4K limited to dvd and HD channel

[jeffry alan]

There is/was a consortium of People With Cash (PWC) that were trying to buy a large quantity of DLP's or the latest equivalent and get them integrated into theaters in America to facilitate the transition to digital.
I think Mark Cuban (owner of the Dallas Mavericks and Landmark Theaters- another Bajillionaire) was talking about going completely digital in all his theaters.

But until that transition happens, and 4K is supported from production through exhibition with 4K projectors in major theaters, the full impact of the RED will be limited to the HD channels and DVD productions, since transfer to film will be like downconverting (as was the problem with the film transfer of Finding Nemo and Revenge of the Sith looking muddy).

Not trying to whack the hornet's nest here, but does anyone have any insight as to the implementation of 4K projectors in theaters so the lumpenproles (like me) can see a RED feature on the big screen?

J*

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, just as a 4k DI looks better than a 2k DI, 4K RED will look better than HD when transferred back to film, even it would look better still projected digitally.

Remember, that although SD was with us for many years, HD started many years ago, and is just so 20th century. 4k and beyond is on an upwards rise of practibility, and will become increasingly and widely visible.

I'd say that shooting 4k today guarantees a future that shooting 2K or HD does not, whethere all those pixels are visible today or not.

Graeme

[jeffry alan]

Well, just as a 4k DI looks better than a 2k DI, 4K RED will look better than HD when transferred back to film, even it would look better still projected digitally.

Remember, that although SD was with us for many years, HD started many years ago, and is just so 20th century. 4k and beyond is on an upwards rise of practibility, and will become increasingly and widely visible.

I'd say that shooting 4k today guarantees a future that shooting 2K or HD does not, whethere all those pixels are visible today or not.

Graeme

Pixar had a major headache transferring Nemo to film, all the particles in the water came out haloed and muddy. The same with Revenge of the Sith, people actually said they thought the quality was lacking (but they were looking at a film transfer not a digital projection). Pixar actually had to reduce the quality of the transfer to accomodate film (I beleive that issue is covered on the dvd of Nemo).

I see those problems multiplied with 4K, and besides, aren't film projectors so 20th century too?

J*

[Stephen Williams]

I'd say that shooting 4k today guarantees a future that shooting 2K or HD does not, whethere all those pixels are visible today or not.

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

I totally agree 4k has a longer future than 2k or HD, but does it have a longer future than 35mm? Curious of your opinion!

Stephen

[Dominic Jones]

Well, not to whack the hornet's nest (too hard at least :)) either, it's a bit strong saying it's usage is "limited" to HD as a film transfer is a downconversion, for two reasons:

1) Whilst there may well be some transfers that are shaky, I've seen some perfectly fine ones too - crappy projection and sloppy care of prints by theaters is more of a problem, imo - and that's with HD source, not 4k.

2) Distribution on HD is a downconversion too!! (And have you seen the datarates for HDTV - aargh!)

Oh, BTW - totally agree with much greater longevity of 4k than 2k/HD Stephen and Graeme - I think that's a given! For a start, if cinemas are going to invest in 4k digital projection , I can't see them upgrading to a higher resolution system in the immediate future - hell, how long has it taken them/is it taking them to upgrade to digital in the first place? And one has to remember they want to make a good profit out of that upgrade before they'll want to consider another...

[jeffry alan]

Well, not to whack the hornet's nest (too hard at least :)) either, it's a bit strong saying it's usage is "limited" to HD as a film transfer is a downconversion, for two reasons:

1) Whilst there may well be some transfers that are shaky, I've seen some perfectly fine ones too - crappy projection and sloppy care of prints by theaters is more of a problem, imo - and that's with HD source, not 4k.

2) Distribution on HD is a downconversion too!! (And have you seen the datarates for HDTV - aargh!)

Oh, BTW - totally agree with much greater longevity of 4k than 2k/HD Stephen and Graeme - I think that's a given! For a start, if cinemas are going to invest in 4k digital projection , I can't see them upgrading to a higher resolution system in the immediate future - hell, how long has it taken them/is it taking them to upgrade to digital in the first place? And one has to remember they want to make a good profit out of that upgrade before they'll want to consider another...

1) What transfers did you see? Were they digital productions? The finest transfers I have ever seen with my years of experience working with DLP's (at one of the few theaters that had one) were that transfers were always inferior to a pure DDD movie (and DLP is only 2K).

2) Exactly the point I am making!

