Slashdot Mirror


Star Wars Digital Projection Theaters

Zoreta writes "Wired Magazine lists the 19 digital projection theaters in the country where Attack of the Clones can be viewed as Lucas intended." Say what you will, I can't wait for AotC- digital projector or not. I just wish *blatant non subtle hinting* some kind soul could get me into an early showing in the Detroit/Ann Arbor area ;) And at least I have spiderman to tide me over. Sam Rami vs. George Lucas. Gonna be a fun summer.

296 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. General Cinema Framingham, MA by WinDoze · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Only way to see a movie! Reserved seating, big leather seats, individual tables at each seat, and best of all, a FULL BAR (also meaning nobody under 21 allowed!)! Nothing like watching a flick with a martini while sitting in a nice leather chair. Check it out. I can never go to a "regular" theater again.

    1. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by FortKnox · · Score: 2

      Geeeeez... that's like a pressbox in a sports stadium.

      I live about 10 minutes from the Springdale, OH theater, but they have nothing like that (and its only a couple years old).

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    2. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by DragonPup · · Score: 1

      Is the Framingham theater near any MBTA stops(either bus or subways?). I might have to go check it out :-)

      --
      "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
    3. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Heywood+Yabuzof · · Score: 1

      I think you might be able to take commuter rail out there but it would still be a hike to the theater - or maybe if you got on the airport shuttle bus :-)

      I used to go there all the time when I lived in boston - it's about 10-15 minutes west on the pike. Unfortunately, I moved before they finished these fancy new screens. Darn.

    4. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by crow · · Score: 1

      It's in the Natick Mall area of Route 9. I'm not sure about busses, but it's four or five miles from the Framingham commuter rail stop, and it's well past the end of the Green Line T trains. The Logan Express bus stop is in the same general area.

      Unfortunately, you may find you really need a car to get there.

    5. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks for posting, you bastard. Now you're gonna Slashdot the theater.

    6. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by rapid+prototype · · Score: 1

      riiiight. you know slashdot types don't actually leave their homes and go out and socialize.

      and even if they did, about 1% of them are over 21 anyway, so no worries, there will be plenty of leather seats.

      -rp

    7. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Nice theater.

      The Zeigfeld's got the reserved seating but
      lacks the bar. Still, a damn fine place to see a movie. I caught
      Phantom Menace there. Not sure if it was digital then, though.
      Still in all there's a huge screen and a great, "old school theater" atmosphere.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    8. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Grape+Shasta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, personally I only really enjoy movies when I can get absorbed by them and forget everything but the show. The best part about theaters is that they are dark, devoid of distaction (ideally), and the screen fills your view. So actually, sitting in dim lighting with people walking around serving drinks sounds rather annoying. But that's just me.

      --

      "I am a cipher, a cipher, wrapped in an enigma, smothered in secret sauce" -Jimmy James
    9. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 2

      Damn! I was just about to lament having to go to Framingham from NH. I think you just convinced me, but only if they stock Capt. Morgan.

      --
      "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
    10. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by TwoStep · · Score: 2

      How much do they charge though? They don't seem to allow you to buy online...

      Twostep

      --
      There are 10 different types of people in this world... those who understand binary, and those who don't.
    11. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by CaseyB · · Score: 2

      Do you pay more for a ticket, or do they just expect to make it back from your bar tab?

    12. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by chrisvr · · Score: 2

      How many of the theaters at Framingham are equipped with the digital projection equipment? The AMC site doesn't mention anything about the premium theaters having the digital equipment in particular.

      I imagine the reason that there aren't many theaters equipped is because it's pricey.

      So if Framingham only has one theater with the equipment, I'd wonder if they'd keep it for the premium one, meaning that the non-pricey ticket folks (and young under 21 whippersnappers) are relegated to seeing it in the same old boring format.

      Hmmm, part of me wants to cry out against elitism but the other part of me is strangely drawn to the martinis, wide seats and concierge.

    13. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by 56ker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Being 6'4'' the thing I look for in a cinema is enough room for me to sit comfortably and stretch my legs.

    14. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 2

      Sounds like you need to start watching movies in the comfort of your own home. You may have heard of an invention called "video".

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    15. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's time to change your .sig

    16. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by soulsteal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Being 6'4'' the thing I look for in a cinema is enough room for me to sit comfortably and stretch my legs.

      Amen brother. being 6' 5" makes sitting in movie theater rows awful cramped. Plus I can't find a place to keep my huge feets. =/

    17. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by WinDoze · · Score: 2

      They don't serve you in your seat once the movie starts. You can, however, get up and go out to the bar on your own. Best bet is to just order a couple drinks on the way in so you don't have to get up halfway through.

    18. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      $17.50 a pop, but that includes all the soda and popcorn you want for free. Why you'd want soda and popcorn when they have martinis and shrimp cocktail is beyond me though.

    19. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by jlv · · Score: 1

      The MBTA stop is in downtown Framingham. The GC16 (now AMC16) on Flutie Pass, the road that connects the Natick Mall in Natick to Shopper's World in Framingham.

      There is the LIFT bus service that will get you from downtown to either the mall or Shopper's World, and then you can walk to the theatre.

      Of course, tickets will sell out 2-3 weeks in advance. And you'll have to be careful as they'll no doubt be showing Clones on 3-4 screens, but they have (IIRK) only 1 digital projection setup (in the Premium Theatre).

    20. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Sorcerer13 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised the new Sony theatres right next to Boston Common doesn't have a digital screen. That place is huge with, I think, 20 screens.

    21. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Paul+Lamere · · Score: 1

      So why do you always sit in front of me anyway?

    22. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by tps12 · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is nothing special. I always just pick up a 40 on the way to the theater. Among the many benefits of this technique is that if you see the same movie twice (like, once with your family and once with your friends) you won't spoil the ending for yourself.

      --

      Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    23. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2
      Being 6'4'' the thing I look for in a cinema is enough room for me to sit comfortably and stretch my legs.

      Hey, I know you! You're the person that sits right in front of me at every movie I attend. I'm sure it sucks being tall and trying to pry yourself into one of those tiny theater seats, but being short and not being able to see the screen over all the heads really blows as well. That is why I have only attended theaters with stadium seating in the past few years.

      --

      Enigma

    24. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Jered · · Score: 1

      The Framingham Premium Cinema is great, but for topic relevance, that isn't the theater that has the digital projector. The one equipped for digital is the first on the left in the right wing of the theatre. (Don't remember the number offhand.)

    25. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by geggibus · · Score: 1

      So why do you never sit in front of me... ;)

      /K

    26. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Deven · · Score: 2

      I live about 10 minutes from the Springdale, OH theater, but they have nothing like that (and its only a couple years old).

      I live in Greenhills, which is within 10 minutes of that Springdale theater. I wasn't aware that they have a DLP projector, but they do. In fact, my wife saw a digital movie projected by their DLP projector; she said it was incredible, and she was very disappointed with the quality next time she saw a normal film. (I guess I'll have to make a point of going to see a digital movie there soon!)

      --

      Deven

      "Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

    27. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      >> Being 6'4'' the thing I look for in a cinema is enough room for me to sit comfortably and stretch my legs.
      > Amen brother. being 6' 5" makes sitting in movie theater rows awful cramped. Plus I can't find a place to keep my huge feets. =/

      You said it man. Being 6'6" sure is a drag because I am so huge. In fact, slightly huger than you.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    28. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Cplus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hear ya boys. Being 12' tall has made it almost impossible for me to survive in the modern world. Sure I've got a two foot penis, but it's not worth it when I can't get out of my house.

      --
      "Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
    29. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by acoustix · · Score: 2

      Technically there should be dim lightning in a theatre. It isn't supposed to be dark (as in no light). There should always be dim lights somewhere in the theatre. (usually in the ceiling pointing to the walls).

      But maybe that's what you meant.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    30. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by jrp2 · · Score: 2

      Reserved seating, big leather seats, individual tables at each seat, and best of all, a FULL BAR

      Hmmm, looks pretty nice. There is one of those in my area, but it is a good 30 miles away. Here in downtown Chicago there is something kinda similar. It is called "Brew and View". It is a concert venue that is a theatre when there are no concerts. Nowhere near as posh, but a bar and you can smoke!!! Cigarettes that is, but I have smelled other things ;)

      It is pretty cool, they generally play some decent movie first, then something very heckelable second (as most are pretty trashed by then). Probably a whole lot cheaper too. $5 to get in and they usually have $2 pitchers of some piss water beer that is generally quite tolerable after the first several (who cares after 6 or 7 anyway).

