Digital projection

Tenolian Bell · June 2, 2004

The New York Times has an article about theatrical digital projection.

http://nytimes.com/2004/05/31/technology/31projector.html

Article says Sony has a new 4K (4096 X 2160) digital projector that is the "holy grail" of projectors. It has four times the pixels of 2K DLP.

The article also states Kodak has no intention of developing a 4K projector, they want to work on improving contrast and color reproduction rather than resolution.

This is an interesting developement since Larry Thorpe used to adamently state that film doesn't need to be scanned beyond 2K. Also what's strange is that I would imagine 4K projection, even digital would not flatter HDCAM at all. Would in fact highlight it's compression and subsampled colors.

Then on top of that Kodak isn't interested in 4K digital projection. You would think they would be interested in the highest resolution projection technically possible, to highlight films superiority.

The only purpose for a 4K projector would be a digital scan from film. Interesting from a company so heavily invested in HD.

Phil Rhodes · June 2, 2004

Hi,

Or to project Dalsa material. Still - this stuff should be made, I think. Someone's got to go first; others will follow. If everyone held back because they were first in a particular field nobody would make anything!

Phil

Sam Wells · June 2, 2004

The article also states Kodak has no intention of developing a 4K projector, they want to work on improving contrast and color reproduction rather than resolution.

Then on top of that Kodak isn't interested in 4K digital projection. You would think they would be interested in the highest resolution projection technically possible, to highlight films superiority.

Read again, according to the article it is Texas Instruments not Kodak that stated no intention of going 4K; it states Kodak is developing a 4K (D-ILA ?) projector.

Ironically, according to what I read, the DCI's demo last week was doubling up 2 2K TI DLP's to show effective 4K...

-Sam

Tenolian Bell · June 2, 2004

Yep you're right. My dyslexia kickin' in. I just saw Eastman Kodak, no intention 4K, I missed the Texas Instruments in the middle.

I suppose Sony see's the demand for 4K projection just as they see the demand for 4:4:4 HD and is charging ahead. Inspite of thier positions years before.

John Pytlak RIP · June 3, 2004

Kodak has stated that 4K is a desireable goal for years.

IMHO, the technology is not the biggest issue. It's the business case. How do you finance and maintain a digital cinema system (including delivery of the digital "print") for less than the approximately $350 per week it takes to put a new 35mm release print into a theatre for the normal 4-8 week first run? Who pays for it. Who controls it?

Max Jacoby · June 3, 2004

This is an interesting developement since Larry Thorpe used to adamently state that film doesn't need to be scanned beyond 2K.

Just another example of Larry Thorpe either not having a clue what he is talking about or protecting his company's economic interests.

Sam Wells · June 3, 2004

BTW Did anyone here see the $30,000 JVC D-ILA at NAB ? What did you think, especially from a "film snob" :D point of view ?

Also SONY's Qualia (otherwise bizaare product line, that) projector ?

-Sam

Matt Pacini · July 18, 2004

The fact that there are still many competing formats, and not a "standard" by any means, just shows me that it's gonna be years, if ever, when this takes over film projection, and I say... Thank God!

The digital projection I've seen has not impressed me a bit.

I feel like I'm watching Hi-8 blown up.

I'll take a film print any day.

Matt Pacini

Phil Rhodes · July 18, 2004

Hi,

> BTW Did anyone here see the $30,000 JVC D-ILA at NAB ?

If that's the one they had in the blacked-out tent, then yes, I did. Considering I was fresh from being extremely unimpressed by their new HDV line (The demo shot on HDV then presented on a VHS-form MPEG-2 format, euch) I wasn't expecting much - I remember walking out of the tent and immediately assuming that the projector whose picture I'd been watching was the giant very expensive one, when in fact it was a much smaller cheaper one. Rather nice.

Phil

georg lamshöft · August 5, 2004

What about that? :

http://www.zeiss.de/de/planetarium/home_e....5e?OpenDocument

I've seen an older version of this system and I've talked to an engineer who worked on it. Theoretical this system is far ahead of any other display technology:

Unlimited depth-of-field (no lens-system), powerful colors (lasers have the best color-quality), extremly high contrast and nearly infinite resolution (only capable of the source). The quality was really great!

Tenolian Bell · August 5, 2004

I don't know much about the plus/ minus of this system, but it does say in the article it is developed for domes, and that it cannot replace video projectors.

georg lamshöft · August 6, 2004

"It is quite obvious that this projector cannot ONLY replace traditional video projectors"

But it couldn't replace normal beamers yet for home-cinema etc. - it is too expensive and large, but for digital high-quality cinema it would be great.