3) As reported in Wired magazine: "As co-owner of Landmark Theatres, a chain of 60 cinemas he purchased two years ago, (Mark) Cuban is building the first all-digital theater empire. His goal is nothing less than to take the film out of the film industry. In March, the conversion to digital begins with two Landmark theaters in San Francisco and Dallas.

Of course, change will come slowly. Even if Cuban converts all 270 Landmark screens - an effort that will cost him $10 million and probably most of his hair - that's less than 1 percent of the 36,485 screens in the US. The most he can hope for is to prod an entrenched industry to embrace an inevitable future. Cuban is optimistic; he's pushing to complete the Landmark rollout within two years and believes widespread adoption of digital cinema will happen by 2012.

He dismisses talk that the industry isn't ready. "People get frightened about all kinds of things in Hollywood," he says. "That's not my system. I don't have a business to protect. I have a business to build."

Sounds a bit like Jim's stance. I hope these two billionaires with similar goals can come together and get RED on screen before 2012.

J*

[Dominic Jones]

2) Exactly the point I am making!
Err... OK - I must have misunderstood your point - we are in agreement, that's nice! :)

As for the transfers I've seen, I saw "Once upon a time in Mexico", which had a perfectly satisfactory print, and I've seen tests I've done from F-900 footage (both with and without P+S Pro35 + Zeiss Superspeeds) and even a Z1 (again, with and without 35mm adapter), all of which gave satisfactory results (the 35mm adapted footage can look a little soft, but that's in the nature of the system, imo, and can be controlled by use of camera settings to perfectly adequate results, again, of course, imo). FWIW, I think HD is still not quite high enough quality for a film print (when compared with 35mm originated prints), but again that's just my (considered) opinion.

Also, of course, more and more features having undergone a 2k or 4k DI and then lasered to film for distro...

My point is simply (and of course, you may disagree with this) that the process of printing to film does not seem to be the weak point, at least if done well and with consideration - that's not to say there cannot be issues, of course, and clearly in cases there have been - that's not really the point I'm discussing.

I'm very much looking forward to seeing a print made from Red footage, and making a considered opinion from there - roll on the day...

[Blair S. Paulsen]

During the transition from 35mm to digital projection there will be some projection booths that will have both types sitting side by side. It may be a few monthes out, but wouldn't it be fun to do a short with RedOne as the image source, 4k post with a high end filmout and a DCI compliant distribution master. Tweaking the final output file in each path is fair game in an attempt to get the most accurate end product on screen but the basic editorial should match.

Then set up the A to B comparison and see what it looks like to YOUR eye. Other posters have expressed serious reservations about the 4k DI to filmout step, that there is halation and aliasing - at least with some types of source element. I wonder if the filmout device itself has been optimized for 2k, which is the majority of the current customer base? If the top end facilities already have run extensive tests and set up profiles for 4k sources - both live action and animation (which can present very different challenges) then correct me. IMHO the art of getting the nicest, if not the most technically perfect, filmouts from 4k DI is still evolving.

This thread was started with the assertion that 4k has very limited distro options - right now, unless you have serious $$ for the DI phase of post and release into one of the few theatres that currently offer 4k projection you are right. When Graeme and others tout the far greater value of the image assets due to their greater lifespan they are right. But there is more to consider:

when the RedOne hits the streets the amount of people running around looking to post at 4k will jump - that demand will impact the post houses.

one of the biggest reasons that 4k DI is crazy expensive is that in addition to talent you need pricey gear. The evolution of computing power on commodity hardware is going to change this equation rather quickly, particularly when code that takes advantage of multiple GPUs and milti-core CPUs is widespread.

a little patience and much will change, faster than you think

[Poi Boy]

I would argue that the number of 4K projectors is irrelevant with regard to red penetration into the film market. film is almost always downcoverted for delivery; red will be better than film for almost every target.
Aloha
-A

[jeffry alan]

I hate having to quote myself, but if you read my post, what I am looking for has nothing to do with DI's-


Not trying to whack the hornet's nest here, but does anyone have any insight as to the implementation of 4K projectors in theaters so the lumpenproles (like me) can see a RED feature on the big screen?


Unless a theater has a 4K projector, the public won't see what we are seeing.

