D-cinema gets $525 mil boost - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 09-11-2009, 02:20 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Consortium's fund will bankroll 15,000 conversions

By Carl DiOrio Sept 10, 2009, 11:00 PM ET

Stop the presses! Digital dollars are finally on the way ... and should arrive in November.

JP Morgan next week will send out briefing books for a $525 million financing of up to 15,000 d-cinema installations over the next five years at the nation's three biggest movie circuits. The circuits -- Regal, AMC and Cinemark -- will add 3D equipment at many of the sites.
....
There are now fewer than 7,000 movie-quality digital screens in the U.S. and Canada. Once fully funded, DCIP aims to convert an additional 500 screens per month to digital projection, meaning the likelihood of 12,000-13,000 digital screens in operation by the end of 2010.
....
see full article at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/...b396ac259a5407
R Johnson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 09-11-2009, 03:56 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Even after the accomplish ther goal (in however many years) that is still about only half of existing movies screens in the USA:

http://www.natoonline.org/statisticsscreens.htm
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 09-13-2009, 10:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,986
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 165
I wonder if they're going to use the Sony 4k's for all the theaters? I hope not. Hurry up TI!!!

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is online now  
post #4 of 31 Old 09-14-2009, 09:06 AM
Member
 
Brimstone-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Why would TI be any rush for 4k? The reason Sony pushes 4k LCoS is because it can show 2k 3d on just one projector.


Movies aren't going 4k. Pixar isn't going to start rendering their films at 4k. The costs would rise astronomically. CGI special effects for movies aren't going to be rendered at 4k because once again the costs would rise.

If your movie theater has a 4k projector, all that will happen for a 2d presentation is it'll take a source 2k movie and interpolate the resolution (upscale) it to 4k.


I'll make a random guess that 85% of movie screens will end up being 2k DLP projectors.
Brimstone-1 is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 09-14-2009, 10:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,986
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 165
True about the 4k films and I hope you're right about the 85%.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is online now  
post #6 of 31 Old 09-15-2009, 01:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

Why would TI be any rush for 4k? The reason Sony pushes 4k LCoS is because it can show 2k 3d on just one projector.
....
I'll make a random guess that 85% of movie screens will end up being 2k DLP projectors.

Sony has made a big deal about 4K resolution for some time now. The 3D accessory is quite new. Previously, a theater needed a pair of Sony units for 3D. DLP has done 3D with one projector all along. I think 4K is still Sony's key selling point.

TI had 85% or more of the market. But then AMC signed up for about 4,600 Sony 4K projectors in March. Then Regal with 6,700 screens signed up for Sony 4K projectors in May . That left the third big chain in the U.S. - Cinemark -- in play. That competition is what pushed TI into 4K. Luckily for DLP fans and manufacturers, Cinemark selected DLP for more than 3,000 screens.

Still lots more screens to convert to digital, but DLP is rather unlikely to continue its earlier market dominance.
R Johnson is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 09-15-2009, 01:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,986
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

Sony has made a big deal about 4K resolution for some time now. The 3D accessory is quite new. Previously, a theater needed a pair of Sony units for 3D. DLP has done 3D with one projector all along. I think 4K is still Sony's key selling point.

TI had 85% or more of the market. But then AMC signed up for about 4,600 Sony 4K projectors in March. Then Regal with 6,700 screens signed up for Sony 4K projectors in May . That left the third big chain in the U.S. - Cinemark -- in play. That competition is what pushed TI into 4K. Luckily for DLP fans and manufacturers, Cinemark selected DLP for more than 3,000 screens.

Still lots more screens to convert to digital, but DLP is rather unlikely to continue its earlier market dominance.

This is what worries me.

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is online now  
post #8 of 31 Old 09-15-2009, 08:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 376 Post(s)
Liked: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

Why would TI be any rush for 4k? The reason Sony pushes 4k LCoS is because it can show 2k 3d on just one projector.


Movies aren't going 4k. Pixar isn't going to start rendering their films at 4k. The costs would rise astronomically. CGI special effects for movies aren't going to be rendered at 4k because once again the costs would rise.

If your movie theater has a 4k projector, all that will happen for a 2d presentation is it'll take a source 2k movie and interpolate the resolution (upscale) it to 4k.


I'll make a random guess that 85% of movie screens will end up being 2k DLP projectors.

Feature film DI is going 4K. Has been for the past two years. The studio wants the highest quality digital negative on the shelf. Today that's 4K. Distribution OTOH is another matter. 2K will remain the SOTA there for years.

