Slashdot Mirror
Lack of Digital Screens for Attack of the Clones
spt writes: "CNN Entertainment has an article describing Lucas Arts' disappointment at the lack of digital screens available for Attack of the Clones. When the Phantom Menace was released, they were hoping that, by May 2002, there would be 2000 digital screens. That estimate dropped to 'several hundred', but the reality is that now there are only 20 digital screen in the U.S.
Who has been lucky enough to see a digitally produced film in one of these 20? Is there enough of a benefit to think that more screens will be converted to digital projection?"
I think it's more the projector is digital, using digital media, rather than good ol' film. Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were filmed in full digital.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
here is some information about the digital projection the force.net
josh
I seem to remember that it is a digital projector. While it would be cool to have a digital video wall, I bet it would get damaged quickly by flying toast and wet gummy bears thrown at the screen.
They are not that hard to work with or install; and in many cases, plug right into the existing setups. It's a linux based computer running movies from fibre based harddrives. The movies are loaded from a highly encrypted (sic!) dvd disk. The image is then sent via the same projector lens (with a modification) out to the same silver screen we are all used to.
The only drawback is the cost of the setup which is one of the reasons there are not more screens.
The Edward's Theatre at the Irvine Rectum^H^H^H^H^H^HSpectrum (rumored to be the largest grossing theatre in the US, even though Edward's is currently attempting to claw their way out of Chapter 11) has at least one digital projector. Saw Atlantis and Final Fantasy there....so I do know they exist.
The good: Clear picture.
The bad: I saw one animated movie and one all-cgi movie. Without seeing them on a traditional projector, how would I know the difference? There was still the dust problem (air or lens), although it did look to be a lot cleaner overall.
A few points worth noting: I saw part of the phantom menace on one of those wide-screen hdtv's. Picture was so clear that it made the film's effects look even less realistic. Anyone who's gone out to see Beauty & The Beast at any of the IMAX theatres may have noticed that thanks to it being increased to "Dear god, look at the size of that nutcracker!" size made it much more apparent that the people coloring the cells didn't get quite as close to the outlines as you might expect. Thus, technology increases typically work best when everything is aiming at the same target.
Additionally, I'm not a believer that FPS needs to be increased much more than it is. Yes, you could make conventional projectors churn out film faster, although you'd need to increase the size of the platters, adjust the timing of the reels, etc. You'd probably not have a lot of reason just to convert an existing projector, you'd want to get a new one...and if you're getting a new projector, you might as well get a digital one if you get the benefits of the [easier, more durable] distribution medium, clearer picture, etc. Besides, there comes a physiological limit to the amount of information the eye can process at once. 30fps is plenty for me, and I can't really distinguish a difference between 30 and 60. Same reason why I think 96khz cd's are ridiculous. I can't hear outside of a certain range, who cares if it can faithfully record it?
I think digital projection will catch on, not because of features the audience would notice, but because of things that will make distribution easier. People seem to go to the movies no matter how badly they're made, how uncomfortable the seats, how high the ticket prices...so getting stuff done for the sake of the audience doesn't really seem like a big motivating factor for the industry.
-transiit
This has nothing to do with the MPAA and everything to do with poorly run theater chains. First off, it's illegal for a film company to own their own theater chain. Second off, the theater chains are in trouble because, like many companies in the dot com boom, they expanded way too fast and profits failed to expand as rapidly. As a result, many of these chains filed for the various bankruptcy protections/liquidations and are struggling. Thus, they can't afford the expensive digital projection equipment. IMax, on the other hand, is expanding slowly, and only when they're fairly certain they can make a profit. Thus, they've got good quality and a good bank account.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
The visual quality of Episode II will most likely be limited by the source equipment Lucas used rather than the projection system.
I am not sure, but I have heard the Cinerama in Seattle has a digital projector. It was remodeled a few years ago by Paul Allen (of Microsoft) and has awesome sound and video systems. It supports Cinerama format, possibly digital, and possibly 70 mm. It also has a huge Cinerama screen, but I have never seen it.
