#157139 - 25/04/2003 06:08
Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
|
member
Registered: 12/08/2002
Posts: 179
Loc: Manchester, NH
|
The article below shows that The Matrix:Reloaded and The Matrix:Revolutions will be released in IMAX as well as a special engagement for The Matrix prior to the Matrix:Reloaded release.
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/PRNEWS/20030423/2003_04_23_06_2043_920948
I want to know why they are not going to release it in DLP if it is the "most technologically advanced movie to date".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157140 - 25/04/2003 07:13
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mvigneau]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Maybe because the Bros. Wachowski realize that digital projection sucks?
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157141 - 25/04/2003 07:48
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
digital projection sucks Amen!
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157142 - 29/04/2003 05:46
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: wfaulk]
|
member
Registered: 12/08/2002
Posts: 179
Loc: Manchester, NH
|
SUCKS!!!????
What are you talking about...It is the greatest thing to happen to movies in a long time.
You almost get a perfect black screen with the new 2K DLP DMD Processor.
You don't get degradation like in film.
No more jittering or other film movements to mess up synchronization with audio(that is why audio goes stereo at times).
You get an infinitely clearer picture.
The image fills the entire screen without being blurry on any of the edges.
Also with the new 2K DLP DMD Processor you can get an image up to 1080x2048 pixels which means it will fit on screens up to 80ft wide. The only way to do that on film is to use DMR and project it with an IMAX Projector.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157143 - 29/04/2003 07:09
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mvigneau]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Wouldn't that be 2048x1080 pixels, then? 80 feet is 960 inches, so 2048 pixels wide would give you pixels which were 5.6 inches per side.
Somehow I suspect it would be noticeable.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157144 - 29/04/2003 07:13
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: Daria]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 08/08/2000
Posts: 351
Loc: chicago
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157145 - 29/04/2003 07:37
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mvigneau]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
I was going to try to find Ebert's "Answer Man" replies on this subject, because they cover the topic quite well, but I couldn't find the entries anymore. Regardless, he knows his stuff as a filmgoer, so I trust him more than I trust money-grabbing George Lucas.
Anyway, I thought this was a good article. I think he may be wrong about the technology not coming about, but we can hope it doesn't.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157146 - 29/04/2003 08:36
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: djc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
You're right. I did the math for 960 "feet". Doh.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157147 - 29/04/2003 08:50
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mvigneau]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
You almost get a perfect black screen with the new 2K DLP DMD Processor. True, and it's a plus, but I've never had a problem with the quality of color in a film projector. You don't get degradation like in film. What sort of degradation? All the prints come stright from the studio. There's no copying beyond the mastering that would also be required for a digital ``print''.
Oh, wait. You probably mean scratches and whatnot. I suppose that's true. It'd be nice if folks just took better care of their equipment. No more jittering or other film movements to mess up synchronization with audio(that is why audio goes stereo at times). I've never seen an audio sync problem (besides between splices). Digital tracks or sync marks directly on the film took care of that many years ago. But you'll still have the same problem with jitter (of a different sort) as it'll still be a huge screen at 24fps. You get an infinitely clearer picture. Define clear. My impression is that that's untrue. The image fills the entire screen without being blurry on any of the edges. This is true, too, but I'm not sure that I trust this will continue to be the case if and when the projectors become more prevalent and don't have people handholding them constantly -- that is, when they have the same disrepair that film projectors have now. Also, I don't think that this really has that much to do with digital-ness as it has to do with the projection method. It could be ``retrofitted'' to film. Also with the new 2K DLP DMD Processor you can get an image up to 1080x2048 pixels which means it will fit on screens up to 80ft wide. As someone else pointed out (or tried to), 80ft divided by 2048 pixels equals half inch pixels. Since it is likely to be sharper, you're going to see those pixels. I know I do when I see digitally projected movies. Of course, with disrepair, that may be ``solved''. It's also, I think, important to note that that the resolultion of 1080i HDTV is 1080x1440, which means that it's the same resolution as the digital projector, except not as (potentially) wide. I don't honestly know if they'll be using some sort of inverse anamorphic projection to always use most of those pixels. It'd make sense, since most movies are still significantly narrower than 2:1. Nor do I know if they plan to use traditional(-ish) anamorpich projections for those movies wider than 2:1.
You fail to mention that the supposed big advantage is really for the theaters, who won't have to cart around hundreds of pounds worth of film.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157148 - 29/04/2003 08:54
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Ebert's anti-digital stance.
Since he wrote this, he's backed down a little and stated that digitally filmed movies look better in digital projection than filmed movies do. Or maybe it was that digitally generated movies look better. I forget.
Personally, I'd like to see the MaxiVision technology he talks about. The 24fps jitter is the one thing that distracts me at a theater, and digital projection is not going to solve that. Although it could potentially use the same idea.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157149 - 29/04/2003 09:07
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
You're right. I did the math for 960 "feet". Doh. That'd be one hell of a screen. I would immediately want one in my living room.
