RED 4K 3D laser projector = $10K - Page 21

As an exhibitor I've never paid more than a 52% share on gross ticket sales, meaning that we keep at least 48% - and that's for *major* blockbusters, think "Breaking Dawn".
If this is going to be a radically new distribution model, finally eliminating a few unnecessary steps (local distributors, agencies, bookers…), I'd expect to pay much, much less than that.

The ODEMAX numbers as described on REDuser are a joke for theatrical distribution: we already have perfectly fine ways to get 4K studio DCPs, and showing independent movies rarely covers our expenses.

Thanks Tom. .

The issue of light vs on/off or sequential. cut down the light and the on/off goes up. . All these projectors that need restrictor plates have way too much light for say a 12 ft wide screen. Of course you can get used to it or just wear sun glasses while viewing. The question of NEED is rather specious, it an issue of want.

The HT owners always will bitch that the blacks aren't black enough. That he wants a 2 zillion to one on/off. Make it bright, converged, reasonably sharp, and black screens that look black and not gray and that's all that matters.

Most have no clue about gamma, not a freaking clue, nor any concept as to how much on/off is required to avoid black crush at a specific gamma. All they want is darker blacks and not detail in the blacks. There is no detail in a fade to black screen. So with an established present theater standard for digitalprojetors of 2000 to one, what gamma can eberun. The present standard is not a straight gamma but one that uses a smaller gamma number in the darker portions of the grsay scale and a much higher number in the brightet portions. An S curve. The gamma must go down to the 2.1 or so to not have black crush in the darkest blacks but can raise up at the high end to about 2.4 and not have crush.

I ask with respect what is magic about an on/off of 4000 over an on/off of 2000? Is it simply a number that you think is obtainable based on present day bulb technology? What makes 4000 adequate vs 2000? If a cheap projector gave 4000 unassisted by anything it would be unsellable. Clearly one can see the difference in a 4000 vs a 2000. The darkd will be blacker and the image will be more three dimension for average scenes as well. But would 3500 be OK or do we need 4500. how about we need 40,000 because we need a 2.4 gamma. If a big machine could do it, the commercial theater standard would probably be a 2.4 gamma too. Unfortunately, standards are limited by the limits of technological achievement and not what WE need. Only the Feds can issue standards that are unobtainable. commercial theater standards are i think based on Best Practicable

BTW. What is the native unassisted on/off of the main stream cheap projectors. About a minimum of 5000 or so? I don't know.
Edited by mark haflich - 12/8/12 at 10:25am

It is just my back of an envelope opinion about what I would minimally want with a home theater projector. I find 4000:1 satisfying. 2000:1 is not to my eyes. You can easily see the difference on regular program material.

The on/off of my Panasonic 4000 was just barely on the threshold of what I find acceptable in a home theater projector. The JVC RS40/45 caused me to slip into a contrast coma. The Epson 6010 that I'm using now is somewhere in between, but it's a good compromise given how important 3D is to me. If the Red laser can achieve a native contrast in the ballpark of the Epson, and be brighter (which is probably a given), it will most likely be my next projector - especially since it's passive 3D.

According to the Reduser Forum, the home version of Red's laser projector has only one fixed lens, which is included in the $10,000 cost of the projector. The pro version, which will be used in commercial theaters, has removable lenses for different venues (as well as more powerful laser output options for bigger screens). I've asked a question about contrast in one of the threads, and I'm hoping some of the professional video producers will be able to compare the Red to home theater projectors they may have seen.

In the HT version is there a possibility of an active 3D option/setting being offered?

Not that I've ever heard about. I think it's passive only. If so, it would mean I'd have to give up my HP screen, which I am loathe to do. It'll stay in my basement, though, since they don't make the HP 2.8 gain anymore. There's no way I'd sell it.

Here's a response I got from one of the Red regulars:

Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Clark View Post

"If I can, though, I have one more question for those of you who may bridge that ugly gap between content producer and home theater enthusiast: how does the Red laser compare to other, more traditional projectors from the likes of JVC, Sony, Sharp and Panasonic, in terms of native contrast? That's my frame of reference, since I've owned some $40,000 worth of them over the last few years. I'm not looking for test numbers, just a few subjective observations from people who've seen them. I'd love to hear comparative impressions from colorists and serious shooters."