Andrew
DLP has quality advantages other than just not getting scratched. While the resolution is currently limited it has a better signal to noise ratio than 35mm. Look closely at a uniformly colored area of the screen and you will see the snow, even in brand-new prints. DLP can reach a blacker black and has a better contrast ratio. The brightness linearity is perfect because it uses pulse-width modulation. The colors of DLP are more saturated because it uses a rotating wheel of high-quality optical filters rather than some chemical concoctation on film.
DLP is already better in some areas and over time should probably match the quality of film. Even if it never reaches the resolution of film it can probably reach a resolution that is more than good enough. Improvements like 48 fps can easily be implemented in digital projectors, too.
Studios like digital projection, among other reasons, because the digital print can be encrypted. Projectors can be built as a tamper-resistant fortress that will be much more difficult to crack than a consumer product like DVD. This will save the studios from worrying about stolen prints used to create illegal videos. I can't say I'm against that - it has nothing to do with free speech or fair use issues and I have no sympathy for people who rob film distribution trucks at gunpoint or copy videos for a profit.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
1280x1024 on a movie sized screen! I've seen it on several occasions, and let me tell you, the pixels are huge. It's ugly. If you've seen digital projection, you're not "lucky".
The resolution of digital projection must be improved if it is to be taken seriously. 1280x1024 doesn't cut it. There are rumors that TI might finally inch their way up to full HDTV resolution (1920x1080) by the time Ep. II premeires, but even that isn't good enough.
Movie special effects are always done at at least 2K resolution, sometimes 4K. There was an article linked from here not too long ago which quoted some people who were working on FX for LOTR that some of their shots were done at 4K resolution. What good is that if movies are going to be projected at a puny resolution of 1280x1024?
Fortunately, there are more technologies on the horizon besides DLP. JVC's D-ILA is already at 2K resolution, and may reach 4K before too long. Sony is working on laser projection which should also be able to reach 4K.
The bottom line is -- don't be in a hurry! They should take the time to do things right, and make sure theaters are not stuck with equipment that is obsolete overnight. It's a good thing that there are currently only 20 digital screens in the US. The technology needs more time to mature first!
Free Hans!
Being a film maker of no repute, I shall attempt to address this. I can't answer EVERYTHING, but I can address some of the biggies.
First off the cameras Lucas is using shoot with a resolution of 1920x1080 pixels at 24 frames progressive. The format they use is Sony's own HDCAM. This is a compressed digital format. It is not however DV, which refers to a particular codec used most often for standard definition production at 25Mbps. Panasonic has a format called DVCPRO HD which uses the same codec at a 100Mbps profile. HDCAM is about 145Mbps.
Confusingly, many people for some reason think DV also means "Digital Video." This is probably because it does. Mostly video people say digital video and save DV for the codec. I tend to say DV25 or whatever when I am talking codecs, or say MiniDV when talking format...damnable words.
SO, back to HD...There is a huge lossy compression that happens before we can even examine the image. If the image is captured directly to a D-5HD recorder (not to be confused with D-5 which is an SD video format.) from the camera without going to tape, you get a much better product. Lucas has done this for at least some scenes.
What about the notion that 35mm offers more resolution ? It depends. Are you talking about acquisition or projection ? You'll be surprised that while 35mm has a resoltuion advantage, it is not the primary thing that you'll notice when looking at the projected images. Mostly I feel that color generated by these cameras as recorde on tape isn't smooth enough.
For projection HD video projectors using DLP at 1920x1080 are available, and they produce a STUNNING image. I saw one Jan 2001 at NIST's Digital Cinema conference. I couldn't bear watching 35mm projection with my friends later on after the conference. Why ?
Well, first off there is not gate weave or jitter. Images are very solid and clear when they are supposed to be. Better than even the best theatres with union projectionists. (not a lot of those left..Mann's in LA, Uptown in DC, I dunno any more.) What I am talking about is the way film moves. Being a mechanical system there are limits to its operational precision. You get inaccuracies in vertical and horizontal positioning, as well as movement towards or away from the lens, and the lamp. Then there are the subtle deformations of the film itself. This is all well controlled actually, especially when you consider that a 35mm picture is being made into a 70 foot or more picture on projection.