Guess CMU's teaching the new math these days, huh?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157150 - 29/04/2003 09:54
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: wfaulk]
|
member
Registered: 12/08/2002
Posts: 179
Loc: Manchester, NH
|
You fail to mention that the supposed big advantage is really for the theaters, who won't have to cart around hundreds of pounds worth of film.
This is true, the theaters won't necessarily save, but the production company will because it cost them an estimated $1,500 per print.
What sort of degradation? All the prints come stright from the studio. There's no copying beyond the mastering that would also be required for a digital ``print''.
Oh, wait. You probably mean scratches and whatnot. I suppose that's true. It'd be nice if folks just took better care of their equipment.
I meant over time because film eventually fades where digital is as good as the first time that it is displayed. It allows for better archiving of movies also.
I've never seen an audio sync problem (besides between splices). Digital tracks or sync marks directly on the film took care of that many years ago. But you'll still have the same problem with jitter (of a different sort) as it'll still be a huge screen at 24fps.
The time code is recorded on the bottom of the film to keep the digital audio in sync as I experienced at a theater and had them fix by adding a second track to carry the film
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157151 - 29/04/2003 10:07
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mvigneau]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
I also think that some of your negative experiences with film projection may be due to differences in operators. Some projectionists are just awful. They crop films incorrectly among other attrocities. Perhaps digital would fix some of that, but probably not.
Like Bitt was getting at, when there are so few digital projectors out there, you're going to see one that has had a lot of attention put into it. What happens when it goes national and there's 25 of them in every multiplex? I have a feeling it will have different, but an equal number of problems.
Bitt, I'm not sure when that article was printed. When was it? The last I heard of his opinion on the matter was from his Answer Man column about 2 months ago. There was an ongoing thread about the subject, and he still didn't seem very positive about it. At the very least he was still upholding the MaxiVision (which I would love to see as well).
I definitely agree, however, that "digital" has become a "buzz word." That seems to be a real seller today.
Also some, if not most, movies shot with digicams look terrible unless they're done very well. I wish they'd stop using them just for the sake of using them.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157152 - 29/04/2003 10:31
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Also some, if not most, movies shot with digicams look terrible unless they're done very well. I wish they'd stop using them just for the sake of using them. We've got to be careful here. Some low-budget movies are being shot with consumer-grade digital camcorders, and I think that's great. Yeah, it looks pretty bad (mostly due to the awful gamma), but it allows movies to be shot for next to nothing and allows some people to be able to make a movie that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. Of course it also allows people to make movies who shouldn't be allowed to, but that's another story.
But those bear no comparison to the digital cameras being used by George Lucas, et al. They are wildly more complicated, etc. They aren't using them jsut for the sake of using them. It allows greater ease and leeway in digital editing. That being said, I think they look like crap, which I wouldn't have expected. I thought, for example, that Attack of the Clones looked horrendous, expecially in the backgrounds (in addition to being an awful movie). This may be more due to how Lucas was using them, though. I'd expect digital cameras, generally, to look as good as film cameras. They're not limited to 1040x2048 or whatever digital projection is; their resolution is close to being film-grain small. But I haven't yet seen an example of a digitally shot movie that looks as good as film. I wouldn't be surprised or objectionable if it happens, though.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157153 - 29/04/2003 11:06
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
I haven't been a CMU student since 1999. I haven't had a math class since 1994.
I haven't had a brain since 1980.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157154 - 29/04/2003 11:11
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
I haven't had a brain since 1980. :)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157155 - 29/04/2003 11:18
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31596
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
It's also, I think, important to note that that the resolultion of 1080i HDTV is 1080x1440, which means that it's the same resolution as the digital projector, except not as (potentially) wide. Minor technical correction. HDTV is 1920 pixels wide, by 1080 interlaced lines high. The digital theater projectors are a lower resolution than that.
In fact, many home HDTV systems which use LCD or DLP technology are lower resolution than that because I don't think anyone's made a cheap 1920x1080 LCD or DLP panel yet. The only systems that actually use the full rez of HDTV are CRT-based systems.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157156 - 29/04/2003 11:25
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
HDTV is 1920 pixels wide, by 1080 interlaced lines high. My mistake. The digital theater projectors are a lower resolution than that. The current ones definitely are. Unless mvigneau is lying to us (which I don't think is the case), the new tech will be the same resolution except wider.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157157 - 29/04/2003 11:39
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
How close is WUXGA to 1920x1080? It's (mumble)x1200, right? So I'll have a better than HDTV resolution laptop, soon?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157158 - 29/04/2003 11:57
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: Daria]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
1920x1200
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157159 - 29/04/2003 16:05
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mvigneau]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
What are you talking about...It is the greatest thing to happen to movies in a long time. Actually, there's a lot of contention on that point, especially among people in the industry. You almost get a perfect black screen with the new 2K DLP DMD Processor. Is that film black, or video black? The two have distinctly different levels. Same thing with white points. Perhaps that's the "almost" that you're referring to? You don't get degradation like in film. Presumably you mean print degredation? Sure, but you get different problems with digital that aren't there in film, such as aliasing artifacts. No more jittering or other film movements to mess up synchronization with audio(that is why audio goes stereo at times). I agree with your premise, but I don't think your conclusion is correct. If I understand the system for digital sound correctly, the sound sync is read by a laser off the print as it goes through the projector. That keeps the soundtrack in time with the film. Digital audio does not drop channels to go from 5.1 or whatever to stereo -- rather it just skips ahead (or pauses briefly).
