Soarin' Expansion and new Soarin' Around the World film

[Skippy]

Film is great.. when it's clean.

The last few times I've been on Soarin' at Epcot, the quality has been terrible.
Brightness and color looked a little bit off to me at times in the digital version, but overall a huge improvement to the collection of specks and dust I've been accustomed to. Can't wait to see how the new film, made format in mind, looks.

 

[wdwtopten]

Film is great.. when it's clean.

That's the most important point. Film, real film, degrades and needs maintenance. 4k digital doesn't.

 

[JediMasterMatt]

70mm film on the negative or even the printed frame does have more resolution than 4K digital; however, the one thing that gets neglected is that film is in motion. Gate judder in the projector negates a significant portion of the resolution advantage of film.

Digital projection doesn't have any bounce to the image and every frame is pixel perfect.

Projected image to projected image... 4K comes close to 70mm on most projection systems in terms of resolution. It's safe to say that with Disney Parks film handling history with all of their attractions, 4K Soarin' will smack down 70mm dusty, juddery, lamp flickery presentations any day of the week.

I for one welcome our digital projection overlords as it will take Disney maintenance out of the equation.

Of course the proof is in the pudding and I'll see Soarin' over California again no later than August. I'll let you know my thoughts then.

 

[DisneyCane]

70mm is more equivalent to what would be 8K in terms of resolution.

I made a slight error going from memory. IMAX 70mm is a little over 11k. Film has about 80 line pairs per mm of resolving power and the IMAX frame is 70mm wide. 70 x 80 x 2(line pairs, not lines) = 11,200. However, film is an analog system with a non-fixed pixel grid so it can truly resolve at this level. Digital systems have to have twice the samples of what they can resolve so a 4k system can only actually resolve 2k worth of detail.

Standard 70mm (non-IMAX) is about 8k.

Even with my mis-memory, the current IMAX film has significantly higher resolution than the 4k digital will. As far as the dust, I've never figured out why they have such an issue with it at Soarin'. I assume they have the same particle transfer rollers that normal IMAX theaters have (had when they were film) and they never had an issue. They should also have the same dust clearing system in the aperture. Maybe the 48fps rate makes the film run too fast to get the dust off?

Old school Disney would have worked with IMAX to create a specialized 8k or 12k setup using multiple projectors precision aligned and calibrated to produce an image that is equal in appearance to the 70mm film and better than any other digital projection out there. Just throwing a standard 4k IMAX projector (which is really a Barco projector) in there is something that anybody can do.

 

[Brad Bishop]

One thing I hate about film rides is when it's blurry. Now it may be kind of blurry because there's a build up of dust on the screen or it may be blurry because their is dust on the lens or it may just need to be refocused. Blurry, along with dust particles on the film itself, really takes you out of it.

The last time I was on the Harry Potter ride at IOA it was blurry and instead of being a fun adventure I thought I may actually puke - outside of ruining the illusion.

 

[JediMasterMatt]

I made a slight error going from memory. IMAX 70mm is a little over 11k. Film has about 80 line pairs per mm of resolving power and the IMAX frame is 70mm wide. 70 x 80 x 2(line pairs, not lines) = 11,200. However, film is an analog system with a non-fixed pixel grid so it can truly resolve at this level. Digital systems have to have twice the samples of what they can resolve so a 4k system can only actually resolve 2k worth of detail.

Standard 70mm (non-IMAX) is about 8k.

Even with my mis-memory, the current IMAX film has significantly higher resolution than the 4k digital will. As far as the dust, I've never figured out why they have such an issue with it at Soarin'. I assume they have the same particle transfer rollers that normal IMAX theaters have (had when they were film) and they never had an issue. They should also have the same dust clearing system in the aperture. Maybe the 48fps rate makes the film run too fast to get the dust off?

Old school Disney would have worked with IMAX to create a specialized 8k or 12k setup using multiple projectors precision aligned and calibrated to produce an image that is equal in appearance to the 70mm film and better than any other digital projection out there. Just throwing a standard 4k IMAX projector (which is really a Barco projector) in there is something that anybody can do.

See my comments above about resolution. 70mm in motion and projected is very different than a frame of 70mm film being analyzed for resolution.

