I went to a cinema last night that I hadn't been to before, to see Ocean's
13. We sat about half way up the theatre, so not too close. Both of us
commented that the picture didn't look *quite* in focus, although that
didn't seem to quite cover it. When the picture stood still though, it was
pin sharp. During the advert session, they mentioned that some sporting
event or other, was going to be covered live via satellite, which got me
thinking that this must be an *electronic* cinema, using DLP projectors. It
then occured to me that what we were seeing as being 'out of focus' might
actually be motion blur, typical of digital display technology. With this in
mind, when I looked even closer, it seemed to me that the picture was not
evenly illuminated either - a bit like I see on this widescreen LCD monitor
that I'm using here. During the main presentation, a film-stock 'scratch'
appeared at the left side of the screen. However, it went on for a long
time, and was absolutely dead straight, although it did jump back and forth
a bit, but very 'precisely'. Also, it's colour seemed to change with the
surrounding content, so if that was black, the 'scratch' would be white, and
so on, so I then got to thinking that this might be an error on a line of
mirrors on the DLP chip. As we left the cinema, I took a look up at the
booth window, as best I could, and there didn't seem to be any film looping
around the ceiling that I could see.

So, does anyone out there work on these DLP projectors - either commercial
or domestic ? *Was* it one of them that was showing this film ? Are these
DLP chips slow enough that you can see motion blur ? Was that 'scratch'
typical of a DLP chip problem ? ( it wasn't there at the beginning, and it
went away before the end )

Sorry it's a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting subject, with a
potential repair-related angle, and we sometimes have some good discussions
on here about such things.

Arfa

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
So, does anyone out there work on these DLP projectors - either
commercial or domestic ? *Was* it one of them that was showing this
film ? Are these DLP chips slow enough that you can see motion blur ?
Was that 'scratch' typical of a DLP chip problem ? ( it wasn't there at
the beginning, and it went away before the end )

I have a DLP rear projector and it certainly has motion artifacts on some
material. It's most noticeable on TV material that is interlaced
originally. But then plasma and LCD also have artifacts. You need a decent
CRT to avoid them. ;-)

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
I went to a cinema last night that I hadn't been to before, to see Ocean's
13. We sat about half way up the theatre, so not too close. Both of us
commented that the picture didn't look *quite* in focus, although that
didn't seem to quite cover it. When the picture stood still though, it was
pin sharp. During the advert session, they mentioned that some sporting
event or other, was going to be covered live via satellite, which got me
thinking that this must be an *electronic* cinema, using DLP projectors. It
then occured to me that what we were seeing as being 'out of focus' might
actually be motion blur, typical of digital display technology. With this
in mind, when I looked even closer, it seemed to me that the picture was
not evenly illuminated either - a bit like I see on this widescreen LCD
monitor that I'm using here. During the main presentation, a film-stock
'scratch' appeared at the left side of the screen. However, it went on for
a long time, and was absolutely dead straight, although it did jump back
and forth a bit, but very 'precisely'. Also, it's colour seemed to change
with the surrounding content, so if that was black, the 'scratch' would be
white, and so on, so I then got to thinking that this might be an error on
a line of mirrors on the DLP chip. As we left the cinema, I took a look up
at the booth window, as best I could, and there didn't seem to be any film
looping around the ceiling that I could see.

So, does anyone out there work on these DLP projectors - either commercial
or domestic ? *Was* it one of them that was showing this film ? Are these
DLP chips slow enough that you can see motion blur ? Was that 'scratch'
typical of a DLP chip problem ? ( it wasn't there at the beginning, and it
went away before the end )

Sorry it's a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting subject, with a
potential repair-related angle, and we sometimes have some good
discussions on here about such things.

MPEG compression artifacts are very distracting when the scene is changing
rapidly. Don't know for sure if that is a factor in your post. Satellite
video seems very prone to this phenomenon.