If you're watching in a non-digital sound theater, then the audio is encoded optically on the film, so if the film stutters, then the audio stutters with it. There is, to my knowledge, no such thing as "going stereo" unless it was intentional. You get an infinitely clearer picture. I would say this is rubbish, but "infinitely clearer" is a rather subjective concept. The image fills the entire screen without being blurry on any of the edges. This is rubbish. You need to go to a theatre with a better projectionist. Blurring on the edges is a function of a) the lens used to shoot the material, and b) the lens used in projecting the material. Format has nothing to do with this. Also with the new 2K DLP DMD Processor you can get an image up to 1080x2048 pixels which means it will fit on screens up to 80ft wide. The only way to do that on film is to use DMR and project it with an IMAX Projector. That is also rubbish. Regular 35mm film is typically laser scanned at 2k (2048x1536) for post work, before being recorded back to film. That is the *maximum* resolution that you can get from your brand spanking new 2K DLP DMD Processor. However, that's hardly the maximum resolution of 35mm film, which is really only determined by the grain size of the particular film stock. It is not unusual to scan film at 4k (4096x3072), which is *twice* what your digital projector is capable of.
Digital film is like making an MP3 of a CD of a live performance. Real film is like making a CD of a live performance. Digital video filters the real world with significantly fewer samples than does film. Just like MP3s encoded at 128k, that's good enough for a lot of people, but not for me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157160 - 29/04/2003 16:52
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
Sorry, Bitt. That thing about digicams was a real aside that didn't have anything to do with the rest my post or the discussion of digital theater projectors.
I brought it up because there are movies that use these cameras just for the sake of saying they're using a handheld digital camera. This is an example. Another is the new film "Manic", which for some reason doesn't seem to have an imdb page. In that film, the cameramen sometime shake the camera around just to show that it's being filmed on handhelds. That's where it's used poorly.
Naturally, I agree that it provides a cheap way to film a picture, but that isn't what I was saying about it.
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157161 - 29/04/2003 19:46
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
those bear no comparison to the digital cameras being used by George Lucas, et al. They are wildly more complicated, etc. They aren't using them just for the sake of using them. It allows greater ease and leeway in digital editing. That being said, I think they look like crap, which I wouldn't have expected. I thought, for example, that Attack of the Clones looked horrendous, expecially in the backgrounds (in addition to being an awful movie). This may be more due to how Lucas was using them, though. I'd expect digital cameras, generally, to look as good as film cameras. They're not limited to 1040x2048 or whatever digital projection is; their resolution is close to being film-grain small. Lucas shot with HD cameras onto either D5 or D6 tape, which is still HD res -- 1920x1080. What allows you to do this is that when you scan a full-ap film frame at 2k, the standard projected area of that is covered (but just barely) by a rectangle of pixels the dimensions of HD. If you're 100% certain of your framing, you only need to scan the "HD" area of a film frame. When recording, you plunk it back in the right spot, and you'd never know the difference, since the black areas between frames are masked during projection anyway. This technique was used extensively on Jason-X.
For a good discussion on the benefits of shooting on HD, see this SMPTE/New England article. Obviously, the article is pro-HD and makes no mention of the downsides to shooting HD, but it brings up some valid points. The downside is when you read things like this: The producer of the film went on record to state that they were able to safely blow up their HD images by a factor of 100% for special effects as opposed to the 15-17% they had been limited to in film. That, IMHO, is one of the reasons things look like crap in some cases. Instead of scanning a full-ap film frame to do something like a pan-and-scan, they end up scaling up an HD res frame to twice the size, and coping with all the attending problems.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157162 - 29/04/2003 19:49
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: Dignan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Yeah. Soderbergh's a dork. And I'm guessing you watched Ebert last week.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157163 - 29/04/2003 22:03
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 08/03/2000
Posts: 12338
Loc: Sterling, VA
|
And I'm guessing you watched Ebert last week Hehe, yeah. Every week, man. 
_________________________
Matt
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157164 - 03/08/2003 22:36
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mvigneau]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/09/2000
Posts: 2303
Loc: Richmond, VA
|
My wife and I just saw Reloaded in IMAX at the Metreon here in SF .... Wow. That was awesome.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#157165 - 03/08/2003 23:19
Re: Matrix IMAX...What about DLP???
[Re: mschrag]
|
old hand
Registered: 28/12/2001
Posts: 868
Loc: Los Angeles
|
I saw it two weeks ago too. It was indeed completely awesome. It was an excellent movie for IMAX, lots of sweeping camera shots and large scale visual effects.
No problems with the quality being low; if anything it was too clear. It was far too easy to see all the imperfections, scars, moles, and razor burns on all the actors.
_________________________
Ninti - MK IIa 60GB Smoke, 30GB, 10GB
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index