The author is still missing three major points, however:
1) Once theatres install digital projectors, how do they upgrade?
2) Although he acknowledges that 'film done right' is better than digital today, and 'film done wrong' is the real problem, he fails to offer the solution of better training so 'film done right' can be offered today, AND that 'film done wrong' today can only lead to 'digital done wrong' tomorrow.
3) That film inherently 'gets scratched' and degrades simply by running it.
Over to you!
PS. Brad - He mentions that he visited that same DLP theatre that some of the TAP reviewers refer to - could you invite this guy over to your theatre to show him how FG works? That would be way cool!!!
------------------
'How about a movie? They're showing them in theatres now! I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor.' - Xander Harris, from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.
quote:
1) Once theatres install digital projectors, how do they upgrade?
One big advantage for digital is that the digital decoder is separate from the projector. That way, it is relatively cheap to chaneg to a new digital format (MPEG-XX to MPEG-XY for example), while keeping the really expensive component, the projector, the same.
quote:
2) Although he acknowledges that 'film done right' is better than digital today, and 'film done wrong' is the real problem, he fails to offer the solution of better training so 'film done right' can be offered today
quote:
that 'film done wrong' today can only lead to 'digital done wrong' tomorrow.
quote:
3) That film inherently 'gets scratched' and degrades simply by running it.
One of the things that truly impressed me with the first DLP show I saw was that the picture was very clean. No dirt, no splices, no scratches, nothing! Even film done right isn't that clean. The cleanest print I ever saw was at an Imax theater recently. It was a 70MM showing of Beauty and the Beast. As clean as the print was, it still had a bit of dirt. Not that much, but still some.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer film to DLP (at the moment), but I do see that digital is right around the corner.
I have heard at least one major horror story with DLP in Seattle. The system was reported to me as being very troublesome, and very unreliable. I guess they were also thinking of putting a 10kw xenon lamp behind it to brighten up the picture. I was told the DLP attempt in Seattle used a 70 foot wide screen, and it didn't look good at all!
Let's face it, film done right does not exist in most areas. I have been to various theaters in the Phoenix and San Diego areas, and have never seen it. Digital Cinema done right is simple. It's hard to screw up clicking 'start' on the computer!
...then you haven't seen 'film done right' - you've seen film done reasonably well. There are many examples available, but using one from my personal experiences, we ran the same print of 'Moulin Rouge' over 300 times (including two dispatches/rebuilds) and there wasn't a single speck of dirt on the entire print from start to finish on the last run, with a Dolby Digital error rate mostly on zero. Even the splices had zero dirt buildup. No kidding!
David Rowley said, 'One big advantage for digital is that the digital decoder is separate from the projector. That way, it is relatively cheap to chaneg to a new digital format (MPEG-XX to MPEG-XY for example), while keeping the really expensive component, the projector, the same.'
Actually, the big advantage in favour of film is that you 'upgrade' to the latest image quality by threading the latest film stock. That way, a 50-year old machine will have the latest image quality. Not so with digital. With digital you are 'maxed out' at 1024 X 1280 (or whatever is in your projector head.) It never gets any better until you upgrade! The point is that with film the upgrades are built into the film stock. Digital cannot compete with that - unless you're telling me that by connecting the latest digital decoder to a 20-year old video projector, I will get today's DLP quality.
We also needn't worry about heat problems since we only have to use a 4K bulb (with appropriate exhaust and air-conditioning). That 4K bulb is cheaper to run and will last longer than a 7K and our images are VERY bright.
Most importantly: Both our prints of AOTC are clean. I mean that during the scenes with mostly clear film, there is not even a speck of black dirt on the image - not even at the reel changes. Every screening has been perfect and it will continue this way. We use FilmGuard.
My point is that our theatre can offer everything that yours can without digital projectors.
Oh...and welcome to Film-Tech!
I went to the Marcus Ultrascreen lately, the biggest 35mm screen in the state. A week after being released, their Star Wars print allready had scratches all over the splices (and they were very noticeable on a 70 foot screen). Marcus couldn't even invest in a projectionist at one of the most technically chalenging theatres in their entire chain (or if there was a projectionist, they didn't do a very good job in maintaining the print).
DLP isn't the answer though, gotta wait a few generations for the good digital technology to come out.
A theatre that 'can't afford' a good projectionist is a bit like a racing car team that 'can't afford' good drivers and then complains about excessive crashing and skidding around corners.
Or a restaurant that 'can't afford' good chefs complaining about bad tasting food. What would happen to the best restaurants if they started hiring minimum wage chefs with no training? 'Sir, we have microwave-ready frozen food only now - it's so hard to screw that up!'
Shouldn't it be more like: a theatre can't afford NOT to have good projectionists?
