It is a mechanical limitation (currently) that places the mirrors (which are 16 Microns on their longest side - see picture below of a DLP panel with a head of a pin for size reference) with about 1.0 Micron of space between them. This translates to a 90% fill factor, which while very good is not as good as the 92% of Pro-SXRD (0.35 Micron spacing - see post# 189 below for a picture) or Consumer SXRD and JVC LCOS at 93.5% (0.14 Micron spacing).

If you don't see the interpixel spacing of a Christie, Barco, NEC, Sony, or JVC "2K" projector, than I say, "God Bless You!" But in "Reality", with between 2,073,600 and 2,211,840 pixels on screen for 1080P or "2K" DCI Prints, interpixel spacing that results in a 98% fill factor is one of the few ways to render a "2K" image seamlessly. The other is to back-up or defocus the lens (or use a cheat filter)!


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

None the less, although given the choice all things being equal, I think we all would want a higher pixel density but they aren't. Many other very very important picture parameters to consider some of which the Sony 4K projector is lacking.


Art

No Question, Art!

As I said, each platform has certain advantages in picture quality over the other. But as far as engines are concerned, I am able to derive a higher visual and measurable level of fidelity with the current Sony 4k professional products for most applications than with any of the DLP engines (not withstanding whatever technical improvements CINERAMAX can achieve with the newest Barco Engine). These are, of course, large screen venues requiring professional versions of this technology designed to project 10,000 ANSI Lumens or more - this generates a huge amount of heat which can create thermal stability issues not encountered in a home venue device.

But I fully expect that there will be a "4k" DLP Chip set in the not to distant future, as well as a Sony SXRD with much higher CR, better gamma tracking through the lowest color levels, etc, as JVC has begun to do in the last generation of engines.

Yet it is clear that without a proper understanding of the technology along with a thorough and complete calibration by a certified technician and at regular intervals, we are looking at picture quality variations that are much grosser than 0.001 u'v' units or ft-Lamberts, whether professional or consumer grade. The auto set-up for some of these pieces is a good place to start, but hardly where anyone interested in fidelity should decide it is perfectly good enough! And there are still so many other issues that affect picture quality which have not even been addressed, yet!

Is there a reason that we only have these two technologies available for projection applications?


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

"Sony is confident about their SXRD technology. So confident that they want CEDIA attendants to take close look at it - very close via the provided magnifying glass. SXRD is an LCoS variant and therefore is a very good picture even at that close of a range. Sure, there was some lines and grains when scrutinized but there wasn't another manufacturer at the show with enough, er, backbone to provide a similar demo." :D

From this site (Sept. 2006):

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/09/16/sony-cedia-take-a-close-look-at-the-sxrd/


Still, it can be four times better using a "4k" engine! :rolleyes:

Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

This very detailed technical abstract should be required reading for anyone discussing issues regarding DLP projection engines of any sort:

http://www.vxm.com/TIDLP.html

Written at the end of 1996, when Texas Instruments was just starting to heat things up, and the Winter after I had studied with Joe Kane at Imaging Science Foundation for the first time.

We worked on one of the first Christie TI 1280 x 1024 3-chip DLP projectors on a 96" Stewart Studio-Tek 130 - I believe that was a test prototype in both cases!

Not surprisingly, the Modified Sony G-90 (prototype) we were referencing against looked totally different.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Basic Crap of Verbal Excuse, more like it!



It's not a problem of visual acuity (otherwise the 2 pixel south red shift of the Blade Runner DLP showing at the AMC Times Square would not have really been visible at 1.5x SW


You have massively changed the goalposts. A 2 pixel line is nowhere near the same as pixel structure. A 1080 image pixel structure cannot be detected at 1.5 sw.

You have massively changed the goalposts. A 2 pixel line is nowhere near the same as pixel structure. A 1080 image pixel structure cannot be detected at 1.5 sw.

If goal posts are your measure of quality, I would vote for 1/4 pixel convergence or better with our current fair of digital projectors.

And, with respect to pixel structure and interpixel spacing being visible, what then of the visibility of pixels in the city lights of Blade Runner (as an initial example), wherein single lights in the background of the city and particularly coming from the Tyrel Pyramid were clearly presented as between 3 and 4 pixels (a row of 2 x 1 or 2) with the usual screen door effect in between? This is supposed to be a single light source (in each case) that are oval horizontally and is easily verifiable from viewing both the 35mm release print in current circulation and the original 1982 70mm roadshow print.

With the physical structure of a 2k DLP panel, both the 90% fill factor and the center post texture make this panel design quite visible, and I just don't have a problem seeing the pixel structure at 1.5x SW or closer, even with the Qualia 004 (92% fill factor and a different pixel texture) or the WQXGA JVC Professional!

4k is clearly the way to go, and higher (see photo), regardless of engine design.

Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Its a shame how within one thread a person can start out well respected and end it as another nutter like Valhalla PC.

I hope you wont treat your $2million per head customers with the lack of respect that you are showing us.

You have massively changed the goalposts. A 2 pixel line is nowhere near the same as pixel structure. A 1080 image pixel structure cannot be detected at 1.5 sw.
Oh, please... First it depends on the person watching. 20/20 vision is not what everyone has. Some have more, some have less. Secondly whether you see pixels or not depends also on image content, especially the amount of HF content and aliasing in the picture.
So statements like this are simply wrong without further assumptions.