I also agree pure CGI will be rare at 4K for the next few years. But as storage comes down, that too will go 4K.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 09-16-2009, 12:14 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

Why would TI be any rush for 4k? The reason Sony pushes 4k LCoS is because it can show 2k 3d on just one projector.


Movies aren't going 4k. Pixar isn't going to start rendering their films at 4k. The costs would rise astronomically. CGI special effects for movies aren't going to be rendered at 4k because once again the costs would rise.

If your movie theater has a 4k projector, all that will happen for a 2d presentation is it'll take a source 2k movie and interpolate the resolution (upscale) it to 4k.


I'll make a random guess that 85% of movie screens will end up being 2k DLP projectors.

2K simply is not enough resolution for a theater display. Period. Unacceptable.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #10 of 31 Old 09-16-2009, 12:58 PM
Member
 
Brimstone-1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 198
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Most 35mm release prints that go out to movie theaters are low in quality. There was a study and the most lines of resolution that a 35mm print had was 875 lines. 2k theater exceeds this. 2k is actually increasing resolution compared to 35mm prints.

http://www.motionfx.gr/Files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf




I'd like to see Sony talk 4k at 48fps. Double the frame rate for improved motion resolution. Afterall movies are known as "motion" picutures.

Just watch a 720p @ 60fps sports broadcast of a NFL game, it looks really good for only being "720p". Frame rate flat out makes a huge impact on image quality.
Brimstone-1 is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 09-16-2009, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dbuudo07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,986
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 156 Post(s)
Liked: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

Most 35mm release prints that go out to movie theaters are low in quality. There was a study and the most lines of resolution that a 35mm print had was 875 lines. 2k theater exceeds this. 2k is actually increasing resolution compared to 35mm prints.

http://www.motionfx.gr/Files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf




I'd like to see Sony talk 4k at 48fps. Double the frame rate for improved motion resolution. Afterall movies are known as "motion" picutures.

Just watch a 720p @ 60fps sports broadcast of a NFL game, it looks really good for only being "720p". Frame rate flat out makes a huge impact on image quality.

I can't view the PDF on my phone. How did they come to that number? Seems awfully low to me:S

David Budo
Dbuudo07 is online now  
post #12 of 31 Old 09-16-2009, 03:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

Most 35mm release prints that go out to movie theaters are low in quality. There was a study and the most lines of resolution that a 35mm print had was 875 lines.

Is that 875 lines per picture height? If so then it isn't as low as it seems compared to 2k or 1920x1080 (especially 2.40 material with black bars).

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 09-16-2009, 07:58 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #14 of 31 Old 09-18-2009, 07:49 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

Most 35mm release prints that go out to movie theaters are low in quality. There was a study and the most lines of resolution that a 35mm print had was 875 lines. 2k theater exceeds this. 2k is actually increasing resolution compared to 35mm prints.

http://www.motionfx.gr/Files/35mm_re...on_english.pdf




I'd like to see Sony talk 4k at 48fps. Double the frame rate for improved motion resolution. Afterall movies are known as "motion" picutures.

Just watch a 720p @ 60fps sports broadcast of a NFL game, it looks really good for only being "720p". Frame rate flat out makes a huge impact on image quality.

Don't confuse resolution of the content/capture with the resolution necessary for display. 2K can be plenty (and IMO is) of resolution to shoot a film. There are a lot of fantastic films shot at 2K (I just saw Public Enemies last night, that was 2K, Benjamin button, Miami Vice, Collateral, parts of The Hurt Locker etc etc etc). But displaying that on a fixed pixel display that is only 2K resolution is not the same thing at all, and is a serious downgrade from film, even 16mm film. The display structure is simply far too evident and introduces way too much noise to the image unless you are at a small viewing angle.

2K display is a serious downgrade from 35mm film in terms of display, and I would argue even from 16mm (just saw the Hurt Locker two days ago, much of that was shot in 16mm, though printed to 35mm).

People wrongly confuse the resolution of the medium/capture as the metric of comparison, when that's not at all the only relevant issue.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #15 of 31 Old 09-19-2009, 01:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

.... 2K display is a serious downgrade from 35mm film in terms of display, ...

That's not my experience with the commercial theaters around here.
R Johnson is offline  
post #16 of 31 Old 09-20-2009, 02:06 AM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Johnson View Post

That's not my experience with the commercial theaters around here.

