Digital Projection-DINOSAUR
Nogami
wrote:
>Are there any verdicts in on the DLP showings of DINOSAUR ?
I saw it here in Vancouver.
I was actually fairly impressed with the DLP picture. It was crisp,
sharp and bright.
On high-contrast video you could see a few pixellated edges on black
text, and when watching the ending credits, the yellow font had slight
pixelization on the edges, but overall, very good.
No noticeable screen lag on high speed movement. The absence of
"sprocket jitter" was great.
Being in the tv/film biz, I'm going to try and get ahold of TI and see
if I can get some literature on the system, and maybe get a behind the
scenes peek at the projection system.
N.
Scott Norwood
Nogami <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>Being in the tv/film biz, I'm going to try and get ahold of TI and see
>if I can get some literature on the system, and maybe get a behind the
>scenes peek at the projection system.
If this is anything like the SW screenings, there should be a table full
of DLP propaganda (presskits, brochures, etc.) at the theatres that are
being used to demonstrate the system.
I'm hoping to get a peek at the Framingham setup this week; if they allow
me to take pictures, I'll put them on the web and post the URL.
--
Scott Norwood: snor...@nyx.net, snor...@redballoon.net
Cool Home Page: http://www.redballoon.net/
Lame Quote: Penguins? In Snack Canyon?
Marlowe Fairhurst
showing in DLP. I think the best way to compare is like watching dvd
compared to regular t.v. I hope all movies are eventually made this way.
I saw it at the Framigham 16 in Framingham, Ma
"Nogami" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:09shiscehgbpgjabj...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 May 2000 19:30:54 GMT, William Dold <do...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Are there any verdicts in on the DLP showings of DINOSAUR ?
>
> I saw it here in Vancouver.
>
> I was actually fairly impressed with the DLP picture. It was crisp,
> sharp and bright.
>
> On high-contrast video you could see a few pixellated edges on black
> text, and when watching the ending credits, the yellow font had slight
> pixelization on the edges, but overall, very good.
>
> No noticeable screen lag on high speed movement. The absence of
> "sprocket jitter" was great.
>
> Being in the tv/film biz, I'm going to try and get ahold of TI and see
> if I can get some literature on the system, and maybe get a behind the
> scenes peek at the projection system.
>
> N.
Daniel P. B. Smith
> > "sprocket jitter" was great.
You know, traditional film projection can be pretty good.
I just saw Mission Impossible 2 at the Randolph General Cinema. Since I
hope to see Dinosaur in digital at Framingham this weekend I was paying
particular attention to picture quality, which was very good. (Of
course I'm not a professional, just a very picky layperson). What
impressed me was that I could not detect _any_ jitter at all--the
picture seemed absolutely rock-solid-steady, every bit as steady as the
IMAX Dome pictures I saw a few days ago. Furthermore, I couldn't detect
any flicker, either. I'm very sensitive to flicker--I can tell
instantly if a PC is set to less than 72 Hz. But I didn't see any in
the projected picture. Perhaps because the screen was not as bright as
I would have liked it to be.
It will be interesting to see whether digital projection can possibly be
any steadier. (Often you don't notice a defect until you see something
that's free from the defect).
Of course, it opened today, and at 10 a.m. I was watching possibly the
very first showing.
--
Daniel P. B. Smith
current email address: dpbs...@bellatlantic.net
"Lifetime forwarding address:" dpbs...@alum.mit.edu
Scott Norwood
Daniel P. B. Smith <dpbs...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>You know, traditional film projection can be pretty good.
>
>I just saw Mission Impossible 2 at the Randolph General Cinema. Since I
>hope to see Dinosaur in digital at Framingham this weekend I was paying
>particular attention to picture quality, which was very good.
Actually, I thought that the lab work on MI2 was rather substandard. The
timing wasn't so great and the contrast was a bit lacking in most scenes.
There was a fair amount of negative dust on the print that I saw as well.
It's amazing how much better Deluxe Toronto's prints are when compared with
those from Deluxe Hollywood.
I agree that it would be easy to provide an example of high-quality film
projection, but a print of MI2 wouldn't be my first choice for such a
demonstration...
William Dold
>
> > > No noticeable screen lag on high speed movement. The absence of
> > > "sprocket jitter" was great.
>
>
> I just saw Mission Impossible 2 at the Randolph General Cinema. Since I
> hope to see Dinosaur in digital at Framingham this weekend I was paying
> course I'm not a professional, just a very picky layperson). What
> impressed me was that I could not detect _any_ jitter at all--the
> picture seemed absolutely rock-solid-steady, every bit as steady as the
> IMAX Dome pictures I saw a few days ago. Furthermore, I couldn't detect
> any flicker, either. I'm very sensitive to flicker--I can tell
> instantly if a PC is set to less than 72 Hz. But I didn't see any in
> the projected picture. Perhaps because the screen was not as bright as
> I would have liked it to be.
>
> It will be interesting to see whether digital projection can possibly be
> any steadier. (Often you don't notice a defect until you see something
> that's free from the defect).
>
> Of course, it opened today, and at 10 a.m. I was watching possibly the
> very first showing.
>
> --
> Daniel P. B. Smith
> current email address: dpbs...@bellatlantic.net
> "Lifetime forwarding address:" dpbs...@alum.mit.edu
Screen brightness at Randolph leaves a lot to be desired on many
occasions. They also seem to have intermittent problems with keystoning
due to the angle of projection in the stadium theatre.
Scott Norwood
William Dold <do...@quinebarge.com> wrote:
>
>Screen brightness at Randolph leaves a lot to be desired on many
>occasions. They also seem to have intermittent problems with keystoning
>due to the angle of projection in the stadium theatre.
As we all know, it is unlikely that installing DLP projectors will fix
these issues of poor design and cheapness.
Does the Randolph GCC have Kodak's Screencheck certification? Burlington
and Framingham both do. In the case of Framingham, I would assume that this
applies only to film projection, due to the lack of standards for DLP.
William Dold
I believe that General Cinema is the only chain in eastern MA using the
Kodak Screen Check Experience. Even that is not always consistent. I
have sent several messages to Kodak about that and they have been most
obliging in their replies. On many occasions, I have seen the trailer
for the Kodak Screen Check come on out of focus and with very poor
sound. I realize that sound is not Kodak's thing to worry about but no
one seems to get it when it comes to the marriage of the visual and the
audio.
My most recent experience with Screen Check was at a GCC location which
I will leave unnamed - 5 seconds of countdown trailer preceded the
apperance of the trailer and the pre show music played through about the
1st minute of the trailer.
John P. Pytlak
I'm very sorry to hear of your poor experience. But poor focus and
miscues are operator errors. Even IF some of the operators went through
the ScreenCheck training program, others likely did not. It should be
most effective to complain to the local theatre management IMMEDIATELY,
and also contact the theatre circuit's headquarters and Kodak
ScreenCheck when you experience such operational lapses:
http://www.kodak.com/go/screencheck
You are correct that currently, sound quality is only checked
subjectively on each inspection, using the appropriate subjective test
films for each system. Picture quality is checked with a calibrated
screen luminance meter and SMPTE 35-PA (RP40) test film. Maintenance and
operational procedures are rated. Each participating theatre is
inspected four times per year to be re-certified.