Warren Theatre

[Bobby H]

Not all DLP equipped TVs will do full "1080p" resolution. In fact, most do not. Most are merely 720p. That especially goes for many of those DLP driven plasma and LCD sets.

While a few DLP models deliver native 1920 X 1080 display, some other LCD and LCOS systems can as well. Sony's latest "SXRD" monitors are a good example.

Still, virtually none of them can show 1920 X 1080 in progressive scan -which makes that moniker the marketing people are using, "1080p", very stupid and extremely misleading.

Basically, there's nothing on the market right now I find suitable for purchase -at least for my needs. Gotta have full progressive scan at maximum HD resolution and the ability to run a computer through it at the same resolution or there just will simply be no sale.

[Martin]

sony's second generation sxrd's which were released a few months ago are fully 1080p compliant. the first generation were advertised as 1080p since that was their native resolution, but couldn't accept a 1080p signal as input. definitely misleading.

later this month sony will release two lines of flat panel lcd which should also be fully 1080p compliant... available up to 46" in size. sometime after that, perhaps before q1 2007, they'll also be releasing some 52" lcd models...

only reason why i know this is that i've been planning on getting a flat panel tv this upcoming year and have been researching what's out there. i don't want to drop a few grand on something that's obsolete out of the box, so 1080p is a must. -M

[SoonerDave]

That especially goes for many of those DLP driven plasma and LCD sets.

Bobby, you're going to have to help me on this one. DLP is one technology, Plasma is another, and LCD is another. My understanding is that they are all fundamentally and mutually exclusive. "DLP-driven Plasma" is a non-sequitur, isn't it?

Only the very latest versions of the DLP TV's using TI's third-generation DLP chipset will do true 1080p, but they are out there. Samsung, as an example, sells a series of their newer DLP sets that will accept 1080p input through component inputs or HDMI.

LCOS is one of those on-again/off-again technologies that's too risky, IMHO, to spend big $$ on. Vendors jumped on that bandwagon, and almost as quickly jumped off. My understanding is that the follow-on generation of DLP's will use LED's for their light source rather than the color wheel, which should improve their picture/color quality even further.

I have a 32" 720P/1080i LCD in our bedroom, and while it's very nice, I just don't think I could sanction it out to 50"+ for a main TV replacement when my trusty old conventional Mitsu 50" bites the dust. LCD response times are still such that there's too much artifacting (is that a word?) on high-movement sequences.

I do think, however, that 1080p is a bit overhyped. There's certainly no broadcast standard for it, and for that matter there's a point of diminishing marginal returns in terms of the value of 1080p on anything smaller than, say, about 50" or so screen. In other words, you'll be hard-pressed to notice a difference between 1080i and 1080p on a screen much below that size...

-SoonerDave

[Bobby H]

DLP is an imaging chip, not a screen illumination technology. DLP chips can be found in plasma TVs, LCD TVs and rear projection TVs.

Sony's Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) SXRD televisions come in a variety of rear projection, LCD and plasma illumination.

JVC's D|ILA chips are another competing imager technology.

Sony is under considerable pressure to move their sets into full 1080p compliance due to Playstation 3 and its capability of outputting 1920 X 1080 in progressive scan. Hopefully that capability will also equate to making it possible to attach computers and have them run at that top resolution as well. That would make something like a Windows Media Center PC finally make sense to have.

I do think, however, that 1080p is a bit overhyped. There's certainly no broadcast standard for it, and for that matter there's a point of diminishing marginal returns in terms of the value of 1080p on anything smaller than, say, about 50" or so screen. In other words, you'll be hard-pressed to notice a difference between 1080i and 1080p on a screen much below that size...

It's very easy to tell the difference from a 1280 X 720 pixel image versus that of a 1920 X 1080 image.

Sure, there's no 1080p broadcast standard. But pick up any HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and you'll find the video stream encoded for full 1080p 1920 X 1080 levels.

When it comes to making a HDTV set double as a computer monitor, there is no such thing as too many pixels. If you have an application like Adobe After Effects 7 you need all the pixel real estate you can get. I will not stomach doing graphics work at anything under 1600 X 1200. It's counterproductive to work at levels like 1024 X 768 or even 1280 X 1024. My notebook runs at 1680 X 1050. That's as low as I can tolerate.