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    31. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      have you ever considered that it's your movie going habits that need to change? if you consistently watch movies intended for kids, you will always be surrounded by kids

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    32. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      Come on man! Why do you think people have shoulders on either side of their head? FOOTRESTS!

    33. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      If this is about Star Wars, and you are a contractor, watch out. Them pesky rebels have a tendency to blow up Death Stars with flagrant disregard for the lives of the independant contractors working there just trying to make a living.

    34. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by rapid+prototype · · Score: 1

      usually when i go to a theatre, i go with a large group to dinner before and go out to a bar or some such afterward. thus, to me, going to a theatre means socializing.

      -rp

    35. Re:General Cinema Framingham, MA by Deven · · Score: 1

      Small world, huh?

      --

      Deven

      "Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

  2. Hmmm...clones of whom, now? by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't think Taco will be near so eager to see AotC when he realizes the full title is "Attack of the Clones of Jar-Jar Binks"

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:Hmmm...clones of whom, now? by curunir · · Score: 2

      Hmmm...meesa think the title for that would be: "Attack of the Clowns"...

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  3. star theaters by spoonyfork · · Score: 2, Informative

    Commander Taco, I could suggest contacting someone at Star Theaters. I'm sure you could get into some advanced screening with press credentials. Here's the URL:

    http://startheatres.moviefone.com/

    I'd shoot for the Star Southfield -- stadium seating and THX r0x0rs.

    --
    Speak truth to power.
    1. Re:star theaters by Olliver+J. · · Score: 1

      I would recommend it as well. It's the best theater in the state. The lobby motif is excellent.

    2. Re:star theaters by lunartik · · Score: 1

      Star Southfield was nice when it opened, but I can't stand it now. Try the new theater complex in Birmingham, or the older Birmingham Theater. You'll get better service and enjoy the movie more than you will at Star Southfield.

    3. Re:star theaters by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Star Southfield was nice when it opened, but I can't stand it now. Try the new theater complex in Birmingham, or the older Birmingham Theater. You'll get better service and enjoy the movie more than you will at Star Southfield.

      I've been to the old one in Birrrrrmingham and it sucked. The theaters are small, they only have 10 decent seats and the rest are at the margins or with a railing in front of your face. No thanks.

      I haven't been to the new theater, the Palladium is it? I suppose I could get my mad bling on and shell out $50 for a night at the movies there. I'd rather just use the automated ticket machines at the Star Southfield and get awesome seats for the price of a senior citizen or child. One nice thing about lazy employees is that they don't care and subsequently don't check the tickets for the type.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
  4. Money money by DenOfEarth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how much this is gonna keep the ticket prices going up...

  5. Saw digital Phantom Menace by crow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I saw the digital projection of The Phantom Menace in New Jersey, and was impressed. The picture was absolutely perfect. I'm not certain I would have noticed the difference if I hadn't been told, but ever since I've noticed film glitches in other movies--little flecks on a frame or dammage due to having been played too many times.

    So this time it's 16 instead of 2. Hopefully in a few years it will become standard.

    1. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I watched TPM in the LA area when it was released. I came in being a film snob sure that digital would never replace a reel.

      I left wondering when the theatres would get around to making this standard. The picture quality was as good or better then 35mm, and the lack of artifacts in the projection was great.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      You hadn't noticed those before? Yikes. Films are really quite messy when you pay attention to them. It's what comes when you have to print and duplicate thousands of reels. Individual quality suffers.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    3. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by crow · · Score: 2

      Oh, I had noticed the defects in film before, but I hadn't ever thought to watch for them. Now that I know there is an alternative, every glitch grates.

      It's like watching VHS. I used to not think about how horrible the quality is. Now that I normally watch everyting on ReplayTV or DVD, the fuzziness of VHS is intollerable.

    4. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by tux-sucks · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the whole digital thing. I personally like the look of film, as it has a quality and look that we can relate to. The look of digital can be sometimes too crisp and too synthetic. But that's just me.

    5. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by cei · · Score: 1
      THX is doing quality control reviews of every 50th print from the duplicators...

      AotC will probably open on 3000 screens...

      That means there will be at least 60 screenings before opening day...

      Sometimes it's good to work for THX...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    6. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by wednesdaywar · · Score: 1

      Though Digital indeed seems to have many plusses, there is still a fair amount of controversy about whether it will be better in the long run. There are a number of critics of the method, notable Roger Ebert. This link fittingly provides a counterpoint to Ebert's argument. http://www.volksmovie.com/rants/archive/rogerebert . tm

    7. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by dorsey · · Score: 1

      You're one of those wackos who think that vinyl sounds "better" than a CD, aren't you?

      --
      hinderfreude ('hin-dur-"froi-d&), n. The feeling of joy derived from being in the way.
    8. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by sharkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      The picture was absolutely perfect.

      Jar-Jar doesn't show up on a digital projector?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    9. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by Alan+Mattern · · Score: 1

      hmm, I saw it in the theater in burbank, guess the same as you back in mid june that summer. The image quality rocked, the sound kinda echoed in the theater though, it's kinda long, guess they didnt have hte delay set right or something.... or being late and putting me in hte back. BUT, the lack of scratches and dust was made up for by strange verticle striping... maybe a side effect of the lcd projector... it didnt detract too much though. But the DVD has a much better picture :) stuck here in Austin don't think I'll be sing AoC on digital unless I make my way up to plano sometime maybe this summer for a 3rd or 4th viewing.

    10. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by mbbac · · Score: 1

      It still wouldn't be perfect unless digital projection replaced Anakin with a decent actor.

      --

      mbbac

    11. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by flimflam · · Score: 2

      Interesting. Apparently I'm one of the only people not overly impressed with DLP projection. Perhaps one reason is that I work for a company that sells the things so I've become intimately familiar with their flaws. Basically, they're still too low-res (not even full 1080P res), and they flicker unevenly. If you sit too close to the screen you can see the individual pixels, and if you look closely you can see a little black spot at the center of each one where where the tiny mirror pivots.

      There's already higher-res versions in the works as well as a couple of competing technologies which is on of the myriad of reasons why no one actually wants to spend the ~$100,000 for one of these things now.

      --
      -- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
    12. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by sg3000 · · Score: 2

      > I saw the digital projection of The Phantom
      > Menace in New Jersey, and was impressed.

      I agree. I saw it in Plano, TX, and the result was incredible. Very crystal clear and lifelike. What's interesting is when the scenes with the real actors appeared, they looked grainer and worse than the digitally rendered scenes. I'm looking forward to 'Clones in a digital theatre.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    13. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      Really? I hate what DVD looks like. I'd much rather see analog fuzz than that awful digital compression. Particularly in the dark tones. I'm terribly disappointed in DVDs, as a matter of fact. The only thing I do like is the number of devices that play them.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    14. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by jrp2 · · Score: 2

      Basically, they're still too low-res (not even full 1080P res)

      Perhaps a stupid question. Is the original "filmed" (or shot, or whatever you call it) at that res? If so, then the celluloid version would just be a copy of a digital rendering at that res.

      I am guessing it is shot at a higher res, and this is just a limitation of the projector, but had to ask.

      --
      The only athletic sport I ever mastered was backgammon - Douglas William Jerrold
    15. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by kevininspace · · Score: 1

      Did you see the TI DLP or the JVC-Hughes ILA presentation that was shown at Lowes/Paramus in NJ ? I ask because at the time JVC had a superior presentation: http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_report/product ion_a_z/digitalprojection2.htm .
      I only saw the Paramus show and can attest to it's incredible quality. At the time Lucasarts made 2 custom digital transfers, one for each projector: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/sept99/phantom/fx3/ main.htm
      I know that JVC has made improved systems since then but I don't know if they are doing any AotC screenings. It would be a shame if Lucas went with an inferior system because of cost/business considerations.

    16. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by dirty · · Score: 1

      I have no clue wrt/ star wars, but from what I understand film has an effective "resolution" of 5000x5000 pixels. Also film is much better at capturing really bright objects in the same scene as a really dark object. The only digital cameras I've used have been in the $8k range, I'm sure they are nothing compared to what Lucas used, but I still wonder if the really high end equipment can compete with film.

      BTW, I'm not one of those people who think vinyl sounds better than cd, I just don't think digital film is at the level of real film yet.

      --

      -matt
    17. Re:Saw digital Phantom Menace by gabuzo · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's fair to compare digital projection with film projection for TPM, Toy story II, and others.

