4K projectors...

[M Most]

In late 2006 we did a competitive bid between Christie, NEC (we already owned one NEC iS8-2K cinema projector) and Sony for a second projector for our facilities.

And how do the two compare in terms of color accuracy and black rendition?

 

[laguun]

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe Spider-Man went out as a 2K DCP to digital projection venues. And I am 100% certain that the recent 4K restoration of Blade Runner went out for digital projection as a 2K DCP.

possible, however the parts shown at RAI were 4K digital to digital.

 

[M Most]

possible, however the parts shown at RAI were 4K digital to digital.

You are aware, of course, that on that particular picture virtually all of the visual effects shots - which comprise at least 75% of the movie in terms of screen time - were done at 2K, aren't you?

I really don't know why people keep pointing to the last two Spider Man pictures as textbook examples of "4K DI," when in point of fact they are anything but that.

 

[laguun]

You are aware, of course, that on that particular picture virtually all of the visual effects shots - which comprise at least 75% of the movie in terms of screen time - were done at 2K, aren't you?

No. We saw non-vfx shots (the kitchen dialog as example) as well as vfx-shots (the alley-chase as example). grain was pretty noticeable in the non-vfx shots, the vfx shots were not all to helpful for judging 4K anyhow (motion blur galore).

However, for Spider 3 being 75% 2K in VFX, do you have any source for that? It would be of some interest to me, i am not doubting your words, but i have a special interest in some scenes.

I really don't know why people keep pointing to the last two Spider Man pictures as textbook examples of "4K DI," when in point of fact they are anything but that.

All 35mm via 4K digital projections is anyhow -never- real 4K, no matter how you do it - at least the dozens of different materials i have seen, own and from other productions.

After many years of 4K screenings, i can certainly say that 65mm&Imax, CGI&Animation, red&dalsa were the only ones which really used the SRX 4K projection in a completely convincing way.

 

[Mike Devlin]

And how do the two compare in terms of color accuracy and black rendition?

We had some issues with color uniformity in the Sony early on, but Sony came out to our facility and did a major upgrade (replaced the core of the projector) about six months ago, and since then it has been perfect. Blacks are quite good (16ft Stewart Filmscreen Grayhawk RS screen, 0.92 gain). Unfortunately we have to use both lamps to get 14 fc with the low gain screen, but contrast is excellent. We might have been better off (lamp life, power) if we had gone with the SRX-R110 in stead of the 105.

The NEC has been rock solid no issues and we bought it in early 2004 (~5000 hours). A few major firmware upgrades (as the DCI spec evolved) and new lamps periodically. That's it.

 

[M Most]

However, for Spider 3 being 75% 2K in VFX, do you have any source for that? It would be of some interest to me, i am not doubting your words, but i have a special interest in some scenes.

I know a number of people who were at Imageworks (and other VFX suppliers) and directly involved with the VFX at the time, but if you want more information, you can look up the relevant issue of Cinefex (issue #110), which as I recall did mention it.

All 35mm via 4K digital projections is anyhow -never- real 4K, no matter how you do it - at least the dozens of different materials i have seen, own and from other productions.
After many years of 4K screenings, i can certainly say that 65mm&Imax, CGI&Animation, red&dalsa were the only ones which really used the SRX 4K projection in a completely convincing way.

I don't completely agree with that, and in any case, it has been demonstrated time and time again that there is a clear difference in quality between a DI handled through a 2K path and one handled from the same original material through a 4K path. It's not the numbers that are important, it's the results.

 

[M Most]

The NEC has been rock solid no issues and we bought it in early 2004 (~5000 hours). A few major firmware upgrades (as the DCI spec evolved) and new lamps periodically. That's it.

Yes, we have the same projector (the iS8-2K) and it's a real workhorse, as well as being incredibly stable. I measured test images for recalibration purposes about 3 months ago and checked the numbers against the first calibration done about 3 years ago. The numbers - across the board - were within .002 of each other, a remarkable demonstration of stability. Anyone wondering why DLP Cinema technology gained such a foothold should realize the value of such stability and reliability.

I was asking about the Sony because quite frankly, I've been rather unimpressed with the images I've seen projected on it in at least 3 different venues. But I'm willing to take another look....

 

[Dylan Macleod CSC]

4k 3d?

4k 3d?

I have heard that the reason that theaters are installing 4K projectors is not to project 4K, but to be ready for 2K 3D.

How does this work?

How does a "4K" projector "process" two 2K images?

Dylan Macleod
Cinematographer
Toronto, Canada
www.dylanmacleod.com

 

[Cail Young]

Apparently lots of studios are just beginning to remaster their old classics in 4K too (Warner Brothers are working on Blade Runner!!!)

Blade Runner: The Final Cut screened out here in Australia and as far as I'm aware in the USA as well on 4K screens (I am informed the distribution package was at 2K, however) last November. Looked great!

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I have heard that the reason that theaters are installing 4K projectors is not to project 4K, but to be ready for 2K 3D.

How does this work?

How does a "4K" projector "process" two 2K images?