Supposedly Cuban, with Soderberg, Clooney and Skoll (eBay), are:
"... planning on producing (HDNet Films, 2929 Entertainment), distributing (Magnolia Pictures, HDNet Movies), and exhibiting movies in what will be the world’s first all-digital theater chain (Landmark Theatres). Oh, and freeing all of his films’ DVDs from copy protections," (Wired 14.06)

They are talking 4K projectors, simultaneous broadband distribution, and multiplatform releases, (and they have the money to do it).

So I guess I found the answer to my question, I just hope the rest of the industry can break from the Hollywood model and adopt 4K projectors too.

I would think RED would be interested in seeing the exhibition side of things (where the bottom line is) match the procuction quality by partnering with the people who are going to go digital all the way, 4K.

J*

[Michael Schrengohst]

They are probably doing that. I am sure HDNet has some RED's on order.

[jeffry alan]

just found this on cinematical.com:

"The major U.S. chains, owned by Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc. are about to borrow $1 billion in order to furnish 13,000 screens (one-third of the country) with digital projectors. A joint venture of the three companies, National CineMedia LLC is working with JP Morgan Chase & Co. to raise the money from hedge funds and private-equity firms. The money will be paid back over seven years with help from the studios (this is still being worked out)." (07/07/06)

So it looks like the timing for RED is right in line with theaters.

J*

[_BK]

The one thing that you have to remember about Finding Nemo and Sith is that the the major converting issues were due to the CG imagery. Its very difficult to accurately map intensity values from CG in rendering or compositing since the artist can only view an 8bit image on his/her workstation. Just about every CG film shot I have worked on requires multiple 'film outs' to check and adjust the look once transfered to film. We do use lookup software on artists workstations to mimic the look and feel of film, but its never quite that easy.

I have worked on a few shots where we took 27 stop HDRI images from a Spheron camera and down converted them to 13 stop log images for film. The film outs on these shots were very simple and predictable.

So, Im personally not too worried about taking RED footage to film.. it has the range and the RAW format makes any grading easy.

[Dominic Jones]

I hate having to quote myself, but if you read my post, what I am looking for has nothing to do with DI's-
No, but your point *did* have to do with a proposed weakness in film printing from digital 4k source.

You asked what prints had I seen from digital - that includes films printed for distribution on 35mm from DI's, does it not??

My simple point, as I stated at the end of my post, is that under normal circumstances the print to film phase of post is not a weak point in terms of image quality.

You may disagree, of course, but that's my opinion...

FWIW, my list of the "best" way to see 4k originated footage right now would be (in order):
4k projection from 4k source (rare but best)

35mm print from 4k source (probably the most usual in the short term)

HD-DVD/Bluray downconversion from 4k source

HDTV compressed (heavily) from HD source (as I very much doubt the channel's will want you submitting programmes @ 4k - I guess I could be wrong here, I don't really do any TV work).

Your original point was that without 4k projection, the best way to see 4k footage would be from HD-DVD type sources and HDTV. I disagree. If you project an HD source via digital projection vs a 35mm print struck from 4k source, I would sincerely expect (I've not done any tests on this, of course, but have, as mentioned seen many films printed to 35mm from digital sources, as have we all) that the 35mm print will look best.


Blair:
Yes, that would be a most interesting test to see - and I'm looking forward to the not too distant future where we will...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

They are probably doing that. I am sure HDNet has some RED's on order.

I know a couple people at HDnet, but have no idea what if any plans they have for RED. HDnet is now entirely run by Colorado Studios and I don't think Mark Cuban has anything to do with HDnet anymore. But I'm not entirely sure on that one as I haven't exactly followed the whole development.

[Dominic Jones]

FWIW, my list of the "best" way to see 4k originated footage right now would be (in order):
4k projection from 4k source (rare but best)

35mm print from 4k source (probably the most usual in the short term)

HD-DVD/Bluray downconversion from 4k source

HDTV compressed (heavily) from HD source (as I very much doubt the channel's will want you submitting programmes @ 4k - I guess I could be wrong here, I don't really do any TV work).
Actually, I missed one out there:
Between 35mm print and HD-DVD/Bluray you would probably put 2k projection from 2k source (downsampled from 4k of course, in the case of most Red footage).

[jeffry alan]

During the transition from 35mm to digital projection there will be some projection booths that will have both types sitting side by side. It may be a few monthes out, but wouldn't it be fun to do a short with RedOne as the image source, 4k post with a high end filmout and a DCI compliant distribution master. Tweaking the final output file in each path is fair game in an attempt to get the most accurate end product on screen but the basic editorial should match.