Well, none of that exists for the digital projector.
The color gamut available surpasses that of 35mm film. Most of what I saw was film acquired, which was stunning enough. The digitally generated stuff, Toy Story 2, well...it NEVER looked that good before. Colors literally leap off the screen. It is a cinematographers dream. ( I know cause I dream about having my images projected on that thing...drool drool)
Make no mistake, digital projection is THE future of theatrical exhibition. Even Vittorio Storaro has come out in favor of it. (Storaro is a very highly regarded cinematographer, perhaps the best ever. Check out an interview with him about digital cinema.)
Now, on acquisition 35mm is certainly superior. Not because of format limits...Uncompressed HD is very nice and can compete with 35mm, but rather because of the limitations of current camera design, mostly the CCD's. Still they provide a very good image.
Frankly I am amazed that the film look as good as it does after seeing the previews. A quick look at the previews shows that while the image has flaws, it is quite frankly very very good.
Now when evaluating the technology you have to consider HOW the image reaches the final consumer. For a movie like Star Wars, or FoTR the 35mm camera image is scanned into the systems at ILM or wherever using a laser film scanner, then digital effects, manipulation and elements are all added. Then it is ouput to film, pre composited, via a laser film "printer."
What this means is that the limiting image resolution is set at digitization. This hardly affects most films, but for a Star Wars film, where virtually every scene, if not every frame, contains digital composites, the entire film is produced digitally even if you shoot with film!
For more discussion, argument and general confusion check out the archives of discussions on alt.movies.cinematography, search for "HD film" and you should be overwhelmed.
I hope that has been entertaining if not useful.
Don't post innacurate information
If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
Filmakers' have traditionally lamented that the film that they finish cutting is NEVER the film that the audience gets to see. The reason? Multiple layers of copies that need to be struck before you get to the release prints.
The quality of one wet-gate interpositve to internegative is quite good, but you do that a couple of times at high speed, and there is significant quality loss (no lenses used when copying folks.) By the time you get to the release print, which is struck from the final internegative, you're lucky to get 2k of the original 4-8k worth of information. Think of it as photocopying a photocopy - several times.
Add that grainy, blurry, off-color print, to the crap that it will go through during the first couple of days of release (burn, splice, scratch, dust), and by the time that you and I go to watch it, it's nowhere near what the editor handed off to the director. Of course, if you go to a crappy theatre, with a crappy projector, with a dirty projector window and a crappy screen... jeez, you might as well wait for the DVD.
As a rule I prefer 70mm prints to 35mm, just cause there's less degradation, I prefer better theatres to crappy multiplexes, because they usually get the better prints.
Now, you ask, what's so hot about digital? I mean, even with a bad print you get better resolution than the current tech, right? Not quite. Even though the max resolution of the current projectors can't match the theoretical resolution of 35mm film, the digital stuff is either cine-scanned or telecined from an early inter-positive, and cleaned up (dust removal, etc.) As a result, even if the final resolution is less, you get pretty much what you'd see what the director sees, and that's what Lucas and a whole lot of other filmmakers are so hot about.
And yes, the projections they use are LCD or DLP, so the projections are digital.
However, I must warn you. It's weird going to a theatre looking at a bright picture that seems like it's playing straight off a HD DVD. No scratches or blotches. No jitter. Very little grain (for daylight shots). It's like sitting in your living room watching a super-big TV. Eerie.
two clicks away...
Digital Film has a much higher resolution than Digital Video. Digital Film tends to be projected at 1280 x 1024 - digital video has a much lower resolution.
Actually, I saw my first digitally projected film on Wednesday night - Monsters Inc at the Liecester Square Odeon, and I was very impressed by the quality - it was much crisper than I've ever seen with film projection. Whether this is to do with being able to project more sharply or some inherent blurriness in the film copy I'm not sure.
