3 minutes in there was lovely green emulsion scratching down one side.
I went to "contact" the projectionist via the wonderfully helpful front of house staff to be told that "the projectionist would attend to it when he got back from one of the other booths"

When I pointed out that 300 people had paid to see this new print on the first day and the print was already trashed the cheery spotty youth told me that it didn't matter there was another print running two screens down.

Now for my 2 cents regarding Episode 2: for the time being, but possibly changing, I am on Fox's low grossing list. Therefore, it is impossible for me to get EP2 on release. Myself and my film booker were speaking tonight, and neither of us could remember off the top of our heads for certain when EP1 was made available to low grossers... anyone know?
Anyone know, or have a reasonable guesstimate of when to expect EP2 in my greedy little fingers (as well as other low-grossers)?
Maybe if EP2 is made in a super-wide release, the gap might not be so painfully long.

IMHO, "Film Done Right" is far superior to today's digital cinema systems for image quality. Unfortunately, there's enough "film done wrong" to make digital cinema seem better in some cases. I'm not encouraged, because I've seen plenty of "digital done wrong" already too.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

1. Since the film has so many Computer Generated effects, like almost all the backgrounds, why not shoot the actors in digital to facilitate integrating the images.

2. Using digital for the live action is less expensive than film only in the respect of skipping a step to integrate with the C.G.

3. As long as the film is produced and edited digitally, then why not present it in that way as well, if you are able.

I am sure if you were to ask him, he would say that digital production has it's place but that it is not the ultimate replacement for film. I am also pretty certain that if he were to direct a live action film that didn't require any C.G. that he would consider using film.

This is all speculation on my part. Remember, this is a man who loves film. And it's his party he can shoot in Pixel Vision if he wants to.

In my experience, movies produced digitally look very good presented digitally. And while movies that are produced on film and presented digitally usually loose a lot in the translation, they still look ok as long as you aren’t too close and comparing it to the original film. So I am sure that Attack of the Clones will look great on film and digital.

So while it would cost more, take longer, be more cumbersome, etc...imagine the results!

Agreed. Nothing wrong with "Digital Done Right". I'm really looking forward to "Stuart Little 2", which reportedly uses 4K for scanning the original 35mm film (mostly Kodak VISION Expression 500T Color Negative Film 5284), and 4K for recording back out onto film. Likewise, the digital reformatting of "Beauty and the Beast" looks very good on a huge 70mm IMAX screen.

With today's sharp color negative films and high resolution "digital intermediate", Kodak's Dr. Roger Morton has shown that today's 35mm color negative film will be able to match the quality of 65mm negative film printed to 70mm prints:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/students/onCampus/oct2001/dfm.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

I think it is very good "Stuart Little 2" is using a 4K standard for digital work instead of a puny 2K standard. This is long overdue considering the brute force power of current computer rendering farm technology. Some of the first CGI work done for film was recorded out at 4K over a decade ago using computers less powerful than the ones sitting on most of our desks. At least 4K resolution will do some justice for 35mm film prints.

I agree that the ultimate quality will use 65mm negative --- to paraphrase the ads for "Godzilla", "Size DOES matter!".

But Kodak's work in this area gives great promise of significant increases in the quality of images originated on 35mm film, because 35mm film already can support such high resolution digital enhancement.

BTW, ironically, "Godzilla" used the smaller image area of Super-35 rather than anamorphic origination, and it showed on the screen:
http://us.imdb.com/Technical?0120685

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: <A HREF="http://www.kodak.com/go/motion" TARGET=_blank>http://www.kodak.com/go/motion</A>

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

We enjoyed seeing it, but...

It appeared grainy at the beginning and the colors seemed off like the print wasn't perfectly color timed. We noticed one lab splice.

I thought the writing and acting were sub-par. The Action scenes (what few there were) were fantastic. The imagery was great. The alien characters were wonderful. The spaceships were cool. It dragged in the middle. My butt hurt towards the end.