Arri Rumor

[Stuart English]

4K and 3D

4K and 3D

maybe cinema owners will now be thinking about 3d projection, not 4k. There is no projector system that can do both, AFAIK.

Sony's 4K projector can certainly do 3D (albeit in 2K 3-D not at 4K 3-D)

So a digital projector investment should not be materially affected by any fluctuation in demand for 3D.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Tom wrote "The fact that thousands of movie theater screens across the world" That article is talking about AMC theaters, not world wide adoption.

Stephen

I'm sorry Stephen... here:

"In China, an E-Cinema System called "dMs" was established on June 2005, and is used in over 15,000 screens spread across China's 30 provinces. dMS estimates that the system will expand to 40,000 screens in 2009."

"As of July 2007, there are some cinemas in Singapore showing digital 4K films to public using Sony's 4K digital projector. They are located at Golden Village Cinema in Vivocity (Hall 11), Eng Wah Cinema in Suntec (Hall 3), Shaw Cinema in Bugis (Hall 1 & 3) and at Cathay Cineplex (Hall 7)."

"By October 2007, DG2L Technologies was reported to have supplied 1500 Digital Cinema Systems to UFO Moviez Ltd. in India and Europe."

"In March 2009 AMC Theatres announced that it closed on a $315 million deal with Sony to replace all of its movie projectors with 4k digital projectors starting in the second quarter of 2009 and completing in 2012."

"In September 2007, Muvico Theaters Rosemont 18 in Rosemont, Illinois became the first theater in North America to have Sony's 4K digital projectors for all 18 screens."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

From Texas Instruments:

"DLP is the only imaging technology with a legacy in digital cinema where it set the industry standard demonstrated by the deployment of DLP Cinema technology in over 14,000 screens worldwide."

"Today there are more than 7,000 worldwide screens that offer digital 3D with the use of every pixel array in the frame for the brightest picture unlike other technologies. Since last year’s introduction, IMAX® digital projection systems powered by DLP Cinema projectors have reached a total of 88 locations worldwide."

From Arts Alliance Media:

"Arts Alliance Media has several options to help cinemas convert to digital. AAM was the first company in Europe to have deals with 5 major Hollywood studios (Fox, Universal, Sony, Paramount & Disney) to fund a digital cinema rollout of up to 7000 screens, under a Virtual Print Fee financing model.

The first exhibitor to sign up to this deal was CGR Cinemas in France, who have committed to convert 100% of their 400 screens to digital."

Tom is correct in his assessment.

 

[M Most]

An article dated april 16th 2009 talking about a deal being done is one thing, actual fitting of projectors is another thing. Given that avatar is doing so well, maybe cinema owners will now be thinking about 3d projection, not 4k. There is no projector system that can do both, AFAIK.

Not yet.

In theory, the forthcoming DLP Cinema 4K systems should be able to do that. In theory.

 

[M Most]

Tom is correct in his assessment.

Deals and actual purchase/deployment are two very different things. If one were to look at "deals" as the primary criteria, every theater in the US would be digital by now because if you go back a few years, companies like Technicolor Digital Cinema, Boeing Digital Cinema, and Digital Cinema Implementation Partners announced "deals" with almost every major chain in the country. The result of those deals is that very few of the systems that were "committed" to were ever installed, and all of those companies are now essentially defunct or inactive.

I prefer to look at the actual deployment figures as much more indicative of trends in digital cinema. The digital rollout is seriously behind the original projections due to many factors, but primarily due to the financial meltdown. And even though 2009 was a record box office year, much of that box office was generated during the first 2 weeks of release of the largest pictures of the year, a period in which about 95% (or more) of the box office goes directly to the distributors and studios, not to the theater owners. And the virtual print fee model for digital installation co-financing doesn't really offset the need for the theaters to "pony up" for the transition. In truth, 3D is really the primary motivator right now, but with RealD being the primary system in use, a 3D room also must change to a silver screen, not a cheap or convenient scenario because the silver screen cannot usually be used for 2D material. And, as has been pointed out, if you think 4K is a motivator, there is no 3D/4K projection system at the moment, although the newest model of the Sony projector has a scheme to project 3D at 2K. But the new DLP 4K units will theoretically do 3D and 4K - thus providing more reasons for some of those theater owners to hold off for a while.

Nothing is ever black and white, regardless of how you want to interpret press releases.

 

[M Most]

DThis is how 7D in video mode shot with Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 at wide open @ f/1.2 "see" Avatar 3D ...

Sanjin, unless you want Interpol to arrest you, I suggest you don't announce to the world that you're bringing a video camera into a movie theater.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Nothing is ever black and white, regardless of how you want to interpret press releases.

