«

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:11:25 -0600, Monte Castleman
<> wrote:

>Theater near me uses digital projection. Obviously DLP- the rainbow fringing
>annoys the hell out of me.

Commercial DLP does not produce rainbows as they use a 3-chip DLP
system, not a colour wheel.


GK
>
>
>
>Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
>Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from my address
>

"TCS" <The-Central-> wrote in message
news:slrnbur9cg.363.The-Central-...
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:00 GMT, Ray <>
wrote:
> >> I'm sure it'll be used as an excuse to raise the prices even more.
>
> >It should keep the prices the same. Once they go digital, film prints
will
> >not have to be struck and shipped which is a major cost. The movies will
be
> >downloaded and then projected. I'm sure that theaters will claim that
they
> >have to recoup the cost of the new equipment, but who knows??
>
> they'll charge more initially because they can. as long as people
perceive
> something worth paying extra for, they will pay.
>
>
> And until the country has fiber optic cable to the street corner,
distribution
> will cost the same. Instead of shipping film prints at major cost,
digital
> tapes will be shipped at major cost or a fractional T3 will have to be
> installed at around $2k/month to download more than hour or two of movie
per
> day. A t1 would take over 90 hours per movie hour.

Where did you read that?

I dont remember the article saying anything about how big these movies are,
digitally.

Assuming the T1 is downloading at the max for 90 hours, then it takes 61GB
(gigabytes, not bits) for 1 hour of movie. That works out to a bitrate of
142,295kbps (kilobits this time) total. That is 17.37mb/s (megabytes/sec).

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:35:40 GMT, Anonymous Joe <> wrote:
>"TCS" <The-Central-> wrote in message
>news:slrnbur9cg.363.The-Central-...
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 06:15:00 GMT, Ray <>
>wrote:
>> >> I'm sure it'll be used as an excuse to raise the prices even more.
>>
>> >It should keep the prices the same. Once they go digital, film prints
>will
>> >not have to be struck and shipped which is a major cost. The movies will
>be
>> >downloaded and then projected. I'm sure that theaters will claim that
>they
>> >have to recoup the cost of the new equipment, but who knows??
>>
>> they'll charge more initially because they can. as long as people
>perceive
>> something worth paying extra for, they will pay.
>>
>>
>> And until the country has fiber optic cable to the street corner,
>distribution
>> will cost the same. Instead of shipping film prints at major cost,
>digital
>> tapes will be shipped at major cost or a fractional T3 will have to be
>> installed at around $2k/month to download more than hour or two of movie
>per
>> day. A t1 would take over 90 hours per movie hour.

>Where did you read that?

>I dont remember the article saying anything about how big these movies are,
>digitally.

A piece of **** consumer digital camera is 5MP. A 35mm consumer film
camera is usually estimated to be equivelent to about 25MP. I would expect
profesional film to be equivelent to four times that, 100MP, or 300MB/frame.
That 450GB/hr, w/ compression, perhaps 90GB/hr.

>Assuming the T1 is downloading at the max for 90 hours, then it takes 61GB
>(gigabytes, not bits) for 1 hour of movie. That works out to a bitrate of
>142,295kbps (kilobits this time) total. That is 17.37mb/s (megabytes/sec).

"Ray" <> wrote:

>> I'm sure it'll be used as an excuse to raise the prices even more.
>
>It should keep the prices the same. Once they go digital, film prints will
>not have to be struck and shipped which is a major cost. The movies will be
>downloaded and then projected. I'm sure that theaters will claim that they
>have to recoup the cost of the new equipment, but who knows??
>

Bet the prices go up. How much to outfit a theater in Digital.
$200K??

And how long before the gear becomes obsolete? 5 years.

A 35/70mm projector costs about $10K and will last for 50 years..