Aliasing can be detected in 2K DLP images from 1.5 screen width, but it's mostly in subtitles. It's very rare to actually notice it in video. Screen door is simply not there at this distance. The aliasing benefit of scaling 2K content to 4K is far outweighed by scaling artifacts and image softening.

There are some confounding factors that may look like screen door. They include screen texture and perforations. The perforations in commercial cinema screens are much larger than the consumer microperf and may be slightly visible at 1.5 sw.

Regarding color accuracy of digital cinema DLPs with the P7 calibration system, their performance is easily measurable and there is no need to speculate about how good the automatic system is. It's fully proven with thousands of installations. A typical ISF trained calibrator would not even know where to start to improve the results. As I said before, P7 will produce primaries and white that match the required standard like Rec 709 to within the measuring accuracy of the Photo Research PR-650. Jeremy's first claim was that digital cinema DLP color was no good because it relies too much on the calibrator and requires a lot of adjustments. When this was disputed, it was now no good because the automatic calibration system is not good enough. All of this without knowing anything about how the digital cinema DLPs are calibrated or having any experience with doing it.

Any idea what a if a consumer grade SXRD 4K is coming and cost?

To put the digital cinema market in perspective, DLP vs other technologies like SXRD, the following will help:

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=912

You don't get a 99% market share because of good marketing alone.

To put the digital cinema market in perspective, DLP vs other technologies like SXRD, the following will help:

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=912

You don't get a 99% market share because of good marketing alone.

Uh? - This is a press release by TI, not a technical review or an independent economic abstract detailing the current state of the world wide digital cinema incursion.

Besides, TI has been installing DLP Cinema, beginning with Technicolor as installer and calibrator, as far back as 1999. So I would hope they had crossed the 5500 projector point by the end of this month (that will be 8 years).

In any case, I am not Anti SXRD or Pro DLP (or the reverse :p), I am only interested in playback fidelity - so either can do a great, great job when properly set-up.

But just running the automated calibration routine based on the u' v" coordinates of Red, Green, and Blue primaries at 100 IRE and 10 IRE is only the beginning of what can and should be done with any projector, professional or consumer.

Just compare a fresh film print brought in by a director for an Academy Screening with a DCI print of the same movie on the same screen. The film print wins hands down (in terms of transparency and temporal accuracy) until the digital projector has been hand calibrated (again with the Technicolor SMPTE calibrators setting the bar) to accommodate for any non-linearities inherent in the projector, and often missed by auto calibrate (96% accurate, at best). Again, this is under ideal viewing conditions, which are very rare these days!

Oh, and I'm sure you will love this:

http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=917

"So what? Big Deal" - Buckaroo Bonzai


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

with good eyes you start to see pixel gabs at 1.1 times the picture wide
with 1920x1080 dlp and at 1.0 times the picture wide
with the 2048x1080 cinema chip pr.

i saw it when chrisitie have a demo with the cinema unit in my room.

sit 1.0 or 1.1 times the screen size back the picture is may a little bit to big.
i can not redesign my cinema but i think that between 1.2-1.5 times
the screen wide sit back is the best ratio.

But just running the automated calibration routine based on the u' v" coordinates of Red, Green, and Blue primaries at 100 IRE and 10 IRE is only the beginning of what can and should be done with any projector, professional or consumer.



You really don’t seem to understand how this works. It’s very simple. The installer measures the native red, green, blue, and white from the screen. This is done once, at only one luminance level. There is no need to take measurements at different luminance levels. After this, you simply select the standard that you need, like Rec 709, or enter the coordinates for the primaries and white reference.
For example, if you select Rec 709, your virtual primaries and white will now be within +/- 001:

x y
Red 0.640 0.330
Green 0.300 0.600
Blue 0.150 0.060
White 0.313 0.329

Gray scale tracking will be at D65 with a dE of less than 1 from just above digital black to full white. All of this is easily verified through measurement. These primaries and white, combined with correct gamma and decoding if YCbCr source, will produce accurate colors for Rec 709 content. There is no need for further adjustment. You claim that this is not good enough. Have you tested it? Why don’t you explain why?

Yes I saw the Sony announcement. That’s the 1% market share.

It's not like TI owns Universal or Fox. Sony by the contrary has Columbia Pictures. It is possible due to the lack of independence that some kind of distribution incentive exists "on the side" to the above transaction. Any auditor would question the arms length nature of those transactions as they pose an audit risk. I am not implying that these side deals were made, just that the conditions by the very nature of being in the film production and the film distribution have reared their heads again since the divestiture of movie theaters years ago.

You really don’t seem to understand how this works. It’s very simple. The installer measures the native red, green, blue, and white from the screen. This is done once, at only one luminance level. There is no need to take measurements at different luminance levels. After this, you simply select the standard that you need, like Rec 709, or enter the coordinates for the primaries and white reference.
For example, if you select Rec 709, your virtual primaries and white will now be within +/- 001:

x y
Red 0.640 0.330
Green 0.300 0.600
Blue 0.150 0.060
White 0.313 0.329

Gray scale tracking will be at D65 with a dE of less than 1 from just above digital black to full white. All of this is easily verified through measurement. These primaries and white, combined with correct gamma and decoding if YCbCr source, will produce accurate colors for Rec 709 content. There is no need for further adjustment. You claim that this is not good enough. Have you tested it? Why don’t you explain why?