      At the moment digital projections are nothing more than public demos : there are only a handful of theatres that will project SWII in digital (19 screens vs several thousands). Each screen will be equiped with brand new projectors operated by highly qualified crew (at least one full time operator for the digital booth). Same for the lab work. The picture compression will surely be supervised by LFL people (may be Lucas himself) and the sound will be multitracks uncompressed PCM.

      On the analog side you'll have thousands of prints to be made as quick and as cheap as possible, the projection hardware may not be properly maintained and the operator (or the popcorn boy) will have to run several screens at the same time.

      So wouldn't it be a pity if the digital projection was not better that 35mm if you look at these differences ?

  6. In the Washington, DC area... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's not digital projection, but nothing else in the area beats the Uptown theater. It's incredible.

    1. Re:In the Washington, DC area... by raju1kabir · · Score: 2
      It's not digital projection, but nothing else in the area beats the Uptown theater. It's incredible.

      Since they closed the Foundry, I just haven't had the heart to go out to see movies in DC anymore.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  7. Perhaps a silly question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But does it really make THAT much of a difference? Better clarity would be great, but are we talking VHS versus DVD quality difference here? Is it that noticeable? Has anyone here seen a film on both film and digital to be able to tell whether or not it's worth a trek to one of these already overcrowded theaters?

    1. Re:Perhaps a silly question... by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      As far as resolution goes, film has a much higher resolution than the digital projectors do.

      Since AotC was shot in the same resolution as the digital projectors, you won't notice any difference between the film and digital versions (at least as far as resolution goes). However, for a movie that was shot on film, the difference is quite noticeable.

      Most people think that because it is digital projection that it will be of higher quality and higher resolution. But film has at least *TWICE* the resolution of the DLP digital projectors. The only real advantage to projecting digitally is that you don't have to worry about it getting scratched.

      As for the people who claim that film reels get badly damaged, only at crappy theaters. The decent ones take good care of their prints and projectors so that kind of stuff doesn't happen.

    2. Re:Perhaps a silly question... by Apotsy · · Score: 2
      Actually, Ep. II was done at HDTV resolution (1920x1080), but DLP is only 1280x1024. So DLP won't show all the pixels that were there on the original video data. The film prints, on the other hand, will show all the pixels, since as you pointed out, film has much higher resolution than any currently avaiable digital format, and the laser recoders used to transfer digital video to film can easily hand resolutions much greater than that of Ep. II. So if you want to see every last bit of image detail in this movie, film is the best bet, not DLP.

      Funny how all the press coverage and hype about digial cinema always leaves out these facts.

  8. Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Walker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder about this, seeing as I have been quite unimpressed by digital cable. True, the picture is extremely clear when it is working perfectly. However, it is not very fault tolerant. A bad analog signal might give me a little snow; I can still enjoy the program. Even a slightly bad digital signal causes massive pixelation; when that happens you cannot make out anything on the screen at all. The Moral: digital is better when it works, but worse when it does not.

    1. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Michael+O-P · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, it is absolutely that much better. You bring up good observations, but TI and the other company that does digital projection knew they needed to match film and that viewers wouldn't tolerate pixelation. When I get poor picture quality on my Dish, it's because of the compression and decompression of the digital signal. Sure Dish Network can cram 500 channels on their satellites, but picture quality suffers. Same with digital cable.

      With digital "film" projection, there isn't the same level of compression/decompression. They have as much bandwidth as they need since it's feeding off of a hard drive rather than over cables or through the air.

      --
      I'm Peggy.
    2. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by justinstreufert · · Score: 3, Informative

      Digital cable is bad because cable companies seem to be trying to use it as a way to squeeze more channels into their datastream. "Ooh! This fancy MPEG can compress Discovery Science down to 9600 bps! Then we can add the All-Curling Network. Whaddya think, boss?"

      At least Comcast in Montgomery County, Maryland has been going down this dark path; their digital channels exhibit far worse quality than the analog ones (which are already pretty horrid).

      As for bad signals causing severe glitching, I don't think that will apply in digital projection. Since the source of the signal (Hard disk? How do studios distribute digital movies? anyone?) is in the same room with the display device, there isn't likely to be glitching.

      Justin

      --
      "Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
    3. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by mosch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, digital cable has significantly lower resolution than analog cable. Even when it's working perfectly, it doesn't look as good as analog. The moral: digital != better.

    4. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
      Hmm.. I hadn't thought about it that way.. This may mean that digital TV is going to be the death knell of 'OK reception in the rural areas'. It'll be fine for the cities near antennas, but I'd never be able to recieve things like broadcasts from Vancouver Island in the City of Vancouver.

      Reception is bad enough in analog. With digital, I expect that all I'd see would be 400 really large pixels floating across the screen and the sounds of a Vogon enunciator.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    5. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Shagg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Digital cable is not broadcasting digital video signals (HDTV). Digital cable is currently used to compress analog video into smaller pieces so that they can put more channels in the same bandwidth However, once you receive the information in your digital cable box and send it to your TV, it is identical resolution/quality to an analog signal. In fact, it *is* an analog signal. The only way to get a digital video/audio signal into your TV is if you have an HDTV with a HD tuner.

      HD (high definition digital) cable has just recently been announced, and is only available in very select markets (Philidelphia right now, and WashingtonDC/Baltimore later this year for Comcast).

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    6. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by rworne · · Score: 1
      I remember watching one of the older Star Trek movies and they had one projector showing the same film in two different screens. I know this because the manager came in to announce the technical difficulties in setting this up for the first time.

      What I want to know is what form of Digital Rights Management is going to be set up to monitor how many showings/screens this film is going to be shown on? After all, the theaters fork over a portion of the ticket sales on new releases, and DRM seems like just the thing they need.

      Hard drive based distribution is also very interesting. I wonder how long until I see a message pop up on a screen saying "-=YOUR SCR33N IS OWN3D=-" and then start popping up porn banners.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    7. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Quikah · · Score: 2

      If your only alternative is to watch a print that was dragged through the mud, walked on, cut and pasted back together a few times then yes digital projection is better. If you actually have a good theater by you that is able to properly handle the film (long shot these days) then it is a toss up which I would give to film since there is no pixelization which is noticeable if you sit too close.

      I haven't seen a digital projection since TPM so it may have improved since then.

      --
      Q.
    8. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      Actually, digital cable has significantly lower resolution than analog cable. Even when it's working perfectly, it doesn't look as good as analog.

      That REALLY depends on which channels you're talking about, which cable company you have, etc. I've got TimeWarner digital cable in central Florida. I've got all the movie channels, the works. Even the HD channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, WB, PBS, HBO, and Showtime).

      The ESPN digital channel looks like shit. However the main HBO and Showtime digital channels look much better than when I compare them to the HBO and Showtime analog channels at my friend's house.

      My guess is HBO and similar digital channels pay more money to Time Warner for better compression (or perhaps the way HBO transfers the feed to Time Warner comes into play). HBO is owned by AOL Time Warner, so that may even come into play.

      My point is, the statement that digital channels have less resolution than analog channels is pure bullshit. SOME digital channels look worse than their analog counterpart, some look better.

      And of course, the HD channels are superb.

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    9. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Dusty · · Score: 1

      Actually, digital cable has significantly lower resolution than analog cable. Even when it's working perfectly, it doesn't look as good as analog. The moral: digital != better.

      Digital TV doesn't not necessarily have lower resolution than cable. The picture header in the MPEG-2 stream tells the decoder what size the picture is. The decoder can usually scale the picture to fit the available screen size (720 pixels wide (704 visible) by 480 high (NTCS) or 520 (PAL). Of course the smaller the picture the less byte per second are required. All of which is usually configured at the MPEG-2 encoder.

      So if your digital TV's picture qualtiy is bad then you'll need to complain to whoever's encoding the MPEG-2 stream.

    10. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by blamanj · · Score: 2

      Not according to critic Roger Ebert. I heard him on KQED (San Francisco) recently, and he thought digital was inferior, even for digitally-created films.

      This has nothing to do with the delivery quality, which is your problem with cable, but with color and resolution.

    11. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Michael+O-P · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that DLP had unlimited bandwidth, just that it had much more than cable or satellite systems.

      --
      I'm Peggy.
    12. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by cei · · Score: 1

      Hard disk. They feed 9-13 DVDs one at a time into a QuBit to transfer the content.