Re: the dust - only Anaheim got a clean room. EPCOT did not. This is another reason why the 4K solution will be a better fit for Disney.

There is magic in celluloid. There is no doubt about it.

Cinefiles get very passionate about their film.

If you've ever seen a great quality film print on a great projector, then you can certainly appreciate it. Seeing a Star Wars movie at the Stagg theater at Skywalker Ranch is something that leaves an impression on you.

For most of the world, that possibility isn't a reality. Seeing a summer tentpole film under ideal circumstances is something that very few of us have ever done. Your local multiplex could never live up the standards of the flagship theaters that actually employed people to properly care for the projection equipment.

This is why the digital revolution has been so great for the theater industry for the consumer.

It use to be if you wanted to see the new blockbuster, you better get to your local theater in the first few days of the film coming out or else you would end up watching a dusty, scratched, patched up reel.

Now with digital projection, every showing is as good as the last.

Is it as good as it could possibly be under ideal circumstances? Nope; but, it's a whole lot better than what 99.5% of the world ever got to see.

 

[DisneyCane]

70mm film on the negative or even the printed frame does have more resolution than 4K digital; however, the one thing that gets neglected is that film is in motion. Gate judder in the projector negates a significant portion of the resolution advantage of film.

Digital projection doesn't have any bounce to the image and every frame is pixel perfect.

Projected image to projected image... 4K comes close to 70mm on most projection systems in terms of resolution. It's safe to say that with Disney Parks film handling history with all of their attractions, 4K Soarin' will smack down 70mm dusty, juddery, lamp flickery presentations any day of the week.

I for one welcome our digital projection overlords as it will take Disney maintenance out of the equation.

Of course the proof is in the pudding and I'll see Soarin' over California again no later than August. I'll let you know my thoughts then.

What you say about resolution of film in motion does not apply nearly as much to IMAX as it does to 35mm. The IMAX film system is pin stabilized and decelerates the film as it is grabbed by the pins in order to eliminate judder. Projected IMAX does come very close to the theoretical resolution on the negative.

For normal movie theatres, the change from 35mm to digital (even 2k) improved the presentation quality probably 95% of the time. Release prints were made in high speed printing processes that robbed resolution and most theatres didn't take the care to project them properly which robbed more resolution. As a result, films were often scratched and dirty after a week or 2.

An IMAX print done for Disney for Soarin' is going to be printed straight from the negative which maintains maximum resolution. The resulting image will be close to the 11k theoretical resolution and doesn't have judder.

As far as flickery lamps go, they can leave bulbs in the projector too long with the digital projectors as well. The flicker is not from the shutter.

In summary, 4k digital for a movie screen viewed from a normal distance will look as good, if not better than 35mm film and very close to a 70mm release. This fact is more true with laser projectors that can get higher contrast ratios and deeper blacks. However, for a ride like Soarin' where you are very close to a very large screen, with the exception of getting rid of the dust, 4k digital will not have the perceived resolution of the current IMAX film.

 

[Rob562]

I thought the single projector was being replaced with a grid of four 4K projectors. Isn't that what Universal did with Simpsons?

-Rob

 

[marni1971]

I thought the single projector was being replaced with a grid of four 4K projectors. Isn't that what Universal did with Simpsons?

-Rob

They did.

 

[msteel]

They did.

But were the projectors tiled for resolution or superimposed for brightness?

 

[marni1971]

But were the projectors tiled for resolution or superimposed for brightness?

From what I know, brightness. But don't quote me.

 

[180º]

From what I know, brightness. But don't quote me.

Consider yourself quoted on that.

I rode DCA's Soarin' today. If you ask me, it was a big step sideways. Steady and clean, yes, but very dim, and by no IMAX standards was it crisp. Where are those laser projectors that we were told the Imagineers were so excited about?

 

[1023]

Consider yourself quoted on that.

I rode DCA's Soarin' today. If you ask me, it was a big step sideways. Steady and clean, yes, but very dim, and by no IMAX standards was it crisp. Where are those laser projectors that we were told the Imagineers were so excited about?

High Dynamic Resolution is on it's way....sort of.... but if the anecdotes are an indication, that is not what Disney put in. But very soon, if not today, you can buy an HDR (SUHD) "TV" for your abode. They kick a regular 4K in the junk.

