|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
The rest of the symposium
The meeting started out with a demonstration of 4K digital, projected on the Barco 4K system, including a flashy, fast-paced reel from the makers of the
Red One digital camera, which is increasingly being used to shoot music videos and feature films. Also featured were 4K trailers for several giant-screen films, including
Pulse, The Last Reef, Mystic India, and
Tornado Alley. The top 3D systems were demonstrated:
Dolby, MasterImage, RealD, and Xpand. Company representatives
explained the advantages of their respective systems and screened a series of trailers with them. The linear polarizers used by Imax were also demonstrated, although the company did not participate. Each system had its pros and cons, and no one system emerged as clearly superior. Some systems appeared to be brighter or have less ghosting than others; some use less expensive passive glasses, compared to more expensive, but eco-friendly, active glasses; some require a silver screen, others can use a standard matte white screen; some systems can be purchased outright, others are leased. RealD, which is in roughly 80% of North American 3D multiplex theaters, premiered its newest technology at the symposium, the XLW Cinema System, intended for short throws to screens up to 82 feet (25 meters) wide. According to the company, the XL and XLW systems “capture light lost by other 3D projection technologies and recycle it back onto the screen for a brighter and more immersive 3D experience.” The 2K NEC projector RealD used presented nearly as much light to the eye (after passing through all the filters and glasses) as the two Barco 4K projectors yielded for the other 3D demos. One notable aspect of the RealD presentation wasn’t technical. RealD vice president
Kevin Faul made a pitch that seemed clearly aimed at luring IMAX customers to his system. Without mentioning IMAX by name, he referred to theaters’ concerns about the weakening of brands that “were formerly exclusively available to giant-screen locations.” He described how RealD is building worldwide awareness of its brand as a “premium experience,” and added that RealD supports the
Giant Screen Cinema Association’s “Bigger. Bolder. Better.” campaign. “We’re committed to differentiating your location as having the best experience available.” (Moody Gardens invited Imax Corporation to demonstrate its digital projection system, but the company declined. At one point, Imax agreed to have a representative participate in one of the panel discussions, but that offer was
withdrawn. In the end, two Imax employees attended to observe only.) Panel: The business of digital GSCA president Toby Mensforth moderated a panel discussion on “The Business of Digital,” that focused on the financial, technical, and programming aspects of switching from film to digital projection. Don Kempf, of Giant Screen Films and D3D Cinema, said that hardware costs for a giant-screen theater range from about $125,000 to $450,000, but can be as low as $50,000 to $100,000 for a non-DCI-compliant system in a small auditorium.
Moody Gardens’ president John Zendt showed a table with the initial and operating costs of the 2K digital system compared to the IMAX system. In short, the IMAX system cost $2 million to buy and the digital system cost $380,000. Annual operating costs for IMAX are $305,000 (assuming the standard maintenance contract) and for the digital
system are less than $60,000. (This doesn’t count power consumption. Cinema
Group’s Richard James reported that when the Clark Planetarium
in Salt Lake City replaced its IMAX film system with IMAX digital, its electric bill dropped between $2,000 and $3,000 a month.) Kempf predicted that the growth of museum digital theaters — of all sizes — would result in the production of more short-form documentaries at significantly lower cost than has been possible with film systems. The issue of giving up the IMAX brand was discussed by a number of theater representatives in the audience, with some, like the
Pacific Science Center’s Diane Carlson insisting that the IMAX name was still valuable. Richard James countered that the unique advantages IMAX theaters once had — giant screens, great sound, stadium seating — are now common in multiplexes, and that the IMAX brand has been diminished. He said that content is what counts, not the medium. (Moody Gardens dropped the IMAX brand name from its theater a few months after the symposium.) Panel: Future of Cinema Tech
Bill Schmidt of Global Immersion said that his company is installing a six-projector, 8K system in a dome theater on the West Coast, and that the client felt that the higher resolution would provide “a significant boost in the
audience experience.” Lantz agreed that 8K was not overkill in that situation. “A dome is a lot hungrier for pixels.”
Hoddick said that Barco has done installations that edge-blended as many as 30 projectors. Lantz asked if it’s possible to maintain the encryption required by the DCI spec in multiple-projector installations.
Michael Archer of Doremi said that his company’s products currently support two-projector setups, and will handle even more in the next year or two. The question of aspect ratio was raised: is the 1.33 ratio of traditional 15/70 essential to the giant-screen experience? RPG’s Rick Gordon said that in flat-screen theaters, most audiences accept the black letterbox bars at the top and
bottom of a giant screen, but in domes, “a letterboxed show not sitting on the bottom of the screen looks awful” because of the “bow-tie effect.” Seattle’s Carlson said that for her audiences, the aspect ratio is important: when trailers go from the letterboxed green “approved for all audiences” card to filling the full screen, “the audience gasps.” She admitted that research was needed to prove the significance of the taller ratio. As the conversation turned to laser light sources, Hoddick said his company is working on lasers, but he does not expect them to be commercially viable for three to five years. From the audience,
Laser Light Engines’ Bill Beck spoke about some of the advantages of laser for digital projectors: eliminating the cost of film prints and lamp replacement, improving image color and contrast, and reducing power consumption. LLE is developing a light source specifically for IMAX projectors, not the general cinema market, but he expects that once that has been accomplished in the next year or two, it will be possible to adapt it to other products. Doremi’s Archer said that one of the advantages to giant screen theaters of digital cinema generally, and Doremi servers specifically, is the ability to generate subtitles digitally in multiple languages and in 2D and 3D without burning them permanently into the image. Distributors can provide multiple language packages that can simply be attached to the digital cinema package. Doremi also provides a closed-captioning system for theaters. Conclusions In a conversation with LFX after the symposium, National Geographic’s Mark Katz neatly summarized what many people at the meeting seemed to feel: “The museum community wants new leadership. Clearly the company that was the default leader has moved in another direction and doesn’t really care about the museum world that much anymore. And that’s fine. It’s not a criticism, it’s more of a fact. It’s like saying that automobile manufacturers don’t make station wagons anymore. I think the institutional world wants another leader to step in. But it needs to be something with substance and long-term vision. I don’t know what it will be. All options are on the table.”
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © 1997-2013 Cinergetics, LLC
Updated March 22, 2013