
Laser-based projection technology will make cinema screens bigger and brighter - Corrado
http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/audiovideo/lasers-coming-to-a-theater-near-you
======
mindcrime
OK, raise your hand if the reason you don't go to movies is because the
screens aren't big and bright enough.

Right, thought so.

This is cool and all, but I don't see how it's going to save the movie theater
business, or the movie industry. I don't even _have_ a fancy home theater and
I'd rather watch movies at home, on my shitty laptop screen, than go out to
the movies on the majority of occasions. The thing keeping me from going out
is more to do with the cost (of the movie), the overpriced concessions, the 30
minutes of commercials and previews before the movie, the lack of a "pause"
button so I can go take a wizz, the talking people in the row in front of me,
the idiot behind me who keeps kicking the back of my seat, etc., etc., etc...

And note that these guys are looking at this as justification for _raising_
ticket prices.

I just don't see it. OK, sure, hardcore cinemaphiles will go and slobber over
this, but is the average movie-goer _really_ going to care that the screen is
a bit bigger, or that the color depth is a bit better? My guess is "no".

But hey, more power to them. But if you want more of my money, you're going to
have to find a way to deliver a better experience, and bigger and brighter
screens aren't going to do it.

~~~
woodpanel
I don't think cinemas will die out. At least not all of them. They will have
to adapt. In Germany there's a chain of 'luxury' cinemas where you get bigger,
more comfortable seats and table service with them. It costs about 50% more
than the ticket in your standard cinema. As far as I know, it's always sold
out.

~~~
asymmetric
Interesting. What's the name of this chain?

~~~
brownbat
I don't know about Germany, but Alamo Drafthouse does something similar in
many cities in the US.

AMC has experimented with a similar approach in a few places, not every
theater.

~~~
singlow
Yes. Alamo is pretty much the only theater I'll go to. They don't have the
best screens at most locations but theres more space and a table between each
row. Here in Austin where Alamo started we have several of them around town
and even a few competitors trying the same thing with a little more luxury.
This is where theaters need to go to get my business. Total experience not
just video and sound.

------
beloch
I look forward to the day when digital projection catches up with film
projection. I'm a little sick of spending extra to go to a 3D IMAX theater
that uses a 4K projector split into 2K per eye. The result is big, obvious
pixels that would have been filled with nuance if an IMAX or even 35mm film
projector was used instead.

I hope Hollywood realizes that the dim, pixellated 3D IMAX movies of today are
a huge disappointment compared to the breathtaking clarity of yesterday's IMAX
film. It's simply insulting to customers that IMAX theaters still command
premium prices. They should be discounting admission to digital IMAX theaters
and apologizing for the current limitations of the technology.

~~~
kalleboo
Honestly I was always bothered more by the flicker of film projection than I
have been by the resolution of digital projection. The low frame rate/high
motion blur still annoys me so I'm looking forward to when they figure out
getting 48fps to look "right".

The resolution of film has often been really bad too. Yeah, it's not pixels so
you don't notice as clearly, but those corns of grain aren't exactly small
either.

------
kiram9
One of the traditional big inhibitors for laser projection in the USA is the
FDA. Previously any public venue that uses laser projection requires special
certification to operate which prohibits many theaters from rolling out these
projectors. See: [http://www.barco.com/en/News/Post/2014/4/15/US-FDA-
product-v...](http://www.barco.com/en/News/Post/2014/4/15/US-FDA-product-
variance-for-Barco-laser-illuminated-cinema-projector)

I am excited to see the technology progresses. Including expanded color spaces
that can handle projection of higher dynamic range images with brighter
highlights. Some of the new UHD standard proposes a new color space that will
allow the dynamic range to increase dramatically. However lots of standards
are coming out that should replace some of the existing digital standards such
as BT.709 (HDTV) or perhaps even surpass BT.2020 with more dynamic range!

------
ricardobeat
> The movie industry is among the world’s most important businesses.

If you say so...

------
vanderZwan
> _The movie industry is among the world’s most important businesses. The
> Motion Picture Association of America says that films produced in the United
> States alone pulled in US $34.7 billion in worldwide box-office revenues in
> 2012._

I'm sorry, but revenue does not equal importance.