"Charles" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...
I went to a cinema last night that I hadn't been to before, to see Ocean's
13. We sat about half way up the theatre, so not too close. Both of us
commented that the picture didn't look *quite* in focus, although that
didn't seem to quite cover it. When the picture stood still though, it was
pin sharp. During the advert session, they mentioned that some sporting
event or other, was going to be covered live via satellite, which got me
thinking that this must be an *electronic* cinema, using DLP projectors.
It then occured to me that what we were seeing as being 'out of focus'
might actually be motion blur, typical of digital display technology. With
this in mind, when I looked even closer, it seemed to me that the picture
was not evenly illuminated either - a bit like I see on this widescreen
LCD monitor that I'm using here. During the main presentation, a
film-stock 'scratch' appeared at the left side of the screen. However, it
went on for a long time, and was absolutely dead straight, although it did
jump back and forth a bit, but very 'precisely'. Also, it's colour seemed
to change with the surrounding content, so if that was black, the
'scratch' would be white, and so on, so I then got to thinking that this
might be an error on a line of mirrors on the DLP chip. As we left the
cinema, I took a look up at the booth window, as best I could, and there
didn't seem to be any film looping around the ceiling that I could see.

So, does anyone out there work on these DLP projectors - either
commercial or domestic ? *Was* it one of them that was showing this film
? Are these DLP chips slow enough that you can see motion blur ? Was that
'scratch' typical of a DLP chip problem ? ( it wasn't there at the
beginning, and it went away before the end )

Sorry it's a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting subject, with a
potential repair-related angle, and we sometimes have some good
discussions on here about such things.

MPEG compression artifacts are very distracting when the scene is changing
rapidly. Don't know for sure if that is a factor in your post. Satellite
video seems very prone to this phenomenon.

Yes, I've seen that on satellite channels that use a low bandwidth
transponder, where the station presumably has to apply severe levels of
compression to get the data rate down. These are of course the 'cheapo'
stations that can't afford transponders capable of handling high data rates.
When you look at stations like QVC which shows very fine detail stuff like
jewellery, or the premium movie channels, it's much less noticable. I'm also
well familiar with typical motion artifacts that come from both LCD and
plasma display technologies. It's the one thing that has stopped me
replacing my large screen CRT set so far, whilst I hang on and wait to see
what SED has to offer when it finally hits the market. Word is that the
drive system required is much less 'digital' than either LCD or plasma, and
that the individual SED cells are *much* faster. As a result, these displays
are a lot more 'CRT-like', and don't suffer the typical motion artifacts
created by the drive electronics.

Going back to the cinema thing, 'motion artifacts' in the way we
traditionally understand that term, didn't seem to be what we were seeing.
Normally, with 35mm film stock, camera pans appear just as they would with
your own eyes, if you were turning your head. The (apparantly) moving scene
stays in sharp focus. What we saw on any protracted camera pans, was what
appeared to be an annoying shift in focus. No pixellation at edges, or
motion trails on bright or saturated areas. Just what looked like a uniform
shift in focus over the whole screen. You were actually thinking "boy, my
eyes are getting bad". But as soon as the pan slowed to a stop, the focus
was back pin sharp again. It's hard to describe, but it was only a few weeks
ago when Spiderman came out, that I went to a U.S. cinema - actually one in
the Orlando area that's been completely refurbished over the last year -
that was using film (you could see it looping round the ceiling through the
booth window) and I noticed nothing out of the ordinary, at all. The cinema
in my town that I usually go to, also uses genuine film, and I haven't
noticed anything wrong worth commenting on there either, so I'm sure it's
not just me. Plus the fact that my wife said that she was seeing exactly the
same thing, and it was she that made the first comment.

I guess that it might just be the price that we are paying for technological
advance, but I sure hope that this part of the technology doesn't now get
considered 'mature', and all development efforts go into other areas. I
would hate for this to be the future of cinema. In some ways, I think that
all the 'digital' hype is a bit of a con. Yes, it allows a lot of good
things like being able to cram lots more channels into the band space,
eliminating noisy pictures from a poor signal, and ghosting and so on, and
the digital display technology allows for slimline sets, consuming less
power etc, but with the best will in the world, if we're absolutely honest,
the displayed picture doesn't come close to a good CRT set with a good
analogue signal going in, and the same seems to be true now of film stock
versus digital cinema projection.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:


I guess that it might just be the price that we are paying for technological
advance, but I sure hope that this part of the technology doesn't now get
considered 'mature', and all development efforts go into other areas. I
would hate for this to be the future of cinema. In some ways, I think that
all the 'digital' hype is a bit of a con. Yes, it allows a lot of good
things like being able to cram lots more channels into the band space,
eliminating noisy pictures from a poor signal, and ghosting and so on, and
the digital display technology allows for slimline sets, consuming less
power etc, but with the best will in the world, if we're absolutely honest,
the displayed picture doesn't come close to a good CRT set with a good
analogue signal going in, and the same seems to be true now of film stock
versus digital cinema projection.