Yes I saw the Sony announcement. That’s the 1% market share.

Thank you for the details. MUCH BETTER!

I prefer to be another order of magnitude more accurate (+/- 0.0001) because human optical acuity is certainly that and much, much more!

What you describe is what I have worked with in the past and basically the same limitations as with the current Sony SRX series, with the addition of a 10 IRE "Dark / B&W" setting.

But, inevitably, there is room for improvement, even after the auto-calibration is complete - with any projector. I would begin with the B & W Gamma Correction at 128 logarithmic points favoring the dark end of the scale, followed by adjusting the same for each of the primary and secondary colors, verifying along the way true compliance with SMPTE Standards, or better.

The reason for this extra attention becomes clear when examining many DLP Cinema installations throughout the world first being installed as early as 1999. They all look subtly different, when of course (thanks to DCI) every one of them should look identical, at least with respect to color and light levels. Unfortunately, less than 5% are really set up to potential. Maybe they are not calibrating after the initial installation, because these used to set the standard!

And SXRD rarely, if ever, looks as good as it can either, precisely because the auto-calibration routine is only so useful when it comes to truly emulating the look of film. And there is a lot our eyes can see that the instruments cannot, and visa versa.

Still, it's a whole lot better than most 35mm exhibition, these days.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

It's not like TI owns Universal or Fox. Sony by the contrary has Columbia Pictures. It is possible due to the lack of independence that some kind of distribution incentive exists "on the side" to the above transaction. Any auditor would question the arms length nature of those transactions as they pose an audit risk. I am not implying that these side deals were made, just that the conditions by the very nature of being in the film production and the film distribution have reared their heads again since the divestiture of movie theaters years ago.

You might find this interesting (from 2004, when there were only 249 DLP Cinemas in the world, and that was it!):

http://www.mkpe.com/publications/digital_cinema/insasia/imminent.php

TI marketed DLP Cinema quite well - lets see what the others can do now.

I can hardly wait for the next great technical horah!


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Jeremy,

Do you really think that a .0001 change in the chromaticity coordinates is visible? How are you going to measure to this level of accuracy? The best Photo Research models, and they are very expensive and almost no calibrator has them, have an accuracy of +/- .001 at Illuminant A, where thay are calibrated against a NIST traceable source. At D65, they are probably +/- .003 accurate...an error 30 times larger than your goal.

Regarding favoring TI instead of Sony because of competition in film production, I am sure that this is a factor. It can explain modest shifts in market share, but when you have 99% versus 1% there are other factors at play. More than half of the TI installations were during the last year, well after the Sony models became available. The main reason for TIs market share is the performance of the projectors.

Jeremy,

Regarding favoring TI instead of Sony because of competition in film production, I am sure that this is a factor. It can explain modest shifts in market share, but when you have 99% versus 1% there are other factors at play. More than half of the TI installations were during the last year, well after the Sony models became available. The main reason for TIs market share is the performance of the projectors.

there are other issues as well.
-true 4k source material is very very rare.
-a 4k pr. make only sense when the content have 4k and thats a big
problem because most 35mm material that was used now have not more than
2k inside look down.
-till sony not have the 220 with about 18000 lumens there 105 and 110 are not bright enough for big screen.
-shading can be a problem.
-long time stability can be a problem at least the risk is there.
-the price of the 220 is higher than a 2k dlp.the difference is not big but still there.
-lcos looks flatt thanks to the low ansi cr. and a lot more.

no one have a crystal ball so we dont know what sony or ti will
bring new to the market.
but so far digital cinema is dlp.


Eastman EXR 50 D 4 mil. daylight full sun
Kodak Vision 100 T / 200 T 2 - 3 mil. max daylight
Kodak Vision 320 T / 500 T less than 2 mil. inside
Kodak Vision 800 T till 1.5mil max. 1,5 inside

because most of the time the use the 100 and the 320t you have
not more than 2k to start with!!!

4k will only make sense when they start to record with electronic cameras
that have the 4k res.

or for my 3d pictures that i shot in 13mil. pixels per eye.:)

Wolfgang,

Your points are very good and comprehensive. Several concern performance, both image quality and reliability. There is no question that a 4K projector is better than a 2K projector if a 4k source is available. However, this thread became mostly about 2K sources with the 4K SXRD projector and that's entirely different.

Jeremy,

Do you really think that a .0001 change in the chromaticity coordinates is visible? How are you going to measure to this level of accuracy? The best Photo Research models, and they are very expensive and almost no calibrator has them, have an accuracy of +/- .001 at Illuminant A, where thay are calibrated against a NIST traceable source. At D65, they are probably +/- .003 accurate...an error 30 times larger than your goal.

I do! Even if the instrumentation can't, reliably.

