Later in the same article " Phil Barlow of Disney opened the batting by chooseing to attack Kodak, claiming that they were trying to delay the introduction of digital cinema. He said everything that kodak says about D-cinema is qualified by a but and they are refusing to realise that the existing business models will change. The supposed need for higher quality digital projected images which Kodak is expressing was just a means of putting off the day when film had to give way to digital images."" Denis Kelly reiterated that Kodak do believe that improvements in digital picture quality need to be made , for the future good of the industry, and that the current SMPTE work has highlighted those areas where improvements are needed. Phil Barlow said that the quality of the current projectors was quite good enough, and he would put them in 10,000 screens tomorrow if the price was right"

I find it discouraging that what was considered a quality oriented company that disney would be haveing a representative promoting a good enough attitude.
For futher reading Odeon theatres study of the actual costs of e cinema in a previous issue are very interesting in how ecinema actually will have a higher operating cost
The BKSTS is a organizaton I highly recomend any one serious in the cinema industry join or at least subscribe to there two publications IMAGE TECHNOLOGY and CINEMA TECHNOLOGY
 

What I find disturbing is that Disney is attacking Kodak. That's crazy.
 

Seriously, I think the REAL problems of "D-Cinema" are yet to be discovered. It won't be until those projectors are put out into the field, en-mass, that people will begin to find out things like what breaks; how expensive it is to fix; how customers like it and, last but not least, how they perform in day-to-day operation with popper jockeys or undertrained managers at the helm. (I'm talking at couple thousand machines running for at least a year.)

PS: What will people call them instead of "movies"? ..... "Digies"???
 

The Disney guy made an analogy about trying to improve the horse once the automobile was invented. The automobile provided many, many advances that the horse could not ever hope to achieve. Digital cinema may provide better means of distribution and the destruction of TES, but the meat of it will be the picture quality. Why invent the car if it goes slower than the horse?

I can't wait to see all of the digital artifacts in Disney cartoons. Since there is a lack of detail in cartoons, artifacts will easily be seen. Try compressing a cartoon frame into a JPEG and you will see what I mean. GIF works better for solid colors since it is a lossless form of compression, but digital cinema will not use lossless compression by any means. But of course that would mean that I would have to watch a current Disney cartoon. Bleh.

...and just what the heck did they 'explode' the grain in the Sorcerer's Apprentice for? It looks rediculous!

------------------
"It's not the years, honey...it's the mileage". Indiana Jones
 

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut

That just about does says it all for me.

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com
 

Isn't the JVC M-4000 a D-ILA machine, not an LCD?
 

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com
 

-Mike
 

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com
 

• For starters, there are the current DLP projectors, which have a maximum resolution of 1280x1024, and are what have been used in all the demonstrations over the past year or two for "Star Wars: Episode I", "The Perfect Storm", "Toy Story 2", and others. I've seen this system in action twice now, and quite simply, it sucks. The pixels look unacceptably large. The amount of detail in the image is too low. (If I may borrow a bit from Scott Norwood, your eyes end up searching for details that simply aren't there.) These DLP projectors also do not handle extremes of contrast (very brightly light or darkly light scenes) very well. Overall, it has too much of that "video look" to pass as a viable movie presentation system, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I believe this is what Phil Barlow of Disney is talking about when he referrs to "current" digital projectors. If he thinks they are "good enough", he has very low standards indeed.

• Texas Instruments is supposedly working on a higher resolution version of their DLP chip that will also have a better contrast range. I've been hearing about this for a while now, but it's yet to materialize. I believe they are aiming for exactly HDTV resolution, which is 1920x1080. That is also the resolution that George Lucas is using for "Star Wars: Episode II" (he did all the principal photography for this movie using a Sony HDTV camera modified with Panavision lenses). It would also be approximately equal to the resolution of most digital SFX shots in today's movies, which are usually done at "2K" resolution (although I wish it were more, since I can often see the individual pixels in such shots).