At the beginning when they showed the BBFC classification notice I could just about see the pixels - but then it was white non-antialiased pixels on a black background. When the film proper started I was very impressed by the crispness and clarity and I didn't notice any pixellation artifacts.
1. Digital media is not as likely do lose quality with each play. Dust marks and scratches on a movie roll is a pain in the arse for both projectionists and cinema goers.
2. Digital film is, and this is important, cheaper. A digital projection good enough for a small to medium sized cinema screen is much more affordable than a set of projetors. The media, be it DVD for the smaller salons or a better and uncompressed formats för the larger ones.
This means that they are cheaper to copy, easier to distribute and therefore can get spread to backwater cinemas that would normally have to wait for months to get hold of a copy of the latest box office hits
This also means that it will cost much less to distribute smaller, independent films. That might be the vitamin injection that the movie industry needs.
Also, sending events live to big screens all over the world might opens up for some real interresting opportunity. Pay 10 bux to see Super Bowl on a Big F***n Screen, instead of on your vimpy little tv at home.
...um...like...a sig...
LucasFilm not LucasArts...
I don't like cities. In fact, I hate the hustle and bustle of San Francsico, but 4 times already I have gone out of my way to see a digital screening at the AMC 1000 on Van Ness.
After seeing a private digital screening of Episode I at Skywalker Ranch's Stag Theatre, I was sufficiently impressed enough to go to the City to see Pixar's "Toy Story 2" and "Monsters, Inc." twice each.
Let me just say this: WOW!
Having only seen one live action film in digital, I can only say that DLP is exceedingly good at reproducing a film and capturing the look and feel of actual film.
And, when it comes to the purely digital domain, it is even better. Pixar's films couldn't have looked better. Keep in mind that all prints go through extensive color timing to make sure the proper balance is achieved. With DLP, we are seeing (assuming calibration is performed properly) exactly what the original designers, animators, art directors, texturers, shaders, and renderers saw and intended when they first created the work.
It is so nice to be able to see a film weeks after release and not be distracted by a marred print that has been playing 5 times a day for however many weeks. Even better still, there aren't any jumps from places where the celluloid broke and had to be spliced back together!
Of course, there is a downside to this technology, too.
Remember when some politically-correct advocate groups complained about a scene in Disney's "Aladdin"? Disney couldn't do anything about it while it was still in the theatre because prints are extremely expensive, but with DLP, playback can be from WVHS tapes, satellite (via WVHS or other downloaded formats), or directly from a hard disk. So, the cost to redistribute an editted, censored version of a film is negligible in comparison.
Do I think they'll use it that way? Undoubtedly.
Is the format going to replace film? Absolutely. It looks amazing! It really IS more like film than film! I really just wish more films were being made available in the format. After "Monsters, Inc." closed in the digital screening, the AMC 1000 was not showing another film in DLP. How disappointing!
Jory
Actualy... I was a projection booth manager for many years of a 24 screen theatre and I would like to let everyine in on something. I have been to a show that demonstrated the digital systems and was realy let down. First off the reason that there are so few screens is 2 reasons. First being cost. A DLP / Christie system (the most known and comon) costs about 2 million dollars to get. Then the cost of keeping it is terrible also. It takes twice the light for a digital system to light a screen of the same size as it does for a regular film system. So the cost of regular running and Maint. is high. Second is the support. How many films have you heard of in this format? Exactly, few or none until now. And here is one more. It doesnt look nearly as good as people say. Compare it to a good quality 70 mm film and you may be suprised that the 70 will look better if the projectionists have any idea of what they are doing. I would sugest going to a theatre with a 70mm print with good digital sound and save the extra cash and probably the longer trip. Dont buy into the hype if you get close you can see the grain.
I saw Akira twice while it was in theatres (great movie BTW), the first time with digital projection, the second a week later (when I thought it would still be digital) on film. The DLP screen was much sharper with more consistent and saturated color. The opening motorcycle chase (with the incredibly detailed backgrounds) was simply amazing on the DLP but looked muddy and washed out in comparison on film. The colors were way more saturated and the DLP (I swear to God) had more dynamic range than any film I've seen in a theatre. Nothing I've seen on film has come close. I could say the same thing about Monster's Inc on DLP vs. film.
