Tag Archives: light

More Quality Assurance From USL

USL LSS-100 Test DeviceImportantly, it is also a networked device, making it possible for theater owners to monitor auditoriums continuously from a Network Operation Center (NOC) anywhere in the world, providing instantaneous monitoring of luminance, chromaticity, and SPL data.

“We decided to build on the success of our PSA light and PCA color meters to create an automated way to ensure excellent picture quality,” said Jack Cashin, USL’s founder, president and chief technical designer.


The release of these products show that the industry has matured beyond the one-time post-installation set-up. The idea that digital is everything, including stable and reliable, requires one thing that the cost of digital did away with: constant and consistent monitoring. The Projectionist has largely been replaced by the “booth attendant”, which who is not a substitute.

Not that there is anything wrong with the booth attendant, as long as they are able to use the tools given them to learn how to create a better environment for their audience. The advantage of the Meyer/NTi Cinema Audio Analyser, in conjunction with the Harkness Screen Checker is that it brings a pair of eyes and ears into the auditorium.

They can test the picture and the audio from several positions in the room and learn their environment. They can listen for rattles and new hum components. They may not pick it up at first, but just like the audience, they will be aware that something is wrong and seek to get it fixed before the audience decides that their home system is more pleasing.

They can, once a week, run the SMPTE DProVe DCP in every room to check whether things have changed.

SMPTE Digital Leader Demonstration – YouTube
DProVe | Digital Projector Verifier – DCinemaTools
Digital PROjection VErifier – SMPTE Store

They can walk around with a pair of Sony caption Glasses or USL headsets or Doremi OptiGrabs and check the HI/VI system.


“To some extent, this is the problem with a device like the Digital Test Tools Digital eXperience Guardian (DxG) and the USL LSS-100. They rely upon someone setting the parameters so that alarms go off at the right time, and get to the right people,” says Digital Test Tools evangelist (and DCinemaTools editor) C J Flynn.

“Sure, the DxG can let the NOC know that the THD of the left woofer has gone south, or a new rattle has appeared at the right front of the screen, or that the white point has shifted out of the SMPTE spec. But if the NOC is filled with generalists who don’t realize what that means for the picture, then it is little better than a booth assistant who sends an SMS to the Regional Tech Chief that says, “I got some reports that the audio sucks in Theater 6. What changed yesterday? I don’t know – these reports are from a couple weeks ago – when you left on vacation.

“But these tools used in their proper place would be as an adjunct to a constant and consistent Quality Assurance Plan, a procedure that involves everyone in the organization like ISO-9001 does – that would be optimum. That’s way we push Post-Installation Compliance concepts like what was presented to UNIC for CineEurope2012 Innovation Award. This is what we mean by having a feedback loop in the operation, which is the only way that digital can “take care of itself”.

“One has to beware of any press release that “ensures” anything, that says there is “no compromise”. Engineering is the Art of Compromise. There can only be so many seats in prime position, but the most astute owners can minimize the flaws when they pay attention to details and don’t get seduced by simple solutions that “ensure” success.”

For these and other reasons, DCinemaTools has begun the series called, The Art of Compromise: A Series of White Papers Explaining the Considerations and Choices Involved in Getting from There to Here.

[Was the editor really quoting himself? Yes, just to make sure it was clear that he was wearing a different hat as a manufacturer for that bit and not as the writer of this piece…weird but trying to be disclosing.]

More Quality Assurance From USL

USL LSS-100 Test DeviceImportantly, it is also a networked device, making it possible for theater owners to monitor auditoriums continuously from a Network Operation Center (NOC) anywhere in the world, providing instantaneous monitoring of luminance, chromaticity, and SPL data.

“We decided to build on the success of our PSA light and PCA color meters to create an automated way to ensure excellent picture quality,” said Jack Cashin, USL’s founder, president and chief technical designer.


The release of these products show that the industry has matured beyond the one-time post-installation set-up. The idea that digital is everything, including stable and reliable, requires one thing that the cost of digital did away with: constant and consistent monitoring. The Projectionist has largely been replaced by the “booth attendant”, which who is not a substitute.

Not that there is anything wrong with the booth attendant, as long as they are able to use the tools given them to learn how to create a better environment for their audience. The advantage of the Meyer/NTi Cinema Audio Analyser, in conjunction with the Harkness Screen Checker is that it brings a pair of eyes and ears into the auditorium.