Arfa

I noticed on my mates super mega expensive Sony HD giant flatscreen,
(which he was enjoying showing off to me using Sky`s HD demo channels),
that only the stationary parts of the picture were really sharp, as you
say, pans seemed to me to leave a streaky mess and the way the picture
seemed to pop back into super sharp focus when the motion stopped, I
found disturbing - I wouldn`t have been happy if it had been a 100 quid
telly, but as a top of the range state of the art mega expensive piece
of kit, I was definitely disappointed.
He doesn't seem to notice anything wrong, he`s very happy with the quality.


Ron(UK)

"Ron(UK)" wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

I noticed on my mates super mega expensive Sony HD giant flatscreen,
(which he was enjoying showing off to me using Sky`s HD demo channels),
that only the stationary parts of the picture were really sharp, as you
say, pans seemed to me to leave a streaky mess and the way the picture
seemed to pop back into super sharp focus when the motion stopped,

Yes, that's how video compression works. That's where the high data rates are (in
the moving bits).


I found disturbing - I wouldn`t have been happy if it had been a 100 quid
telly, but as a top of the range state of the art mega expensive piece
of kit, I was definitely disappointed.
He doesn't seem to notice anything wrong, he`s very happy with the quality.

" He doesn't seem to notice anything wrong " is how they sell it.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

"Ron(UK)" wrote:

Arfa Daily wrote:

I noticed on my mates super mega expensive Sony HD giant flatscreen,
(which he was enjoying showing off to me using Sky`s HD demo channels),
that only the stationary parts of the picture were really sharp, as you
say, pans seemed to me to leave a streaky mess and the way the picture
seemed to pop back into super sharp focus when the motion stopped,

Yes, that's how video compression works. That's where the high data rates are (in
the moving bits).


I found disturbing - I wouldn`t have been happy if it had been a 100 quid
telly, but as a top of the range state of the art mega expensive piece
of kit, I was definitely disappointed.
He doesn't seem to notice anything wrong, he`s very happy with the quality.

" He doesn't seem to notice anything wrong " is how they sell it.

Graham

They wouldn't be selling one to me then!

Ron(UK)

On 17 jun, 01:41, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
, I think that
all the 'digital' hype is a bit of a con. Yes, it allows a lot of good
things like being able to cram lots more channels into the band space,
eliminating noisy pictures from a poor signal, and ghosting and so on, and
the digital display technology allows for slimline sets, consuming less
power etc, but with the best will in the world, if we're absolutely honest,
the displayed picture doesn't come close to a good CRT set with a good
analogue signal going in, and the same seems to be true now of film stock
versus digital cinema projection.

I hear what you're saying Arfa. bit do the displays you mention really
consume less power'? In the case of the plasma sets in particular
you'd have to go back to the early 70s valve colour tvs to find
anything approaching their wattage consumption! so much for progress
and ecology. instead of ranting on about not leaving sets on standby,
they should bring in laws against this modern cr@p!

I think at least in the Uk, what has been done to broadcasting is a
disgrace. Sell everyone flat screens with awful artefacts especially
on tv reception, then use that as an excuse to phase out analogue and
also prepare the ground to sell HDTV.

"b" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 17 jun, 01:41, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
, I think that
all the 'digital' hype is a bit of a con. Yes, it allows a lot of good
things like being able to cram lots more channels into the band space,
eliminating noisy pictures from a poor signal, and ghosting and so on,
and
the digital display technology allows for slimline sets, consuming less
power etc, but with the best will in the world, if we're absolutely
honest,
the displayed picture doesn't come close to a good CRT set with a good
analogue signal going in, and the same seems to be true now of film stock
versus digital cinema projection.