• Then there is JVC's D-ILA system. This was first demonstrated at around the same time as the "Star Wars: Episode I" DLP demos, and the reaction was not very favorable. Instead of giving up, though, they worked on it. A few months ago, they announced that there would be a newer, higher resolution (2048x1536, according to JVC's website) version of the chip coming soon, although it seems the M-4000 projector used at the demo John saw was still the older, lower resolution version of the D-ILA chip (1365x1024 according to JVC's website).

• Finally, there is something I have heard very little about, but which nevertheless sounds promising: laser projection. A company called Silicon Light has been working on this. They claim it can easily meet and/or exceed HDTV's 1920x1080 resolution, and because it uses lasers as its light source, it does not require the use Xenon lamps to provide light, unlike DLP or D-ILA. It also promises to have better color accuracy than other systems (due to the inherent color accuracy of lasers). I have not heard much about this system being tested for movie theater projection, but it sounds like it could surpass both DLP and D-ILA in quality and convenience. I did see a news story about Sony licensing technology from Silicon Light a couple of months ago, but the story did not specify what it was going to be used for (possibly rear-projection HDTV sets?)
  

Objectively; just from looking at the numbers, it seems that all of these system still have a ways to go before they match the resolution of even 35mm film, let alone 70mm film. Have a look at this resolution chart from Kodak's Cinesite for comparison. (While you're at it, have a look at this document at Kodak's main site for more information on why film is currently better than digital. Section 3 is particularly interesting.)

Subjectively; from having seen DLP presentations, as well as very, very good 35mm and 70mm presentations, I don't think the purely subjective visual experience of digital cinema has caught up to film yet. That's not to say that it won't eventually, but people like Phil Barlow and George Lucas seem to think digital systems are "good enough" as they stand today. I strongly disagree.

On the other hand, quality is not what is driving this -- it never was. This is about money. Can't you just hear the studio accountants and executives smacking their lips and rubbing their hands together at the idea of all the money digital cinema will save them? They must be thinking, "It's just data; distributing it will be practically free! And we can charge the same rental fees and ticket prices as we did before ... we'll be rich, rich, rich!" Ugh.

Speaking as someone who is very demanding when it comes to movie presentation quality, I am wary of what may come in the next couple of years. I honestly wouldn't mind some of today's medium quality digital systems got installed in theaters at first -- if they eventually upgrade when the technology gets better. Given what we know about theater companies and movie studios, I'd say that's a pretty big "if". I'd rather they wait until the technology really gets good before rushing into this, so that we don't have to worry about that particular "if". However, based on statements like those of Mr. Barlow of Disney, it sounds like they aren't going to wait. That worries me.

------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.
 

For a 10'6" x 18'10" matte white screen, 1600 watts should be more than enough to get 16 footlamberts with 35mm film, so the theatre's existing system is not operating at full efficiency.

You said they are getting 21 footlamberts on a 200 square foot screen with only 1600 watts --- which says they have decent efficiency. But, a 16:9 image on a 70 foot screen would be 2756 square feet, and require over ten times the power, or over 16,000 watts, so I would disagree that "a precise optical system with a 4-6 KW lamp will light up a 70 foot picture with no trouble at all."

------------------
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
 

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
 

I can go out right now, spend about $5000, and buy a digital XGA projector for my home with 1280x1024 resolution that will directly connect to a DVD player, and as soon as a HDTV-resolution DVD format hits the market, we'll be in the curious situation where home video equipment has a higher resolution (1080 vs 1024 vertical lines) then theatre equipment.

If 1280x1024 is "good enough" to replace 35mm film in theatres, then, pardon my asking, why should I patronize theatres anymore? I'm in full control of the presentation quality at home, and my popcorn has real butter.

 

The SMPTE DC 28 Study Groups have prepared their reports, which will lead to the next step of establishing Working Groups to actually develop standards.

If you want to participate in the SMPTE engineering activities, you need to complete a "Statement of Participation to Become a Committee Member":
http://www.smpte.org/engr/

But when all is said and done, IMHO, "Film Done Right" has been able to fill huge screens with superior images for almost 50 years, since the dawn of the widescreen era.