They can test the picture and the audio from several positions in the room and learn their environment. They can listen for rattles and new hum components. They may not pick it up at first, but just like the audience, they will be aware that something is wrong and seek to get it fixed before the audience decides that their home system is more pleasing.

They can, once a week, run the SMPTE DProVe DCP in every room to check whether things have changed.

SMPTE Digital Leader Demonstration – YouTube
DProVe | Digital Projector Verifier – DCinemaTools
Digital PROjection VErifier – SMPTE Store

They can walk around with a pair of Sony caption Glasses or USL headsets or Doremi OptiGrabs and check the HI/VI system.


“To some extent, this is the problem with a device like the Digital Test Tools Digital eXperience Guardian (DxG) and the USL LSS-100. They rely upon someone setting the parameters so that alarms go off at the right time, and get to the right people,” says Digital Test Tools evangelist (and DCinemaTools editor) C J Flynn.

“Sure, the DxG can let the NOC know that the THD of the left woofer has gone south, or a new rattle has appeared at the right front of the screen, or that the white point has shifted out of the SMPTE spec. But if the NOC is filled with generalists who don’t realize what that means for the picture, then it is little better than a booth assistant who sends an SMS to the Regional Tech Chief that says, “I got some reports that the audio sucks in Theater 6. What changed yesterday? I don’t know – these reports are from a couple weeks ago – when you left on vacation.

“But these tools used in their proper place would be as an adjunct to a constant and consistent Quality Assurance Plan, a procedure that involves everyone in the organization like ISO-9001 does – that would be optimum. That’s way we push Post-Installation Compliance concepts like what was presented to UNIC for CineEurope2012 Innovation Award. This is what we mean by having a feedback loop in the operation, which is the only way that digital can “take care of itself”.

“One has to beware of any press release that “ensures” anything, that says there is “no compromise”. Engineering is the Art of Compromise. There can only be so many seats in prime position, but the most astute owners can minimize the flaws when they pay attention to details and don’t get seduced by simple solutions that “ensure” success.”

For these and other reasons, DCinemaTools has begun the series called, The Art of Compromise: A Series of White Papers Explaining the Considerations and Choices Involved in Getting from There to Here.

[Was the editor really quoting himself? Yes, just to make sure it was clear that he was wearing a different hat as a manufacturer for that bit and not as the writer of this piece…weird but trying to be disclosing.]

More Quality Assurance From USL

USL LSS-100 Test DeviceImportantly, it is also a networked device, making it possible for theater owners to monitor auditoriums continuously from a Network Operation Center (NOC) anywhere in the world, providing instantaneous monitoring of luminance, chromaticity, and SPL data.

“We decided to build on the success of our PSA light and PCA color meters to create an automated way to ensure excellent picture quality,” said Jack Cashin, USL’s founder, president and chief technical designer.


The release of these products show that the industry has matured beyond the one-time post-installation set-up. The idea that digital is everything, including stable and reliable, requires one thing that the cost of digital did away with: constant and consistent monitoring. The Projectionist has largely been replaced by the “booth attendant”, which who is not a substitute.

Not that there is anything wrong with the booth attendant, as long as they are able to use the tools given them to learn how to create a better environment for their audience. The advantage of the Meyer/NTi Cinema Audio Analyser, in conjunction with the Harkness Screen Checker is that it brings a pair of eyes and ears into the auditorium.

They can test the picture and the audio from several positions in the room and learn their environment. They can listen for rattles and new hum components. They may not pick it up at first, but just like the audience, they will be aware that something is wrong and seek to get it fixed before the audience decides that their home system is more pleasing.

They can, once a week, run the SMPTE DProVe DCP in every room to check whether things have changed.

SMPTE Digital Leader Demonstration – YouTube
DProVe | Digital Projector Verifier – DCinemaTools
Digital PROjection VErifier – SMPTE Store

They can walk around with a pair of Sony caption Glasses or USL headsets or Doremi OptiGrabs and check the HI/VI system.


“To some extent, this is the problem with a device like the Digital Test Tools Digital eXperience Guardian (DxG) and the USL LSS-100. They rely upon someone setting the parameters so that alarms go off at the right time, and get to the right people,” says Digital Test Tools evangelist (and DCinemaTools editor) C J Flynn.