[SoonerDave]

It's very easy to tell the difference from a 1280 X 720 pixel image versus that of a 1920 X 1080 image.

Which is why I was stating there's little truly perceptible difference in going from *1080i* to 1080p on screens much *smaller than 50"*. If there were, vendors would be tripping over themselves to provide it at every screen size, but, they're not. That's why you see 1080p *generally* in the 50" vicinity, but not much smaller. It will likely backfill into the smaller sizes as implementation costs drop over time.

But pick up any HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and you'll find the video stream encoded for full 1080p 1920 X 1080 levels.

For those willing to plunk down $700 for Toshiba's HD-DVD player and repurchase remastered movies at $50+, that's relevant. For now, while yet another format war rages yet again (and this time one Sony has bet the company on) I'll hedge my bets and save my money while 1080p exists as a niche market within a niche market. A TV that doesn't support it natively right now is hardly obsolete out of the box, which someone else suggested. This is not at all to say 1080p isn't a nice to have, but it's going too far to say it is compulsory IMHO.

-SoonerDave

[Martin]

actually, a still from 1080i would look identical to one from 1080p. same number of pixels and all. the difference is in frame rate. the interlaced picture will have half the potential frame rate of the progressive one. if there's not much movement on-screen the quality difference isn't much... if there's lot's of action, however, that's where you'd be able to tell.

as for dlp, while it is a chip, i'm under the impression that it's used only when the image is projected onto a surface... ergo dlp chips are in projection tv's and digital projectors and NOT in plasma or lcd displays. -M

[SoonerDave]

a still from 1080i would look identical to one from 1080p.

Hmmm...good point, but wouldn't you have to normalize the two to a common number of fields? To get an entire picture at 1080i you need two fields, but 1080p you only need one. A single-field in 1080i is only going to get you 540 lines, I think...

as for dlp, while it is a chip, i'm under the impression....

That's what I thought, too. mmm. I can't even conceive of how you would make a DLP Plasma, kinda like making a sonic laser?

-SoonerDave

[Martin]

hmmm...good point, but wouldn't you have to normalize the two to a common number of fields? To get an entire picture at 1080i you need two fields, but 1080p you only need one. A single-field in 1080i is only going to get you 540 lines, I think...

yes, exactly my point. with 1080p you get one full picture per field while with 1080i you get 1/2 of the picture per field. in 1080i, most digital televisions take the two fields, merge them and then display the complete image frame. so if you're running at 60 fields per second, you're getting 60 frames per second in 1080p but only 30 frames per second with 1080i. -M

[traxx]

I'm realllly starting to doubt if this theater will ever happen.

[Easy180]

Was just thinking the same thing as Lowes is almost done already...Have a feeling I will drive by one night and the Theatre sign has somehow disappeared

[Centerback]

I am told by an "inside source" that this project IS going to happen, it is just a matter of time. They are hoping to begin later this year or early next year. In reality, the finished product is probably a year away.

[Intrepid]

There was recent print version of Moore Spotlight that said the theater was going to be a 14 screen not a 20 screen. However, the sign on Telephone Rd. in Moore still indicates a 20-plex.

Anyone heard anything for sure about the number of screens? I think remember someone mentioning it in the past.

[xpertinfun]

There was recent print version of Moore Spotlight that said the theater was going to be a 14 screen not a 20 screen. However, the sign on Telephone Rd. in Moore still indicates a 20-plex.

Anyone heard anything for sure about the number of screens? I think remember someone mentioning it in the past.

From what I read somewhere is that they went over budget, So they had to downsize it a little and redo the bluprints......I thought it only affect the lobby though, Maybe they had to reduce the amount of screens as well.

[SoonerDave]

A 30% reduction in screens might provide a pretty close match to what I think was something right at a 40-50% estimate over budget.

Makes me wonder if that cost problem has anything to do with the recent acquisition of the Regal at Crossroads by AMC...??

-SoonerDave

[Bobby H]

There's a number of variables that may have put the project over budget.