"Mutley" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Ray" <> wrote:
>
> >> I'm sure it'll be used as an excuse to raise the prices even more.
> >
> >It should keep the prices the same. Once they go digital, film prints
will
> >not have to be struck and shipped which is a major cost. The movies will
be
> >downloaded and then projected. I'm sure that theaters will claim that
they
> >have to recoup the cost of the new equipment, but who knows??
> >
>
> Bet the prices go up. How much to outfit a theater in Digital.
> $200K??
>
> And how long before the gear becomes obsolete? 5 years.
>
> A 35/70mm projector costs about $10K and will last for 50 years..
>
>

My point exactly. They'll raise prices now to recoup the extra costs in a
very short period of time.

Mark

>>Theater near me uses digital projection. Obviously DLP- the rainbow fringing
>>annoys the hell out of me.
>
>Commercial DLP does not produce rainbows as they use a 3-chip DLP
>system, not a colour wheel.

Well, you'd think a commercial movie theater could afford a commercial
projector then. This one was definately 1-chip DLP!

Any chance of 3-chip DLP becoming affordable for consumer projectors? Now it
seems the major choices are 3-chip LCD or 1-chip DLP.

Straying farther off topic, are 1/2 or full resolution HDTV projectors in the
works?

--
--^\____
| /
| / Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
| | Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from my address
| *|
|_____\ http://www.geocities.com/xtremephoto...roadindex.html

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:43:02 +0000,
pete@DIESPAMDIE!cinescribe.demon.co.uk (Peter Briggs) wrote, in part:

>The Odeon Leicester Square (which, I guess, was the source of the
>original quoted article) has one of the most sophisticated film/digital
>dual systems in the country. I saw "Attack Of The Clones" there, I've
>seen all manner of 70mm and 35 mm movies, and I've seen all of the
>"straight-from-source" Pixar movies there.

I saw the Lucas movies on 35mm prints in multiplex theatres, but still
with reasonably big screens. I didn't see any noticeable degradation
in resolution over real film, even though those prints were made from
the digital source material, and I do remember seeing very clearly the
raster lines in 200 Motels when I saw that in a theatre ages ago (as
part of a double feature with the movie I really came to see).

So, apparently, digital cinema is satisfactory, despite the apparent
lesser resolution of the source material. (Obviously, seeing the film
in a digital theatre could only be better, since one would be closer
to the source material.)

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:25:18 -0600, Monte Castleman
<> wrote:

>>>Theater near me uses digital projection. Obviously DLP- the rainbow fringing
>>>annoys the hell out of me.
>>
>>Commercial DLP does not produce rainbows as they use a 3-chip DLP
>>system, not a colour wheel.
>
>Well, you'd think a commercial movie theater could afford a commercial
>projector then. This one was definately 1-chip DLP!

You are imagining things, there isn't a 1 chip DLP with enough pixels
or a high enough power lamp to do a commercial screen, most 1 chip
DLPs are pushing their max output at about 120 inches wide
>
>Any chance of 3-chip DLP becoming affordable for consumer projectors? Now it
>seems the major choices are 3-chip LCD or 1-chip DLP.

3 chop DLP are available, for about 30,000 US, designed for the home
theatre market
>
>Straying farther off topic, are 1/2 or full resolution HDTV projectors in the
>works?

both are available.

GK

John Savard <> wrote:

> So, apparently, digital cinema is satisfactory, despite the apparent
> lesser resolution of the source material. (Obviously, seeing the film
> in a digital theatre could only be better, since one would be closer
> to the source material.)

Absolutely, John. This was one of those "hauled under lock-and-key"
from Lucasfilm hard-drives.

I was also sitting in the front row of the stalls (about as close as I
could be), and was looking out specifically for things like
raster-judder in title and subtitle fonts. Couldn't see it. Bright,
wonderful image. Detritus free. Perfect. Made me a convert, as far as
live action goes (although, the Pixar stuff did that already for the
CG-sourced stuff.)

"Richard C." <post-> wrote in message

> NOTHING yet can compare to real 35mm and 70mm presentations...................

Yeah, especially when most of them are shown with worn 3rd generation
prints and projected by teenagers who don't know how to focus or clean
a projector.

-Eric