------------------
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

Joe
 

> and just what the heck did they 'explode' the grain in the
> Sorcerer's Apprentice for? It looks rediculous!

Let me take a guess ...

According to Richard Haines book, the original negative for Fantasia was made using the successive-exposure process -- meaning that each frame was exposed three times on the original negative ... the red record, then the green record, then the blue record. Then, in order to make the technicolor printing matrices, the negative would be run through an optical printer set up to expose every third frame, so as to make three, normal length matrices, each of which would be used to print a single color.

For the 1956 re-release, the negatives were combined to make a single Eastmancolor negative, which was then color-separated into three matrices. This would have added a large amount of grain.

Future re-releases were on Eastmancolor film, and have probably all faded.

So Disney probably had three options available to them:

1) Go back to the original, successive-exposure negative, scan it, and combine every three frames to get a single color frame. (expensive, plus any uneven shrinkage of the original nitrate negative would make this difficult, impossible, or overwhelmingly expensive.)

2) Go back to the 1956 Eastmancolor negative, unless it's faded by now (strong probability)

3) Scan a 35mm Technicolor release print.

3a) A 1940 nitrate print

3b) A 1956 safety print (with the additional grain because the negative was pointlessly combined and re-separated.

I wonder what they did.

I feel that the average movie-goer does not give much thought to the quality of a picture, unless it is really bad. So, while there will be a few instances at first where people will complain about the quality of an e-projector theater, the e-projector manufacturers will improve it just enough to become acceptable, even if it's quality is less than a 35mm print. The pencil-pushers will then hire advertisers to sing the about the wonders of "DIGITAL!"
 

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
 

------------------
John Eickhof President, Chief Slave
Northwest Theatre Equipment Co., Inc.
P.O.Box 258
Wendell, ID. 83355-0258
208-536-5489
email: jeickhof@nteequip.com
 

With film, we know EXACTLY what those problems are and we know how to deal with them.

Just look at the Wankel engine. In the 70's, that was supposed to be the "savior" of the energy crisis... fewer parts, less maintanence and more fuel efficient. 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?

Same thing with the "Tucker Torpedo". I think swiveling headlights on a car is a GREAT idea. Where are they now? In museums. (and junkyards)

My problem is that everybody seems to have this idea that digital movies are going to solve all of the problems in the projections business. I say they aren't. They are just going to substitute one set of problems for another.

 

Most professional cinematographers would take issue with that statement! Check out the heated discussions on the on-line Cinematographers Mailing List (CML).

------------------
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
 

Just quoting something that I read. I believe it was one of the producers of the film who made that coment not lucas himself. Will be interesting to see how good the quality will be when the prints show up in 2002. I just believ that there are alot of people who want this digital thing to happen too fast in an industry that can't afford it and has enough problems paying their light bills.
 

------------------
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
 

Pat
 

"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)?

------------------
Aaron Haney
Professional Complainer
Apple Computer, Inc.
 

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

I'm not saying that the same thing is going to happen with D-Cinema, but I think all the people who are pushing for it ought to go back and read a few history books.
 

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.

The rotorary Wankel engine was actually quite successful in it's day, but was designed before emission standards came into law. It is unfair to compare something designed long ago with today's standards. That would be like saying arc lamps were a failure because they smoke and make a mess.

 

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.

------------------
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
 

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.

cheers peter

 

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.

Digital projection is here; everyone is just waiting for the cost to go down. If your income depends on movie theaters (projection or servicing) start learning about digital projection. Be one of the people theater companies need, not one that knows about equipment that's not used anymore.
 

quote:

---

I think that at the end of the day the Digital vs film argument will be settled by the audience.

---

In the US, the answer to that is "not a hope in hell".

In most markets, all the theaters are owned by one or two chains.
If those two chains offer only e-cinema, the studios are giving price breaks to theaters for e-prints & making it harder still to operate an independent in a market with a big company, & the audience will have the choice to either go to an e-movie or stay home.

Scott Norwood is also right about it becoming more difficult for independents. Once the studios & theaters become vertically integrated via sharing costs to install e-cinema, there is no way they can be expected (or required!) to show any product other than their own.

