Digital Projectors

[OnWithTheShow]

Check out this story:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020318/182921_1.html

I think that this technology is great. It eliminates the dust and scratches that appear on films in theaters and also the need for "cigarette burns" when it is time to change reels. Bravo Texas Instruments.

 

[Another Voice]

There are several digital projection theaters already set up in this country. I’ve had the change to see ‘Tarzan’, ‘Final Fantasy’, ‘Atlantis’ and ‘Monsters Inc.’ in one of the local theaters and clips of other films in various screening rooms. As far as I can tell the quality is as good as or better than “traditional” theaters with a few exceptions. Some of the trailers and other “traditional” film that’s been transferred to digital looks washed out, but that’s probably due to a poor transfer. The other is that you can occasionally notice the “pixels” if you sit very close to the screen. Even then it’s mostly on the titles and comes off looking like the “blocky” letters you get on a computer monitor.

A fair amount of production is already being moved over to high definition (24 frame) video. For release those movies are transferred back onto film. Those people that know about these things tell me the quality is very close to regular stock and is getting better. Some cinematographers still whine about the color. But the huge cost savings of shooting on digital compared to film will probably mean that digital will be the primary technology in five to ten years.

‘Star Wars Episode 2’ is the first big time movie that will be both shot and distributed in digital format.

 

[Snowgod]

I do not beleive that this technology will spread rapidly unless the film studios are willing to pay the cost of installing the projectors in the theaters. $175,000 is too much for a projctor with such a short lifespan. Current film projectors cost $25,000 and last 20 years. Digital projectors will not last any longer than the PC because digital tecnology will always be replaced with a better version in a very short time. The only reason for the film studios to do this will be to control the theft of films that occurs.

 

[jrgutknecht]

I'm afraid Snowgod might be right, but it's a shame.

For those who have not had the opportunity to see a DLP film yet, there is simply no way to describe it. The quality of the image is far superior to anything. It's like the difference between DVD an VHS, or the difference between having dirty glasses and clean glasses.

When we saw Monsters Inc on DLP we were struck by the numerous things that we didn't notice the first time in regular projection. Far too many things to count, but most noticiable was the fact that you could actually see the little veins in Mike's eyeball, or the grain of the fabric on the characters costumes. In the scene where Mike and Sulley are walking down the sidewalk to work, you could actually see INTO the windows and see inside the other apartments. On regular projection these windows were just dark holes with some glimmer of what lay beyond.

It was truly amazing.

 

[Snowgod]

Film should still provide a better picture unless the theater you were in was not using a good print of the film, do to the digital version having a lower resolution than film. Films such as monsters Inc. are digital to begin with and it is only the transfer to film that will cause the final picture to be good or bad.

 

[Another Voice]

The real goal behind digital projection is to give more control over exhibiting the movie to the studios. The concept is to transmit the “film” from the studio directly via satellite or wire. The studios then have a way to control showtimes, screenings per day, the trailers & commercials shown before the film, and any edits that a theater may choose to make.

It’s not so much the theft of the film print that worries the studio, it’s the cost. When an average movie opens in over 3,000 theaters the expense of striking and shipping all that film is tremendous.

As with most things in Hollywood, it’s the money that will decide the issue, not the quality of the product.

 

[UncleKyle]

If I'm not mistaken there is a digital projection theatre at the AMC Theatres at Downtown Disney. I think they are great! I've been too two of them and you can tell the difference, big time.

 

[Bstanley]

"Film should still provide a better picture unless the theater you were in was not using a good print of the film, do to the digital version having a lower resolution than film. Films such as monsters Inc. are digital to begin with and it is only the transfer to film that will cause the final picture to be good or bad."

Not exactly...Every time a film is used it suffers some damage, either from the physical motion of traveling through the projector, or from being exposed to the unbelievably intense projector light. This adds to the 'normal' possibilities for error in the film creation process (improper transfer, improper development, improper handling, etc). A film will not only get scratched, but also experience color shift and microscopic running of the emulsion (loss of 'resolution') each time it is shown.

Also film (color especially) actually doesn't have that high of an absolute resolution in the first place, most modern 'Pro-sumer' Digital Video Cameras ($2K kinda cameras) have higher 'resolution'. But when film is developed 'right' it gives a much more pleasing 'gentle to the eye/artistic' appearance that people prefer to look at for 2 hours

The real goal behind digital projection is to give more control over exhibiting the movie to the studios.

Absolutely correct - George Lucas started trying to do digital way back when (right after the original Stars Wars) because the film processing labs were such a pain for him to work with (believe it or not Star Wars was done on a very tight budget).