"Episode II" probably won't look quite as bad though, because the digital shots in "Episode I" were done with a 60i camera, and "Episode II" was shot with a 24p camera (except for any over/under-cranked shots, which had to be done on film, since the 24p camera can only shoot at 24 frames per second, ha!) In any case, if you watch "Episode I" on VHS, you can just look for some shots that have a very "interlaced" look to them. The colors are also noticably duller than the rest of the movie. (Not that "Episode I" had particularly good color in the first place.)

Regarding film prints of the upcoming "Episode II", I believe what is being hyped up is the fact that all the duplication negatives will come straight off a laser recorder, eliminating all the inter-positive, inter-negative steps that normally are part of the release printing process. However, that won't be first the first time that has been done, will it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't that already been done with animated features (which are finalized on computers), and wasn't it done with "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" (which was scanned and color corrected on computers at Cinesite)?

Here are some links to the Kodak Cinesite work on "O Brother, Where Art Thou?":
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE TOO
AND DON'T FORGET TO CLICK ON THIS ONE

The original negative was digitally scanned at very high resolution, and after the digital image manipulation and enhancement, output back to film using laser output. Many have commented on the superb image quality.

------------------
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 a big time polluter. Thats the reason that the Wankel was basically DOA in the US. In 1969, GM and Ford were planning to have Wankels as the standard engines in the Vega and Pinto, respectively, but there were too many problems with emissions and they went with conventional piston engine designs. The Wankel at that time with its 4-barrel carburetion system wasnt as fuel-efficient as you might think either. Fuel injection has combated both of these drawbacks, however.

The Toyo-Kogyo [Mazda] company of Japan was the only commercial automaker to successfully market a Wankel-powered car to the US market (there were European-produced Wankel cars as well, most of them prototypes or 'concept' vehicles, however.)
Wankels were also used in limited service in European aircraft and in marine applications.

>>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?<<

Only one that I know of still [back] in production is the 2001 Mazda RX8. Mazda Wankels can be repaired at many places to include all Mazda dealers...

Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of that evil being, D-cinema.

-Aaron

The quality of D-projectors is almost there, and is already perfectly suitable for some markets. And as to the cost; well, yes it's too much now, but I remember when calculators that only add, subtract, multiply, and divide used to cost $159.99; (big Nixie tubes!) now they give them away.

quote:

---

Here are some links to the Kodak Cinesite work on "O Brother, Where Art Thou?":

The original negative was digitally scanned at very high resolution, and after the digital image manipulation and enhancement, output back to film using laser output. Many have commented on the superb image quality.

---

The recent DVD release of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" has a bonus feature covering the work done by Kodak Cinesite on this feature. I didn't see it in the theater, so I can't comment on how the film actually looked. On the the DVD, sometimes the faces looked like that they were covered in a ton of white dust. Maybe that was the intended effect, but it bothered me at times. What was real interesting was that the film was shot in June and July and they were able to change predominate background trees to an autumn color very successfully without messing the foreground up. Interesting bonus worth watching on the whole process.

AFAIK, that was the intended effect. It's been a few months since I've seen the film, so I don't recall the scenes you are referring to. Kodak has a "split screen" demo that shows how the colors of the green trees and grass were changed without changing the other things in the scene like clothing and flesh tones.

I think that at the end of the day the Digital vs film argument will be settled by the audience. Frankly if I saw a movie projected by a digital projector at a cinema I would probably not realise it if somebody didn't tell me. I do, however notice scratches on film and those funny white blobs that appear just before a change of scene sometimes.

I found Disney's attitude towards digital interesting. If they seriously want to save money and believe that digital is good enough then why don't they just shoot in 16mm? As far as I can see 16mm has superior resolution to that which the lower end digital projectors offer currently.

I look at the whole debate about digital vs film in the following way. Essentially at one end of the street you have the film production company who want to make a profit from making movies and at the other end you have the cinema patron who wants to see the movie. The argument is about how you get from one end of the street to the other in the least costly manner.

In many other industries we are seeing technology reducing the costs to both producer and consumer. The motion picture industry is no different. Yes film at present may have a slight edge over digital in terms of resolution however it is only a matter of time (and not long at that) before the resolution and colour quality will equal, if not surpass that of film.

This will hapen. No ifs and buts - more just a question of when. Just as black and white film was displaced by colour film, colour film will be displaced by digital projection at some point.

Personally I regard this as a positive step. The cheaper movie making equipment is and the cheaper distribution costs are, the more people and businesses will be able to compete at producing movies. Arguably there may even be scope for better movies produced by amateur organisations and individuals.

 |  IP: Logged

I think that Pete just mean that: with this extra money, smaller studios will be able to get their product seen.

Honestly, I feel that a well-presented film is worth $8-10. A play is ten times that for even the cheap, buy-day-of-show tickets. True, theaters can't control the content of the film they run! But, if the theater is clean, no wait at the box office or candy stand, comfy seats, good sightlines, well-lit clean screen, steady image, great stereo sound, etc. I think it's worth it.