more digital projectors, coming to a theater near you-XY Screens-img

more digital projectors, coming to a theater near you

by:XY Screens     2019-12-16
Movie theaters around the world are dismantling old movie projectors and installing digital versions.
Digital films provide original, trace-freefree, rock-
Solid image and supersharp pictures.
In the battle for share of digital film products, Sony has made the 4 k resolution an iconic difference from its rival Texas Instruments in the field.
According to Sony, the pixels on the 4 k screen are four times that of T. I.
Its 2 k technology provides clearer images that attract consumers back to the movie. T. I.
It has always been said that 2 k is good enough. tests show that consumers do not see any difference. T. I.
I have been against 4 k so far.
On Thursday, the company announced that it will launch 4 k technology, which will be integrated into the next product.
A generation of projector technology manufactured by various partners.
According to Nancy Fares, T business manager, the company will continue to sell 2 k projectors to most customersI.
DLP Cinema product group. Ms.
Fares says this is not the case with Texas Instruments trying to play catch-up games
Sony recently announced a substantial contract to install 4 k projectors in AMC, Muvico and Regal Entertainment theaters.
Texas Instruments has been working on 4 k technology for two years, she said. And when T. I.
Saying that most consumers don\'t see the difference between a 2 k and a 4 k image, the company insists on its own gun.
Its 4 k technology will only be installed in about 20% of customer theaters, with a screen of 70 feet and a larger size, which is \"brightest and largest \".
Even though the digital IMAX cinema, Ms.
Fares said that TI\'s 2 k technology was successfully used.
Have you ever experienced 2 k and 4 k Digital Film Technology?
Can you tell the difference?
Comments are no longer accepted.
I love to see the light through the cyborg.
It is so sexy and rich that people can almost feel it and bathe in it.
Digital movies are as plain and clear as video games.
If the cinema wants to keep the audience, they should avoid digital projectors if they want to provide attractions that are not available at home.
I avoid them because I can tell the difference between them and the real thing.
If cinemas want to cater to audiences who turn a blind eye to the structure of the content they are watching, then they will lose adult audiences in an increasing number of people.
To cater to teenagers!
Let\'s forget the fact that the video will never be like a movie for the time being;
If the density of the film particles is taken into account, the tiny silver halogen crystals that make up the film image can be considered as analog (No pun intended)
In the coming decades, the number of pixels will exceed that of pixels.
The argument that \"the customer cannot see the difference between 2 k pixels and 4 k pixels\" is the same uninformed argument that comes up with the introduction of CDs, by comparison of vinyl and vinyl, this proposition is easily overturned.
Digital music for anyone with medium function listening.
I know that when the mediocre filmmaker George Lucas won the Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Film Academy, the brilliance of the film show was in trouble, although he played a leading role in destroying the film as a medium for exhibition.
No, I can\'t say it.
But I can tell you that the \"IMAX\" experience that cinema is actively marketing is a complete disappointment compared to watching a movie in a real IMAX cinema.
Nothing but marketing.
I still prefer movies besides these techniques, except for scratches and glitches-it looks better.
It is not important to solve the problem.
Frame rate is important.
Instead of doubling the amount of data by resolution from 2 k to 4 k, they should spend their efforts by just doubling the amount of data from 24 frames per second to 48 frames per second!
This will have a greater positive impact on the rendering of motion.
The 24 fps is poor slow, making the pan lens shake and apply.
Digital movies should be filmed, edited, mastered and screened at 48 fps!
I saw the two at NAB last year and you can see the difference between the two, but it\'s negligible.
Even at close range, there are only the smallest differences in clarity.
However, it may be more obvious on a very large screen (
The screen I see on it is quite small).
I \'ve been frustrated to note that when you look closely at the title, the low definition of digital movies is obvious --
The outline of the letter is clearly jagged with pixels.
Since our local theater display is open with a vivid TI logo, we have to see 2 k technology.
It\'s great to know that a better solution may be coming soon.