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    13. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Qbans · · Score: 1

      Well it depends. A good quality film print will beat digital hands down any day. The contrast ratio of film is just amazing (not that DLP isn't but...) Now if the theater is a little shady and they don't keep the projectors clean or the film print in good condition than digital will beat it by a great margin. Film tends to wear out after a while (this is where digital has it beat since the first time it's shown and the last are pratically the same.) Now if it was released on 70mm it would even be of better quality (since most of us are used to 35mm prints of movies in our local theaters.) In addition the light source can make a difference also. Most modern theaters use xenon arc bulbs which tend to have a slight change in color and brightness towards the end of their life. If a theater is trying to squeeze too much life out of their bulbs this can affect picture quality. There are also different process that the film can be printed in e.g. Technicolor IB, dye transfer, etc. which provide much better color depth than the adverage movie print (but cost a lot more.) So optimally you should see movies in the 70mm format that are printed using a dye transfer process and are brand new. That in theory is the highest resolution best quality picture that you can see on a movie screen (not to mention the most costly.)

    14. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by bughunter · · Score: 2
      It looks nice, but's not as high resolution as you would think.

      A colleague of mine told me a surprising story a couple of years ago, right before Ep. 1 came out. She worked on a project to develop a 6-megapixel CCD chip for cinematic cameras. Her employer apparently embarked on this, and actually cut silicon, before consulting with studios. Once they did, they were shocked to learn that most cinematic cameras use only 1.3 megapixel (1280x1024) -- the studios discovered that audiences didn't react well to too much resolution. Viewers complain the pictures look "too perfect." In post production, the filmmakers actually have to add noise to make the image look more natural.

      The CCD folks tried hard to sell the hi-res chip with advantages like better aliasing performance, better Modulation Transfer Function, better interpolation capability to mask bad pixels, less sensitivity to fixed pattern noise, etc... but apparently it is still cheaper to fix all those digital artifacts in software during post production rather than start with a higher resolution image. The real showstopper, though, was storage. A 4x increase in storage size for the raw master affected the cost of all their equipment...

      Maybe one day audiences will come to expect ultra-sharp, zero noise moving pictures, but right now, many of us operate our 19"+ monitors at higher resolutions than what they'll project SW:AoTC in.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    15. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by swordboy · · Score: 2

      I wonder about this, seeing as I have been quite unimpressed by digital cable.

      Digital cable is a sham.

      Digital Cable = Digitally Compressed Analog TV

      The only thing that this does is reduce bandwidth requirements and increase the amount of time needed to flip between channels. If you want to see real digital TV, then go check out a *real* HDTV display (most of the displays are just analog TV, not digital). For the ultimate, get a Dish Network HDTV receiver. They offer the best picture quality (IMHO).

      Cheetos!

      --

      Life is the leading cause of death in America.
    16. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by binaryDigit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whoa, hold your horses there. HDTV is NOT simply "broadcasting digital signals". HDTV is a standard (in the US) that encompasses many aspects of digital media including the format of the content, the specs for displays, the format for transmission, etc. HDTV does not necessarily imply digital (though it does here in the states, but not so in countries such as Japan which use(d) an analog standard). The resolution of a digital signal is not necessarily the same as the analog representation, since in the case of most digital cable systems and digital satallite (e.g. DirecTV), they use the MPEG1 standard which has a fixed resolution.
      Also, HDTV signals are actually available in a great many regions, esp in large markets. Now the amount of content is fairly small, but it is there (e.g. CBS broadcasts in HDTV in many markets now).

    17. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Shagg · · Score: 2

      HDTV is NOT simply "broadcasting digital signals"

      True, HDTV and digital broadcasting are not the same thing, however my point was that what the content providers call "digital cable" is not a digital video/audio signal. It's an analog signal digitally compressed to use less bandwidth. Once it comes out of their converter box and hits your TV, it is a 480i NTSC analog signal. It's the same resolution as regular cable, which is why you don't see much picture quality difference between "digital cable" and "regular cable". The only differences in the two services are the number of channels and the types of services they can offer.

      Maybe I was being too US centric, but I was assuming that for the purposes of making that point, implying that true digital video broadcasting is analagous to HDTV, was reasonable since that's the specific standard that the providers are using for digital broadcasts.

      Also, HDTV signals are actually available in a great many regions,

      The only broadcasting of a true digital video signal (in the US) that I know of is HDTV over the air, or via satellite. Yes, HDTV is available in alot of places, but not over cable systems (which is what I was talking about) until very recently. Comcast announced in March 2002 that they would begin rollout of HDTV in the Eastern US this summer.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    18. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Wumpus · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on - you of all people should know better than that. The MPEG-2 cable streams I've seen had a vertical resolution of 720 pixels. Cheap TVs just don't do that resolution.

      Granted, when your feed comes from a satellite, at ~4 Mbps, you'll see compression artifacts, but only because the cable company wants to cram 6 programs into a 6MHz channel. That won't change until customers start complaining, which isn't likely to happen.

      Besides, when you consider the poor state many cable systems' networks are in, you're more likely to get a reasonable image with a digital feed than with analog.

    19. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by binaryDigit · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree that "digital" cable is simply AD/DA'ed standard tv. And that currently the only "true" digital end-to-end broadcast we have here is through HDTV. I also wasn't aware that you were referring to HDTV over cable, of which I have no idea of the prevelance (only that TimeWarner here doesn't offer it), so I acquiesce to your knowledge here ;)

      Just wanted to make sure that you're points were clear.

    20. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 1

      speed is the key, really. I live in central London, and am surrounded by cinemas (two have DLPs). The only way I've yet found to ensure an even MODERATELY competent projection experience is to see your chosen film on a preview or opening night. Showing the film scratches and fades it - and that's not gonna change. I've now seen 2 films on the DLP, Final Fantasy and Monsters Inc. Both were pretty impressive, but I found the main flaw with the DLP system was the shitty shadow detail and muted colour. In terms of sharpness it was easily a match for the typical out-of-focus, faded print that we're fed. In terms of stability and interference, the DLP is leagues ahead. having said all that, nothing has come close to the special screening of 2001 in a NEW 70mm 6 track print that I saw at the Curzon Mayfair last year. It was mind expandingly clear - looked like it was shot the day before. And I work in TV post production, so I'm not uncritical.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    21. Re:Is Digital Projection Really Better? by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we're too used to crap film. I could have of cried during scenes in LotR:FotR when they panned and you could visibly see how useless film is when it comes to action and large amounts of movement. 24 fps sucks Hemos thru a straw.

  9. Digital Projection by delphin42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How is it that a theater in Arizona and one in Kansas get a digital projector before many of the much larger markets? Anyone from either of these towns have any information on these theaters?

    --
    -- Adam
    1. Re:Digital Projection by errxn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Peoria, AZ, in metro Phoenix. Yeah, tiny little town, that Phoenix.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    2. Re:Digital Projection by mstockmyer · · Score: 1

      AMC Theatres is based in Kansas City, MO, and the AMC Studio 30 in Olathe, KS is thier largest (by screen count) theatre in the KC Metro area.

      And I live 10 minutes from it! Woo Hoo!

    3. Re:Digital Projection by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 2, Offtopic

      You do realize that a lot of people live around those two right? Just because the names don't ring a bell for you doesn't mean there aren't a couple million people within an hours drive of each.

      Granted, there are a few large cities unrepresented.

      --
      "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
    4. Re:Digital Projection by rosewood · · Score: 2

      Olathe is a burb of Kansas City and is not far at all from KU and KSU. Also, a drive from Wichita is not totally out of the question (see my post). Thus, the market is there. I guess you just found a person who was willing to invest. Bill Warren is the Wichita, KS movie goon and he runs most of the theatres here in town and is a pure cock-sucker. He underpays his workers and over-charges on the tickets. Anyways, he got a grant from the city to build a new theatre and on the grant application it promised revolutionary new digital projection and sound that would draw people to see big block busters to THAT theatre, aposed to others. Guess what never happened...

    5. Re:Digital Projection by tigeba · · Score: 1


      The Olathe, KS theater is still considered in the Kansas City Metro area. The KC Metro area supposedly has the highest screen-per-capita ratio in the known universe. The theater in question is a brand new 30 screen job so that might also answer why they have a digital screen. It may seem like its in a small town, but it's really just a suburb of a major metro area.

      Another small tidbit of trivia, Kansas City is in MISSOURI DAMNIT, NOT KANSAS! :)

    6. Re:Digital Projection by delphin42 · · Score: 1

      Houston, Philly, Detroit...maybe you've heard of those? They are much larger than Phoenix and don't have a digital theater. Next time read what I wrote before responding.

      --
      -- Adam
    7. Re:digital projection by oflanigan · · Score: 1

      I saw this horrible film in a standard theatre, and I noticed his makeup there too. Eyeliner, I think? Tarts in space. Have you seen this phenomenon in any other digital projections, or can we just say that neither the substance nor the style of this film could distract the viewer from the lack of quality in the other. And another thing: Can we still call it a film if we're not watching actual celluloid?