“Sure, the DxG can let the NOC know that the THD of the left woofer has gone south, or a new rattle has appeared at the right front of the screen, or that the white point has shifted out of the SMPTE spec. But if the NOC is filled with generalists who don’t realize what that means for the picture, then it is little better than a booth assistant who sends an SMS to the Regional Tech Chief that says, “I got some reports that the audio sucks in Theater 6. What changed yesterday? I don’t know – these reports are from a couple weeks ago – when you left on vacation.

“But these tools used in their proper place would be as an adjunct to a constant and consistent Quality Assurance Plan, a procedure that involves everyone in the organization like ISO-9001 does – that would be optimum. That’s way we push Post-Installation Compliance concepts like what was presented to UNIC for CineEurope2012 Innovation Award. This is what we mean by having a feedback loop in the operation, which is the only way that digital can “take care of itself”.

“One has to beware of any press release that “ensures” anything, that says there is “no compromise”. Engineering is the Art of Compromise. There can only be so many seats in prime position, but the most astute owners can minimize the flaws when they pay attention to details and don’t get seduced by simple solutions that “ensure” success.”

For these and other reasons, DCinemaTools has begun the series called, The Art of Compromise: A Series of White Papers Explaining the Considerations and Choices Involved in Getting from There to Here.

[Was the editor really quoting himself? Yes, just to make sure it was clear that he was wearing a different hat as a manufacturer for that bit and not as the writer of this piece…weird but trying to be disclosing.]

[Update] Scathing 2D/3D Light Boston.com Article…True?

There are many problems with 3D presentations, especially those with the supposedly high-gain, polarizing-friendly ‘silver screens.

(See: 
23 degrees…half the light. 3D What? 
Scotopic Issues with 3D,  
Silver ScreensRealD and Polaroid — Possible Promise PR). 

But at first glance through the breathy-for-scandle article, it seems like there is un-required hyperbole that makes one want to wait for Sony’s and RealD’s response.

This also amplifies the need for professional projectionists constantly in the projection booth, and a method for maintaining consistent quality control. If it takes a grass roots effort because of articles like this, perhaps it is OK.

But the real solution is probably to have the same “Constant Vigilance” policy for post-installation quality control as there is for security – an effort that has to come from studios, distributors, and exhibition management. In a sense, those exhibitors who signed VPF deals with studios have signed that they will make their exhibitions according to the SMPTE specification. Perhaps if the grass root effort wore t-shirts that said “48 Candelas or not at all”. 

Here are a couple of shots of the lens and the projector, one with the RealD polarizers over the lenses. One suspects that this is sometimes the problem that is being talked about. 

Sony Projector with Dual lens  removed

RealD Polarizers over Sony dual lens system

There are other shorter articles with a little more data at the links below. Sometimes the comments are the most interesting part, though a lot of them are just steam…though steam that the industry should be aware of.

Are 3D-capable theaters delivering dim 2D movies? – Digital Trends

Report: 3-D Lenses and Lazy Theaters Dim 2-D Projection by Up to 85 Percent | Movieline

Cinema chains dimming movies “up to 85%” on digital projectors – Boing Boing

Movie theaters could screw up your 2D movies by leaving the digital projector set up for 3D — Engadget

Finally, the graphic from the article: Just looking at the curve of the bulb life and the description of the Polarizing is enough to make me wonder about the truthiness of the entire article.

Sony 3D and RealD Light Problem according to Boston globe article

Asserted to be a Sony Press Release – 1 June 2011

The projectionist that Boston.com spoke with clearly has little to no understanding of how the systems work and is likely a manager that also works in the booth to start shows, the projectionists of yore are long gone in most cases. While the 3D lenses in the Sony are polarized, the images do not alternate, they are projected at the same time and split through a prism system in the lens, but really that’s besides the point. All of the 3D systems we have installed have been selected based on a number of variables such as screen size and auditorium length. Based on that information we can determine if the Sony projector will be able to light the screen to SMPTE spec. The SMPTE specifications on light are very clear and the DCI specification for digital equipment follows in line with that. Basically 2D digital projection should have 14 footlamberts (a measurement of reflected light) at the center of the screen, in comparison 35mm spec is 16fl of light through an open gate (meaning no film and no shutter movement) if a projector is installed to meet that spec the light output of the digital will be seen to exceed that of film. in any house where we cannot make the required light we use a bigger system, most recently these have been made by Barco.