I hear what you're saying Arfa. bit do the displays you mention really
consume less power'? In the case of the plasma sets in particular
you'd have to go back to the early 70s valve colour tvs to find
anything approaching their wattage consumption! so much for progress
and ecology. instead of ranting on about not leaving sets on standby,
they should bring in laws against this modern cr@p!

I think at least in the Uk, what has been done to broadcasting is a
disgrace. Sell everyone flat screens with awful artefacts especially
on tv reception, then use that as an excuse to phase out analogue and
also prepare the ground to sell HDTV.

Yes, you're right, the plasmas, at least, do consume a lot of power. I don't
think that the LCDs are too bad - I haven't really looked to be honest, but
I seemed to think that low power consumption was a 'selling point', although
this could be just sales hype; I suppose it depends what you're comparing it
to. I agree with what you say about broadcasting in the UK, although I think
that the whole situation is a lot more political than just phasing out
analogue in preparation for HD. The government stands to make billions
selling off spectrum space to rich users like cellphone companies, just as
soon as they can drive all the existing users off. 470 to 860 megs give or
take a bit of 70cms amateur space and a few other users between bands IV and
V, is an awful lot of spectrum to be able to put up for auction, if you can
make the new users co-exist with the originals by making it all digital ...

We are heading back for the old days of band III TV in terms of ironwork on
the roof now. We had got it down to nice neat little 10 ele yagis for the
most part. Now, in order to receive the crap digital signals - which let's
remember are, according to Monkey on the TV adverts, going to be dead easy
to receive just by plugging into a set top box - you need a 650 element
triple reverse co-phased crossed dipole anti-ghost log periodic about 6 foot
long and with a bloody great cake-cooling rack on the back ! Cost to install
? Oh, only about 180 quid ...

And let's not forget, as most people seem to have, or have not really
understood in the first place, every little portable in the kitchen,
conservatory, kids bedroom, garden shed, and every VCR, analogue DVDR, PVR
etc, is going to need yet another 30 quid STB ...

Arfa

In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:
We are heading back for the old days of band III TV in terms of ironwork
on the roof now. We had got it down to nice neat little 10 ele yagis
for the most part. Now, in order to receive the crap digital signals -
which let's remember are, according to Monkey on the TV adverts, going
to be dead easy to receive just by plugging into a set top box - you
need a 650 element triple reverse co-phased crossed dipole anti-ghost
log periodic about 6 foot long and with a bloody great cake-cooling
rack on the back ! Cost to install ? Oh, only about 180 quid ...

When analogue is switched off the power of the digital transmitters will
increase - you can't do this at the moment due to co-channel interference.
Then the same size aerial should suffice. Most of the population can
already get FreeView with their exisiting aerial - if they had good
analogue reception. But like many things digital it doesn't degrade
gracefully. There are some locations where some 'analogue' aerials aren't
suitable for the different frequency digital - but pretty rare.
I realise this doesn't help those in a poor signal area, though. But I'm
'OK Jack'. I can see the London transmitter out of the window in
this room. ;-)

--
*I took an IQ test and the results were negative.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Sorry if I stuff up the posting, I am still new to this.
Something that has been left out of this digital transmission is the
problems that occur in aus (I am not sure if it happens over there
or not) is that we get problems of dropouts, freezing, slicing of
the pic and the ocasional crashing of the stb which needs the full
reset job. The pic is always good, that is when you get a pic unlike
the old analogue which you would still get even tho it was rather
snowy but still a pic. The question really is who is benefitting out
of this and why we need to take a step back in technology.
Please let me know if I am incorrect in any of this in your country.
Ken.
--
----------------------------------------------
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.0 Final
* Binary Usenet Leeching Made Easy
* http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
----------------------------------------------

b wrote in message
oups.com...
On 17 jun, 01:41, "Arfa Daily" wrote:
, I think that
all the 'digital' hype is a bit of a con. Yes, it allows a lot of good
things like being able to cram lots more channels into the band space,
eliminating noisy pictures from a poor signal, and ghosting and so on,
and
the digital display technology allows for slimline sets, consuming less
power etc, but with the best will in the world, if we're absolutely
honest,
the displayed picture doesn't come close to a good CRT set with a good
analogue signal going in, and the same seems to be true now of film
stock
versus digital cinema projection.