    8. Re:Digital Projection by hald · · Score: 2

      Well, as for the one in Kansas, the world headquarters of AMC Theaters is less than 25 miles from the theater in Olathe, KS.

    9. Re:Digital Projection by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      It's largely a function of having a big-ass new theater and someone who's willing to layout the cash for being on the bleeding edge.

      Projection systems are not cheap. Digital projection systems make traditional systems look like chump change.

      Of course, the maintainance on the digital system is a fraction of that of the traditional one. About all you have to do is replace the bulb every few thousand hours and replace the occasional dead drive.

      The theaters that are digital right now are either sponsored by TI or another interested party or are due to some owner having a lot of balls.

    10. Re:digital projection by anthropomorphized · · Score: 1

      Actually, I saw Mission to Mars at a regular old theater and felt the same distraction, but it was Gary's eyeliner that killed me. I felt like I was at the Rocky Horror Picture show.

    11. Re:Digital Projection by DohDamit · · Score: 2

      Ummm, no, it's not. Phoenix isn't small compared to anywhere except New York.

      Population of Phoenix : 1,210,420 (7th largest city in the U.S.)[source]

    12. Re:Digital Projection by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say Houston is MUCH larger than Phoenix. If you look at population by county, Maricopa is #4 in the nation. Maybe the demographics are better in KC and PHX. More likely it's the theater owners that are willing to part with the cash to make it happen (so the Peoria, AZ theater is obviously not owned by the same family that owns the football team).

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    13. Re:Digital Projection by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      Actually, Kansas City is in both Kansas and Missouri (granted the core downtown area is on the MO side). Olathe is firmly planted on the Kansas side however so you'll have to brave the state line to watch in digital.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    14. Re:digital projection by sgtsanity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I live just a few miles from there. However, I saw Mission to Mars during a trip out of town in the middle of nowhere in a town called Hutchinson, KS at 10:30 pm. Naturally, the large numbers of rednecks in the audience made an already bad movie worse.

    15. Re:Digital Projection by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, but Olathe Kansas is not a big town. It's near Kansas City, Ks. Anybody living in Kansas City has to make a pretty good drive to get to Olathe. Of course, if I still lived in KC I'd probably go just for shits and giggles. However, I certainly think that Portland Oregon (where I live now...) would be a bigger market. I have trouble imagining that many people going all the way out to Olathe to see Star Wars on a digital screen instead of driving to Oak Park or other neighboring cities which are much, much closer. In other words, I seriously doubt that many people in KC would trouble themselves going to see it on a digital projector.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    16. Re:Digital Projection by jfinke · · Score: 1

      You also have to consider that Johnson County (where Olathe is) is considered to be the 3rd richest county (per capita, I believe) in the US. There is plenty of money flowing down here.... Don't know why... :D

    17. Re:digital projection by hughk · · Score: 2
      but it was Gary's eyeliner that killed me. I felt like I was at the Rocky Horror Picture show
      Naaahh, it was "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" - all that sand, you know, but the dresses in Mission sucked!
      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    18. Re:Digital Projection by BigBir3d · · Score: 2

      Especially considering that the Phoenix metro area is the fastest growing in the nation, and has been for the last 4 or 5 years. When I moved from there 4 years ago they were not in the top 10 yet (population). Also, this is only the legal population of Phoenix. Some people sya that there is another 30-40% living there that are illegals.

    19. Re:Digital Projection by tigeba · · Score: 1

      True there is a Kansas City, KS just as there is an East St. Louis, IL. Just clarifying for out of towners who regularly speak of Kansas City being in KS, when they actually want the one in MO.

    20. Re:digital projection by cmckay · · Score: 2

      I saw Mission to Mars digitally also, and I didn't see any make up at all.

      Maybe the fact that it was a VCD copy of a VHS screener tape had something to do with it? ;-)

    21. Re:Digital Projection by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      I'd rather be in KC,KS than E. St. Louis though...whether there was a digital theater nearby or not.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    22. Re:Digital Projection by tigeba · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you there :)

    23. Re:Digital Projection by ryman · · Score: 1

      Don't where you're getting your numbers from (oh wait, maybe you didn't really have any numbers to go on anyways...), but you might want to reverify them. As of Census 2000, Philadelphia had about 1.5 mil and Detroit had just below a million. Houston I'll give to you at 4.6 mil, but I think that was a lucky guess. Being a Phoenix resident, I know that Phoenix alone has around 1.2 mil, the entire metro area is well over 2 mil. We also have a disproportionately (at least to me) number of very large (20+ theaters) cineplexes, which probably is to compensate for abnormally small cultural demographic I guess. Try being less defensive when you don't really know what you're talking about.

      --
      "We are far too easily pleased." --C.S. Lewis
    24. Re:Digital Projection by White+Roses · · Score: 2
      Not to mention the huge migratory population of snow birds. Too bad our infrastructure can't take it.

      But, hey, KMA, we have a DLP and most other people don't.

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
    25. Re:Digital Projection by cyberentomologist · · Score: 1

      I cannot say for sure why Arizona got one. I do know that Arizona has one of the Nations highest rates of growth. With all of the theaters going in around here they might just do one in digital. Second only to Nevada (66%) at 40% in growth. Fifth on the list in total numbers for growth from 1990-2000. 2002 Census Data

    26. Re:Digital Projection by branteaton · · Score: 1

      Some people sya that there is another 30-40% living there that are illegals.
      -- who are just begging to spend three hours' wages on admission and another two hours' wages on a soda and some popcorn.... statistics and semantics are dangerous weapons for incompetent hands(I'm sure this time you just responded quickly, before the proxyfilter in your brain could shield the rest of us from you ;-) ). Pause, breathe, Smile. You've been flamed.

      --
      this .sig intentionally inane.
    27. Re:Digital Projection by delphin42 · · Score: 1

      I was using census 1990 data because it was the first that came up in my search. Since then Phoenix has grown at an impressive rate and Detroit has actually shrunk a lot. Perhaps I didn't give the growth rate enough consideration, but even the 2000 census numbers confirm that metro houston, detroit and philly are more populous than metro phoenix.

      http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa010102 a.htm

      Philly 6.1M
      Detroit 5.4M
      Houston 4.6M
      Phoenix 3.2M

      --
      -- Adam
    28. Re:Digital Projection by satanami69 · · Score: 2

      How is it that a theater in Arizona...get a digital projector"
      It's becuase when it's 120 in July, the film usally burst into flames.

      Seriously though.

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
  10. Good by 1155 · · Score: 1

    Good, my summer trip is settled. My fiance and I get married a day before the opening, then we rush on to Plano, Texas to see it. Then we rush to California to see it again. We stay in California for a few days, and then we rush to Ohio (forgive me if I am wrong, I really only paid attention to the ones close to me, or in interesting places)

    Wonder if my fiance will go for this for a honey moon. Two trips, in one!

  11. Kick Ass! by jachim69 · · Score: 1

    My fiance lives 5 miles from the Illinois theater. I won't be living there by then, but on one of my weekly trips from OH, I'm going to drag her there kicking and screaming.

    1. Re:Kick Ass! by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm going to drag her there kicking and screaming.

      With the nice plush couches and drinks available, I trust they aren't the only motions she'll be doing...

      :-)

      (sorry man, I couldn't resist...)

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
  12. Most of them are in California !!! by cOdEgUru · · Score: 1

    And none in GA. So I have two options.

    Get laid Off. Theres a meeting tomorrow of the head honchos, so all I need to do is piss someone off so bad that they send me packing with a Free Air ticket to SF.

    Second option would be to start sneaking around the Low-Airfare forums.

    I hate Lucas :(

    1. Re:Most of them are in California !!! by malevolence · · Score: 1

      Head down to orlando for the one at Pleasure Island. Depending on where in Georgia you live, it might not be more than 3 or 4 hours drive.

  13. One problem with digital theater. by nesneros · · Score: 3, Informative

    Last I heard, the "digital theaters" were working on micromirror arrays, which are great little devices (I spent about a year in college trying to build a microscope with some), except when their pixels get stuck, which although not as frequent as, say, the blue screen of death, is frequent enough to warrant a problem for a theater running the camera for 80+ hours per week. Then again, my last experience with them was 3.5 years ago, so TI and others may have improved the performance significantly since then.

    --
    Some men spend their entire lives trying to kill themselves for having been born. --Ross MacDonald
    1. Re:One problem with digital theater. by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

      Well, I went to see the digital screening of Final Fantasy at the Spectrum in Irvine. The damn thing crashed 3/4ths of the way through the previews, and I had to see the trailer for "Max Keeble's Big Move" twice.