Well, the ORB Optronix SP-100 Multifunctional Spectroradiometer and the Minolta CS-1000S both claim accuracy to within (+/- 0.002 u' v' units for color, +/- 0.001 ft-Lamberts). Not to mention the new Photo Research PR-920 (+/- 0.0015 u' v' units for color, and +/- 0.001 ft-Lamberts). So were getting closer!

But accuracy is also about what one measures and how one adjusts the projector to follow the standard, whichever one is in use. Frequently these adjustments do not exist on the projector. So I always work with the entire playback chain and it's associated scalers, control software, and sources to produce an even more accurate presentation than can be achieved using just auto-cal. But this takes a long time and a great deal of patients to achieve. And it is totally worthwhile once the results are achieved.

This type of calibration is what creates a seamlessly transparent image, particularly on analog projectors like the Sony G-90, et, al, as I'm sure Art will agree.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

There is no question that a 4K projector is better than a 2K projector if a 4k source is available. However, this thread became mostly about 2K sources with the 4K SXRD projector and that's entirely different.

I think if you were to see a proper demonstration with the two different panel resolutions on the same screen with the same 2k material, you might very well decide that the 4k is better from a seamless stand point, particularly when TI makes a 4k chip set available.

There is no upscaling errors (so far) with 4k because 2k material is multiplied so that each pixel of information is presented as four pixels on screen!


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

"I do! Even if the instrumentation can't, reliably." - This is comment on par with the power cable discussions in other threads. I seriously doubt you could perceive this difference in a projected image, though I don't have a $1M to put up as a wager. In fact, I'd doubt that two PR-920s would measure the same and to this accuracy right out of the box. Not to mention that at this level of accuracy, the color of the shirts people in the room are wearing will affect the color coordinates.

Not to mention that at this level of accuracy, the color of the shirts people in the room are wearing will affect the color coordinates.

I hope the Calibrators are wearing BLACK SHIRTS

I hope the Calibrators are wearing BLACK SHIRTS


ISF's Joel Silver has never been seen wearing anything but black, his wardrobe is reminiscent of el Zorro's. Perhaps this was the practical reason behind his at decidedly noir look.

I do! Even if the instrumentation can't, reliably.

Well, the ORB Optronix SP-100 Multifunctional Spectroradiometer and the Minolta CS-1000S both claim accuracy to within (+/- 0.002 u' v' units for color, +/- 0.001 ft-Lamberts). Not to mention the new Photo Research PR-920 (+/- 0.0015 u' v' units for color, and +/- 0.001 ft-Lamberts). So were getting closer!

But accuracy is also about what one measures and how one adjusts the projector to follow the standard, whichever one is in use. Frequently these adjustments do not exist on the projector. So I always work with the entire playback chain and it's associated scalers, control software, and sources to produce an even more accurate presentation than can be achieved using just auto-cal. But this takes a long time and a great deal of patients to achieve. And it is totally worthwhile once the results are achieved.

This type of calibration is what creates a seamlessly transparent image, particularly on analog projectors like the Sony G-90, et, al, as I'm sure Art will agree.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

What are you doing about the uniformity/shading issues ?

Art

There is no upscaling errors (so far) with 4k because 2k material is multiplied so that each pixel of information is presented as four pixels on screen!
www.Kipnis-Studios.com
That does not mean there are no 'errors'. Just simpler filter math. You still have to strike a balance between loss of detail and aliasing/ringing.

"What are you doing about the uniformity/shading issues ?" - Excellent point, the SXRD technology (even at the RPTV level) has serious uniformity issues which only increase with illumination power levels.

After the CEDIA demos I'd say getting color coordinate accuracy out three places past the decimal is useless when one side of the screen is green and the other red due to shading issues.

Art

That does not mean there are no 'errors'. Just simpler filter math. You still have to strike a balance between loss of detail and aliasing/ringing.

Well, in this case it's not a filter, but rather a multiplier. One pixel goes in (whatever it's digital value) and is cloned into four pixels to be seen on screen. Using several different test generators and computers as sources, it is clear when viewing selected test patterns (which contain a checker board of black and white (or color) pixels at 1080P or 2160P) that the scaler math is free of upsampling errors, except where they are introduced by the use of the sharpness control.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

What are you doing about the uniformity/shading issues ?

Art

Thankfully, Sony has licensed a third party to create a system consisting of a Medical QHDTV Color camera, and a Dell computer running proprietary software connected directly to the projector.

Together, the computer generates both large, medium, and small rectangular patterns consisting of 2,097,152 different colors and intensities all the down to 1 pixel out of 8.89 million. Then, over the course of several hours, it meticulously corrects just about every aspect of uniformity for every pixel on screen and including any coloration induced by either the screen or projection booth glass (if any).

My biggest issue is that this needs to be redone ever few months (depending upon usage) as the uniformity shifts due to thermal drift. But this is no different than any LCOS or SXRD technology - and it is correctable.

Eventually, there will be a more thermally stable substrate, but by then we'll have a 4k DLP or something else to choose from.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Thankfully, Sony has licensed a third party to create a system consisting of a Medical QHDTV Color camera, and a Dell computer running proprietary software connected directly to the projector.