Interest rates have risen quite a bit over the past couple years. Commercial building projects like this are funded in bits and chunks with borrowed money. It's now quite a lot more expensive to borrow money.

Construction and materials prices have risen a great deal. The cost of putting up the building and even making the parking lot is much more expensive than it was a couple years ago.

Then there's Digital Cinema. Warren Theatres hasn't taken the plunge on digital projection, but may be forced to do so pretty soon. The systems are pretty expensive, but if they can ink the right kind of deal movie studios may shoulder much of the hardware cost. Carmike Cinemas made such a deal.

Makes me wonder if that cost problem has anything to do with the recent acquisition of the Regal at Crossroads by AMC...??

Those situations are probably not related. Movie theater chains buy existing theaters and sell off others all the time.

AMC Theatres recently aquired the large Loews/Cineplex theater chain. The US Dept. of Justice has forced AMC to sell off some existing Loews and Cineplex Odeon locations to settle some anti-trust situations. I think Regal bought up some of those theaters and then perhaps sold the Crossroads Mall theater (and possibly others in different markets) to AMC in order to lower their own operational costs.

Even if the Warren Theater is built as a 14-plex I think it will still be a more compelling draw to audiences than other area theaters. The point with building a good multiplex is not having the most screens. The goal is to really have the best quality theaters. Warren is farther along on that track than just about any other theater chain in the country.

[traxx]

I am told by an "inside source" that this project IS going to happen, it is just a matter of time. They are hoping to begin later this year or early next year. In reality, the finished product is probably a year away.

Time? How much time? The sign has been up for it for probably a year now. And later on this year? There's only two months left in the year. I wonder if the insider source is being fed a line.

[xpertinfun]

All of those tractors across the street had me all gitty until I realized they are probably from the Lowes project just waiting to be picked up by a tractor trailer.

I also noticed they are moving some dirt directly across the street from the Warren site...Maybe just making a street to the new Lowes?

Also wondering what they are going to do with that HUGE ditch right next to the Lowes....Some kind of drainage ditch I suppose, But its giant!

[OSUFlounder]

I keep wondering when they will start as well - first it was in the fall, after the road construction on Telephone was finished. Then the spring, then late summer... and now the end of the year. I understand that they have had problems with the site, but people are starting to doubt if they will come at all.
As for Lowe's, I understand why they would face the highway but it seems to me, given the bad state of the access road that they should have put the back of the store towards the back of the walmart and had the front facing the hospital. At least I wouldn't be staring at the back of the building every time I go down Telephone.

[Spartan]

They have already spent a few million on site work. They won't back out now.

[traxx]

A few million on site work? Either I'm dumb or blind. I drove by yesterday and the only thing I see that they've done to the site is put up the Warren Theater sign that's been there for over a year now.

[Easy180]

traxx...Now you know that sign put them back at least a couple hundred bucks

Won't be surprised if their next excuse is they don't want to start construction right before the winter weather begins

Whatever it is...It is extremely apparent they are in no rush to get this theater open

[MrZ]

I noticed the Key Construction signs were pulled down in the last few days and one of the 2 trailers with their logo is gone. Maybe a different construction company is doing the work now.
Did anyone ever find out if the city actually paid for any of the work to prepare the site? If so it would be nice if they at least could get an answer besides the canned reply that Warren keeps giving.
This situation is starting to go beyond ridiculous.

[Spartan]

Agreed. There was lots of site work done. It used to be a thicket of woods, had to be cleared, flattened...guess that's expensive. I know a lot more about urban infill than suburban big-boxes...

[xpertinfun]

Oh my....I noticed the KEY construction signs were taken down now as well...Of course it cant be to good for business having your name attached to a construction project that was supposed to start 2 yrs ago, So who can blame them?

The bad part is that they did their construction on the one in Wichita, So this may not be such a good thing. I say the Warren Theatre signs come down within 2 weeks time....Anyone wanna bet?

That Sux.

[Spartan]

I would not be taking you up on your bet...

It's too premature to tell. Katrina set this back. They're waiting for construction costs to come back down, or they will downsize their plans. That's what I've been told.