      I don't know if I'll catch Episode 2 in digital. It may be slightly better quality, but I think it'll definitely be offset by the lower quality air that the fools camping in line are ruining.

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    2. Re:One problem with digital theater. by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, pixels still get stuck. Although at the moment I bet you can call TI, tell them you have a stuck pixel, and they'll send out a new DMD and someone to install it. Why? Because they want this to take off, and it's worth the short-period loss for the long-term gain.

      But consider, you're talking about one stuck pixel out of 4 million. Compare that noise to the amount of hair, dust, etc. that's in an analog film reel everytime you watch a movie. And that's not even considering the eliptical "splotch" in the upper right corner that indicates a reel change. No more reels in digital - it's all fed directly off a HD array.

      The other thing that's amusing about this is black level. Talk to a home theater buff about the importance of black level - it's one of the only reasons that CRT projectors are still popular in high end home theater. The black level of 35 mm film really deeply sucks. The black levels with a DMD projector are actually better than film (and DMD is significantly worse than CRT in home theater, although the gap is closing).

  14. Two Words by ruvreve · · Score: 2, Funny

    ROAD TRIP!

    1. Re:Two Words by phil+reed · · Score: 2
      ROAD TRIP


      You bet. The one in Sprindale Ohio is 30 minutes from my house. I'll wait a couple of days for the nerd contingent to dissapate a bit, and then we're there.

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    2. Re:Two Words by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      I have no need of seeing Tom Green in full digital brilliance.
      Ha! You can use Tom Green and Brilliance in the same sentence, I'll be damned.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    3. Re:Two Words by Robotech_Master · · Score: 2

      Absolutely! Now, I live in Springfield, Missouri, but...

      I tripped up to K.C. to see Princess Mononoke, twice.

      I tripped up to K.C. to see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

      And now I'll trip up there again to see Send in the Clow--er, Attack of the Clones. What the heck, it's Tradition.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  15. The only way to see movies! by Michael+O-P · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw Episode I digitally projected at the AMC Burbank North 6, and it was magnificent. You don't realize the difference while you're watching unless you really think about it. It's after the movie that you realize there wasn't a single error or marking on the "print".

    It's odd that this theater was chosen for digital projection, as there are 2 other AMCs (Media Center 14, and Media Center 8) within walking distance to this one. The North 6 is the least crowded, and the theaters aren't huge. This is a great place to catch movies that you know are released digitally. Went to see Toy Story 2 there, didn't plan to see it digitally, but that's how they were showing it. Animation in particular is much more vivid in this format.

    End rambling.

    --
    I'm Peggy.
    1. Re:The only way to see movies! by wizman · · Score: 1

      Adding new bells and whistles to a smaller, less populated theatre will attract more crowds. If a theatre is already filling most seats and remaining busy, adding digital projection obviously is not going to significantly increase the number of customers.

      But, as soon as other theatres get digital projection and numbers start to suffer, I'm sure something will be done to match.

  16. I'm in your area by bytor4232 · · Score: 1
    I work in Ann Arbor and live in Flint. Head here:

    Star Great Lakes Crossing
    Phone: (248)454-0366
    4300 Baldwin Road
    Great Lakes Crossing Mall
    Auburn Hills, MI 48326

    This theater is the bomb.

    --
    -- 4 8 15 16 23 42
    1. Re:I'm in your area by MacBrave · · Score: 1

      Yep, my son and I were visiting in-laws in the Detroit area a couple of months ago and saw a flick at this theatre. It is pretty nice. However, it's also a part of the the Great Lakes Crossing Mall, so be prepared for all the traffic and parking headaches a 'mega mall' presents.

      There is also huge new Star theatre elsewhere in the Detroit area, but I can't remember where. I think it's in Southfield or Livonia......

  17. digital projection by yellowjacket03 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I saw Mission to Mars projected digitally at AMC 30 in Olathe, KS. The picture was so good that I could see the makeup that Gary Sinise was wearing. But it was very distracting to see hime wearing some kind of rouge on his cheeks and some sort of shiny lip gloss. Movie makers need to be mindful of this sort of thing. Also Mission to Mars was one of the shittiest movies ever. That never helps.

  18. SO much for the public domain by darkonc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Great: Between the DMCA and digital broadcast, this means that when todays movies finally make it into the public domain (sometime around 2250, the way things are going), there won't be a legal copy in existence for anybody to use.

    Not that I've got anything against digital theatres (presuming that they've got the quality up near what film provides) -- I just don't like the idea of the digital information blackhole that it looks like the media industry is attempting to create for our descendents.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    1. Re:SO much for the public domain by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Silly person, thanks to the Act, the copyright extension will be extended to 500+ years by then. Content produced in the last 50 years will never enter the public domain.

    2. Re:SO much for the public domain by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      damnit...stupid me forgot about the angled brackets...that should have been:

      Silly person, thanks to the [Fill in dead Senator or Rep here] Act, the copyright extension will be extended to 500+ years by then. Content produced in the last 50 years will never enter the public domain.

    3. Re:SO much for the public domain by Slackrat · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that many older films, though locked away in studio vaults, are starting to rot away because the physical film itself was not designed to last so long. Though digital may brijng with it locks of its own, perhaps the movies will fare a bit better from a longevity stand-point.

    4. Re:SO much for the public domain by mbbac · · Score: 1

      Film locked in a basement vault isn't any better. Some fairly recent movies haven't made a stellar transition to DVD because the film was treated poorly. Film must be stored in an controlled environment in order for it to last.

      --

      mbbac

    5. Re:SO much for the public domain by darkonc · · Score: 2
      Have you talked to NASA recently about their data transfer problems??

      Even easier: would you be willing to transfer data from my 20 year old Radio Shack Color Comuter disks (much less my 8" Model 16 floppies?). My understanding is that 20 year old CDs are already starting to rot, On the other hand, the stereo pictures that my father took in the 1950's are still quite viewable -- and they don't depend on illegal technology to decrypt them so that I can copy them to a new medium, either.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    6. Re:SO much for the public domain by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      That too.

  19. That's just a list of digital theaters by HarryCaul · · Score: 1


    Is anyone sure the film will actually be playing at any of them?

    El Capitan in LA seems unlikely, for example (being a Disney owned showcase theater).

    1. Re:That's just a list of digital theaters by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      I'll say this though: if Disney had the money to install a digital projection system at the El Capitan theater they'll do it in a New York minute, to use to old saying. :)

      You forget that virtually every animated feature Disney has released since The Rescuers Down Under are all actually "stored" on digital masters, thanks to the use of the Computer Aided Production System (CAPS). Gawd, can you imagine a true digital projection of Monsters, Inc. or Atlantis: The Lost Empire? It would be eye-opening clear, that's to be sure. :-)

  20. DLP enabled Theaters by eples · · Score: 5, Informative


    Here's a list of DLP-enabled Theatres from Texas Instruments, includes at least 6 theatres not listed in the Wired article, plus links to the theatres' websites.

    DLP = Digital Light Processing and is supposedly better than Plasma/LCD. 4 Million+ mirrors in this sucker less than a micron apart each.

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
    1. Re:DLP enabled Theaters by dmarien · · Score: 1

      wikid! there are three cinemas in Canada with such technology and i happen to be 5 mins away from one!

      Galaxy Theatres at Conestoga Mall
      550 King St., North, Waterloo
      Ontario N2L 5W6
      Canada
      Tel: 519 883 8843

      prolly not much good though as I dont think
      galaxy can show lucas films.

      --
      dmarien
    2. Re:DLP enabled Theaters by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      Here's a list of DLP-enabled Theatres from Texas Instruments, includes at least 6 theatres not listed in the Wired article, plus links to the theatres' websites.

      That list would appear to be somewhat inaccurate, at least for what they say is available in Nevada. They say that the Century Orleans 18 is equipped with digital projection, but a quick trip to the Century Theatres website sez that the Century 18 Sam's Town is the local digital-projection outlet. (No word on whether AotC will run on their digital screen...they're currently playing Ice Age on it.)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    3. Re:DLP enabled Theaters by ha2z · · Score: 1

      The Orlean 18 theatre in Las Vegas does have a digital screen. It says so on the website and I've been there and they promote it.

