And the views of Glenn Kennel, Kodak Digital Cinema Program Manager:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/kennelP.shtml#p

____________________________________________________________________

QUESTION: There has been a lot of discussion about what resolution is 'good enough' for theatrical digital projection. Do you have a standard for that?

KENNEL: We believe you need to project at least 2K resolution to create natural looking images that don't block up or have jagged edges. With film, you begin with a negative that can capture at least 4K resolution. This resolution is reduced somewhat by the analog film duplication and projection process. However, there are other crucial factors including retaining the contrast, color gamut, and tonality captured on the original negative. It is important to retain subtle details. Maybe it's a slight blush in someone's cheek when another character enters a scene that gives the audience a powerful visual clue that is a key story point. From our perspective, that's one of the big limitations imposed by the new generation of HD cameras. Resolution is about 1.5K and the dynamic range falls far short of film. We are determined to preserve those cinematic qualities of film with both film and digital projection.

QUESTION: How does the prototype Kodak Digital Cinema projector compare to other projectors that we have seen demonstrated?

KENNEL: We are capable of putting more pixels (resolution) on the screen, if that's what you are asking. The current digital cinema benchmark is the DLP chips that are 1280 by 1024 pixels. That's about 1.2 million pixels. The next generation JVC (2K) D-ILA chips we are using in our prototype projector have an on-screen resolution of 2048 by 1536, which is about three million pixels. When you combine that advantage in resolution with our color management technology, you begin to get a more cinematic look.

_____________________________________________________________________

 |  IP: Logged

My own opinion is that there are a number of business people doing some serious arm twisting behind the scenes because they want to make a ton of money off of patents and licensing for these inferior systems. I would not be surprised at all if George Lucas had a seriously vested interest in DLP. Overall, I see the digital projection thing as being a kind of scam using the buzzword "DIGITAL" so a few fellows can make a lot of money. You have to keep in mind that Texas Instruments, JVC and others developing "digital projection" systems are using commercial theaters as a kind of staging area for pushing the same imaging chips into the much more lucrative home theater and personal computing markets.

------

And I agree. When EPISODE I was released I recall reading that Lucas and Qualcomm were working on the TI system. Lucas had stated from then that he was going all-digital with EPISODE II and that only digitally-equipped cinemas would get to play it.

Happily, EPISODE I was not the phenomenon we all anticipated. If it was, he'd have gotten his way with EP 2 and we'd all be running CLONES with middle-of-the-road digital projectors.

As for the words about Home Theatre...well...all I can say is:

Look what happened to THX, right?

Would it be unfair to make Dolby Digital EX guilty by association? This is the result of a collaboration between Lucasfilm and Dolby and it was one of those requirements for THE PHANTOM MENACE and I haven't really seen too many films using it since then.

By the way...Has EX been pimped out to the Home Theatre market yet?

------------------
~Manny.

Some people can read "War and Peace" and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story while I, on the other hand, can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.
Lex Luthor, "Superman: The Movie"

Please define "superior"

Please read this carefully. The members of this forum are all about QUALITY. Current DLP projection resolution is not even as good as an inexpensive computer monitor at it's current stage. It has major issues when blowing it's image up onto a large screen (large meaning MORE than a measley 40 feet) and as many of the members here have pointed out simply does not look as good as film. It's an excellent prototype, but the technology is just not there yet! I'm glad you liked what you saw and I'm sure most of the other guys here are happy for you as well, but the bottom line is that until the day when DLP type video projection can match currently available 35mm film projection, if the industry switches to it now we may be stuck with it for a damned long time, and we do not want to sacrifice QUALITY all for convenience and cheapness of theater owners who will not employ professional operators. When that day comes when video projection surpasses 35mm film (preferably surpassing 70mm film), I believe you will find that everyone here will on their own accord switch to video projection. Until that day, these guys are just not going to sacrifice quality.

With that being said, I expect for you to refrain 100% from the remainder of this particular thread. I also would appreciate no further comments from other forum members be made about Mark on this thread as well. Mark said what he came on here to say, other members said what they wanted to in return and at this point further posting by or about Mark is not furthering the discussion and is only aggravating people. This is not open for discussion.

PS: Michael, don't forget to be at work at 2330hr as you have Spiderman late shows don't forget and I wanna go home before they start.

John

------------------
Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.