I hear what you're saying Arfa. bit do the displays you mention really
consume less power'? In the case of the plasma sets in particular
you'd have to go back to the early 70s valve colour tvs to find
anything approaching their wattage consumption! so much for progress
and ecology. instead of ranting on about not leaving sets on standby,
they should bring in laws against this modern cr@p!

I think at least in the Uk, what has been done to broadcasting is a
disgrace. Sell everyone flat screens with awful artefacts especially
on tv reception, then use that as an excuse to phase out analogue and
also prepare the ground to sell HDTV.


The driving force is the sell off of much of the then released UHF
"airspace" - talk of intangibles, how many billions was that "commodity"
sold for ?.
So people can drive their cars watching films via the extra bandwidth to
their mobile phones - brilliant.

--
Diverse Devices, Southampton, England
electronic hints and repair briefs , schematics/manuals list on
http://home.graffiti.net/diverse:graffiti.net/

In article ,
N Cook wrote:
The driving force is the sell off of much of the then released UHF
"airspace" - talk of intangibles, how many billions was that
"commodity" sold for ?.
So people can drive their cars watching films via the extra bandwidth to
their mobile phones - brilliant.

The TV UHF frequencies are pretty useless for mobile reception.

--
*Your kid may be an honours student, but you're still an idiot.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Arfa Daily wrote:
I went to a cinema last night that I hadn't been to before, to see Ocean's
13. We sat about half way up the theatre, so not too close. Both of us
commented that the picture didn't look *quite* in focus, although that
didn't seem to quite cover it. When the picture stood still though, it was
pin sharp. During the advert session, they mentioned that some sporting
event or other, was going to be covered live via satellite, which got me
thinking that this must be an *electronic* cinema, using DLP projectors. It
then occured to me that what we were seeing as being 'out of focus' might
actually be motion blur, typical of digital display technology. With this in
mind, when I looked even closer, it seemed to me that the picture was not
evenly illuminated either - a bit like I see on this widescreen LCD monitor
that I'm using here. During the main presentation, a film-stock 'scratch'
appeared at the left side of the screen. However, it went on for a long
time, and was absolutely dead straight, although it did jump back and forth
a bit, but very 'precisely'. Also, it's colour seemed to change with the
surrounding content, so if that was black, the 'scratch' would be white, and
so on, so I then got to thinking that this might be an error on a line of
mirrors on the DLP chip. As we left the cinema, I took a look up at the
booth window, as best I could, and there didn't seem to be any film looping
around the ceiling that I could see.

So, does anyone out there work on these DLP projectors - either commercial
or domestic ? *Was* it one of them that was showing this film ? Are these
DLP chips slow enough that you can see motion blur ? Was that 'scratch'
typical of a DLP chip problem ? ( it wasn't there at the beginning, and it
went away before the end )

Sorry it's a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting subject, with a
potential repair-related angle, and we sometimes have some good discussions
on here about such things.

Arfa



Recently helped present the premier of Spiderman 3 at a large
convention. The projector was--I believe--LCD, the screen, about
30'x50' (or whatever the correct ratio would be). The film looked great
in the Aladdin Performance Theater (Vegas). I don't have a 'film'
reference to compare.

I have noticed that sharpness in movie presentation has suffered over
the last decade or so. I recall watching Titanic at my local multiplex
and being very disappointed at what looked like focus issues, only to
see the presentation sharpen up for static scenes.

I think it's just an indication that the art still requires an effort to
suspend disbelief. For some reason, I've never experienced an IMAX
presentation. I'm afraid I'd be disappointed. Despite all the hype
about hi-def TV, I'm still not all that impressed so far.

