|  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

To summarize, he found the digital presentation sharper.

quote:

---

Digital projection is the only way to see the film as he intended, without degradation from transferring the images to film, Lucas says.

---

It seems unlikely to me that a DLP system, throwing up a decompressed (lossy) image in real time, is going to produce a better image then a positive print made from an original negative off a film recorder.

The film recorder:

(1) works from an uncompressed, non-lossy data file, eliminating compression artifacts.
(2) can "upres" the image to 4K resolution
(3) can use time-intensive smoothing and interpolation algorithms on the resulting higher-resolution image to reduce pixelization
(4) adds two generations of pixel-hiding film grain -- the negative and the release print.

The digital projector:

(1) Works from a compressed, lossy data file.
(2) Is limited to 1280 x 1024.
(3) Is limited to real-time smoothing algorithms and pixel overlap to conceal the low-resolution digital source.
(4) Contributes no pixel-hiding grain.

Those are the factors that immediately come to mind.

As the saying goes, "you can't get blood out of a stone". You can add edge effects to an image to make it appear sharper at certain distances, but if the detail is not captured in the original image, it no longer is there. The HDCAM digital recording format is limited to 1440 horizontal pixels luminance (Y) and 480 pixels chroma (C):
http://www.digitaltelevision.com/publish/dtvbook/ch3.shtml
Digital Recording Format Comparison

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

quote:

---

As the saying goes, "you can't get blood out of a stone". You can add edge effects to an image to make it appear sharper at certain distances, but if the detail is not captured in the original image, it no longer is there.

---

I stole the word "upres" from an article on film recorders and film scanners.

I'm fully aware that you can't really increase resolution. My point was exactly as you said -- the film scanner allows you to perform smoothing and pixel concealment operations that can't be duplicated by a projector.

quote:

---

The HDCAM digital recording format is limited to 1440 horizontal pixels luminance (Y) and 480 pixels chroma (C)

---

What's shocking to me is how low the resolution is of the recording format. Well, I'll probably be seeing the movie in the next few days, and you can bet I'll be paying attention to the image quality. Maybe it isn't an issue.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Four Ep2 shows. Three of them had sound-related problems directly related to sound-on-film technology. One of the 3 prints is dirty after only 3 days. If this is typical of what happens in average theaters, no wonder George wants to get digital rolled out now. Film-Techers represent such a small percentage of booth personnel, the situation is probably hopeless. I know I've said before that "film looks and sounds better than ever" but maybe I should have worded it to say "film can look and sound better than ever, but it depends mostly on luck".

Another observation: I mentioned F-T to the manager of one of the local theaters (I won't say which one but if you read my posts you know it has to be either Cinemark or Regal). He/she said F-T is a typical internet site where technical wannabe losers hang out and nobody here really knows anything. Also that industry people hold film-techers in low regard and pay no attention to the site or anything said here.

Is this depressing or what?

quote:

---

David said:
film can look and sound better than ever, but it depends mostly on luck

---

What does luck have anything to do with anything?