In addition to the light levels the digital projectors are color corrected to within ±.005 of the DCI color spec. This means that when we correct with the polarizers in place on the Sony system for 2D movies that the color will be virtually identical to that seen on a DLP projector without a polarizer in the light path.

They also fail to mention some of the advantages of the way the Sony system works, such as reduced eye fatigue. DLP systems alternate images as implied in the article, they do so by electronically shifting the polarizer state for the left and right eye 3 times per frame per second. This ultimately results in the same situation you find with shutter glasses in that there is flicker that causes headaches and sometimes motion sickness, the difference is that the glasses do not actively perform this task, but close on eye while watching a 3D film ad you may see it (you may not, the system is projecting 144fps or 72 per eye, though make no mistake the content is still 24fps). The Sony system does not have this issue as it splits the 2K image across the top and bottom of the chip and then overlays them on the screen, the dual polarizers on the Sony are completely passive with not electronics involved.

To give a brief background of my knowledge base, I have been a technician for going on a decade, I have been installing digitals since the first “wide” roullout of 100 screens that Disney purchased for Chicken Little 3D. I have industry certifications through Sony, Barco and Dolby on D-Cinema equipment as well as my department’s highest level of internal certification and I am Net+ and A+ certified.

As far as why the film and digitally projected showing had such a difference, I think it’s likely one of two things, the 35mm could have been way above spec, which can happen easily due to the way the lamps are adjusted in many cases or the lamp in the digital was not adjusted properly. The biggest issue I run into is a lack of training within the theaters. I do my best to train when the systems are installed or when I am onsite for service calls, but these days so many people get rotated through the booth that should a lamp go out Friday night they just slap one in without making any of the necessary adjustments.

I’d like to know what was wrong with the management of that theater though, how do you host a premiere without making sure everything is perfect first? I myself haven’t done any due to my location within the country, but I have talked to a number of my coworkers about them and they are on site days before they happen making sure every detail is perfect. In fact many directors want to specify special color corrections for their premieres in digital or ask that sound be tweaked out of spec and so on.

I think the biggest problem digital cinema faces is that the operations departments of most chains think we can take a hands off approach to this equipment, and that is not currently the case. Proper lamp maintenance is crucial in any theater, but even more so in digital. 5-10 years from now when the laser light sources are in the field no-one will ever have need to go in the booth outside of cleaning the port glass and the maintenance calls myself and my cohorts perform.

 

3Questions – Laser Light Engines

As we understand it, the replacement of the Xenon bulb with lasers makes a better overall match to the etendue limits of the chip. By their nature, lasers have a very small emission area and a very narrow emission angle. Therefore, they can use less power to put more light at the proper etendue angles of the chip, and can therefore allow the chip to put more light through the projector’s lens. They also allow the use of lenses with higher f#, which in the real world means less expensive lenses.

The most notorious problem with lasers thus far is described as “speckle”, due in large part to the extreme narrow band of color that the laser emits. This speckle is known to cause not only color distortions, but unless reduced below obvious levels can also cause fatigue and even nausea and headaches. Lasers also require active temperature stabilization which in many cases requires a lot of power.

Against this background, we introduce and thank Bill Beck for this opportunity to ask 3Questions.

Bill Beck is a founder of Laser Light Engines Inc., based in southern New Hampshire near the famous R&D centers of Boston (MIT, Harvard, BU Photonics). Their website is polite but also light on detail – one suspects that they were in research mode with little to say, then exploded into development mode and have been too busy to say much.

Recent news items have announced a relatively large infusion of capital, both from typical venture capital sources, and also from the IMAX Corporation to develop a laser light source for their digital projectors. Secondly, they have helped found an industry group with Sony, IMAX and others – Laser Illuminated Projection Association (LIPA) – to help regulatory agencies differentiate the established needs of protecting the public who watch laser-light shows (and which require FDA exemptions for each show) from what they are hoping will be a new category called “laser-illuminated projection”. There is also word of another industry association that is trying to pin down how to quantify speckle: how to measure and what it does.

Separately, Sony has announced their research and development of laser engines (links below) and there are rumors of assistance from a French company which might imply that their development is not as advanced as the Sony website seems to indicate. Kodak also showed their first versions of a laser system for digital cinema which they speak of as being two years away from application.