YMMV

jak

"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
I went to a cinema last night that I hadn't been to before, to see
Ocean's 13. We sat about half way up the theatre, so not too close. Both
of us commented that the picture didn't look *quite* in focus, although
that didn't seem to quite cover it. When the picture stood still though,
it was pin sharp. During the advert session, they mentioned that some
sporting event or other, was going to be covered live via satellite,
which got me thinking that this must be an *electronic* cinema, using DLP
projectors. It then occured to me that what we were seeing as being 'out
of focus' might actually be motion blur, typical of digital display
technology. With this in mind, when I looked even closer, it seemed to me
that the picture was not evenly illuminated either - a bit like I see on
this widescreen LCD monitor that I'm using here. During the main
presentation, a film-stock 'scratch' appeared at the left side of the
screen. However, it went on for a long time, and was absolutely dead
straight, although it did jump back and forth a bit, but very
'precisely'. Also, it's colour seemed to change with the surrounding
content, so if that was black, the 'scratch' would be white, and so on,
so I then got to thinking that this might be an error on a line of
mirrors on the DLP chip. As we left the cinema, I took a look up at the
booth window, as best I could, and there didn't seem to be any film
looping around the ceiling that I could see.

So, does anyone out there work on these DLP projectors - either
commercial or domestic ? *Was* it one of them that was showing this film
? Are these DLP chips slow enough that you can see motion blur ? Was that
'scratch' typical of a DLP chip problem ? ( it wasn't there at the
beginning, and it went away before the end )

Sorry it's a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting subject, with a
potential repair-related angle, and we sometimes have some good
discussions on here about such things.

Arfa
Recently helped present the premier of Spiderman 3 at a large convention.
The projector was--I believe--LCD, the screen, about 30'x50' (or whatever
the correct ratio would be). The film looked great in the Aladdin
Performance Theater (Vegas). I don't have a 'film' reference to compare.

I have noticed that sharpness in movie presentation has suffered over the
last decade or so. I recall watching Titanic at my local multiplex and
being very disappointed at what looked like focus issues, only to see the
presentation sharpen up for static scenes.

I think it's just an indication that the art still requires an effort to
suspend disbelief. For some reason, I've never experienced an IMAX
presentation. I'm afraid I'd be disappointed. Despite all the hype about
hi-def TV, I'm still not all that impressed so far.

YMMV

jak


That sounds like the same thing on the Titanic show,Jak. I've seen IMAX film
presentations, and they are stunning. We've also got some HD transmissions
on sat here now and, leaving aside the motion artifacts from the actual
display technology, I think that they look pretty good,but I'm not sure
that's good enough for me to want to put my hand in my pocket to pay the
extra subscription.

Is Alladin's refurb finished yet ? It was still in progress when I was there
last year. Are you based in Vegas ?

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
I went to a cinema last night that I hadn't been to before, to see
Ocean's 13. We sat about half way up the theatre, so not too close. Both
of us commented that the picture didn't look *quite* in focus, although
that didn't seem to quite cover it. When the picture stood still though,
it was pin sharp. During the advert session, they mentioned that some
sporting event or other, was going to be covered live via satellite,
which got me thinking that this must be an *electronic* cinema, using DLP
projectors. It then occured to me that what we were seeing as being 'out
of focus' might actually be motion blur, typical of digital display
technology. With this in mind, when I looked even closer, it seemed to me
that the picture was not evenly illuminated either - a bit like I see on
this widescreen LCD monitor that I'm using here. During the main
presentation, a film-stock 'scratch' appeared at the left side of the
screen. However, it went on for a long time, and was absolutely dead
straight, although it did jump back and forth a bit, but very
'precisely'. Also, it's colour seemed to change with the surrounding
content, so if that was black, the 'scratch' would be white, and so on,
so I then got to thinking that this might be an error on a line of
mirrors on the DLP chip. As we left the cinema, I took a look up at the
booth window, as best I could, and there didn't seem to be any film
looping around the ceiling that I could see.

So, does anyone out there work on these DLP projectors - either
commercial or domestic ? *Was* it one of them that was showing this film
? Are these DLP chips slow enough that you can see motion blur ? Was that
'scratch' typical of a DLP chip problem ? ( it wasn't there at the
beginning, and it went away before the end )

Sorry it's a bit OT, but it seemed like an interesting subject, with a
potential repair-related angle, and we sometimes have some good
discussions on here about such things.