I'm sure that film can theoretically match the clarity and sharpness that I've seen but it never has. The print you watch in the movie theatre is at least a 3rd gen print and too often a 4th or 5th (or god forbid higher) generation print. And it's been run through the projector 4 times a day gathering dust and scratches. The film batches are different, the chemistry is slightly different and the printing process can't be repeated exactly everytime. And even if it could control all of that, you're making 3rd, 4th and 5th+ generation prints! Yes, a 70mm print can do better than 1080p24, but can a 5th generation print do the same? Can it match the original's color? Can it match the original's 1080 lines of resolution? From what I've seen, the answer is a big, huge NO!
I'd pay an extra 2-3 bucks per showing if I could get all digital, that's how much better I think it is.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
You can't hear *pure tones* above 20kHz, but many people can hear other effects up to 24 kHz or higher. The same goes for the brickwall antialiasing and reconstruction filters that tries to go from 0 to -80db in less than 3kHz: it creates ringing that does not affect pure tones but distorts the transients of percussion instruments. Sure, 96kHz is an overkill, but it lets you built a reconstruction filter with barely two cycles of the sin(x)/x function - no ringing.
50-60kHz would probably be enough, but just doubling from the standard processing rate of 48kHz was the simplest option. With the non-lossy compression of the DVD-audio standard it barely takes more storage capacity than 48kHz.
96kHz audio is not ridiculous. Sony's SACD is totally ridiculous. There is no way to perform any kind of processing on the Direct Digital Stream without destroying its alleged superior properties. I wonder how many of those SACDs were actually mixed on a digital console at 48 or 96 kHz...
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
The idea of having 60fps instead of the usual 24fps already has a solution - although it settles for 48 rather than 60.
I won't go into too much detail as there's a perfectly good explanation here.
Ebert's been pushing that 48 fps film for years now. 48 fps means the film is running through the camera/projector twice as fast. If the image size is the same, that means you're burning film twice as fast, which means your film costs are twice as high.
Not quite true. More film is used, but not twice as much.
Regular 35mm film wastes a lot of film anyway, simply because of having to crop the academy ratio to 2.35:1. MaxiVision48, which is the "new" medium we're talking about, theoriseses that nobody uses academy format anymore and "squeezes" the 2.35:1 frames as closely as possible. As a result, MaxiVision uses less space per frame and more frames per second, but vanilla 35mm uses more film per frame - which almost evens out.
MaxiVision24 definately uses less film and has many advantages depsite being only 24fps.
I've not explained that very well, I'm sure, so I'll point to this page for a better explanation.
Current DLP projectors have a set of 1280x1024 chips in them, which have a native aspect ratio of 1.25:1. The projector also comes with two anamorphic lenses, a 1.5X lens to stretch the image out for 1.85:1 movies, and a 1.9X lens to stretch the image out for 2.39:1 movies. The lenses must be changed whenever the theatre is getting ready to show a feature in a different aspect ratio than the previous one.
Free Hans!
I am a projectionist.
;-), then the films have to be rewound. Given the extreme turnaround times (often 10 minutes between films) and the average rewinding time (8-12 minutes) you can see that there is a lot of pressure to get the show started. Often we're showing you the advert reel while the feature is still rewinding; then doing a quick threading between adverts and film. Multiply this by the number of theaters and you quickly have organised mayhem. It's easy to make a threading error, which can lead to scratches on the print, burn marks, the print can jump out of the film path, or become skew in the gate (nice row of dots down the print).
:-)
A 35mm print will offer much greater resolution than 1080 lines, although it is still projected at 24fps. I believe the figure is something of the order of approximately 4000x3000 grains per frame; although that depends on the print stock.