Well, that's an entirely different can of worms...
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #17 of 31 Old 09-20-2009, 07:29 AM
IMMERSION GURU
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA, Trans Atlantic, Trans Pacific.
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

Don't confuse resolution of the content/capture with the resolution necessary for display. 2K can be plenty (and IMO is) of resolution to shoot a film. There are a lot of fantastic films shot at 2K (I just saw Public Enemies last night, that was 2K, Benjamin button, Miami Vice, Collateral, parts of The Hurt Locker etc etc etc). But displaying that on a fixed pixel display that is only 2K resolution is not the same thing at all, and is a serious downgrade from film, even 16mm film. The display structure is simply far too evident and introduces way too much noise to the image unless you are at a small viewing angle.

2K display is a serious downgrade from 35mm film in terms of display, and I would argue even from 16mm (just saw the Hurt Locker two days ago, much of that was shot in 16mm, though printed to 35mm).

People wrongly confuse the resolution of the medium/capture as the metric of comparison, when that's not at all the only relevant issue.

I totally disagree the mtf is much higher on 2k.
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #18 of 31 Old 09-20-2009, 08:55 AM
Member
 
Boundless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
darinp2: > Is that 875 lines per picture height?

Yep, and presumably they meant "line pairs" (a dark
line visible only because it has an adjacent light line),
or 1750 total lines high, which would be 2328x1750
on an academy frame, 2328x1258 on a masked 1.85:1
frame or 2328x1750 in anamorphic 2.39:1.

Except that you can't directly compare analog "lines"
and digital "pixels" resolutions due to sampling theory
and artifacts at degenerate and limiting cases.

Also, these test results were from "state of the art"
halls, and were the top result. Your average popcornplex
is apt to be lower, easily below DCI's 2K (2048x1080).
The problem isn't the theoretical resolution of
Kodak 5274 negative stock, but the generational losses
to print, film weave, registration jitter, projector vibration, etc.

All of which is moot. The exhibitors have decided that 2K
digital is "theatrical quality".

ChrisWiggles: > 2K simply is not enough resolution for
> a theater display. Period. Unacceptable.


Those who think so are, alas, not the target demographic
for contemporary theatrical exhibition. Theatres around
here seem content with 2K. If they spend any money on
upgrades, adding 3D capability is likely above 4K on the list.
________
DCI 2K (2048x1080) is only 5% greater res than
HDTV (1920x1080). If you care about presentation quality,
spend your theatre-going dollars on HT upgrades.
Boundless is offline  
post #19 of 31 Old 09-20-2009, 11:04 AM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by CINERAMAX View Post

I totally disagree the mtf is much higher on 2k.

Sit 1.0x screenwidths away and tell me with a straight face that 2K is acceptable. That's not even particularly close either. You can't tell me that because you know it's not sufficient. Or you're blind.

The MTF is not the only thing to consider. Film that rolls off the highest frequencies does so in a gaussian manner and isn't that noisy or objectionable. A 2k projector has way too much visible display structure and this noise is very objectionable to the viewer. The bad way around this is to blur the display which lowers the MTF. The proper way around it is to have a display with sufficient resolution for the viewing angles involved so that you aren't seeing the display structure, and that requires more than 2K.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #20 of 31 Old 09-20-2009, 12:58 PM
IMMERSION GURU
 
CINERAMAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA, Trans Atlantic, Trans Pacific.
Posts: 13,643
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 518 Post(s)
Liked: 161
CINERAMAX is online now  
post #21 of 31 Old 09-20-2009, 03:33 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
2K is very good. But that does not make it an acceptable replacement for 35mm film. There are a lot of seats in the theater that are quite close. Depending, you also start to run into perf problems if it's a smaller screen, but 2K doesn't cut it if you're sitting in the front of a cinema. And it CERTAINLY can't touch 65mm or Imax.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #22 of 31 Old 09-20-2009, 05:35 PM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

2K is very good. But that does not make it an acceptable replacement for 35mm film. There are a lot of seats in the theater that are quite close. Depending, you also start to run into perf problems if it's a smaller screen, but 2K doesn't cut it if you're sitting in the front of a cinema. And it CERTAINLY can't touch 65mm or Imax.

1. They stopped shooting in 65mm over 20 years ago.

2. IMAX is a special venue format and is being slowing replaced/augmented with their Digital IMAX theaters () which are 2K PJ's and content structure.

3. Based on all the seats in a average DC theater - the higher % (approx 2/3's) will not see the image structure at 2K. Could be as high as 75%.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 09-21-2009, 10:32 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
biliam1982's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Daytona Beach, FL
Posts: 914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

Why would TI be any rush for 4k? The reason Sony pushes 4k LCoS is because it can show 2k 3d on just one projector.


Movies aren't going 4k. Pixar isn't going to start rendering their films at 4k. The costs would rise astronomically. CGI special effects for movies aren't going to be rendered at 4k because once again the costs would rise.