Q1: We understand that the initial Laser Light Engine concept is to supply a module that replaces the Xenon light engine. Would that include replacing the optical block of condenser lenses and the prism?

Bill Beck: We see this as a multi-step process.  In the future, there won’t be a need for a condenser and splitter as our laser makes narrow band RGB which could easily be delivered directly to the chips. But the optical block of the typical projector, which includes these items, is not part of the module that we can easily modify after the fact. We conceive that our first product offerings will be packages, adapted for each brand and model, which will work with existing optical blocks. It will be a one-time replacement of the lamp and reflector housing that that won’t require a great deal of customer difficulty.

Q2) The optical block is an expensive part of a projector, and your lasers must have costs associated compared to a bulb and the reflective surfaces they replace. Where is the savings?

A2) As you know, the human visual system responds to a very narrow band of wavelengths, and in that band, to some frequencies more than others. The typical xenon bulb is quite efficient compared to other choices. For example, they are quite white balanced. But they still generate significant amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light, which is all wasted energy (typically, ~95% of the energy created) and which requires special designs to eliminate both the heat and the O3 (ozone) created.

And, when you think about it, the design of RGB laser systems won’t require all the interband light between the frequencies needed to mix colors – more wasted light. Plus, the basic laws of physics apply, such that the light is incredibly bright at the arc point, but the power decreases inversely proportional at the square of the distance. By the time the light gets bounced around and focused to the very narrow slit cone the chip can accept, an incredible amount of the light is wasted and the energy used to create it is for naught.

So, yes. In comparison, it takes significant power to create the laser light, but we can generate just to amounts that we need, at the frequencies that we need, and supply it to the chip at the angle that it needs. This allows us to bring an exact ratio of power (which isn’t equal amounts of R and G and B by the way) at the specific frequencies we choose (615/546/455 nanometers.)

The nature of high pressure bulbs (25 atmospheres in an IMAX bulb) also requires them to be replaced quite often, often before their time – we’re talking 100’s, not 1000’s of hours of use. At 5 movie showings a day, 2 hours each, a thousand hours can be reached in 3 months. Because the special glass, and coatings on the glass, get bombarded with such high amounts of energy they become brittle – an exploding bulb can cause 10’s of thousands in damage. They are not inexpensive, so exhibitors have to turn them on and off between each show. Still, a single high duty-cycle projector might use 10,000 dollars worth of bulbs per year, or more.

While the first generation units won’t have all the power consumption reduction optimized, we estimate that we will ultimately get 2X the light to the screen for the same power consumption, without considering the reduced requirements for AC pulling heat away (which is not insignificant.)

Finally, and also not insignificant, our tests show that the system can use high f# laser input and achieve 4000:1 sequential contrast with DLP and 3300:1 with LCOS. With the appropriate f# projection lens, the contrast ratio could go even higher.

It is premature for us to speak about projected pricing for our systems. But even apart from direct costs, we feel that offering a constant source of more energy efficient light, which won’t required a projectionist to suit up in full-body protective clothing every 3 months, will bring advantages in every column.

Q3) It is hard to decide on the third question. Lumens per watt of RGB power, input v output to the screen, or how you got the speckle out, or whether you mean all the speckle or just enough that we don’t notice…or should we ask about what you imply about this multi-step evolution, or what this means for less expensive lenses or what the implications are for 3D, both for more light and, for example, we understand that lasers can, by their nature, coherently spin photons in one direction then another, obviating the need for expensive 3D solutions external to the projector. Please take your pick, but please keep it simple. It took me 20 hours of research just to understand etendue.

A3) Yes, the light people do speak in tongues sometimes. The same effect will often have a different name depending on if you are looking from the source point or if you are looking from the receipt point. I’m an optical fibre guy myself, so I’ll start with our concept and try to keep it in one language.

We speak in terms of lumens per beamliine. In the first system that we propose there can be up to 7 beamlines, each with about 30,000 lumens coming out, which combined, that is about 200,000 lumens going toward the chip and getting 60-100,000 lumens out. Depending on the projector efficiency, that is at least 2 times and approaching 3 times the brightness of a big (6Kw) Xenon lamp.

