Michel Hafner

Standard meaning other DLPs? It can be done with any DLP but for now it's a Dolby/Christie development, very expensive and limited for their own use. Longer term it might trickle down to other brands and even DLPs for home cinema. And it could also be done with non DLP technology (DILA, SXRD). JVC has less need of it since they achieve 40000:1 to over 100000:1 without dual modulation in their DILA 3 chip home cinema models. The first mirror modulates the amount of light falling on the second mirror on a pixel basis. The second modulates as usual. Multiplicative effect for contrast is the result. Technical details are hard to come by since it's their business secret how to do it exactly.

The black is achieved with dual modulation, 2 mirrors, one after the other. Manipulating lamp output would affect white the same as black and limit dynamic range in the same frame. Not optimal.

Know what? Regular cinema DLP projection is certainly not indistinguishable from film projection. It's more stable but has poorer black levels for sure than a good print projection. So the quality bottleneck is the digital projector, and then the 2K resolution for 35mm which is not enough, a source issue. Or did you mean how we know there is a digital equivalent that looks the same as the analogue original? Mathematics says so (sampling theorem). What exact parameters are needed is an ongoing discussion, though. I have seen the latest "Mission Impossible" in Dolby Vision. The quality bottleneck was not the projector but the source! The 2K simply did not cut it on that big screen sitting rather close. 4K was needed. And even more would have been beneficial.

Of course. Nonetheless there is a digital equivalent with a resolution in bits and pixels that can represent analogue film digitally to a degree that is undistinguishable to the human visual system from the film original. Also proper distinction between the digital source and the projection of it is necessary since if an image is lacking in quality the cause can be the source, the projection or both.

1. Dolby Vision projectors are not regular DLPs. They are bright and they have lower blacks than any film print. Film prints have at best an On-Off contrast of in the 10000:1 to 30000:1 range. Dolby Vision has above 100000:1. 2. Film does not have 32 bit resolution at all. Unless you add RGB/CMY together. Then digital projection has 36 bit. Show me the tech reference which shows film has 32 bits. That would be an insane dynamic range well well beyond the best digital audio. Ridiculous claim! 3. So where did you compare the shadow detail of the same film on Dolby Vision DLP and 70mm? Right, you did not. Interstellar was not shown on Dolby Vision. 4. UHD BD is not 8 bit but 10 bit 4:2:0. Utter crap compared to a film print? Maybe in tĥe fantasy land you seem to live in. While a 70mm print from 65mm OCN has the upper hand the difference is not nearly a big as you claim.

The 4K Dolby Vision projector has better blacks than any 70mm print. I wonder why "Hateful Eight" is not showing in a Dolby Vision cinema in 4K. The UHD BD will again show better blacks than any 70mm print on a high contrast home cinema projector like the latest generation JVCs.

Old Murph on the death bed was very out of focus in the 4K screening I saw.

I was not aware it is offensive to say that some digital camera has more dynamic range than film. I picked that attribute because dynamic range was the most bashed aspects of Red cameras here in the past (that and colour "issues").

I'm not hiding anywhere. Why should I? I stated it has more dynamic range than film. I find that very exciting from any digital camera. Especially if it's not an exotic lab animal but ready for release, shoots 100 fps and has 4K resolution plus. If you want to contest any of that, go on. It's quite obvious how dismissive some people here are as their default modus operandi when it comes to Red and their cameras.

More dynamic range than film...

Well, now some do. The rest will get serviced from September on. First tests are appearing. http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?103732-DRAGON-ITS-THE-REAL-DEAL-!!!!

Dragon has officially now 16.5+ stops. So any clipped highlights are intended or the shooter is incompetent. Alexa will have no advantage with highlights at all with 2-3 stops less of dynamic range.

First images are here. http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1360380054.jpg http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1360355646.jpg

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92158-Enter-the-Dragon Revolutionary combination of latitude, resolution and fps, it seems.

I see no nasty video look, just very high resolution grain free digital cinematography.

And blu-ray.com has a tracker so you get an e-mail once your target price is reached. :lol:

I'm currently watching season 3 on BD. What I don't like about the image shot on film is the digital sharpening they are applying in post. Why do they do that? The halos around high contrast edges look nasty.

No wonder with that poor compression from WB at 15 Mbit/s average VC-1. No decent version available till this day. They did not even bother to reencode for the new Superman box set. :angry:

It's score by Poledouris so it's not a rights issue. It's a 5.1 mixing issue.

The issue can not be heard unless one knows the film well. Some music is missing in the 5.1 mix and the original mono mix is not on the disc.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20146249#post20146249 (original is 1.66:1)

Unfortunately it's not properly framed... :-(

Grain, yes, scratches, hardly. Cameron supervised the Aliens transfer. If he deviated from original intent he obviously formulated a new intent. It's his privilege to do so. Of course he can always say it's the original intent he could not implement back then... :-)

How is manual mode better? Less need for manual retouching when drawing a window around the "dirt" gives a wrong result?

Can you be more specific? Are you talking about manual mode or automatic mode? What exactly is better?