If your movie theater has a 4k projector, all that will happen for a 2d presentation is it'll take a source 2k movie and interpolate the resolution (upscale) it to 4k.


I'll make a random guess that 85% of movie screens will end up being 2k DLP projectors.

IIRC, TDK's CGI was rendered in something like IMAX quality. But after the entire process it came down quite a lot.
biliam1982 is offline  
post #24 of 31 Old 09-21-2009, 10:53 AM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

1. They stopped shooting in 65mm over 20 years ago.

2. IMAX is a special venue format and is being slowing replaced/augmented with their Digital IMAX theaters () which are 2K PJ's and content structure.

3. Based on all the seats in a average DC theater - the higher % (approx 2/3's) will not see the image structure at 2K. Could be as high as 75%.

1) So outdated technology can't be matched by what's offered as the "new-improved" initiative? Batman was shot in IMAX version 65mm...

2) An even greater insult to the movie-going public.

3) So? "This won't look as good, but just sit far away so it's TV-sized, and then it'll be okay..." That really justifies $15 ticket prices...
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #25 of 31 Old 09-21-2009, 11:37 AM
Senior Member
 
reanimator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 31
The you can't sit close argument cuts both ways. Everytime I've been forced to watch a film presentation from the first few rows, the image looks like crap. Film or digital, it really makes no difference.

The real lesson? Arrive to the theater on time and get a good seat.
reanimator is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 09-21-2009, 11:43 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Art Sonneborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Battle Creek,MI USA
Posts: 22,327
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by reanimator View Post

The you can't sit close argument cuts both ways. Everytime I've been forced to watch a film presentation from the first few rows, the image looks like crap. Film or digital, it really makes no difference.

The real lesson? Arrive to the theater on time and get a good seat.

We aren't talking about the first few rows but more like the front 1/3rd of the theater unless it is defocused.

Art

My HT


iRule rules my theater
 

"If she's amazing she won't be easy,if she's easy she won't be amazing"

 

Bob Marley

Art Sonneborn is offline  
post #27 of 31 Old 09-21-2009, 11:53 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
R Johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 1,684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by reanimator View Post

...The real lesson? Arrive to the theater on time and get a good seat.

Amen! Whatever your definition of "good seat" may be....
R Johnson is offline  
post #28 of 31 Old 09-21-2009, 11:54 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

1) So outdated technology can't be matched by what's offered as the "new-improved" initiative? Batman was shot in IMAX version 65mm...

Only a limited number of scenes.

Quote:


2) An even greater insult to the movie-going public.

Nothing can be done because IMAX has determined that the cost of 15/70mm prints is so high, they can no longer make a profitable business from it. Just be lucky enough to have a real IMAX theater near you. AFAIK, they are no longer building any new real IMAX theaters.

Quote:


3) So? "This won't look as good, but just sit far away so it's TV-sized, and then it'll be okay..." That really justifies $15 ticket prices...

The public knows that if you don't get to the theater early - you will wind up with crap seats. No mystery here. Been that way forever.
Lee Stewart is offline  
post #29 of 31 Old 09-21-2009, 10:25 PM
 
ChrisWiggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 20,730
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Only a limited number of scenes.



Nothing can be done because IMAX has determined that the cost of 15/70mm prints is so high, they can no longer make a profitable business from it. Just be lucky enough to have a real IMAX theater near you. AFAIK, they are no longer building any new real IMAX theaters.



The public knows that if you don't get to the theater early - you will wind up with crap seats. No mystery here. Been that way forever.

It sounds like your argument is less about the actual quality, but more about logistics, economics, and "just learn to live with the compromise" attitude. I'm more optimistic than that. Even if it takes time I will push for 4K and beyond, because I want actual improvement, not just a cheaper alternative.

Just because mp3 delivery is easier and cheaper and NEW, doesn't mean I'm gonna settle for that over 44.1khz PCM on a CD.
ChrisWiggles is offline  
post #30 of 31 Old 09-22-2009, 09:39 AM
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 19,369
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles View Post

It sounds like your argument is less about the actual quality, but more about logistics, economics, and "just learn to live with the compromise" attitude. I'm more optimistic than that. Even if it takes time I will push for 4K and beyond, because I want actual improvement, not just a cheaper alternative.

Just because mp3 delivery is easier and cheaper and NEW, doesn't mean I'm gonna settle for that over 44.1khz PCM on a CD.

DC will move to 4K in the near future. Sony is going to make sure of that.
Lee Stewart is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply D-cinema Equipment and Theaters

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off