Together, the computer generates both large, medium, and small rectangular patterns consisting of 2,097,152 different colors and intensities all the down to 1 pixel out of 8.89 million. Then, over the course of several hours, it meticulously corrects just about every aspect of uniformity for every pixel on screen and including any coloration induced by either the screen or projection booth glass (is any).[/url]

You could choose to do that, or use a DLP projector.
Hence the 99% market share...

You could choose to do that, or use a DLP projector.
Hence the 99% market share...

I do, quite frequently. But it still isn't 4k, yet. And, as I've said, both SXRD, DLP, and LCOS have their inherent strengths and weaknesses, just like Laser Projection. But the Sony 4k projectors excel in many ways that the others simply don't. And I use it more often for that reason.

And for a client, I see no reason not to have all three technologies available, and tuned up to be their best. Then, no one has to guess at what they are actually viewing!


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Thankfully, Sony has licensed a third party to create a system consisting of a Medical QHDTV Color camera, and a Dell computer running proprietary software connected directly to the projector.

Together, the computer generates both large, medium, and small rectangular patterns consisting of 2,097,152 different colors and intensities all the down to 1 pixel out of 8.89 million. Then, over the course of several hours, it meticulously corrects just about every aspect of uniformity for every pixel on screen and including any coloration induced by either the screen or projection booth glass (if any).

My biggest issue is that this needs to be redone ever few months (depending upon usage) as the uniformity shifts due to thermal drift. But this is no different than any LCOS or SXRD technology - and it is correctable.

Eventually, there will be a more thermally stable substrate, but by then we'll have a 4k DLP or something else to choose from.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Wow ,interesting !Thanks !

Art

Wow ,interesting !Thanks !

Art

Here are some shots of the camera which is a Sony DXC990P: a 1/2 Type DSP 3CCD Color Video Camera - $4,395.00 U.S. List Price:

1. The Camera on it's tripod in front of the SRX-R110 and Qualia 004, pointed at the 18' x 10.125' Stewart Snowmatte 1.0 Gain non-perforated Screen.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=94518&d=1195165920

2. A side view of the Camera.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=94519&d=1195165920

3. A rear view featuring the output connectors.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=94520&d=1195165920


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Thankfully, Sony has licensed a third party to create a system consisting of a Medical QHDTV Color camera, and a Dell computer running proprietary software connected directly to the projector.
Jeremy,
Do you know if this, or a similar system, is used by commercial cinemas which are using the Sony projectors? (There's a Muvico theater near me which has 18 of the Sony units.)
Thanks,
Ron

Jeremy,
Do you know if this, or a similar system, is used by commercial cinemas which are using the Sony projectors? (There's a Muvico theater near me which has 18 of the Sony units.)
Thanks,
Ron

It is! If you call Sony Broadcast & Technical Support at 201-833-5200 : Business Solutions Repair - speak to Anthony. Ask about the SRX projector uniformity alignment procedure.

More pictures of the procedure below:


1. The Cover of the Uniformity Manual (I have no idea who CremoVision is).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=94588&d=1195239324

2. Setting up for the alignment - note how easily the system resolves any shading issues, even using just a dell computer monitor as a control screen.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=94589&d=1195239324

3. A test of the uniformity system before actual use.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=94590&d=1195239324

During the actual alignment procedure, we turned off every light in the theater, all lights on the equipment, and their Dell monitor - in the end, it was pitch black at times. I think the CremoVision took about 2.5 hours to align everything - a task that used to take me 2 full days manually for any of the JVC D-ILA or Sony Qualia projectors. :eek:


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Last Thursday, I went to review the HD showing of Star Trek at the local New Rochelle Multiplex & IMAX.

The picture was laughable, but the sound was quite good.

Here are some photos of the theater and it's layout:

http://gallery.mac.com/kipnis#100019

The projector was a Christie LW300, a 3000 ANSI Lumen WXGA (1366 x 768) 3-chip Large Venue LCD (obviously not the 2k DLP projector, I had hoped for).

The screen was a 1.8 gain silver, perforated 26' wide by 14' tall piece, with 4-way masking.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Well, in this case it's not a filter, but rather a multiplier. One pixel goes in (whatever it's digital value) and is cloned into four pixels to be seen on screen.
www.Kipnis-Studios.com
What does that mean? Clone, multiplier? Either the missing pixels are function of the existing pixels or not. If they are you are applying a filter. How complex or simple it may be.

What does that mean? Clone, multiplier? Either the missing pixels are function of the existing pixels or not. If they are you are applying a filter. How complex or simple it may be.

As long as the data is only being interpolated up to an even multiple of the original sampling frequency (not an arbitrary one), and not decimated down to a lower frequency for display or storage (as is usually done), no filter is required, and in fact, the various filters used throughout professional audio and video signal processing (just to begin with) are necessary precisely to recapture decimal remainders produced during the decimation process (which are outside of the binary numeral system) rather than throw that data away, which results in large spurious errors and aliasing during reproduction.

So for the Sony SRX 4k native projectors, 1 - 1920 x 1080p pixel is interpolated (multiplied) by 4 to yield 4 - 3840 x 2160p pixels that are all identical - CLONES (in this specific case).