~~~
mikeyouse
That's not even a big number.. Apple earns more revenue every quarter, so do
GM and Ford, it takes Google two quarters. These are _companies_ not
_industries_.

------
graycat
Really nice article with lots of nifty technical stuff about optics, lasers,
etc.

But this thread also has a lot of thoughtful comments that question the actual
bottom line financial potential of this nifty technical stuff.

Here's much of the rest between the nifty technology and the financial bottom
line: The _art, entertainment, content, etc._

E.g., I've never paid much attention to ballet. Since early on I liked music
and _classical_ music, I have some CDs of the music to a few of the famous
ballets, right, The Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Coppélia.

But, right, via YouTube, it was easy, e.g., to watch some of Coppélia, so I
did. It's fun! It's a light comedy, with a cute story by Hoffmann (right, as
in _Tales of Hoffmann_ ), and a LOT of really pretty girls (right, I'm a human
male!) acting really cute!

Movies and the OP? I'm coming back to that with Coppélia as an example!

The YouTube performance I watched was from The Australian Ballet. Well, too
soon that performance was _taken down_ on YouTube. Bummer! But, if The
Australian Ballet had used YouTube just as a _free sample_ , then it worked
because I bought the DVD.

Now the DVD of Coppélia on my computer is really nice, nicer to watch than via
YouTube. No matter how the work goes on a day, a little Coppélia will make the
day a lot better.

Why? Lasers? Nope! Instead of lasers, what's good is just the _art,
entertainment, content,_ and these come across quite nicely via the DVD. The
music is terrific; the story is cute; the girls are really pretty. Drive 50
miles to a 3D, 4K laser movie version at big bucks? Likely not.

Why? There's an old point: Once long ago a guy asked a child which he liked
better, radio dramas or TV dramas. The boy said radio. For why, he said, "The
pictures are much better on radio.". Yup.

Sorry laser guys: Some of the best _pictures_ are what the viewer forms in
their head from just hints from the content itself.

Sit down, laser guys: I have a DVD of the original 1933 _King Kong_. It's just
black and white, but it's still fun! The nicest part is the interplay with the
Fay Wary character, the poor, pretty, sweet, naive girl, the older, powerful,
assertive, rich movie producer, the hard boiled crew of the ship, etc., the
beauty and beast theme -- all that comes across very nicely with just that old
1933 black and white version.

My wife understood drama: So, once she took us to a summer stock play, only a
few actors, a small stage, a small audience, and afterward pointed out to me
how there is some _magic_ to the theater, that the audience can really _get
into_ the story and experience with just the hints of such meager _production
values_. Not nearly new since such drama goes way back in English literature
and the ancient Greek theater.

Net, the main issue is the _content_ , not the technology.

------
Zigurd
Projection is inherently a kludge compared to the screen being the light
source. You are pushing light through air many times farther than in a small
screening room and bouncing it off a relatively inefficient reflective screen.

large 4k panels are down into consumer prices now. That's the same resolution
as theater projectors. "Home theater" is going to be what you have in your TV
room. That is, even with laser projection, theaters are losing ground relative
to what normal people will have in their homes, where they have control over
cleanliness, seating, food, audio, etc. For that matter, people are consuming
cinema much like they consume books: in bed, on tablets, with headphones on.

There is a reason cinema directors and writers are making, for lack of a
better word, "TV" series. Movie theaters are an obsolete medium. This only
herds theaters farther into a niche, where giant robots, skyscraper-sized
monsters, and explosions are the only thing theaters can do better.

------
drakaal
Lasers work well for Projectors in terms of brightness, and Size. There are
some downsides though since you don't get the same viewing angle that you do
with standard projection.

The reflection off of the screen tends to bounce back almost as straight as it
hit, where as a standard beam of light radiates more on the reflection.