Our research shows that because of the low etendue of the source, we can keep scaling up, which has been a problem for digital cinema. As you alluded, lamp technology could not scale much further. Even with larger chip sizes, there was only minimal brightness gain in the system. With the ability to further cool the chips, we can foresee putting 3 times the light through each optical cable – that’s about 80k lumens per beamline; about 250 optical watts of white balanced of RGB light to the projector. Looking at this another way, that is about 5 times brighter than the brightest Xenon powered digital projector. [Editor’s note: Wow! Bill Beck’s note: Again, that will require not insignificant work to keep the chips cool.]

As far as alternating polarization of the photons pre-chip, that is another benefit of lasers, and the implications are huge…but  it will take some work with the chip engineers. That subject can take up 3Questions on its own.

 


 

Links: 

Sony Insider » The Science Of The Laser Projector

 

Sony Develops Highly Efficient RGB Laser Light Source Module for Large Screen Projectors

 

Sony Insider » Sony Details New RGB Laser Light Source Module For Projectors

Kodak Laser_Projection_Technology; Large Display Report article.pdf

KODAK Advances Lasers’ March on DCinema

Display Daily » Blog Archive » News on the Laser Cinema Front

The State of Digital Cinema – April 2010 – Part Zero

What they came up with is called the tri-stimulus system since the primary idea is that there are nerve endings in the eye which act as receptors, some of which primarily deal with green light, some with red and some with blue. These color receptors are called the cones (which don’t work at all in low light), while the receptors that can deal with low levels of light are called the rods.

Now, for the first of our amazing set of numbers, there are as many as 125 million receptors in the eye, of which only 6 or 7 million deal with color. When (predominantly) only one type of these receptors gets triggered, it will send a signal to the brain and the brain will designate the appropriate color. If two or more of these receptors are triggered, then the brain will do the work of combining them much the same way that a painter mixes water colors. (We’ll pretend it is that simple.)

OK; so how do you create a representation of all that color and detail on the TV or movie screen?

Let’s start with film. We think of it as one piece of plastic, but in reality it is several layers that each have a different dye of different sensitivity on it. Each dye reacts in a different and predictable manner when exposed to light through the camera lens. In the lab, each layer goes through a different chemical process to ‘develop’ a representation of what it captured when exposed by the camera system. There are a lot of steps in between, but eventually the film is exposed to light again, this time pushing light in the opposite manner, through the film and then through the lens. That light gets colored by the film and shows up on the screen.

One of the qualities of film is that the chemical and gel nature makes the range of colors in the image appear to be seamless. And not just ‘appears’ with the definition of “gives the impression of.” In fact, there is a great deal of resolution in modern film.

Then TV came along. We see a smooth piece of glass, but if we could touch the other side of a 1995 era TV set we would feel a dust that reacts to a strong beam of electricity. If we look real close we will see that there are actually different color dots, again green, red, and blue. Engineers figured out how to control that electric beam with magnets, which could trigger the different dots of color to make them light up separately or together to combine into a range of colors, and eventually combine those colors into pictures.
That was great, except people wanted better. Technology evolved to give them that. Instead of lighting up magic dust with a strong beam of electricity, a couple methods were discovered that allowed small colored capsules of gas to be lit up and even small pieces of colored plastic to light up. These segments and pieces were able to be packed tightly against each other so that they could make the pictures. Instead of only hundreds of lines being lit up by the electron gun in the old TV set, now over a thousand lines can be lit up, at higher speeds, using a lot less electricity.

Then a couple engineers figured out make and control a very tiny mirror to reflect light, then quickly move to not reflect light. That mirror is less than 25% of the size of a typical human hair.

Hundreds of these mirrors can be placed next to each other on a chip less than 2 centimeters square. Each mirror is able to precisely move on or off at a rate of 144 times a second, which is 6 times the speed that a motion picture film is exposed to light for a picture.

This chip is called a DLP, a Digital Light Projector, because a computer can tell each mirror when to turn one and off, so that when a strong light is reflected on an individual or set of mirrors, it will create part of a picture. If you put a computer in charge of 3 chips, one for green, one for red and one for blue, the reflected light can be focused through a lens and a very detailed picture will appear on the screen. There is a different but similar technology that Sony has refined for their professional cinema technology which uses crystals that change their state (status).