  21. 2 theatres within a 100 foot radius by Thanatos · · Score: 1

    Heh. The AMC Empire 25 and the Lowes E-walk are directly across the street from one another. 42nd and 8th in NYC. Maybe I'll see it once at each :P

    1. Re:2 theatres within a 100 foot radius by nemomty · · Score: 1

      Lucky Bastard

      --
      This is not my sig, I just copied it from somebody else.
    2. Re:2 theatres within a 100 foot radius by Ashyukun · · Score: 1

      Hey, there has to be -some- advantage to living close to/in NYC...

  22. AMC Pleasure Island 24 Lake Buena Vista, Florida by techstar25 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    AMC Pleasure Island 24 Lake Buena Vista, Florida (which is at Walt Disney World in Orlando)
    . . . and I didn't think anything good could ever come from living near Walt Disney World. With the student discount the evening admission is only $5!

  23. Awesome by dimator · · Score: 2

    SIX out of 19 are in California. Some states don't have a single one, but we get SIX. God, I love this state.

    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    1. Re:Awesome by Surlyboi · · Score: 1

      Eh, here in NYC, we've got three within a mile of
      each other. Now that's access. =D

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
    2. Re:Awesome by GungaDan · · Score: 2
      Enjoy it before the power goes out again.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    3. Re:Awesome by curunir · · Score: 2

      You can say that CA has amazing national parks, miles upon miles of breathtaking beaches, convenient skiing and that most areas never get below 50 degrees farenheit all year and no one will care.

      But mention that we have %30 of the digital theaters in the country and you'll probably have more than a few /. readers out there considering a move.

      Gotta love /.!!!!

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
    4. Re:Awesome by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Man, I'm going to get a beating for this, but there's really just the east coast and the west coast. The rest is flyover country.

  24. AMC Studio 30 Olathe, Kansas by rosewood · · Score: 2

    I am there! Okay, so the drive up from wichita for a movie is kind of "re-damn-diculous" but Ill go catch some lame weekday show that no one will be at. I will probably see it opening weekend here in Wichita and then drive up w/in the next week or two (cant wait too long cause they may/may not pull it from digital, and that would suck dickitydick).

    I will be very bummed if it is no different from the regular ol projector that Ill be seeing it at here in town.

    1. Re:AMC Studio 30 Olathe, Kansas by emars · · Score: 1

      lo [waiting 30 seconds] ser

      --
      ...18...19...20 Submit
  25. Old news by Stavr0 · · Score: 2

    Digital gurus can't send in "The Clones" Article from Variety that appeared back in February.

  26. Cinemark Legacy in Plano by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I saw both Toy Story 2 and Monsters, Inc. on the DLP at the Cinemark Legacy in Plano. Three things really blew me away.

    First, it's bright! When the green "the following preview has been approved..." slate goes up, the sheer amount of light coming back off that screen is just amazing.

    The next thing that surprised me is the noise: there isn't any. You don't notice the sound of the projector (that "tuh-tuh-tuh-tuh" sound of the gate opening and closing) until it's gone. When the house lights go down before the movie starts, it's completely silent in the theater, which is pretty cool.

    Finally, there's no flicker. That's another thing you don't notice until it's gone. Despite the fact that the image is being shown to you at 24 frames per second, there's either no refresh effect in the DLP at all, or so little that your eye doesn't see it. A traditional screen, lit by a film projector, goes dark 48 times per second, and your eye picks up on that. A DLP screen doesn't. I guess that also contributes to the overall brightness; you're getting something like a third more lumens to the screen just because you're not closing a gate twice per frame.

    Oh, and in case you're wondering why there's a DLP cinema in Plano, TX, I think it's because this theater is right across the street from the TI facility where they invented DLP. At least that's the story.

    1. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by srvivn21 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Call me picky...

      The "tuh-tuh-tuh-tuh" sound you hear is likely not a gate opening and closing. The light flicker is done using (effectively) a fan blade. The sound is the rollers moving the film across the apperture. The film has to stop over the appature (so you don't get a blurry frame). This stop-and-go is what makes most of the projector noise.

      If I misunderstood what you were referring to as a "gate", I appologize.

      As to the flicker, that is most often attributable to a nearly worn out Xenon bulb. The older they get, the less even their light output is.

      Personally, I can't wait for the end of film. I'm no longer a projectionist though. ;o)

    2. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by Milican · · Score: 2

      GO DFW... w00t!

      JOhn

    3. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by foobar104 · · Score: 1

      Call me picky

      You're picky. I'm sure you're also right. Thanks for the clarification.

    4. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by wljones · · Score: 1

      I live close to Cinemark Legacy in Plano, and will be there for the show. Olathe KS, south of Kansas City, is centrally located for the first 48 states. Alaska and Hawaii residents may have a problem with the movie, but both states have activities that make any movie just another way to spend time. Texas Instruments, my pre-retirement employer, considered the digital projection system an important advance, but did not know if it would sell, remembering Betamax, Cinerama, and 9.5 mm film among other examples. I am glad it succeeded. It looks great.

    5. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2

      If the bulb is the culprit in flicker, then how does the flicker syncronize so well with the frame rate?

    6. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      The DLP group is, indeed, situated at the TI facility across Legacy from the Cinemark theatre.

    7. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by ptbarnett · · Score: 1
      I've also saw Toy Story 2 and Monster, Inc. in the DLP theater at Cinemark Legacy/Plano. I specifically chose it because I thought it would do a better job rendering animation.

      The big difference to me: the complete absence of image jitter -- i.e. it didn't jump around the screen due to slight differences in registration of the frame in the projection. On a large screen, it really bothers me (until I finally get used to it). I guess it's a function of the wear on the sprocket holes in the film?

    8. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      As to the flicker, that is most often attributable...

      Most often. Not always. Some people are better able to perceive 48 flashes of light per second (two flashes per frame).

      Maybe you are just gifted.

    9. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by jcoleman · · Score: 2

      "goes dark 48 times per second"

      How do you figure? 24 frames per second, with dark between each frame and once at the end of the second, would be "goes dark 24 times per second."

    10. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 1
      Actually there are three reasons. The first is that Cinemark headquarters is located in Plano. The theater is only a few years old and has every amenity. The longest lines are at the concession stand and not at the restroom. Second is that, yes, the DLP facility is across the street. They've also placed the DLP screens in the two biggest theaters in the complex.

      Cinemark Legacy is probably the best digital theater in the country. They don't charge a premium for any of the movies shown on the DLP screens and are constantly showing movies on some of the latest DLP projectors. I've seen Toy Story 2, Final Fantasy, Monsters Inc. among other films there. If you go during the day, you usually get wisked away to the upper levels of the theater to take surveys on DLP and give input to future development of the technology. (ie. surcharges, more or less likely to see a DLP movie)

      The third reason? Simple. The DLP Cinema Program selected Plano as "the home of DLP Cinema technology."

    11. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      How do you figure?

      Motion picture projectors use a two-bladed shutter. So for every frame of film, the screen is illuminated two times. This site has some cool background information on early film projection, and how it influenced television standards in the Olde Dayes.

    12. Re:Cinemark Legacy in Plano by conform · · Score: 1
      In order to help your brain percieve the motion in a film as smooth, each frame is shown twice. While the film is stopped in front of the lens, the "shutter" (actually a spinning fan blade) blacks the lens and then exposes the film again. The the shutter blocks the lens again, the film is advanced, and the process repeats.

      In really large theaters, it is actually necessary to show each frame 3 times, for an effective framerate of 72 fps (though any given frame is still up for 1/24th of a second total).

  27. Taco, those early screenings aren't all great.... by BRock97 · · Score: 2

    I just wish *blatant non subtle hinting* some kind soul could get me into an early showing in the Detroit/Ann Arbor area ;)

    Back in the day of Star Trek IV, a friend got me into an early screening, and it was just me and him. The experience was not all that great. I guess my problem is that movies are more of a group thing for me. The Phantom Menace was a blast to see in a big group, while STIV was relatively boring with just me and that guy (sorry Tag if you are reading this...). The biggest problem is that those early screenings, it is usually just two tickets, you and the friend that got them. SciFi is something best experienced en masse.

    --

    Bryan R.
    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or $12.50 as seen on eBay.....
  28. version 1.1 by cyborch · · Score: 1

    hmmm... there was great need for the phantom edit. Let's see what odd characters George Lucas felt compelled to introduce to the sequel. Hopefully there won't be a need for a version 1.1 this time.

  29. Super 8, b&w, silent, abridged by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

    I actually have a reel of the 1st Star Wars like that - it's pretty bad.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  30. If Harkins is not playing it by loners · · Score: 1

    I'll be there with my pitchfork and burning torch. Somebody else will need to bring the rope.