My home theater which is about the same as a Movie theater with regard to the
seat placement that is fine. You can't get to a spot in the room where you'd
be at a 45 degree angle. But in many people's homes, or for outdoor projection
in commercial settings it can be an issue.

Laser is also nice because you don't have to deal with focus. The Focus is
fixed.

Where you do have issues with Lasers is color. Lasers are harder to get to
match the Gamut, and harder still to manipulate to represent all the colors in
10 bit color, (10 bits x 4)

Lasers don't tend to burn out which is nice.

Laser projectors do have to be optimized for the size of the screen more than
projection. With traditional projection the size of the pixel scales up. With
Lasers the dot doesn't really get larger. This is fine if the projected dot is
the right size, or some ratio of the right size.

Say a laser projects a dot, a pixel sort of, that is 1mm in size at a distance
of 15 feet. at 1080p you would have no space between the dots if the
projection was roughly 2 meters across.

Now you want to project something to the size of 4 meters across. With
traditional projection you change the focal length or move the projector back
and the dots get bigger. With a laser you have to put 4 dots (2x2) to do this.

If you want a dot that is only 1.4 times the size you have to use 4 dots and
over lap them.

The better Laser Projectors due this. They use up to 9 dots (3x3) and to where
each Dot may only be 4 bits, using 9 dots you can fake more colors (3 red, 3
green 3 blue). Cheaper projectors use a technique similar to sub pixels and
may use a Line rather than a dot (more like a Dash) for Red, and will have 7
dots 1 Red that is 3x the size, 3 Green, 3 blue.

In any case you have to have enough control over the laser to do the
adjustments or you end up with gaps in the dots which are noticeable far more
than the space between pixels that show up in DLP and LCD projectors.

~~~
birschtl
Well, almost all of your arguments are true for MEMS based laser projectors
from the late 90s only. Today's laser projectors are based on standard DLP,
LCD or LCos projectors with the main difference of a laser light engine
instead of xenon or uhp light bulbs. So, lets address your arguments one at a
time.

 _> >There are some downsides though since you don't get the same viewing
angle that you do with standard projection. The reflection off of the screen
tends to bounce back almost as straight as it hit..._

This isn't true at all. While Lasers do emit coherent light it doesn't cause
laser to be reflected back straight reasonably more than standard light. The
only issues with lasers is speckle which is caused by destructive and
constructive interference of coherent light on rough surfaces. And as any
projection surface is somewhat rough in respect to small wavelength,
manufacturers have to take care of this issue by integrating laser over time
inside the light engine. They do of course have trouble with green laser
speckle due to the eyes higher sensitivity to green light but nevertheless
they can reduce speckle by over 95 percent.

 _> >Laser is also nice because you don't have to deal with focus. The Focus
is fixed._

This is also only true for MEMS based laser projectors from the 90s. Today's
laser projectors are based on "standard" projection technology and therefore
have changing focus over distance.

 _> >Where you do have issues with Lasers is color. Lasers are harder to get
to match the Gamut, and harder still to manipulate to represent all the colors
in 10 bit color, (10 bits x 4) Lasers don't tend to burn out which is nice._

Image reproduction is still based on RGB. As long as you choose primaries that
lie well outside the standard color spaces (DCI P3, BTU 709) you can always
map colors to fit any colorspace inside this gamut. Colordepth is absolutely
unaffected of the Laser itself. Only color derivation technology reduces bit
depth. For example time sequential light engines like OSRAMs "Phaser"
(phosphor laser) do have the same issues like one chip DLPs. You can not fit
enough inter color segmentation inside one frame to get enough bit depth. 3
Chip DLPs with one laser engine per color have 10bit and even more color
depth.

 _> >Laser projectors do have to be optimized for the size of the screen more
than projection. With traditional projection the size of the pixel scales up.
With Lasers the dot doesn't really get larger. This is fine if the projected
dot is the right size, or some ratio of the right size..._

You do not shoot the laser "point" directly at the screen as with MEMS based
laser projectors. Today's laser projectors replace lamps by laser light
engines. You still use DLPs or LCos to reproduce the image.