Dylan Macleod
Cinematographer
Toronto, Canada
www.dylanmacleod.com

http://www.reald.com/

 

[David Birdy]

Live 3D HD transmission demo at the NAB 3D theater on 4/14/08 at 2PM,
Reald is providing the projector and screen.

Dave

 

[Jeff Brue]

Saw the blade runner movie here in LA, and the blacks still looked meh. Thing is with anything don't judge to harshly they may have just fixed it three weeks ago.

 

[David Wyatt]

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe Spider-Man went out as a 2K DCP to digital projection venues. And I am 100% certain that the recent 4K restoration of Blade Runner went out for digital projection as a 2K DCP.

Most places will have projected these films in 2K, obviously, because that's all they have, but a very small number of places like the Guildford Odeon projected films like "Spiderman 3", "Shrek The Third", "Ocean's 13", "Harry Potter" etc in 4K (using the Sony) as a pilot scheme (although as you say much of the effects shots for "Spiderman 3" were 2K (up-resed to 4K)). I think the Landmark in LA exhibited a 4K version of "Blade Runner: Final Cut"

I'd guess that exhibitors' interest in 4K projectors that can also play 2K is for future-proofing for when 4K becomes standard while still being able to exhibit 2K in the meantime - makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[M Most]

I think the Landmark in LA exhibited a 4K version of "Blade Runner: Final Cut"

No, they did not. There is no 4K DCP of "Blade Runner." Using a 4K projector does not make the material 4K if the source is 2K. I'm not saying it doesn't look nice - it certainly does - but it is what it is.

 

[M Most]

(although as you say much of the effects shots for "Spiderman 3" were 2K

Not many of them. ALL of them.

At this point in time, there is no way for even the largest visual effects companies to turn around the number of effects shots required for these kind of pictures in the time allotted at the quality level that is demanded in 4K or anything even close to it. Many of the shots coming out of the big houses (ILM included) are often rendered at lower than 2K resolution if possible.

 

[laguun]

Not many of them. ALL of them.

At this point in time, there is no way for even the largest visual effects companies to turn around the number of effects shots required for these kind of pictures in the time allotted at the quality level that is demanded in 4K or anything even close to it. Many of the shots coming out of the big houses (ILM included) are often rendered at lower than 2K resolution if possible.

I dont know about the VFX (and dont doubt your information), Spiderman III was a full 4K DI (Davinci Resolve 4K, done at TDI Technicolor/Thomson).

Regarding 4K VFX - we have no problem doing them since many years, and are able and handling higher resolutions for tradeshows/venues often. However, i suppose, the time pressure in L.A. is heavy, especially with VFX extravaganzas with >1.000 VFX shots.

I personally find 3D more challenging to handle as 4K, as 4K vs. 2K is basically only a computing & throughput slowdown, while 3D often requires double artistic work and -lots- of additional logistics.

I however share mmosts opinion that we will see most of the market at 1080p/2k for some years, we however are moving most summer 2008 projects towards 4K.

p.s.
for the 4K DI on Spiderman using Davinci resolve:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/di/depth/video_new_di_pipeline/

 

[Eren Ozkural]

Wasn't Bill Pope quoted on these boards about how he specifically chose to DI Spiderman 3 @ 2K because 4K scans ended up showing too much imperfections for his liking?

I think it was originally from American Cinematographer...im going to chase this one up...

 

[M Most]

I dont know about the VFX (and dont doubt your information), Spiderman III was a full 4K DI (Davinci Resolve 4K, done at TDI Technicolor/Thomson).

I never said it wasn't done as a 4K DI. However, what I did say is that doing it that way was, at least to me, largely a waste of resources since almost 75% of the images originated as 2K or less.

Regarding 4K VFX - we have no problem doing them since many years, and are able and handling higher resolutions for tradeshows/venues often. However, i suppose, the time pressure in L.A. is heavy, especially with VFX extravaganzas with >1.000 VFX shots.

Yes, when you have 1500 shots to do, the majority of which require both 2D and 3D work (often a LOT of 3D work), and all of which have to hold up to the utmost scrutiny and be delivered in 5 months or even less, 4K is out of the question.

I however share mmosts opinion that we will see most of the market at 1080p/2k for some years, we however are moving most summer 2008 projects towards 4K.

Hey, we agree on something! How about that!

 

[laguun]

Wasn't Bill Pope quoted on these boards about how he specifically chose to DI Spiderman 3 @ 2K because 4K scans ended up showing too much imperfections for his liking?

I think it was originally from American Cinematographer...im going to chase this one up...

i am not sure - i have seen parts of spider 3 at the IBC d-cinema 2007 and grain was -very- visible, especially in the auntie shots in the kitchen. It was announced to be a 4K master (and projector and server were 4K for sure).

 

[M Most]

i am not sure - i have seen parts of spider 3 at the IBC d-cinema 2007 and grain was -very- visible, especially in the auntie shots in the kitchen. It was announced to be a 4K master (and projector and server were 4K for sure).

If anything, a "real" 4K scan will show the grain more than a 2K scan, which actually has something of a grain reducing effect.