I haven\'t seen it before;
But I can see 2 k pixels from my seat, which means \"not good enough\" for me \".
35mm the film has the same resolution as 4 k, so if you can\'t tell the difference between the film and the number of particles that have been flushed out, then I think 2 k is enough.
Put 2 k and 4 k projection edges-by-
The difference between the two is amazing.
As with CD, simply eliminating the physical defects of the simulation only reveals the inherent problems of contrast range and resolution in the digital field.
Sony learned the lesson of setting the bar too low, something that happened when setting up the CD specs, to be congratulated.
As much as I love the look of the movie, I look forward to the day when digital screenings meet most markets because (1)
Environment and (2)
It does not need to be made into thousands of film prints with gelatin that is not vegan.
I hope someone can make a good stock of analog film without animal products.
\"Problem\" of low box\"
The office receipt for today\'s cinema is not delivery technology-
It\'s junk content.
No matter how sharp and immersive the delivery is, I won\'t pay to see the trash coming out of the studio today.
I can definitely see the pixels on 2 k pictures from anywhere in the first half of the theater, and my eyesight is not particularly good.
Too bad, this is another reason why the cinema is not worth $10/ticket.
2 k very close to what any half decent home projector can do.
What is the painting?
The frame rate in Hollywood has increased.
DMXcinema has created a production friendly process and has prepared an exhibition for 2 k or 4 k.
Now, some studios only need to make a movie with it, and the door to the flood will open.
Barrie2K is fine for the standard screen width, but it takes 4 k or more for the big screen.
This is basically the same resolution as 2 k, but more immersive.
The 2 k IMAX cinema, known as the \"LieMax\" cinema, is not real.
The New York Times should not have the habit of blindly imitating public relations. Editor!
I agree with the first poster that the digital projection looks bad compared to the celluloid.
4 k projection has many problems when aligning all three panels or dvr, which can cause edges and other artifacts.
The contrast on the digital projector is 1/10 of the film print, and the color space is not very good.
Digital projection is a great choice for selling digital projectors.
There is no system that can replicate the Imax experience on numbers, and attention should be paid to the success of pictures like \"Batman\" because it leads the aesthetics of Imax (
65mm lens and 70mm projection)
Experience the film\'s quest for the highest quality and return the studio with a profit of over a billion dollars.
As a member of the film lab industry, I feel that the \"environmental protection\" name applied to the digital field is another kind of marketing hype.
The new digital projector today will be eliminated in a few years and will need to be replaced.
The 35mm projector, which can be used for 50 years or more, is the standard of global stability.
In addition, it is difficult to pirate 35mm of the printed matter of its inherent quality. Soon, the flow of information from DCI Masters will be cracked and \"perfect\" pirated copies will be allowed.
Digital products are made of many persistent carcinogens, and the dirty secret of the entire digital business is the huge power used to keep the \"cloud\" running.
Film printing requires a relatively small amount of energy to manufacture, is easy to recycle, does not use any energy when not projecting, and by using modern laboratory technology, organic chemistry used in production can become benign.
I think there is no doubt that these digital cinemas will come whether I like them or not, but I think the industry should focus on the minimum requirements for GM to maximize short-term profits in cases where product quality is reduced to the lowest level.
\"The light I love to see passes through the cymbals.
It is so sexy and rich that people can almost feel it and bathe in it.
\"Since Kodak stopped producing celluloid in February 1950, it has not yet been used as a photographic film base.
The vast majority of the 35mm releases now are made of polyester, and some are made of cellulose triacetate.
I watched three movies in a row. film)
Evening 2 Museum (film)
And Terminator Salvation (digital).
Star Trek has the same ads as Terminator redemption, and I can infer that the ads look better and the results are shocking.
The film has more details, colors, contrast and black levels.
The brightness is almost the same.
Star Trek is the best.
Shooting and scanning digitally projected Terminator 4 on celluloid is of very good quality.
The image is clear and really feels like a movie because they seem to have added or kept some jitter.
The problem is the dark scene that can be seen, but when it is close to black, there is no detail at all.