Response:

"RED showed off their projector at NAB early this year and a number of people commented that it's the best 3D they have ever seen. I've read just about everything on this forum about REDRAY and never once found a single person who was critical of the contrast. The demo used a 1.5MB/s source encded with an early version of the .RED codec. The quality is going to be better now.

Here are some quotes from people in the industry:

Stephen Pizzo of Element Technica and 3eality Technica describes it:

Comparing it to traditional professional systems is completely inadequate. I have never witnessed 3D that was as bright or brighter as the best 2D projections until now. It generated the best color, best dynamic range and best images I have ever seen in 3D or even 2D.

And Mark Pederson of OffHollywood concurs:

You have to see it to believe it. I have NEVER seen better projection – from any projector – at any price point. I can’t stop thinking about it. It was beyond stunning.
You will definitely be able to see the projector, REDRAY and ODEMAX in action at NAB in Las Vegas April 8th to 11th. Will it be available before that? No idea... We'll see."


I hope to be able to get to NAB this year. I haven't been for the last few years.

Any idea what the throw ratio is?

No, sorry, I don't think anyone except the higher ups at Red know for sure what the specs will be. It's still in development, and without a firm release date. I have no idea about throw, or zoom or shift.

 

I wonder how much of this is hyperbole and if he ever saw the Sony VW1000 or the Lumis 3 chippers, or other high end 3 chip DLP, albeit 2K?

Don't know, but many of these guys are very serious content producers. They seem to cut through BS pretty easily. The only way I'll know for sure is to see it for myself. A little while with challenging content is all I'll need. In the end, I trust my eyes more than any review.

It's a laser light engine coupled with what appears to be a LcOS chip(other than brightness and perhaps light spectrum what could the differences be?), it's possibly the 3D brightness I think they are impressed with. Quite possibly a bright 3D projector Epson/Panasonic/BenQ coupled with a moderately sized HP2.4/8 110" may match it for brightness and a lack of ghosting.

If the laser light engine is the brightness key, then are we likely to see the likes of JVC/Sony follow suit??
Edited by Highjinx - 12/8/12 at 3:50pm

There have been no words about the lens option from anybody on the Red Team, and no word on the price since April. (at the NAB demo they used a fixed Red Prime Pro camera lens)
Knowing Red, a lot have happened since then.
This is he; OffHollywood New York. Proboably seen some high end projectors so he might know his stuff.

The rave appears to be about it's 3D performance, in comparison to other 3D projectors..........how about it's 2D performance, compaired to the likes of JVC

^^^^^Impossible to say except if you see it for yourself, or send someone that know the best HT projectors. The negative is that it requires a silver screen for 3D. Silver screens has a derogatory effect on 2D image quality (on 3D images too, but that nobody talks about).
Lasers should give better contrasts. But high contrast in laser projectors increase speckle. One countermeasure against speckle is lowering contrast, unless they have found a better solution, which we must assume, if lasers will ever be common in projectors.

There are frequent demo's of the projector (guessing its the Theatrical version) in Red Studios in Hollywood. Open invitation Jarred said, just contact Red. Expect a NDA, I guess.
Last time someone reported to have seen the HT version, he was surprised it was so small.

There is no way this thing will cost only $10,000. The Redray player was supposed to be $1000 and it came in at $1450. I will eat a crow raw if it comes in at $10000. I think it will be plus or minus $14500.

That would be nice, to see a high contrast JVC with a bright laser light source.

The single screen solution is a Stewart Firehawk LS which has a polarization extinction very close to the Stewart 5D fabric but without the negative effects on 2D inherent in the 5D with its very high gain and required long throw.

The Red .should blow the pseudo 4K JVCs away. Just like the existing Sony VPL-vw1000ESdoes as it should at its price. I know many so badly want a sun $5K projector that is state of the art...likewiuse next year when JVC has a true 4K consumer m.sachine (my guess of course)it still won't compete with the Red or the Sony.. that's not to say they won't be good deals at the heavily discounted prices JVC projectors sell at.

There appears to be a cost benefit to e-shift, a cost to result ratio so to speak........and at the end of the hoopla is it not the result that counts. E-shift appears to be able to produce a 4k or close to 4k image from 4k sources, pity JVC decided not to include 4k inputs for 2013 consumer projectors.

Here the use 4k chips to produce a 8K result.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2511

If we can get 95% or more of a true 4k projector image for 50% of the price......most of us would be happy
Edited by Highjinx - 12/8/12 at 5:02pm

I'd love to see that!