Arfa
Recently helped present the premier of Spiderman 3 at a large convention.
The projector was--I believe--LCD, the screen, about 30'x50' (or whatever
the correct ratio would be). The film looked great in the Aladdin
Performance Theater (Vegas). I don't have a 'film' reference to compare.

I have noticed that sharpness in movie presentation has suffered over the
last decade or so. I recall watching Titanic at my local multiplex and
being very disappointed at what looked like focus issues, only to see the
presentation sharpen up for static scenes.

I think it's just an indication that the art still requires an effort to
suspend disbelief. For some reason, I've never experienced an IMAX
presentation. I'm afraid I'd be disappointed. Despite all the hype about
hi-def TV, I'm still not all that impressed so far.

YMMV

jak


That sounds like the same thing on the Titanic show,Jak. I've seen IMAX film
presentations, and they are stunning. We've also got some HD transmissions
on sat here now and, leaving aside the motion artifacts from the actual
display technology, I think that they look pretty good,but I'm not sure
that's good enough for me to want to put my hand in my pocket to pay the
extra subscription.

I have an IMAX here in Nashville. I'll have to brave the crowds some
time. I've seen hi-def and not been 'that' impressed. OTOH, I'm
comparing NTSC, so your mileage would be different.

Is Alladin's refurb finished yet ? It was still in progress when I was there
last year. Are you based in Vegas ?

The casino has been sold to Planet Hollywood, and is under expansion,
but the theater--though attached--is still Aladdin. Very nice facility
with VDOSC sound and extensive lighting rig. Despite the quality of the
in-house audio, the movie people insisted on bringing their own,
consisting of big bass bins with old 4' square JBL constant-directivity
horns with a smaller JBL horn mounted coaxially for high end. I think
they were concerned that they wouldn't be able to match the surround
gear they brought with the house system.

I was working a convention in Vegas. Spidey was part of the
entertainment, along with Hall & Oates, Jay Leno and the Blue Man Group.

jak
Arfa

I think it's just an indication that the art still requires an effort to
suspend disbelief. For some reason, I've never experienced an IMAX
presentation. I'm afraid I'd be disappointed. Despite all the hype
about hi-def TV, I'm still not all that impressed so far.




I feel the same about HDTV for the most part, but IMAX is really something
else. There's no comparison between standard cinema and IMAX, it's amazing.
Most of the IMAX movies I've seen have not been regular movies but features
relating to science and technology.

"James Sweet" wrote in message
news:ECqdi.3557$015.1842@trndny05...


I think it's just an indication that the art still requires an effort
to suspend disbelief. For some reason, I've never experienced an IMAX
presentation. I'm afraid I'd be disappointed. Despite all the hype
about hi-def TV, I'm still not all that impressed so far.




I feel the same about HDTV for the most part, but IMAX is really something
else. There's no comparison between standard cinema and IMAX, it's
amazing. Most of the IMAX movies I've seen have not been regular movies
but features relating to science and technology.


Likewise. There's a good IMAX theatre at the NASA complex in Florida that
shows some stunning views of the earth from space, and a particularly
impressive sequence containing an 'astronaut's eye view' sliding down the
escape wire from the top of a launch gantry. That's an interesting point
that Dave P makes above, about the mirrors being faster than the inter-frame
shutter on a conventional film projector. I wonder if the difference is that
the whole frame is rapidly blanked each time, then snapped back on as a
whole frame with the new-position in the pan, as opposed to 'waves' of
micromirrors moving *with* the pan. Perhaps the human eye is better at
integrating these individual whole-frame pictures, than it is at doing the
same for pixel-level movements at such a large size - if you see what I mean
.... Maybe, it's something to do with the different colour and monochrome
resolutions of the eye. Now that I'm thinking about this a bit more, perhaps
it's a combination of the speed of the movement, AND the size of the screen
AND how close you are sitting. Perhaps there are combinations that show the
problem worse. Next time I go to this same cinema, I'll try sitting in a
different place, and maybe taking my glasses as well, just to see if it
makes any difference to place some optics in front of the eye.

Arfa