The movie is amazing, it makes the screen disappear.
The numbers are acknowledged to be very flat.
It was possible to shoot on the evening of Museum 2, but I noticed it was very rough, but I\'m not sure if it was old print or high grain stock.
Film Is better.
Numbers will be great for radio and video game competitions.
But stay there.
The images taken digitally are great, but too flat in 2d and the 3D looks great.
The Imax 15/70mm is still the best so far.
It can capture a huge range of lighting with no real drawbacks.
But I would like to see the imax go into HD at 48 frames per second or preferably 72 frames.
Keep the feeling of 24 frames but get the responsiveness of the video.
The sound is incredible at imax.
The sound is clean and clear.
The voice of the digital cinema is very loud, because it works well in the surround, without the soft clarity of the imax.
This sound is almost double ear in imax and I will achieve it in the cinema.
Combining the two ears with the 3d pictures will create the real feeling of life.
An example of a good two-ear effect is that running with premium headphones will be much cheaper, which will make you feel like you\'re at the center of the motion of the movie, \"but I want to watch imax, enter HD at 48 frames per second or preferably 72 frames.
Keep the feeling of 24 frames, but get the responsiveness of the video \"Imax has been able to do this (48fps or higher)
In 70mm projection, complete the Imax digital scan at 12 k, 144Mega-
Pixel 1080 p hd is 2 mega-pixels.
This is an Imax format.
Mainly used for amusement park rides)
Which is Showscan (is? )60FPS 70mm.
Therefore, even with a 4 k projector, there is no chance of approaching the resolution of the projected frame projection.
Batman finished the scan at 12 k, reduced to 6 k (
Google quest to see why)
Because a 12 k scan is not feasible because there is not enough space/a computer that is fast enough to handle so many videos.
Most of the Imax lens (
And the footage in the entire movie)
Just print directly with film to film without digital intermediate. -Rob-VP Cinelab Inc.
I don\'t doubt rob likes movies because he\'s out of business when the digital screening takes over in the near future.
In your opinion, the idea that analog technology film screenings are better than digital screenings is correct.
Like the music I said before.
People really like the click and pop-up of the old analog recording, and the digital reproduction of the music eliminates the sound.
Do you need Dolby noise reduction on CD?
I am a huge fan of 4 k.
The idea of 2 k is like sampling your music at 28kb and 256 or higher.
The 4 k technology will only get better and better, and once the 4 k acquisition device is available to make a movie, you will see a huge change in how the movie is distributed and shown on your reuse device.
I don\'t doubt that people like rob will get the old 35mm projectors and stock them up and ask Hollywood to make film prints, but the world will not move back like some people want . . . . . . Peter, I like this movie because it\'s certainly not for money in appearance and aesthetics, and there\'s even a lot like Mr.
Speilberg, for example.
As for your comment on 2 k.
4 K make an analogy with your MP3 player, it just shows that you are technically uninformed.
Many films have been completed at 4 k and are technically original 35mm ECN (
90% or more of all the features made this year are shot on 35mm)can (
And often)
Digitally complete with a 6 k or 4 k scan to a DPX file, and the 35mm scan process can also be scanned from 4 k to bottom-
For finishes that retain most of the resolution advantages, sample 2 k.
Google Nyquist, do some reading on MTF and Nyquist sampling.
The origin of the numbers is also happening, Benjamin Barton was photographed digitally, do you know what the resolution is? 1.
8 K or 1080X1920, just like your HD camera, right?
This is wrong because it is an uncompressed 4: 4 10 bit log and then goes through the DNR process of millions of dollars to make it available as a distribution
The picture looks good and only shows the resolution (the 1. 8K, 2K, 4K etc. )
This is not the most important thing for the appearance of a movie.
There are now several \"4 K\" digital camera systems such as Dalsa Origin and Red cameras using Bayer masks (
Invented by Kodak
However, when measured as a MTF but close to 2, the camera does not actually produce a true 4 k resolution.
8 k when evaluated as a complete optical system.
