|  IP: Logged

I never see movies in my area anymore. Something to do with wanting to see them projected properly...

There you go...

Further, EP 2 was very dark in places so much so that my eyes were aching for more light and detail. The lack of detail I think was what caused a very uncomfortable feeling watching those scenes more so than the lack of light. I've watched may films in theatres that were well under 16ftL and that wasn't nearly as uncomfortable as was the lack of detail in both Ep2 and JP.

My point is, I don't know what was going on where you were watching spectacular DLP, it could very well been one of those vanity sites that Technicolor is running (and consequently, super tweaking) to convince producers to go to DLP. But in the real world of the AMC Empire in the heart of Times Square where it's down and dirty day in and day out, the DLP system is simply not holding up -- I just isn't reproducing that pristine image that they are able to get in Alhambra; over here in New York, it looks a lot worse than its film counterpart.

I was able to walk from the DLP theatre at the end of the 9:30p Ep2 show and into the 10:30p show in the 35mm theatre. The DLP was fresh in my mind. I was able to watch a good part of the 35mm show and I was immediately struck with how rich the image was with detail, color and above all, contrast. The difference was not subtle. I also saw the film "artifacts"-- there was dirt and some scratches - quite an inditement of what must be going on in that booth given that this film has only been playing a few weeks. But, I can tell you that I prefered the film over the DLP overwhelmingly.

Now mind you, there was a lot of the same soft focus problems in the film as ther was in the DLP, where the computer generated stuff was combined with the live (the live action looking WORSE than the CGI stuff). This tells me that we really can't make a judgement based on films like Ep2 or any other heavy CGI/SFX material because we can never tell if the computer generated stuff is what looks like crap or if it actually a shortcoming of the DLP itself. The only REAL test of what DLP can or can't do is if a film is shot with little or NO computer generated material and the camera neg is used to generate a DLP master as well as a 35mm showprint. Then we watch both and decide which is more pleasing.

Next, we look at the REAL deciding factor -- the cost from camera lens to projector lens, including maintenance and operational costs of DLP and 35mm film. It's those cost factors, more than anything else that will tell us which of the two systems will dominate the industry in 2025.

Frank

PS, just out of curiosity, how can ANYONE tell if DLP is rock steady when the camera never stopped zooming around like it was mounted in a bucking bronko? Perhaps Mr. Lucas realized that if he sat his video camera on a tripod for one freakin minute, then maybe too many people would be able to actually see the lack of resolution, detail and contrast. Ten minutes into the film I was looking for the dramamine.

 |  IP: Logged

DLP is rock steady when it's from a direct digital source. There are plently of non-moving shots in AOTC to see this.

And that's the minimum. When you consider the capital outlay and the likelyhood that these things will become obsolete in 3-5 years vs. the 20 year life of most film cinema gear (30-50 years on the projectors themselves) it is also reasonable to ask for it to be better than what it is replacing, perhaps 70mm quality.

Too bad more people didn't get to see the DLP presentation of Hearts in Atlantis that I saw. That was one hell of a good transfer.

I too am not anti-digital. In fact, I went into that screening because I was asked by a forum memeber to watch the Ep 2 in the same theatre he saw it in and to give an unbiased evaluation. I went in determined to evaluate it exactly the way I would any 35mm presentation.

Look, the goals that DLP aspires to would make anyone interested in superior presentation very happy. As someone whose whole career has been focused on the art-house end of the industry, where our goal is to be able to show retrospective classics to new generations so these magnificant works can be appreciated and made real to them, I know first hand the shortcomings of 35mm distribution (not 35mm FILM, but the way it is stored, maintained and made available -- or not). I cannot tell you how painful it is to have to run mono prints of films that originally were created in 6 channel stereo....or prints that are faded, scratched, chopped up and otherwise mutilated. Would I embrace a technology that would allow me to run TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD on a large screen with a scratch-free, pristine image that looked every bit as good as the Russel Harlan's original cinemaphotography, instead of the 16mm print which is what Universal claims is the only release print they have available? You you bet I would -- in a freakin New York minute. I wouldn't care if it was digital or starship partical beam based technology, I would be the first one on my block to set it up in the booth.

-Is DLP as it is right now good enough? Should we settle on this resolution of approximately 1200x1000 pixels?

-Did you know a computer monitor that anyone can buy for $200 can far outperform DLP in terms of image quality? Did you know DLP is approximately the same exact resolution as HDTV? Shouldn't a professional format easily defeat what normal consumers can buy?

-Who should pay for this, especially considering when theater chains are cheap asses and it's the studios who will save millions on shipping, etc. What is the incentive for theaters given the fact that few don't even care about quality as it is right now? A lowly paid projectionist who works for 5 years with a $1 raise every year is still cheaper than a single DLP unit. Do you think the studios will actually pay for this?

-How will DLP be upgraded if it is decided that it will be improved? The entire mirror array would have to be changed out and also the new software and all that to handle the new codecs. I imagine that more storage space would also be needed due to less compression and larger file size of the improved format.

-Do you like to start arguments? It's great that you had some good DLP presentations, but it seems to me based on some of your comments ("Sorry I said something good about digital", "nothing can convince you" etc etc etc) lead me to believe that you are perhaps a troll.

 |  IP: Logged