• For starters, there are the current DLP projectors, which have a maximum resolution of 1280x1024, and are what have been used in all the demonstrations over the past year or two for "Star Wars: Episode I", "The Perfect Storm", "Toy Story 2", and others. I've seen this system in action twice now, and quite simply, it sucks. The pixels look unacceptably large. The amount of detail in the image is too low. (If I may borrow a bit from Scott Norwood, your eyes end up searching for details that simply aren't there.) These DLP projectors also do not handle extremes of contrast (very brightly light or darkly light scenes) very well. Overall, it has too much of that "video look" to pass as a viable movie presentation system, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I believe this is what Phil Barlow of Disney is talking about when he referrs to "current" digital projectors. If he thinks they are "good enough", he has very low standards indeed.

• Texas Instruments is supposedly working on a higher resolution version of their DLP chip that will also have a better contrast range. I've been hearing about this for a while now, but it's yet to materialize. I believe they are aiming for exactly HDTV resolution, which is 1920x1080. That is also the resolution that George Lucas is using for "Star Wars: Episode II" (he did all the principal photography for this movie using a Sony HDTV camera modified with Panavision lenses). It would also be approximately equal to the resolution of most digital SFX shots in today's movies, which are usually done at "2K" resolution (although I wish it were more, since I can often see the individual pixels in such shots).

• Then there is JVC's D-ILA system. This was first demonstrated at around the same time as the "Star Wars: Episode I" DLP demos, and the reaction was not very favorable. Instead of giving up, though, they worked on it. A few months ago, they announced that there would be a newer, higher resolution (2048x1536, according to JVC's website) version of the chip coming soon, although it seems the M-4000 projector used at the demo John saw was still the older, lower resolution version of the D-ILA chip (1365x1024 according to JVC's website).

• Finally, there is something I have heard very little about, but which nevertheless sounds promising: laser projection. A company called Silicon Light has been working on this. They claim it can easily meet and/or exceed HDTV's 1920x1080 resolution, and because it uses lasers as its light source, it does not require the use Xenon lamps to provide light, unlike DLP or D-ILA. It also promises to have better color accuracy than other systems (due to the inherent color accuracy of lasers). I have not heard much about this system being tested for movie theater projection, but it sounds like it could surpass both DLP and D-ILA in quality and convenience. I did see a news story about Sony licensing technology from Silicon Light a couple of months ago, but the story did not specify what it was going to be used for (possibly rear-projection HDTV sets?)
  

Objectively; just from looking at the numbers, it seems that all of these system still have a ways to go before they match the resolution of even 35mm film, let alone 70mm film. Have a look at this resolution chart from Kodak's Cinesite for comparison. (While you're at it, have a look at this document at Kodak's main site for more information on why film is currently better than digital. Section 3 is particularly interesting.)

Subjectively; from having seen DLP presentations, as well as very, very good 35mm and 70mm presentations, I don't think the purely subjective visual experience of digital cinema has caught up to film yet. That's not to say that it won't eventually, but people like Phil Barlow and George Lucas seem to think digital systems are "good enough" as they stand today. I strongly disagree.

On the other hand, quality is not what is driving this -- it never was. This is about money. Can't you just hear the studio accountants and executives smacking their lips and rubbing their hands together at the idea of all the money digital cinema will save them? They must be thinking, "It's just data; distributing it will be practically free! And we can charge the same rental fees and ticket prices as we did before ... we'll be rich, rich, rich!" Ugh.

Speaking as someone who is very demanding when it comes to movie presentation quality, I am wary of what may come in the next couple of years. I honestly wouldn't mind some of today's medium quality digital systems got installed in theaters at first -- if they eventually upgrade when the technology gets better. Given what we know about theater companies and movie studios, I'd say that's a pretty big "if". I'd rather they wait until the technology really gets good before rushing into this, so that we don't have to worry about that particular "if". However, based on statements like those of Mr. Barlow of Disney, it sounds like they aren't going to wait. That worries me.

For a 10'6" x 18'10" matte white screen, 1600 watts should be more than enough to get 16 footlamberts with 35mm film, so the theatre's existing system is not operating at full efficiency.

You said they are getting 21 footlamberts on a 200 square foot screen with only 1600 watts --- which says they have decent efficiency. But, a 16:9 image on a 70 foot screen would be 2756 square feet, and require over ten times the power, or over 16,000 watts, so I would disagree that "a precise optical system with a 4-6 KW lamp will light up a 70 foot picture with no trouble at all."

I can go out right now, spend about $5000, and buy a digital XGA projector for my home with 1280x1024 resolution that will directly connect to a DVD player, and as soon as a HDTV-resolution DVD format hits the market, we'll be in the curious situation where home video equipment has a higher resolution (1080 vs 1024 vertical lines) then theatre equipment.

The SMPTE DC 28 Study Groups have prepared their reports, which will lead to the next step of establishing Working Groups to actually develop standards.

If you want to participate in the SMPTE engineering activities, you need to complete a "Statement of Participation to Become a Committee Member":
http://www.smpte.org/engr/

But when all is said and done, IMHO, "Film Done Right" has been able to fill huge screens with superior images for almost 50 years, since the dawn of the widescreen era.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

> and just what the heck did they 'explode' the grain in the
> Sorcerer's Apprentice for? It looks rediculous!

Let me take a guess ...

According to Richard Haines book, the original negative for Fantasia was made using the successive-exposure process -- meaning that each frame was exposed three times on the original negative ... the red record, then the green record, then the blue record. Then, in order to make the technicolor printing matrices, the negative would be run through an optical printer set up to expose every third frame, so as to make three, normal length matrices, each of which would be used to print a single color.

For the 1956 re-release, the negatives were combined to make a single Eastmancolor negative, which was then color-separated into three matrices. This would have added a large amount of grain.

Future re-releases were on Eastmancolor film, and have probably all faded.

So Disney probably had three options available to them:

1) Go back to the original, successive-exposure negative, scan it, and combine every three frames to get a single color frame. (expensive, plus any uneven shrinkage of the original nitrate negative would make this difficult, impossible, or overwhelmingly expensive.)

2) Go back to the 1956 Eastmancolor negative, unless it's faded by now (strong probability)

3) Scan a 35mm Technicolor release print.

3a) A 1940 nitrate print

3b) A 1956 safety print (with the additional grain because the negative was pointlessly combined and re-separated.

I wonder what they did.

 |  IP: Logged

With film, we know EXACTLY what those problems are and we know how to deal with them.

Just look at the Wankel engine. In the 70's, that was supposed to be the "savior" of the energy crisis... fewer parts, less maintanence and more fuel efficient. Now there are few, if any cars still being made with Wankels. Heck! If I had one, where would I go to get it fixed?

Same thing with the "Tucker Torpedo". I think swiveling headlights on a car is a GREAT idea. Where are they now? In museums. (and junkyards)

 |  IP: Logged

Most professional cinematographers would take issue with that statement! Check out the heated discussions on the on-line Cinematographers Mailing List (CML).