*1023*

Edited for spelling..

 

[raymusiccity]

Let's be fair. They had no idea that there would be 4K video back then. Also, CG was still amazing and state of the art looking and had no idea 4K would be here today to pixelate it.

Hindsight is always 20/20. I remember when our local movie theater spent big bucks to install the newest and most groundbreaking projection system.......Cinerama!.....(pretty cool, even if you could see the lines on the screen.)

Well, that lasted for 2 years. Two of the 3 projectors were scrapped for a single lens system.

Kodak invented the digital camera, and they also turned down the rights to GoPro! So much for keeping up with new ideas.

Disney seems right on the money with the improvements being rolled out with Soarin'.

 

[articos]

Consider yourself quoted on that.

I rode DCA's Soarin' today. If you ask me, it was a big step sideways. Steady and clean, yes, but very dim, and by no IMAX standards was it crisp. Where are those laser projectors that we were told the Imagineers were so excited about?

Those laser projectors are very, very VERY expensive for now. They are worth the excitement though.

 

[DisneyCane]

But were the projectors tiled for resolution or superimposed for brightness?

Brightness. They used Sony's 4K projectors which have severe brightness limitations. At the time, they were the only 4K available (TI hadn't produced the 4K DLP chip yet) and IMAX was going to use them for all digital IMAX. They decided that the cost of 4 projectors just to get enough brightness for 2D was too high and switched to 2K DLP with 2 projectors still superimposed for brightness (running separate images for 3D).

 

[DisneyCane]

High Dynamic Resolution is on it's way....sort of.... but if the anecdotes are an indication, that is not what Disney put in. But very soon, if not today, you can buy an HDR (SUHD) "TV" for your abode. They kick a regular 4K in the junk.

*1023*

Edited for spelling..

The issue with 4K, HDR and even regular 1080i/p HD at home is the data compression used by Satellite, Cable and streaming services. You aren't getting to see nearly all of the resolution that the display is capable of. Unfortunately, the content providers are trying as hard as they can to move away from disk based delivery which have much lower compression ratios and look much better.

It's not apples to apples because of the different compression algorithm used, but professional movie theaters run the data at maximum 250 Mbps for 24 fps material. Satellite and cable are running somewhere around 10 Mbps for 30 fps material. Until there is better quality content delivery, it doesn't matter if you have a 100k TV because the compression artifacts are very noticeable as screen size increases.

 

[1023]

The issue with 4K, HDR and even regular 1080i/p HD at home is the data compression used by Satellite, Cable and streaming services. You aren't getting to see nearly all of the resolution that the display is capable of. Unfortunately, the content providers are trying as hard as they can to move away from disk based delivery which have much lower compression ratios and look much better.

It's not apples to apples because of the different compression algorithm used, but professional movie theaters run the data at maximum 250 Mbps for 24 fps material. Satellite and cable are running somewhere around 10 Mbps for 30 fps material. Until there is better quality content delivery, it doesn't matter if you have a 100k TV because the compression artifacts are very noticeable as screen size increases.

Absolutely. That's why there is a separate set of data managing the enhancement in SUHD/HDRI. Primarily, it will change the color scale and intensity (brightness) of the presentation.

As far as at home content delivery, several on demand services (such as Netflix and Dolby) are already in pursuit of content and it's delivery. While this will initially be 4K for home use, for projection it can be far more dense. At least that's my understanding.

For immersion of an audience, get the best resolution possible and get them close to the screen.

*1023*

 

[ToTBellHop]

Sorry I didn't nab a picture, but I noticed this morning that you can now see vertical supports for the new Soarin theater both inside and outside (bus loop) of Epcot.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I don't really love the way Soarin' looks now at DCA. It isn't bad, but it's kind of bad, compared to what it was. People will probably call me crazy because I guess it's clearer/sharper, there's no print damage, whatever. Although defects in the screen were apparently not repaired? I don't know how to explain it or what it is I'm looking at, but it appears to be dings in the middle and off to the sides of the screen. Anyway, that said, I felt like the contrast, black levels and colors were all screwed up and it now looks like a gigantic LCD screen.