I'm not interpreting the press releases, I merely presented them. While it may take time to actually "install" the digital systems, the world is clearly marching towards that goal. I really don't see the relevance of your point. Its not like digital cinema is going to evaporate overnight or take another ten years to get here. It will take time to retrofit the majority of the 38,000 screens in the US, but it will happen soon. Trends reveal digital exhibition is coming, film exhibition is going-- what's up for debate? The time it will take? C'mon.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Soon? People have been talking about the roll-out to digital cinema for a decade now, and the AMC deal for over a year... and the AMC 15 Century City, at the height of the Christmas release schedule, only had three digital releases out of 15 screens.

In fact, the number of digital screens compared to film projection has been stuck at around 30% for over a year now in the Los Angeles area.

People really don't comprehend how many theater screens there are in the U.S., let alone worldwide, to convert. Film print projection will be around for a long time. Sure, the trend is towards digital projection, which will replace film projection eventually... but the reality of filmmakers working today and for the years to come, short of being a major studio 3D movie, you are likely to have more film screenings than digital screenings if you get worldwide distribution.

My own personal experience with the release of "Jennifer's Body" last September was that I couldn't get anyone at 20th Century Fox interested in making a DCI master for digital release, and the majority of the release was in film prints (I suspect about 2000 to 4000 prints were struck). I couldn't find any digital showings in the Los Angeles area. What few digital screens there are in Los Angeles are more or less booked by the biggest studio movies.

Here is a list of what I've seen projected recently:

The White Ribbon (film print)
Sherlock Holmes (digital)
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (film print)
The Lovely Bones (film print)
Broken Embraces (film print)
Avatar (digital)
Invictus (film print)
Up in the Air (film print)
Me & Orson Welles (film print)
New Moon (digital)
2012 (film print)
Where the Wild Things Are (digital)
Coco Before Chanel (film print)
Law Abiding Citizen (film print)
A Serious Man (film print)
The Informant! (digital)

All of this is in the West Los Angeles area, and I specifically try to find a digital screening when possible and convenient. That works out to be about 30% of the time, I could watch the movie digitally. I look at my personal list of movies seen from a year ago, and it was about 30% back then as well.

So all of this talk about digital-only releases is pretty theoretical for the most part and doesn't affect the majority of people making feature films today. If you are only planning to start making and releasing features a decade from now, sure, odds are high that it could be a digital-only situation.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Evidence please.

Yes, sir, right away, sir!

June 18, 2009 – Cinemark Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: CNK), the world’s second largest motion picture exhibitor, today announced that it has partnered with digital cinema pioneer Barco, DLP Cinema technology provider Texas Instruments and media server provider Doremi to install the industry’s biggest & brightest 4K digital cinema solution in more than 3,000 screens. The agreement also includes plans for Cinemark’s international locations in Latin America, which would bring the overall deployment to more than 4,600 screens.

http://www.cinemark.com/pressreleasesform_general.asp?step=2&PressReleaseItem=644

In March 2009 AMC Theatres announced that it closed on a $315 million deal with Sony to replace all of its movie projectors with 4k digital projectors starting in the second quarter of 2009 and completing in 2012.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, unless you want Interpol to arrest you, I suggest you don't announce to the world that you're bringing a video camera into a movie theater.

M Most,

thanks for your advice and I'll take it out right away.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The primary financial benefits of a DCI release go to the distributor, who reduces printing and shipping costs, not the exhibitor, who has 35mm projection equipment that paid for itself a long time ago.

So these theater chains make these announcements of a big conversion to digital screens, but often they cut back on the orders or slow them down because, frankly, at nearly $100,000 a screen, it's easy for them to cut costs when times are tough by cutting down the numbers of screens converted or to slow down the process, because it's not like they can't keep showing movies with their 35mm projectors in the meantime.

So I really don't expect to see a 100% conversion by 2012 of all AMC screens in the U.S. -- but even if there was 100% conversion, there are all the other theater chains besides AMC, like Pacific, Mann, Laemmle, etc. And a major movie release is a worldwide phenomenon -- from what I hear from my friends in the U.K., there are even fewer digital screening options than in the U.S.

I keep wondering when I'm going to be able to see art house releases of foreign movies in digital, it's so rare in Los Angeles.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

So all of this talk about digital-only releases is pretty theoretical for the most part and doesn't affect the majority of people making feature films today. If you are only planning to start making and releasing features a decade from now, sure, odds are high that it could be a digital-only situation.

Actually, David, Regal Entertainment hopes to have their entire chain converted to digital within 3 to 5 years. They're the largest chain in the US with 6,768 screens. AMC and Cinemark are also trying to meet that timeline.