Now for the 2nd in our amazing set of numbers. There are 1,080 rows made up of 2,048 individual mirrors each for over 2 million 2 hundred thousand mirrors per chip. If you were to multiply that times 3 chips worth of mirrors, you get the same “about 6 or 7 million” mirrors as there are cones in each eye.

Without going into details (to keep this simple), we keep getting closer to being able to duplicate the range and intensity of colors that you see in the sky. This is one of the artists goals, in the same way as the engineers want to make a lighter, flatter, environmentally better television and movie playing system. It isn’t perfect, but picture quality has reached the point that incremental changes will be more subtle than substantive, or better only in larger rooms or specialist applications.

For example, a movie that uses the 2K standard will typically be in the 300 gigabyte size. A movie made in 4K, which technically has 4 times the resolution, will typically be less than 15% larger. This movie will be stored on a computer with many redundant drives, with redundant power supplies and graphics cards that are expressly made to be secure with special “digital cinema only” projectors.

Hopefully you have a feeling for the basic technology. It is not just being pushed onto people because it is the newest thing. The TV and movie businesses are going digital for a number of good reasons. To begin with, it wasn’t really possible to advance quality of the older technology without increasing the cost by a significant amount…and even then it would be incredibly cumbersome and remain an environmental nightmare. There are also advantages of flexibility that the new technology could do that the old couldn’t…or couldn’t at a reasonable price or at the quality of the new.

The technology of presenting a 3D image is one of those flexibility points. 3D was certainly one of the thrills of Avatar. The director worked for a decade learning how to handle the artistic and the technical sides of the art. He developed with closely aligned partners many different pieces of equipment and manners of using existing equipment to do things that haven’t been done before. And finally he spent hours on details that other budgets and people would only spend minutes. In the end James Cameron developed a technique and technology set that won’t be seen as normal for a long time from now…and an outstanding movie.

Could Avatar have been made on film? Well, almost no major motion picture has been made exclusively on film for a long time. They all use a technique named CGI (for the character generated imagery), which covers a grand set of techniques. But if you tried to generate the characters in Avatar exclusively on a computer with CGI, they never would have come out as detailed and inspiring as they did. Likewise, if he tried to create the characters with masks and other techniques with live action, you wouldn’t get the texture and feeling that the actors gave to their parts.

Could Avatar have been displayed with film, in 2D. Yes, it could have and it was.

3D is dealt with in more detail in Part II of this series, but here are some basics:

To begin, 3D is a misnomer. True 3 dimension presumes the ability to walk around a subject and see a full surround view, like the hologram of Princess Leah.

In real life a person who is partly hidden in one view, will be even more hidden or perhaps exposed from another view. On the screen of today’s 3D movie, when a character appears to  b partly hidden by a wall as seen by a person on the left side of the theater, they will also appear the same amount of hidden by someone on the right side of the theater.

In fact, what we see with out eyes and what we see in the new theaters is correctly termed “stereoscopic”. We are taught some of this in school, how to make two lines join somewhere out in space (parallax) and draw all the boxes on those lines to make them appear to recede in the distance…even though they are on one piece of paper. There are several more clues in addition to parallax that we use to discern whether something is closer or farther, and whether something is just a drawing on a sheet of paper or a full rounded person or sharp-edged box…even in a 2D picture.

And we have been doing this for years. We know that Bogie and Bergman are in front of the plane that apparently sits in the distance…our eyes/brain/mind makes up a story for us, 3 dimensions and probably more, even though it is a black and white set of pictures shown at 24 frames per second on a flat screen.

Digital 3D is an imperfect feature as of now. It has improved enough that companies are investing a lot of money to make and show the movies. The technology will be improved as the artists learn the technology and what the audiences appreciate.

Although we are in a phase that seems like “All 3D, All The Time”, 3D isn’t the most important part of the digital cinema transition. At first blush the most important consideration is the savings from all the parts of movie distribution, including lower print costs and transportation costs. But actually, because prints no longer cost over a thousand euros, and because it will be simple to distribute a digital file, lesser known artists will have the opportunity to get their work in front of more people, and more people will find it easier to enjoy entertainment from other cultures and other parts of the world.

This Series now includes:
The State of Digital Cinema – April 2010 – Part 0
The State of Digital Cinema – April 2010 – Part I
The State of Digital Cinema – April 2010 – Part II
Ebert FUDs 3D and Digital Cinema