If, on the other hand, I activate the "Interpolation" function on the projector or use an external scaler to modify the picture (even if still at 4k), then the decimation and filter functions come into play, and there is almost always some small loss of information - slight softening of the image! Less so with the newest Silicon Optix HQV processors, which are featured on this site: http://www.hqv.com/



Here is a great mathematical explanation of video scaling (below) from this site: :)

http://www.edn.com/archives/1996/010496/01df5.htm


Textbook-correct resizing fits the bill

Textbook-correct resizing refers to proper scaling based on traditional multirate DSP theory. High-quality resizing should be smooth and continuous; it should work for any resize factor and should scale image-frequency content proportionately to the image size.

Arbitrarily resizing an image requires a two-step process of interpolation and decimation (Figure 4). L/M, where L and M are integers, determines the resize factor. You determine the factor L/M by reducing the ratio of target gaps to source gaps.

L/M=((target Pixels)-1)/((source pixels)-1) F'=(L/M)×F, where F is the old sampling rate and F' the new one.

The first step, interpolation, increases the sampling rate F by the factor L to give an intermediate sampling rate of

I = L×F, where I is the intermediate sampling rate.

The intermediate sampling rate is obtained by interpolating L-1 pixels in between the source pixels. After upsampling by a factor L, the spectrum remains unchanged; however, it increases the sampling rate to I. Figure 5b shows the unwanted imaging frequencies that need filtering using an interpolation filter, hI. Figure 5c shows the resulting post-interpolation frequency spectrum.

The next step, decimation, decreases the intermediate rate I by the factor M to give the desired target sampling rate F9

F'=I/M=(L/M)3F.

You must filter the intermediate pixels to bandlimit the data by a factor 1/M. This is necessary to prevent frequency-band overlap and to avoid aliasing. Once filtered, you can safely reduce the sampling rate from Fs to Fs' by removing M-1 samples between the desired output pixels.

Because both the interpolation (hI) and decimation (hD) filters operate on the same intermediate data rate, I, you can combine the two filters to a composite interpolation-decimation filter.

The correct method properly handles this case. You shrink from 6 to 3 pixels; so, L=3-1=2, and M=6-1=5. To interpolate by a factor of two, you must interpolate one intermediate pixel between each pair of source pixels.

After interpolation, you need to decimate the intermediate stream by a factor of 5. Generally, for greater decimation, you require more decimation filter taps. Thus, even for greater shrink factors, the correct method still uses all source pixels in calculating the target pixels. In this case, you use an 11-tap filter that passes only the lower one-fifth of the frequency spectrum, removing the upper four-fifths of the frequency content from the signal.

Textbook-correct resizing is difficult to implement, for various reasons. Each resize factor theoretically requires a different set of interpolation and decimation filters with different sizes and coefficients. The method has to support all coefficients, either stored in memory or calculated for each resize factor. Good-quality filters require many taps, corresponding multipliers, and delay elements. In the vertical direction, classical filter architectures require expensive line stores to implement each filter tap, greatly limiting the number of vertical filter taps. Poor vertical filtering is compounded by the fact that in video, the input signal is not bandlimited vertically, so there may be frequency content at the vertical Nyquist rate. Thus, vertical aliasing is a more prominent problem than horizontal aliasing.

Perhaps the biggest difficulty in implementing proper resizing for arbitrary resize factors is that the intermediate sampling rate, I, depends on the resize factor and requires increased internal clock signals to maintain real-time rates. For instance, resizing from 100 to 99 pixels requires an internal clock rate 98 times the source sampling frequency (I=98×Fs). You can’t design any system using the textbook-correct resizing algorithm to handle arbitrary data rates in real time.

(Dated, but effective)


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

This is one of their LCD models, not a 3 Chip DLP, please some-one remind me who does the OEM for the Christie LCD line? Christie only advertises this for use in in-theatre advertising, not showing the actual movie.

http://www.christiedigital.com/AMEN/Corporate/MediaCenter/PressRelease/NewChristieLW300WidescreenProjectorOffersHigherPerformancean dIncreasedPresentationFlexibility.htm
http://www.christiedigital.com/AMEN/Products/christieLW300.htm

Quite Right! My Typo :-(

And I have no idea why Fathom Events, the promoters of special event video exhibitions in movie theaters all over the world, like Star Trek: The Menagerie or the upcoming year of Metropolitan Opera Broadcasts, can showcase on such poor quality projectors?

The image was dark, lacked any sort of realistic colors, and had terrible keystoning so that horizontal type lay diagonally to the lower left.

When I asked the projectionist what we had been watching on, he pointed out the Christie LW300, saying, "Wow! That did look good." Moron!

But sadly, it was not the 2k Star Trek Event I had hoped for. But the sound was good :-)


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

[QUOTE=donaldk;12252550]This is one of their LCD models, not a 3 Chip DLP, please some-one remind me who does the OEM for the Christie LCD line? QUOTE]

Sanyo

[QUOTE=donaldk;12252550]This is one of their LCD models, not a 3 Chip DLP, please some-one remind me who does the OEM for the Christie LCD line? QUOTE]

Sanyo

Yikes! :eek:

No wonder Star Trek was less than stellar! Still, this next Tuesday brings the first season HD-DVD box set (with the same remastered Menagerie), so it will be an interesting comparison:

Christie (modified?) Sanyo PLV-80L vs Sony SRX-R110.