Then set up the A to B comparison and see what it looks like to YOUR eye. Other posters have expressed serious reservations about the 4k DI to filmout step, that there is halation and aliasing - at least with some types of source element. I wonder if the filmout device itself has been optimized for 2k, which is the majority of the current customer base? If the top end facilities already have run extensive tests and set up profiles for 4k sources - both live action and animation (which can present very different challenges) then correct me. IMHO the art of getting the nicest, if not the most technically perfect, filmouts from 4k DI is still evolving.

This thread was started with the assertion that 4k has very limited distro options - right now, unless you have serious $$ for the DI phase of post and release into one of the few theatres that currently offer 4k projection you are right. When Graeme and others tout the far greater value of the image assets due to their greater lifespan they are right. But there is more to consider:

when the RedOne hits the streets the amount of people running around looking to post at 4k will jump - that demand will impact the post houses.

one of the biggest reasons that 4k DI is crazy expensive is that in addition to talent you need pricey gear. The evolution of computing power on commodity hardware is going to change this equation rather quickly, particularly when code that takes advantage of multiple GPUs and milti-core CPUs is widespread.

a little patience and much will change, faster than you think

Ah, I see where the confusion lies. What I originally said was that the FULL impact of 4K will be limited due to the medium (whether it be HD, dvd, film, broadband, whatever), unless it is projected on a 4K. There are theaters that have both 4K and film right now, and an AB comparison is inevitable.

I have repaired, installed, calibrated and maintained both film and DLP projectors, and I have screened thousands of hours on both, and the (2K) DLP always looked better when the same movie was played for comparison, (especially the CG flicks). There are many reasons why the 'ol projector down the street doesn't look as good as the DLP, (alignment, bulb life, print damage, fall off, etc.), and I applaud Mark Cuban for wanting to go completely digital for a multitude of reasons.

My point (although I wasn't making one) I guess is that we all are going to be hopefully utilizing the RED to it's fullest and shooting 4K, and wouldn't it be nice if that leap in quality was tansmitted to the folks sitting in the theaters through 4K projectors? Because that 4K image quality is going to be comprimised before it gets to any other medium (film, dvd, HD, broadband, etc.).

But I am glad you brought up the subject of 4K post, that is another factor to consider. What is the cost comparison between shooting, editing, distributing, and exhibiting all 4K, as opposed to needing to master the film print and then make multiple prints and transport them to each theater? If 13,000 screens are going to be digital soon, then the scales are tipping away from the film model and distributors will have to go along with it.

The theater I was with had the ability to broadcast content from the home office to a catch server which distributed the show to the house projector, and everything was completely run remotely, (and that was years ago).

J*

[Dominic Jones]

Ah, I see where the confusion lies. What I originally said was that the FULL impact of 4K will be limited due to the medium (whether it be HD, dvd, film, broadband, whatever), unless it is projected on a 4K. There are theaters that have both 4K and film right now, and an AB comparison is inevitable.
Gotcha! In that case we're in total agreement, which is always good, even if it took a little longer than necessary (that's not a dig by the way, at least any more toward you than myself!)!!

Still, at least we've exhaustively covered the issue! :)

I now understand your point about the the "downconverted" nature of the film print version - I had assumed you meant vs HD, which is where I got confused.

Nonetheless, a direct comparison would be very fun and interesting to see - like you say, it's a matter of time (and not that much of it) now...

[PeteCoggan]

Projectors are great but without delivery and playback the discussion is largely academic.

we have a DW 3K at our facility which is great for grading and makes for a hell of a movie night. But, the primary reason we order 2 Reds was NOT just for resolution but because it costs what it should (Ha Ha Sony, lost that 950 sale didn't ya?) and the cameras are being designed to shoot with the story telling esthetic options we love. Real glass and frame rates... Can you believe it?!

Pete

[Tom Lowe]

But until that transition happens, and 4K is supported from production through exhibition with 4K projectors in major theaters, the full impact of the RED will be limited to the HD channels and DVD productions, since transfer to film will be like downconverting (as was the problem with the film transfer of Finding Nemo and Revenge of the Sith looking muddy).

How is 4K-to-35mm a "downconversion"? 35mm film is a higher-resolution format.

That is like saying VHS-to-DVD is a "downconversion."