They spend millions on buildings, infrastructure, plant, fittings, etc, then peanuts on staff. Where's the sense in that? And do you really think for a moment that these conglomerates CANNOT afford a good projectionist? More like *unwilling* to pay more than minimum wage, really.
Bottom line: Any theatre that can't afford good projectionists shouldn't be in the business of showing movies.
"Even film done right isn't that clean."
David, like Michael already pointed out, you definitely have not seen "film done right" yet. Feel free to visit me anytime you are in Dallas and I will gladly show you. You won't be praising digital quite so much after the visit. 
You might want to get someone at the theater with a digital camera to take some pictures of your cleaning machines and email them to me for posting on a new thread. Those things are super easy to fix and generally can be fixed for under $20.
I'm sure I speak for all of us here when I say we want to provide the best presentation possible, and at the moment the best movie presentations are achieved through 'Film Done Right'. When that changes, and 1's and 0's are the best way to achieve this, we'll be the first to switch. But until you've seen 'Film Done Right' then don't call us 'phobic anything. When you see it, you will understand!
BTW, welcome to Film-Tech!
------------------
'How about a movie? They're showing them in theatres now! I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor.' - Xander Harris, from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.
BTW, you are wrong. You haven't seen 'Film Done Right'. If you had, you wouldn't be going on about how wonderful DLP is, CGI originated images excluded.
------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
------------------
Film-Guard directions:
1.) Lather
2.) Rinse
3.) Repeat
***Do Not Ingest***
Brent
I understand it's "evolved" into another version of Old Pasadena...they don't do film right there, either. I know. I worked there for a while - AMC, UA and Pacific are not interested in spending on training or paying their projection staff.
The Edwards cinema there had its left-and-right speakers backwards for YEARS. I don't know if they ever switched their wiring to make 'em work right.
~Manny.
------------------
~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"
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Paul.
I haven't gone to one of the theaters in Alhambra in years. Pasadena either. All very dim pictures on their screens. There used to be a THX certified room in the United Artists Marketplace but I think it's gone to hell. You have to go to Hollywood, Westwood, or Century City to find Movies Done Right.
------------------
'How about a movie? They're showing them in theatres now! I hear it's like watching a video with a bunch of strangers and a sticky floor.' - Xander Harris, from 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'.
How far from the screen did you sit? Here is what Perry Sun, editor at Widescreen Review, had to say:
_____________________________________________________________________
http://www.dcinemazone.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000034.html
"I went to a DLP Cinema showing of "Star Wars" and my seating position relative to the screen was clearly less than optimal.
I have discovered through "experiments" I did at the Digital Cinema Lab in Hollywood that you need to be at least 1.5 screen heights away from the screen, so that the apparent pixelization artifacts resulting from the 1280 x 1024 resolution DLP imaging are fairly unnoticed...For the particular theatre I was in, I was nearly 2/3 of the way back and the pixels were very noticeable! I estimated that I was sitting at a little under 1.5 screen heights.
If you go to a DLP Cinema presentation, my suggestion is to try to get a quick gauge of where the two screen height distance falls in the auditorium and sit anywhere behind that."
_____________________________________________________________________
Even NTSC television looks okay if you sit far enough from the screen.
------------------
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
For Toy Story 2 it was much closer and stood up well. Pixels showed up on text though. Everything else was perfect. Sorry again.
Perfect? Really!
I'm frequently amazed over what people will put up with. Friends loan me VHS tapes recorded on SLP and think they are fine and they are barely watchable to me. I guess it depends on your relative standards. IMHO these digital folk are choosing not to see what they don't want to see.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/
I apologize again for saying something good about digital projection.
) has looked f*cking fantastic when it's really been because my standards are really low. 
I never see movies in my area anymore. Something to do with wanting to see them projected properly...
There you go...
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
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.
PPS -- Even it DLP could get as good as 70mm (stop snickering), does anyone think that a theatre owner who won't spend $20 to fix a film cleaner is going to spend $130,000 on a DLP when he's already got a 35mm that works? (now you can snicker). In what version of reality are the people who think this will happen living?
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.
If you're claiming that Ep. II looks as sharp and clear as a purely film originated and projected image, well you can repeat it over and over but it still isn't true. It isn't from a subjective standpoint nor would it stand up to objective testing. If you don't believe me then come on over to rec.arts.movies.tech and take it up with David Mullen who photographed "Jackpot" in exactly the same format and he can tell you his experiences with all sorts of tests and comparisons.
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.