You have to look after prints very carefully if they are to remain pristine. Guidelines from Eastman/Kodak and Agfa call for positive pressure in the projection gallery to minimize dust, as well as gloves etc. Prints have been arriving on a new film stock which, although sturdier than original stock, develops a high static charge (I get zapped 3-ish times a night) and attracts dust like you _would_not_believe_. The new stock cannot be spliced with film glue because it does not 'take' - you must use tape or splicing film. This means the reel changes (every 20-odd minutes as a rule) are less smooth; you'll see a jump as the splice goes through the gate, and the dolby digital reader might switch out of digital and you'll get a second or so of analogue fall-back. The DTS reader is much better, and will free-wheel for a few seconds before falling back to analogue (it's only reading timecode from the print, not the whole digital frame, like SRD).
If the cinema is using a platter system, the reels of film lie flat, and can be projected a second time without rewinding. Rewinding places a high stress on the film. Starting a rewind must be done delicately because the 'pull' from the take-up reel can stretch the film and produce green burn marks.
If, like us, you have a horizontal reel system, apart from the strain on the projectionist (having to lift huge reels of 2.5 miles of film to eye level
It's not uncommon to have three or for un-rewound films around the gallery when the system descends into chaos
If you have a new 35mm print, good sound and good masking, the quality can be absolutely superb. Of course, digital projection will remove a lot of the variables involved in projection, so you should at least get a concistent experience.
Having worked in the theatre business I can tell you that money is the main problem. Right now there are many companies having finacial problems and some are filing for bankrupcy.
Why are they going broke when they charge so much for tickets you ask?
Because almost ALL of the box money goes to the movie studio. You can thank George Lucas for that one. For Episode 1 he wanted 80% of the box for himself and on top of that he wanted some of the consession sales, which is unheard of.
Consession sales are where the theatres make their money for operations, payroll, and so on...
So with the snack bar being the only real source of income for the theatre, they're not exactly swimming in the money once you figure in the cost of keeping all of the current equipment working.
Projectors aren't cheap either. You'll be lucky to find a USED one in okay shape for $20,000.
So, George, it looks like you have shot yourself in the foot on this one. You are the only person to request 80% of the box revenue. Want to know where the digital projectors are? LOOK IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS MORON!
There, I feel better now.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I happen to work for a projection equipment manufacturer, up until 2000. We had the chance to see the first installation of a digital screen(playing the first Star Wars) in NY. And actually started on a networking project(for the theatre's to be able to swap movies, and data).
The biggest problem with them, and why they didn't take off wasn't mainly the quality of the movie, but the huge ammount of space needed for a single movie. Also the expense that was required by a major moviehouse to aquire one of these.
If I remember correctly, every movie was roughly 8-16gigs, thus requiring for some of these larger movie houses 128-256 gigs of information. But your not done yet. You need a way to back it up, a way to transfer it quickly, and a way to make sure the computer doesn't BSOD during the movie. (Yes, they were played on Windows NT machines).
The company I worked for Neumade Products actually had a bid in to try and get rights to create a projector for this medium, but eventually didn't see the large investment as being worth it.
The way the technology works, is by shooting light through a microchip that has thousands(if not millions) of mirrors, and reflectors. As the movies image changed, the mirrors, and reflectors rotated, or shifted to get the right ammount of light, and color onto the screen.
The technology wasn't then, and still isn't ready for the real world. It wasn't perfect, and could'nt be installed on different size screens(specifically the bigger ones). Thus making it unusable for a majority of the theatre chains out there.
Just what I remember, nothing more, nothing less,
Brian...
Color fringing was substantial (note that company engineers were there to calibrate the projection system, so it was set up properly) on horizontal motion and you could actually see the pixel rows when sitting in seats near the screen. Contrast was a problem.
I'm not sure why people are on this bandwagon. I have a degree in cinema production and can say without hesitation that digital projection is a long way off in quality when compared to film.