[Hrvoje Simic]

You forgot that RED is ahead of time.
If all the theaters could allready screen 4k it would mean that 4k workflow had been implemented long ago, and if this device hit it's peak at the start it would mean all the rest was a downfall. The reason you are crazy about this cam is because it's a breakthrough.
The point IS that the rest is yet to follow RED. Be patient.
Where's the rush? You can always save 4k material for the time it can be used to the fullest.
2k for now is not enough?

Talking about 2k and Lucas just like that seems a bit pretentious. A year ago most of us could only dream about making 2k (six figure factor).

Is your work ment for the average people or only for the pro's?
Most of the viewers won't see the difference because THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT 4K LOOKS LIKE. That's the other factor you forgot.

Average people usually watch the story. Very few think about the resolution.

[David McMurry]

For those in the NW, there's 2K projection for $9.75/ticket

http://www.cinetopiatheaters.com/cinema/digitalc.htm

[Lucas Wilson]

Is your work ment for the average people or only for the pro's? Most of the viewers won't see the difference anyway. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT 4K LOOKS LIKE. That's the other factor you forgot.

Sorry - I think this is completely untrue. Show a true 4K deliverable (4K from acquisition to projection... ) and then show a lesser resolution to an "average" audience.

Every single one of them will say the 4K is much, much better in quality. They just don't have the professional background to analyze that and tell you exactly "why" it is "better." They just know it's better.

The same principle can be extrapolated to delivery. Take a DCI master through a nice DLP projector. And then take a 35mm release print of the same material. Assume that both of them were created correctly, etc, etc. Show them side-by-side. They both look great!

Now show that same DCI master and that same release print 20 days later in your average cinema in your average town. Now which one looks beter?

Lucas

[Hrvoje Simic]

Sorry - I think this is completely untrue. Show a true 4K deliverable (4K from acquisition to projection... ) and then show a lesser resolution to an "average" audience.

Every single one of them will say the 4K is much, much better in quality. They just don't have the professional background to analyze that and tell you exactly "why" it is "better." They just know it's better.

The same principle can be extrapolated to delivery. Take a DCI master through a nice DLP projector. And then take a 35mm release print of the same material. Assume that both of them were created correctly, etc, etc. Show them side-by-side. They both look great!

Now show that same DCI master and that same release print 20 days later in your average cinema in your average town. Now which one looks beter?

Lucas

Sorry, but you missed my point. Maybe I chose the wrong word order. Offcourse everybody would notice the difference between 2k and 4k if they could compare them and offcourse they would know it's better. But how many people have even seen 4k?

My point was that people tend to get carried away and start taking things for granted.

I modified the last post a bit, to avoid further confusions.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Using RED will be on a curve like everything else....
How many shooting HD today are actually delivering HD...
chances are you are shooting HD because those are
the tools you use so you can deliver HD to the 20%
of clients who want/need it. Shooting, editing HD and deliver
to SD looks loads better than shooting, editing SD.....
So RED will probably deliver HD to 50% of your clients in a year....
Shoot 4K for some projects to get the workflow down so that
in a few years you will be ready to shoot, edit 4K while the HDCAM
guys are left to do the SD jobs.......

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Shoot 4K for some projects to get the workflow down so that in a few years you will be ready to shoot, edit 4K while the HDCAM
guys are left to do the SD jobs.......


But in a few years the workflow for 4K will probably be quite a bit different than what we would have right now. Remember, editing in HD was a challenge just a few short years ago. In other words, latecomers won't have as much to adjust to... In fact many probably won't come over to 4K until the 4K paradigm can drop right into their established NLE systems and workflow. In the mean time 4K offers us a chance to shoot something comparable to film with the advantages of a digital workflow. We can future-proof our work by already having it shot in 4K and we can use the resolution and quality increase of RED vs. HD cameras as a selling point for our services.

[Michael Schrengohst]

Yes, that is my thinking. I work with some shooters who up until last year have only shot film and now they want to transfer 16MM to HD. Those shooters are looking at HD cams now instead of continuing to shoot on film.
They have said that RED is a definite possibility.

[Thomas Mathai]

I talked to a few smaller distributers and they say that it's still cheaper for them to get a film print than going digital.

One mentioned that many small theaters have paid their mortgages and own their equipment outright, so their overhead is low, especially since there isn't much profit from their share of the boxoffice.

So to them, spending 100k on a projector isn't financialy feesible. So it's probable that most small theaters will get bought out or shut down.

Even the big chains will probably cut back on screens, and have further consolidation.