Well, now, that could be fun to watch.

I'll trust your judgement on this, Mark. The projector may end up costing closer to $15k than $10k. I still plan to fly out and see it., if at all possible. FWIW, a non-techie just posted in the Red Forum about seeing that demo I mentioned. He said they were watching "Avatar," but at one point someone from Red stopped the demo. Here are the viewer's comments:

"And then after all of that annoying inner monologue I started to just drop it and enjoy Pandora. I was ready to sit back and watch the rest of the two plus hours. I was ready for the destruction of the tree, ready to roll my eyes when they said unobtanium, ready to cry (manly tears) when NotRipley doesn't make it. I was so ready for the adventure and then --

THEY SHUT IT OFF.

The guy (whose name I've forgotten) was frustrated. He MAY have been disgusted. He was definitely frustrated.

"Stop stop stop... it's... it's not supposed to look like that." Frustrated RED Guy says, "It looks better than that. Stop. Turn it off." He mentioned something about the colors popping more (they were popping just fine I thought. clearly, I'm a plebeian).

I guess the moral of the story is this:

I haven't seen REDLaser, but I bet it's badass."

IIRC, they were watching the demo with the Red codec on a Sony 1000 projector because the Red projector was down. This is anecdotal, and I don't even know who this guy was, but it's comments like this that make me want to see it so bad. My reaction may be different, but I know what I value in a projector. If I like it, I'll buy it. And that new Stewart screen, too.

I certainly agree with you, Mark, that the JVC doesn't have all that the Sony 1000 has (and maybe the RED will have) in brightness, true 4k, and a higher quality lens; I like my 1000ES very much and plan to have it for several years.    However the JVC's much higher native CR is an undeniable strong attribute, and I would be happy to have this in any future pj.     I don't think it's unreasonable for JVC to come up with a true 4K, higher brightness (330 watt lamp) that, together with its high native CR, will be a very compelling product if it's </= $15K.

Speaking of screens, I just gave away a Stewart Firehawk (1st gen) and a Sharp XV-Z20000 DLP projector to my niece. I kept the Stewart after I got the HP, because I thought I might end up re-using the frame. Now I find out I might end up with a different Firehawk in a few months. Drat!

That would be compelling, especially if it can do 3D without ghosting too much. I'm really looking forward to Zombie's report on a current JVC. He just got a new one in for testing, but it might be a couple of days before we get any solid ghosting performance info in his thread.

That's one of the cost saving areas of e-shift, it does not need a 4k resolving lens to create one using e-shift.

i am not a huge fan of Firehawk but it solves certain problerms re room environments. Firehawk screens can only be built to a cerain width having to do with the limited width of the production roll. F.firehawk LS (Large Screen, get it?) is simply Firehawk with most of the same characteristics re gain, half angle, not exactly but very very close. It solves the same room environmental problems. But it because of its made to a wider width is made quite differently and substrate and I think the coating are different. It is made in one large sheet and screens cut from that sheet. It is more costly to produce it that way than as a roll. The beneficial result is that the screen has a huge polarization extinction ratio whereas the non LS (plain Firehawk) does not. The 2D performance is identical. if one orders a firehawk screen above a certain width, one automatically gets the Firehawk LS fabric. Screens below that certain width can be made of the LS fabric but the dealer must specify that the LS be used instead of the regular firehawk.

Before.the JVC folks read my posts and think I am anti JVC, I am not. I think the new eshift 2 does a great job of imitating a scaled version of 1080p without using more than a 1080p panel and a 2K lens. I much prefer it to watching 2D on any other projector but I do not prefer it to watching upscaled 1080p on a true 4K projector. And it is totally incapable of showing 4HD and 4K sources which are rapidly coming
Now I of course have a true 4K projector and perhaps much of what I see of scaled 2K to 4K on this projector vs the JVC eshift 2 is perhaps not do to the true 54K panels but is due to other things such as bulb wattage and lens quality.

I fully concur with your above remarks, Mark.   I would just like to see a Sony1000 with the high native CR of the JVC, or a JVC that is true 4K and with the brightness of the Sony.    And I'm guessing the the JVC product would be at a more modest price than the Sony.

Would like someone to a test, the Sony on a lagrer screen, the JVC on a smaller screen, so both screens display the same ftL, 2k source, view from the same angle.....say 36 degrees.