Naw, I better get the Cristie DP2000 in here, instead - otherwise it will be a slaughter, and a waist of time, instead of just the latter.


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios

This is one of their LCD models, not a 3 Chip DLP, please some-one remind me who does the OEM for the Christie LCD line? Christie only advertises this for use in in-theatre advertising, not showing the actual movie.
This quality of projector is what many (if not most) theaters appear to be using for the upcoming Metropolitan Opera HD Live simulcasts. I'm NOT happy about that. My modest 1280x720 DLP looks better, IF my PBS station deigns to show the Met in HD.

On the other hand, at least two theaters in my area will be using Cinema grade projectors for the (recorded) La Scala opera presentations. One uses a 2K DLP, and the other the Sony 4K.

This quality of projector is what many (if not most) theaters appear to be using for the upcoming Metropolitan Opera HD Live simulcasts. I'm NOT happy about that. My modest 1280x720 DLP looks better, IF my PBS station deigns to show the Met in HD.

On the other hand, at least two theaters in my area will be using Cinema grade projectors for the (recorded) La Scala opera presentations. One uses a 2K DLP, and the other the Sony 4K.

I hope that looks better!. But sometimes you can never be sure. I saw the Rick Springfield "Live from Dublin" concert at the Landmark Boston this last summer on the Sony SRX-R110 and it was unapologetically the worst theater presentation (for both picture and sound) I have seen in a long time - and most of what's out there is pretty sad. :(

I'm negotiating with the MET HD right now to get a 2K feed in here to be able to show these operas on our Sony SRX-R110 and 8.8 Surround Sound System.

How much are they charging you for those tickets?


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

I hope that looks better!. ....

I'm negotiating with the MET HD right now to get a 2K feed in here to be able to show these operas on our Sony SRX-R110 and 8.8 Surround Sound System.
How much are they charging you for those tickets?

The Met tickets are $22. Link for info, theaters, etc...
On Air & OnLine (http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/broadcast/hd_events.aspx)

The La Scala tickets are $20. Link...
La Scala Operas (http://www.emergingpictures.com/operas.htm)

I fully expect that the La Scala on a 2K DLP (or 4K SXRD) will look better than the Met on a 1368x768 LCD. I'll still attend the Met's shows, but I definitely sit toward the rear. I'm still checking up on the projectors at the Met's theaters however.

Ron

p.s. In my opinion, the Met's production values are excellent, but the visual quality last season was limited by the theater's use of pre-show projectors. And in most venues, that appears likely to be true this season as well.

Hope the projection quality picks up for all of you who will get a change to see the show, because Mark Schubin and his team work very hard and with great eye for quality on those Met HD productions. He mentioned a while ago on a mailinglist he was even working with NHK (where he operated his first HD Camera, almost 35 years ago) on getting an 8K recording (broadcast?) to the Met.

They are showing these in Amsterdam aswell, in the renowned Art Deco Theater build at the beginning of the 20th century by Tuschinski and restaured to its former glory a few years ago. However tickets start at the eqivalent of 48 USD.

http://www.pathe.nl/specials.asp?cat=OPERA

Their contact details are extremely hard to find on their website (probably not to be found there at all), so I asked what projection they will use in Amsterdam for the Met series, using the contactform.

Most of the independent arthouses use 1.3K dlp's the Panasonics, the 7700, some 5500 and a small number use the three chip version (model number slipped my mind for now). There are also Barco D-cinema screens in commercial theatres.

.... because Mark Schubin and his team work very hard and with great eye for quality on those Met HD productions.
I agree wholeheartedly!

When I wrote to Mark a month or so ago, he said that a minimum native resolution "HD" resolution of 1280x720 is all that the Met can demand (so far). Mark was not aware of a projection-equipment database which might make it easy to find the better equipped theaters.

Hopefully these productions will make it to HD DVD and/or Blu-ray relatively soon. Five are scheduled for DVD release on the EMI label, but I'll wait...

Ron

As long as the data is only being interpolated up to an even multiple of the original sampling frequency (not an arbitrary one), and not decimated down to a lower frequency for display or storage (as is usually done), no filter is required

No. Your definition of 'filter' is incorrect. Filter does not imply downsampling filter. A filter is simply the function that defines how to compute pixel values from other pixel values. A filter can be used for downsampling, upsampling (including your special case of doubling the number of pixels in both directions), noise reduction, sharpening etc. etc.

So for the Sony SRX 4k native projectors, 1 - 1920 x 1080p pixel is interpolated (multiplied) by 4 to yield 4 - 3840 x 2160p pixels that are all identical - CLONES (in this specific case).

So you are telling me that the Sony uses a nearest neighbour filter to generate 4 pixels from 1? I really hope not...

No. Your definition of 'filter' is incorrect. Filter does not imply downsampling filter. A filter is simply the function that defines how to compute pixel values from other pixel values. A filter can be used for downsampling, upsampling (including your special case of doubling the number of pixels in both directions), noise reduction, sharpening etc. etc.

So you are telling me that the Sony uses a nearest neighbour filter to generate 4 pixels from 1? I really hope not...