The biggest challenge to theaters are big screen TVs, especially when those 100 inch screens get below the $30k-$50k range they are now.

I don't see the theatrical experience disappearing, but it won't be the way it is now.

[Michael Schrengohst]

I talked to a few smaller distributers and they say that it's still cheaper for them to get a film print than going digital.

One mentioned that many small theaters have paid their mortgages and own their equipment outright, so their overhead is low, especially since there isn't much profit from their share of the boxoffice.

So to them, spending 100k on a projector isn't financialy feesible. So it's probable that most small theaters will get bought out or shut down.

Even the big chains will probably cut back on screens, and have further consolidation.

The biggest challenge to theaters are big screen TVs, especially when those 100 inch screens get below the $30k-$50k range they are now.

I don't see the theatrical experience disappearing, but it won't be the way it is now.

It's not so much that the established mom and pop theatre will do the digital upgrades - rather a new breed of entertainment establishments will pop up.
More like the trend of having bowling alleys, video games, skateparks etc.
Look at what Jim has done in a few years. Google will probably get into this arena sooner or later.

[Chris Kenny]

It's not so much that the established mom and pop theatre will do the digital upgrades - rather a new breed of entertainment establishments will pop up.

I think what some people are calling "microcinema" is going to be a fairly significant phenomenon. Get a digital projector in a room with 25-50 seats, not in something like a traditional theater space, but in something more like a Starbucks. Show local short films or other material that doesn't usually get major distribution. Charge next to nothing for admission and make your money selling coffee or whatever. Stuff that people really like can be scaled up to larger audiences as fast as you want, since showing something in more venues is just a matter of duplicating some data.

[jeffry alan]

just found this on cinematical.com:

"The major U.S. chains, owned by Regal Entertainment Group, AMC Entertainment, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc. are about to borrow $1 billion in order to furnish 13,000 screens (one-third of the country) with digital projectors. A joint venture of the three companies, National CineMedia LLC is working with JP Morgan Chase & Co. to raise the money from hedge funds and private-equity firms. The money will be paid back over seven years with help from the studios (this is still being worked out)." (07/07/06)

So it looks like the timing for RED is right in line with theaters.

J*

posted four weeks ago on this thread

[PaulClements]

Perhaps I'm being naive, but don't most modern movies get converted to digital for post anyway and then put back onto film for the theatres?

The higher the digital version the better the final filmout no? So the higher the original digital recording the better surely? I'm guessing of course but surely modern post production is 4k or possibly 6k scans of film is it not? The problem for lucas was that his digital recording was so much lower resolution at 1080p that it didn't look so good when put onto film surely?

[Michael Schrengohst]

I think what some people are calling "microcinema" is going to be a fairly significant phenomenon. Get a digital projector in a room with 25-50 seats, not in something like a traditional theater space, but in something more like a Starbucks. Show local short films or other material that doesn't usually get major distribution. Charge next to nothing for admission and make your money selling coffee or whatever. Stuff that people really like can be scaled up to larger audiences as fast as you want, since showing something in more venues is just a matter of duplicating some data.

All right let's get started!

[Nick Shaw]

...surely modern post production is 4k or possibly 6k scans of film is it not?

No! The 'norm' is still 2k scans. Only a very few big budget films get 4k scans, and then often only for effect shots. Above 4k scanning is really the realm of IMAX.

Nick

[PeteCoggan]

I know quite a few folks down there as well and it seems to be quite a cluster on a regular basis. Their trucks seem to do a great job but other than that, I have not heard anything terribly exciting or relating to Cuban either. But what do I know, I'm just up here in Boulder. Regal Cinemas is another Colorado Company you should take a look at and see what they are up to from a digital screening standpoint.

P...

[jbeale]

How is 4K-to-35mm a "downconversion"? 35mm film is a higher-resolution format.
That is like saying VHS-to-DVD is a "downconversion."

I don't think the issue is quite so clear as that. You can measure resolution in many different ways, and it is better described by a curve (MTF or Modulation Transfer Function) than a single number. The limiting resolution for a slow film stock may be very high, but high resolution at very low contrast has little visible effect. And there are other things, for example SNR, or the noise level or amount of grain if you prefer, when describing the subjective quality of the image with numbers.

Whatever numbers you come up with, the consensus is that 4k projected images are more impressive than projected 35mm film.

[Graeme Nattress]

And that's not taking into account the film duplication process which can take film down to almost SD resolution levels.