The US went through this before in the 1920's, it seems now that everyone has forgotten & believes that monopolies are cool again.

------------------
William Hooper
Junk drawer: http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/theater/3622
Theatre Empire: http://members.nbci.com/saenger.1

------------------
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

Who ran the course? Texas Instruments, one of the DLP-Cinema projector vendors, a theatre circuit, BKSTS?

------------------
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
 

Phil Barlow I believe deserves credit for being the first distributor exec to openly acknowledge the need for distributors to bear most of the costs of transitioning to d-cinema.

The problem though, as I think was alluded to earlier in this thread, is that new business models based on this philosophy potentially take the control of content and presentation out of the hands of exhibitors and into those of the distributors.
 

Good to see you on the list.

The Hollywood Reporter notes quite a lively debate between Disney's Phil Barlow and exhibitors at Cine-Expo, regarding Digital Cinema implementation:

______________________________________________________________________

CineExpo Digital Cinema Panel Projects Discord

June 26, 2001 Weekly Hollywood Reporter

By Stuart Kemp

AMSTERDAM -- Tempers flared Monday during a panel discussion on the future of digital cinema at this year's Cinema Expo International convention.

The annual conference, which focuses on the European exhibition industry, was only two hours old when sparks flew. Exhibition chiefs argued with distributors and manufacturers about who should carry the cost of the technology and whether moviegoers even care about digital presentations.

Richard Segal, managing director of the United Kingdom's Odeon Cinemas, said: "As a pure cinema operator, the most important thing to me is the customer. My biggest concern is: Does the customer who goes to the cinema give a damn about digital shows? I don't think he does."

Segal also echoed last year's concerns about the cost of implementing digital technology. "The people who are pushing for digital cinema are the people who will make cost savings in the long term: the studios and the distributors," he said.

Segal and fellow exhibitor and panelist Joost Bert, CEO of Kinepolis, also complained about the lack of content being made available to them and the lack of availability of digital content.

"We kept asking, 'Please, can we get a digital print?' Our customers are ready to pay something extra to see such presentations," Bert said. "We are frustrated at having such an expensive piece of equipment sitting there in our cinema, doing nothing."

But fellow panel member Phil Barlow, executive vp of Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, fired an unrestrained and angry response back at Segal and Joost.

"I am sorry we haven't made enough product available. It is not fast and it is not smooth just yet, but it will solve everyone's problems," Barlow snapped. "I am tired of everyone saying it is the studios that are making the money. We are not going to make anything from digital cinema for at least seven years. It is just bullshit that no one wants digital presentations. It is hugely popular. The studios will end up paying for digital cinema."

After the initial heated exchanges, however, the panelists settled down to discuss further implications raised from the seminar, titled "Digital Cinema: Why the Wait?"

It emerged that maintaining dialogue between distributors, digital technology manufacturers and exhibitors will be essential if the technology is to roll out across the globe during the next three years.

But predictions by the panelists for how deep digital penetration would go by 2004 varied considerably.

Barlow predicted there would be north of 1,500 digital projectors operating across Europe by 2004. But Segal refused to put a number on it, simply saying that "35mm would still rule the roost by 2004."

Bert said he anticipated having one digital projector in every multiplex theater with eight or more screens by 2004, but he would not be more specific.

The panel, moderated by Screen Digest's Ben Keen, also included Technicolor Digital Cinema's Russ Wintner, Boeing Digital Cinema's David Baker and RMB International's Patrick Van Dijck.

Denis Kelly, Eastman Kodak film operations manager for Europe, hosted the event, which was attended by about 300 delegates. CineExpo runs through Thursday

------------------
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

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/

In New York the AMC Empire has two features running in DLP this week -- Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (opened yesterday) and Star Wars Episode 2.
 

My bottom line is that, usually, 16mm film is pretty grainy, and this is visible even on current television, never mind HDTV.

Obviously I don't know that much about the BEST that 16mm has to offer, but I've seen the average.

------------------
"One man can make a difference."
 

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 

------------------
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