1. I find your definition of "filter" a little too broad for this particular discussion. A "digital filter" is any electronic filter that works by performing digital mathematical operations on an intermediate form of a signal. But the filter (function) isn't strictly necessary during the upsampling process from one resolution to an even multiple of that frequency, if being played back at that higher sampling frequency, rather than being decimated and then filtered to reduce induced distortion components.

What I'm speaking of is just the "transfer function" portion of the digital filter function: a mathematical representation of the relation between the input and output of a (linear time-invariant) system - such as that used in digital audio and video. And in this case, 1 pixel multiplied (cloned) into 4 {a 1 to 4 transfer function}, occupying the same optical area on screen but represented in quadruple pixel form, looks the same as the 2k source displayed on a 2k projector, with respect to resolution.

2. So while the 2k quad-upsampled image does not look any better or worse than it does on a native 2k projector (accepting differences in fill factor), using the interpolation function on the projector or from an external scaler, like the Sony LMT-100 Media Block, usually improve the temporal portrayal of that 2k image to a substantial degree (using one or more digital filters).


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

The benefits of 4K displays are now. Just as dvd (480i) upscaled to 1080p is an improvement, so too is 1080p material upscaled to 2160p (even better because of integer scaling). The benefits are entirely transferable.

And in this case, 1 pixel multiplied (cloned) into 4 {a 1 to 4 transfer function}, occupying the same optical area on screen but represented in quadruple pixel form, looks the same as the 2k source displayed on a 2k projector, with respect to resolution.
www.Kipnis-Studios.com
You are applying a nearest neighbour filter then. In this special case you get indeed a replica of the 2K image with larger pixels compared to an original 4K version. You get away with it because the 2K is already high resolution. You gain nothing (no smoother more analogue look) and you lose nothing (no detail, no sharpness). And it's computationally efficient. So I see why Sony would do that.

The benefits of 4K displays are now. Just as dvd (480i) upscaled to 1080p is an improvement, so too is 1080p material upscaled to 2160p (even better because of integer scaling). The benefits are entirely transferable.

And now this:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/11/20...h4k-projector/

3 - 4k D-ILA chips, 4,096 x 2,400 resolution, 10,000:1 contrast ratio,
3,500 lumens, a dual-link DVI input, multiscreen mode, an Ethernet port
for remote operation and RS-232 / USB connectors to boot!

This masterpiece is available with a Xenon lamp and features a DVI 12bit/Dual Link in, capable of receiving 4 different signals. Of course so much technology only comes at an impressive price...

What about 15 million Yen (90,000 Euros)? That's $135,915.00 U.S. dollars!

10,000,000 pixels and counting . . .


Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

Got back a single line email, today, from Pathe, at least in Amsterdam the Met series will be shown on a good old fashioned DP100. Tickets are an Euro equivalent of 50 USD.

"Voor de komende opera cyclus gebruiken wij een Barco DP 100, 2K projector, voor de High definition projectie,"

I saw La Scala's "Aida" on December 5th at a theater using a 2K DLP Cinema projector. I suspect the projector panel alignment was a bit out of spec as I observed a green edge on many subtitles - mostly the left side of vertical letters.

I saw La Scala's "Aida" on December 5th at a theater using a 2K DLP Cinema projector. I suspect the projector panel alignment was a bit out of spec as I observed a green edge on many subtitles - mostly the left side of vertical letters.

That's ridiculous, considering what you paid for tickets.

Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com

That's ridiculous, considering what you paid for tickets.
Ridiculous? No. Disappointing? Yes. Surprising? Yes, as I've seen a couple of other movies at this theater. (A Barco DP100 IIRC.)

$20 was pretty cheap for opening night at La Scala with a new Zeffirelli production of Aida. (Delayed about a year.) I was much more troubled by moivie theater sound levels than by a small panel mis-alignment.

I'll probably go see La Scala's "Tristan" at the Muvico with the Sony 4K CineAlta projectors. I'll be sure to report if that has any mis-alignment.

What is "ridiculous" is that my nearest theater for the Metropolitan (at $22) is using an XGA Sanyo LCD cropped to 1024x576. I've alerted Mark Schubin at the Met, and he's started the complaint process since this is NOT HD.

Instead, I'll be traveling further to a theater which at least has a 1366x768 LCD. BTW, that's the best I've been able to find for the Met.

Ron

The SRX-R220 will change the way people see movies in the theater. The problem is that it will take over 15 years for cinema owners to pony up the big bucks and install them routinely.

The SRX-R220 costs $126,650.00 US for the Chassis, >$19k for the lens, >$2.5k for each of four input cards, + Media Block Server (no list yet, but I suspect >$25k), and your off and running.

But, in my opinion, it is well worth the money as it represents a significant improvement over film, even under Academy Screening conditions!

does it upscale standard def dvds to 4k?

does it upscale standard def dvds to 4k?

It does! And despite the lack of resolution, well mastered DVDs are more than watchable. However, a bad DVD only gets worse.

What is amazing is to see what a good upscaling can do, as in the case of the Toshiba HD-A35, or the Lumagen family of scalers. The Star Wars: IV DVD has a surprising amount of detail, and the color is slightly better than the same film shown domestically on HBO or Cinemax, at least in many scenes.

Now, where or where are the Star Wars discs in HD???

Cheers -

Jeremy


www.Kipnis-Studios.com