Also, before anyone starts with the "scratches, dust, blah, blah, blah" I have this to say: with the exception of the film element, digital projection suffers from 90% of the problems film does. Dust in the mechanics and lenses (don't forget there is also a giant Xenon bulb housing back there), stained, gouged, and otherwise abused screens, broken seats, etc. Digital projection is going to make little difference in the quality of the viewing experience because the venue owner must take resposibility for providing a well maintained facility. If this hasn't happened already, it's not going to happen with digital projection. I can already tell you that instead of the occasional flash of dust or scratch, you'll have the constant presence of dead array elements showing up on the screen like black Legos. Think the theatre owner will rush out to buy a new DLP array? Not likely. He already doesn't have employees clean the screen once a month.
In fact, modern projection equipment is so good that we should rarely see significant film wear. Anything we do see is generally caused by poorly trained projection staff and cheap owners. Any lontime projectionist becomes as familiar with the equipment as a mechanic with a favorite car. You can tell by the sound of the projector whether something is ailing or not. At the first sign of trouble, the projector should be immediately checked. Unfortunately, most theatre chains wait until the unit is in the obvious throws of breakdown before calling repair. These are the same people who will own the digital projectors. Does anyone think it will be any different? I don't.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
They're a company making one of the more awesome theatre systems in existence. Also, arguably, the most expensive. The reason why IMax theatres are doing well is because most of them are museums of one sort or another or they are ran by private interests running them, not chains. (Cinemark is one notable exception, setting up at least several IMax theatres.)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Small Times just ran an article last week on this same thing. There's no distribution cost to the studios, while the theaters are the ones who pay for the cost of the upgrade. Another problem? Theaters switched to digital sound systems in the early 90s, and that didn't pay off for them either. If you're interested in more information on the technology behind DLP check out the Small Times article.
Actually, in Akira's situation, the film version was based on an unrestored interpositive, the digital version was restored and color repaired.
Something that needs to be said is that some theater chains really have sucky equipment, don't check their tuning and so on, they might be running old equipment and so on.
I do want to see a digital theatrical projection sometime, but I'm sure it's not going to be as crisp as a made-for-IMAX presentation such as the restored Beauty and the Beast.
The term is "lens flare". IIRC, it's actually an artifact of bad optics, and is not something that all cameras will produce -- to some degree, it's a deliberate "effect" even when you see it in movies.
The machine I worked on had 4 80gig scsi drives connected via fibre channel which is what the movies are eventually played from.
Here's a link to the parent company that built the machine:
http://www.technicolordigital.com/index.html
Folks, you have to complain to the theater management when this happens. Yes, management, not the kid who is scraping cardboard-flavored popcorn out of the bin.
If it's slightly out of frame, complain. If there are scratches on the film, complain. If it's out of focus, complain. If there's fuzz in the projector, complain. A real manager will gladly take the cue and go fix the problem. The last thing they want to do is watch every playing of every movie to check for flaws.
For example, if the picture seems slightly out of frame, it might be slipping the rollers a bit. It's a lot easier to tap the film back into track, then wait until it slips fully and breaks. Then it spews about 1000 feet of film on the floor in a big pile of black spaghetti. You have to stop the system, pick up the film off the floor, splice it, put it back on the platter, rethread the projector, and start up again. Guess which the projectionist would rather do?
Even worse, sometimes it will slip a roller and not break. That typically causes the entire film to get scratched- a giant veritcal slice from top to bottom. It's expensive to return the film and get a new one, but they'll never do it if they think you don't notice. I bet if you did notice one and alerted them, you'd at least get a free pass. I know I gave out lots.
When the theater gets a film from the distributor, it comes in five or six cannisters. Most modern projection facilities have a platter-based system, so the projectionist has to splice all the pieces together before showing it. The film sits on a giant six-foot platter which it is spooled off from. Of course, that means they should really "proof" their splices by watching the movie before opening night. (You quickly learn that you'll get burned if you don't. It's no fun to write out free passes to a packed theater.)
Compare with the older setups where you'd alternate between two different reels. In that case, you just mount the second reel on the second projector while the first is running. At the right time, you throw a switch to change projectors. That's what those little black/white dots in the corner of the screen are- a cue to the projectionist to get ready to change reels. (That's why the music never crosses through such a break.) Unfortunately, since each reel is about 1/2 hours long, it means you have to babysit the projectors a lot more.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.