Lucas made an interesting comment when Episode One was playing in "digital cinemas" in the summer of 1999. If you recall, the theatres selected weren't the best, state-of-the-art THX whiz-bang places to see movies. Lucas said something like, "Remember, this is as bad as it's ever going to be. Digital cinema will only get better from here." (That's paraphrasing rather than an exact quote.) I hope he was sincre and that the technicians won't sit still until digital cinema truly does rival the resolution and contract ratios of... oh... I don't know... 70mm!

It really burns me that proponents of digital cinema don't deal in facts. They deal in hype. They spout vague, hand-waving arguments and nothing more. They don't seem interested in actually measuring whether digital or film produces better results.

Aaron, Ken:

Have either of you actually seen a DLP presentation or are you just totally put off by what you have heard?

If it is the second, I would recommend that you see a show first, then think about what the average consumer would think. It has been mentioned on this forum that film will probably never die because of financials involved in doing one or the other. D-Cinema will happen. There is no question about this. It is just a matter of when and who will be the major players as far as equipment is concerned.

I can tell you for fact that I have people that attended "Monsters" last weekend that came from Austin to Dallas (roughly 200 mi) to see the DLP exclusively. I have others that drive at least an hour, again to see the DLP exclusively. Must tell you something.

Paul.

Here's a tutorial on current film duplication systems:
Printing Systems

"Digital Intermediate" has already been used for several features:
Digital Intermediate

Here's an article about the objective data being presented by Dr. Roger Morton:
The Impact on Digital Film Mastering by Dr. Roger Morton
SMPTE Report

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
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

 |  IP: Logged

In one instance, I was even able to do a near side-by-side comparison. A few months ago, I went to see "Final Fantasy" in DLP at the AMC 1000 Van Ness in San Francisco. After it was over, I stepped across the hall and peeked into another auditorium that was showing FF from a film print. The difference was remarkable. The change in contrast ratio was particularly noticable. I felt immediately that a huge range of values had been opened that I simply wasn't able to see in the other auditorium. The difference between the brightest thing on the screen and the darkest thing on the screen was much bigger than it was in the DLP screening. I must emphasize that this was not a subtle difference. It was night and day. I left the theater with the distinct impression that the laser recorder -> film combination gave better results than a DLP presentation.

Yes, yes, I know. Digital cinema is going to happen, nothing is going to stop it, etc. But if that's the only argument in favor of it, I'd say there's somthing wrong, wouldn't you?

(P.S. Sorry I didn't see your question the first time.)

DC will progress and possibly come closer to film but will probably not be able to surpass film or your keen eyes. This is one reason why film will continue to be in existance. Unless someone pointed out the differences, I probably would not be able to tell the difference.

Again, Joe MovieGoer probably wouldn't know the difference that you can see. They are there to be entertained (hopefully) and be told a story. Most won't care about contrast ratios or the things that a cinematographer looks for.

I am probably a little biased because I have two installations in my theatre, but it still amazes me what is being put up on the screen.