4 k film scanning is the actual 4096 wide representation of each color channel (RGB)
And it\'s the only way to make a truly measurable 4 k digital host at the moment.
I\'m currently against 4 k projection (and 2K as well)
It is not as good as 35mm film printing, especially when it is measured as contrast.
Digital projection can only make the contrast range of film printing 10 Times gray to gray about 2000: 1. Furthermore D-
The color cube space projected by the film is narrower than the film print, which has a negative impact on color fidelity.
When scaling to a higher resolution, there are also serious color edge issues with digital projection.
To make an Imax screen, it may be necessary to stitch together 6 or 8 4 k projectors. These problems make it a problem to expand these technologies.
If I\'m going to the theater, I have a 1080 p projector at home (
Especially with Imax)
I would expect something better than what\'s in my house, if not, why bother?
The people of Imax have suffered some serious negative effects because they are trying to get through inferior digital screenings, because Imax and the average film audience are not complaints from technical experts or industry insiders (like me)
So think about it a little.
I said, I think the march to digital screening has already started, but it will take a long time for thousands of cinemas around the world to adopt digital technology. This is expensive and the service life of the equipment is short.
In addition, even if 35mm prints eventually disappear, filmmakers will want to launch projects on 8mm, 16mm and 35mm or 65mm film for various reasons, from ease of use to appearance.
Trying to categorize me as a dinosaur hoarding 35mm projectors seems easy to ask the agency to make 35mm prints.
The fact is that the agency has produced 35mm prints and I just don\'t believe the efficacy of all digital products.
Google alone consumes enough power every day to power more than a million homes.
What should we do when the baby boomers disappear?
Maybe put all their 20,000 square meters. ft.
Residential and apartment projects that produce fuel for electricity? -Rob-
Digital screenings will open more doors for independent filmmakers trying to release their own films!
I love the 35mm print but it\'s too expensive and it\'s easy to scratch.
Everything is changing, and movies become digital media just like records become Cd and mp3.
The problem is that when the image on the screen freezes, the projector is the same person at the box office! ! LOL!
Here comes Joseph MedinaMore digital projector? Ooh, great!
More digital projectors will fail at that time! ! !
Good news.
Using the tested 35mm prints, at least they are more reliable than a digital computer, and this is the case with a digital projector.
What 35mm of supporters did not take into account was the basic problem of poor focus.
I know it looks silly, but all these arguments are the opposite.
Compared to the pain suffered when the sloppy projector did not properly adjust the focus, it looked pale.
This seems to be a more common problem in the United States than in the United Kingdom (
Where I work recently).
I would say that over 50% of the time I was watching a movie in the US, I had to leave my seat at the beginning of the movie, find the manager and contact the projector to readjust the focus image.
I think this is the function of a projector in charge of multiple theaters. plex.
It seems that all digital projectors are pre-
So I have never had this problem in a digital cinema.
For me, the benefit alone is more valuable than all the other advantages of 35mm.
The clarity of the picture is uniform, eliminating scratches, dust, etc.
Make the numbers more enjoyable for me.
Although I feel strongly about focusing on 35mm, I have never noticed the pixels mentioned by the digital critic.
Gadgetwise is a blog about buying and using all relevant content for tech products.
From figuring out which gadgets to buy and how to get the best deal, to configuring it after it\'s out of the box, Gadgetwise provides a variety of information to help you make the most of the analysis and opinions of your personal technology.
All the regular features on the Gadgetwise blog are now available in the personal technology section.
Thank you for reading. Readmore…FX-
The Sport VR1 Programmable Personal Trainer headset is an intelligent concept-a pair of built-in headsets
Coach or virtual competitor.
Readmore. . . An online file storage service like Dropbox lets you share files with people who don\'t have a company account.
Read more. . . Mobile apps may have useful reasons to ask for your location information, while other apps just want to show you local ads.
Readmore. . . Amazon\'s Android app store has a test drive feature that lets you see it running before you buy or download the app.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Leave Your Message inputting...