But I know how everyone is suspicious of "press releases" and "deals" involving publicly traded companies that have to follow SEC rules and inform their shareholders of how they intend to spend their money...

 

[Glenn Kennel]

ARRI's Alexa Camera

ARRI's Alexa Camera

ARRI announced our digital camera roadmap at IBC in September 2009. Alexa is the informal name for this product. There is no such thing as a D27!! Since this announcement, information on the Alexa camera family have been posted on our website at http://www.arridigital.com/teaser. We are on schedule and on target for the formal introduction of the first model at NAB, currently called the Alexa EV (electronic viewfinder), and our latest prototypes are exceeding our expectations. Rather than speculate about rumors, let me invite you to our website for the facts, and if you like, join our user forum for more information and an ongoing dialog with ARRI D21 customers and users, and real insight into our new cameras.

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Glenn! Welcome to RedUser! A wretched hive of scum and villainy. I'll check out the info on Alexa.

 

[Abtin]

I don't know if ARRI will come out with a 4k camera or not but if they are, well need to hurry it up because I know one other company that already has one and was at Interbee 2009 and you will see it at NAB this year(Astro design,inc), they also had the first 4K display (since 2004-5) and now have their very own 4k camera, whats funny, this is a Test and measurement company(Video Generators, waveform/vector scopes,etc). BTW they have a 8K system as up last year.( im an ex-employee)

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

R1MX is going pretty easy to beat the new Arri Alexa/Alev III Electronic Viefinder camera when it comes after NAB 2010.

Why?


For existing users RED M-X upgrade just costs $4500 and with that you'll get a totally another camera "beast" with 4.5K resolution.

 

[Joe G.]

"No, not really. You never see both images at the same time. When you're seeing the left eye image, the right eye is blanked, on essentially all common projection formats used today. So at any moment in time, you're seeing one 2K image."

That's not how humans perceive things. Sorry.

Two eyes, two (slightly) different 2K images = more perceived resolution than two eyes looking at one 2K image.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Glenn! Welcome to RedUser! A wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Hahaha! Yes, welcome, Glenn!

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It may be more "perceived" resolution, just as shooting at higher frame rates and projecting at higher frame rates increase perceived resolution -- but is it measurable resolution? I don't know.

Anyway, my own experiences watching 3D movies is not that they seem to have more resolution in general, but maybe that's just how my eyes interact with 3D glasses. However, what I do notice is that normal standards of resolution sort of go out the window because your eyes & brain have a new visual dimension (literally) to pay attention to.

Resolution and sharpness, perceived and otherwise, is a complex topic. I've often felt that film images seem to have more resolution when projected rather than as still frames, whereas digital images seem to have the same resolution whether as still or moving images, which is the only way I can explain how single frame comparisons often show film to have inferior resolution to many digital images, yet in projection, film images seem to have more resolution. It's probably a perceptual issue encouraged by moving grain patterns or something.

 

[Bill Anderson]

It may be more "perceived" resolution, just as shooting at higher frame rates and projecting at higher frame rates increase perceived resolution -- but is it measurable resolution? I don't know.

Anyway, my own experiences watching 3D movies is not that they seem to have more resolution in general, but maybe that's just how my eyes interact with 3D glasses. However, what I do notice is that normal standards of resolution sort of go out the window because your eyes & brain have a new visual dimension (literally) to pay attention to.

Resolution and sharpness, perceived and otherwise, is a complex topic. I've often felt that film images seem to have more resolution when projected rather than as still frames, whereas digital images seem to have the same resolution whether as still or moving images, which is the only way I can explain how single frame comparisons often show film to have inferior resolution to many digital images, yet in projection, film images seem to have more resolution. It's probably a perceptual issue encouraged by moving grain patterns or something.

David, I think the film (printed Vs 24fps projected) phenomenon is due to each projected frame acting like an "unsharp-mask" on the next frame. Photographers, when printing transparencies, used to make " unsharp masks" by contact printing the original transparency onto lith film, but they'd use a diffusion material (or flip the trannie so they were printing through its backing) between the trannie and the lith film to diffuse the resulting (B&W) mask image (hence the name "unsharp mask" (if I'm not mistaken). Now, once the black and white mask (very soft looking image) was placed over and registered with the transparency, and then printed, the final print was much sharper- like night and day actually.

 

[M Most]

Yes, sir, right away, sir!

You didn't include the last part of the press release:

Certain matters within this press release include “forward–looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Forward-looking statements may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results or performance to differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements.

In this case, the forward looking statement is the one that says there will be a 4K DLP projector available within a short enough time frame to fill that timetable. This is important because at the moment, one doesn't exist.