Problem is, we are not there yet. When the technology gets image quality that is REALLY equal to 35mm film, then the next issue is the cost. Will the art-houses be able to afford the new technology? Will anyone? As I have said in other posts; it is going to be the economic model that drive this technology above all else. And to prove my point, I quote Christopher Forman, CEO of Pacific Theatre -- the company that just sunk $100 million in a development that added 14 new screens behind the Cinerama Dome. Did they install DLP in ANY of these state-of-the-art theatres? Not a one. While their theatres may be digital "ready," exhibitors obviously is not. Mr. Forman says "Our theatres are digital ready, conduits are there, cable and other infrastructure. But (DLP's) time has not yet come. Until there is a standard and until there is an economic model, IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE." His words, not mine. Nuff said.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
I guess I'm the only person here who thinks DLP in it's current form looks good now. Hopefully when a new higher resolution unit comes out with DLP or some other company we can all embrace this technology. Maybe some of those older units can be bought by the arthouses. 
Not sure if they'll be compatible with whatever storage methods there will be then.
-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.
~Manny.
"I have a bad feeling about this."
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
You acknowledge that the current digital projection system does not put out as sharp a picture as film yet you think it's great and would love to see its wide adoption. Well now you've moved from fact into opinion and that is not something I can argue with. You are welcome to whatever opinion you wish. But you can understand why most of the rest of us would find it a little astonishing that anyone would advocate something that is by everyone's agreement a step backwards in basic image quality. No dirt or scratches is great but those shouldn't be there in the first place and I'm not willing to give up the basic quality of the picture for it.
On the next round when resolution has been up'ed then there will be a lot of people advocating it just as you do (probably me included) because even now they don't have too much farther to go. But they aren't there yet. The business and economic arguments come on top of the quality issues. I won't even get into that because if one is approaching this simply as a moviegoer who either likes or doesn't like what he sees then those are besides the point.
But I will restate for your benefit a point I have made before. For a chipmaker like TI the movie theatre industry will only ever be a small business. The real market will, when costs come down, be in home projectors. Given that HD is a consumer format when the average person can afford a system that projects a wall-sized picture if the picture quality is just as good as what is shown in the cinema there will be far less reason to go out to a movie. Hollywood will give first run to whichever mode will make them the most money in the shortest time and when there is a large universe of home HD projectors pay per view day & date will be too tempting for them to resist. This is a further reason to hold off on the present system and wait for an ultra definition system.
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. Commercial theaters will never have any exclusivity on high image standards when it comes to digital projection. There are not enough theaters to amortize out the cost of R&D to keep the technology exclusively there. At least movie theaters do have an exclusive when it comes to 35mm and 70mm film projection. Few home owners can install such hardware (much less even run or maintain it properly).
I think the most serious issue is how DLP doesn't even compare favorably to HDTV. That's downright alarming. DLP has a native resolution of 1280 X 1024 --or 1,310,720 pixels. Compare that to the 1080i HDTV format which displays 1080 X 1920 --2,073,600 pixels. You're talking about a 700,000 pixel difference, not to mention HDTV is already a native 16:9 display whereas DLP is 4:3 ratio and has to be anamorphically expanded on any show.
It is already a bad deal for many home theater users to feel their home rig is better than the theater. Some can already claim that on the sound aspect. When it is happening on the image end, you're talking about a poison pill for the movie theater industry. That dog just won't hunt.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Imagine how hacked off the guys that bought the old one are going to be when the new ones come out. Course that's the nature of computer stuff isn't it? Every couple of years you have to buy a new one to stay current. So does that mean that it's going to cost $150k every other year to stay digital? Planned obsolescence!!! How much is TI stock now? Hmmmmm
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
I would consider 2K the absolute minimum for digital cinema, not only for the reasons Mark just mentioned, but also because of what Bobby mentioned. For obvious reasons, what's in theatres must meet or exceed what people can get at home. Digital cinema must be at least equal to HDTV's "1080i" resolution (1920x1080) in order to be competitive.
As I've mentioned before, if one sits at the SMPTE recommended 2 screen heights distance, a 2.39:1 scope image will take up just over 60 degrees of one's vision. Going by the rule of thumb that the eye can see details as small as one arcminute, that means 3600 pixels are needed across the width of the image to make it appear smooth. Anything at or above that number is what I would consider "enough" resolution. JVC's roadmap for their D-ILA technology claims 4K x 3K by the end of this year. Hopefully that will make its way into theatres.
The worst thing that could happen would be for the exhibition industry to unceremoniously hand everything over to the first company that comes along -- namely TI. They've been sitting at the same resolution for the past five years. If they become the de-facto standard, they will lose any incentive to improve their product. Competition should be given a chance force quality parameters higher than they currently are. I hope that industry inertia against mass conversion will last long enough to for that to happen. I would hate to be stuck watching 1280x1024 for the next 20 years.
By the way Mark, if you're going to complain about being "attacked", perhaps you should go back and re-read the first post you made in this thread. There's an old saying about pots and kettles...
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
------------------
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
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"
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
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.
- Roger Ebert reviewing Episode 2. :)