  31. Re:General Cinema IS NOT Premium Cinema by psxndc · · Score: 2
    The General Cinema is not the Premium Cinema. The PC is an add-on to the GC building. Though no doubt they will be showing it in the Premium, it's not the same and may not be the digital projection. On top of that, when I last went to the Premium Cinema, it wasn't reserved seating, it was just limited i.e. there are 100 seats instead of 300 (and yes, the seats are all leather).

    psxndc

    --

    The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.

  32. Digital projector adoption by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Wired Magazine lists the 19 digital projection theaters in the country where Attack of the Clones can be viewed as Lucas intended.

    If George truly wants digital projectors to be adopted, what he should do with Episode III is release it to digital-projector theatres two weeks to a month earlier than to standard theatres. QED.

  33. Don't forget to check DLP's Web site for a list. by antdude · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right here. It is world-wide. I am not sure how often the list is updated. I believe Wired's list is more updated for this movie.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  34. Re:It may be old fashioned by darkonc · · Score: 2
    No, No! Not Amazon!!!!

    I'd rather die than admit that my life ....er um, book... came from the likes of amazon!

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  35. Re:Hypocrisy? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

    They've always been consistant; they love quite a bit of the content, they hate quite a bit of the business practices.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  36. Projector's only half the story... by cei · · Score: 1
    Sure they've got DLP, but do they have QuBit systems?

    THX is going to load this puppy onto hard drives in a QuBit before they get to the projection stage, so it could only be shown where the two lists overlap.

    --
    This sig intentionally left justified.
    1. Re:Projector's only half the story... by eples · · Score: 2
      From the DLP site:

      • Data Storage and Playback:
        The picture information is normally compressed and stored using a QuBit compression system produced by QuVis of Topeka, KS. The QuBit uses proprietary wavelet compression technology with a user selectable SNR. The compressed data is stored on four computer HD drives with a total capacity of 72 Gbytes. Other playback servers based on MPEG2 compression have also been used for a limited number of digital releases.


      Your guess is as good as mine as to what "limited number of digital releases" really means, but it sounds as if QuBit is the preferred standard for the moment. The list stands.

      --
      I'm a 2000 man.
  37. Yep! by antdude · · Score: 2

    I saw it in Burbank, CA. I couldn't believe how many stars in space. Wow. :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  38. Funny how all 3 in NY are in Manhattan... by cacav · · Score: 1

    Luckily I live just outside of NYC, so I can take a quick trip down to Manhattan to catch it. But I found it funny that in all of New York, there are 3 theatres, all of them in Manhattan. And as far as I can recall, 2 of them (AMC and Loews) are across the street from each other on 42nd street. Convenient for catching 2 shows back to back if one is sold out...

  39. Question about how this works by First_In_Hell · · Score: 1

    How does digital projection work? Nothing in the article mentions it. Is it a big task for the theaters to upgrade to it? I am curious as to what equipment plays the stuff, what it is stored on, and do they use the same screen as for other movies. I guess this stuff has to be super expensive or else everybody else would have it for AoC.

    1. Re:Question about how this works by revscat · · Score: 3, Informative

      The DLP website has some information. It is a big task and big expense for theaters to upgrade to it. You need special projectors, although (AFAIK) you use the same screen. The movie is actually stored digitally, which I assume means a big hard drive. The big advantage that I have seen to DLP is that the image brightness higher than film, the color clarity is similarly excellent.

      Also the film quality doesn't degrade over time. Ever seen a movie after it's been in the theater for a while? You have probably noticed some aging of the film, such as scratches, fading, and so forth. There is no similar phenmomena with digital, so the 400th showing is just as clean as the 1st.

  40. What's the fuss over digital, anyway? by Stiletto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When he began shooting Star Wars Episode II in an all-digital format, George Lucas imagined that Attack of the Clones could screen in 2,000 digital-projection theaters nationwide.

    Because "Digital Is Always Better(TM)", right?

    1. Re:What's the fuss over digital, anyway? by Galvatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, compared to traditional projectors, he's right. Reel switching and film scratches are both highly noticable. In some cases it may be over rated, but in this case, digital really is a lot better.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  41. Re:Warning about Irvine CA. by svferris · · Score: 1

    Heh...I sense somebody is trying to keep the crowds away from Irvine so they can get a better seat? :-)

    Good luck...you know all the people from the game companies (like Blizzard) will be over there the day it opens.

  42. Spiderman by Beowulf_Boy · · Score: 2

    I recently became an usher at a local theatre, I was really excited because I get free tickets for movies. My boss just told me that every cool movie this summer (spiderman, AoTC, etc) is what is called "no passes" where the film company will not allow the theatres to give out free passes to employees for like 60 days. I am still pissed. Atleast Thursday I get to go to the screening with just employees, which kicks arse!

  43. Baltimore, MD: The Senator by selan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Senator is the best place to see it in Baltimore. This is a very cool independent theater that has survived since the 40s. There is only one screen so you get to see the movie in a huge hall together with 800 other screaming fans. The owner is a cool guy whose's a big Star Wars fan and gets up on stage to personally introduce each showing. It's a great experience.

    1. Re:Baltimore, MD: The Senator by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, the Senator is an excellent venue for any film, but it isn't as independant as I wish it were. Movie industry BS still abounds. They have been locked out of running certain films (Lord of the Rings, for example, altho they did run it later on for a brief time) because a GCC theatre in Towson (outside Baltimore city) was running it. Its practically the last screen left in Baltimore, which is a shame, but having camped out for all the special editions and ep1 I can tell you its a great experience.

      Anyway, the digital theatres might be great image quality, but NOTHING beat a good old-fashion 70mm film in a place like the Senator.

    2. Re:Baltimore, MD: The Senator by GriffX · · Score: 1

      Not independent, but the Uptown in Washington, DC is still a great place to see a movie. One MASSIVE screen in the house, full balcony, great sound, and projectionists who actually know how to do their job.

      Saw all the SW re-releases and Episode I there. Also saw Se7en and Natural Born Killers - very, very cool venue, and perfect for those kinds of sensory-overload movies.

      --
      These comments and opinions are mine and mine alone, although they shouldn't be.
  44. THX by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Informative

    As an aside, I believe any theater showing the Star Wars movies as a first run (e.g. - first 8 weeks of release) has to be THX certified.

    Which, of course, pads Lucas's pocket a bit more (THX certification costs $$$), but also "ensures" that you get the movie experience that the film maker expected.

    If, for instance, there's an issue with a THX certified movie in a THX certified theater, you can call 1-800-PHONE-THX to lodge a complaint. THX claims that they investigate every such complaint.

  45. Sheesh, if you can't wait to see it why not just.. by AKAJack · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...download it?

    You get to see the movie framed by a camcorder, learn a foreign language, and make a political statement all at the same time.

    What else could be so much fun?

  46. Re:Warning about Irvine CA. by GutBomb · · Score: 1

    Have you ever actually been to Irvine? It's a quiet place with a ton of office buildings. The Irvine Spectrum is actually way on the outskirts in the middle of nowhere. And it is more than a theatre. It is a whole entertainment center. A giant arcade, a Dave & Busters, street merchants... And I worked in Irvine as weel. TONS of high tech companies. I have never seen an act of violence or police brutality. Oh wait... i get it. you want the theatre to yourself. and after typing all of this.. damn, i feel dumb.

  47. Re:Jar-Jar Stinks by oflanigan · · Score: 1

    I just watched the outtakes of Requiem for a Dream in which Marlon Wayans does a minstrel impression of Jar Jar. I dig the idea, but the execution left something to be desired. Perhaps hating Jar Jar has simply become passe. Like the recent release of "Death to Smoochie", I mean, does anyone really actively loathe Barney anymore? It's not like hating purple dinosaurs needed time to become socially acceptable. Just look at how quickly planes started blowing up on tv (FOX's "24") after the Trade Center bombings.

  48. Re:General Cinema IS NOT Premium Cinema by WinDoze · · Score: 1

    There's only once digital screen in the complex, and it's the one in the premium. If you get there early sometimes you see the scary hourglass pointer while the system is warming up.

  49. it would seem... by martissimo · · Score: 2

    that they would really want it playing there, it cost them a ton of money to put in digital projection equipment, and you would think that they would want to play as many movies as they can which take advantage of it and use that as a selling point...not to mention that clones will probably have a huge draw.

    would semm pretty foolish not to play it there

    1. Re:it would seem... by cei · · Score: 1

      El Capitan is directly across the street from Grauman's Chinese Theater, where it will no doubt be playing on normal film. The two theaters never compete.

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
  50. Nooooooo! AMC in Orlando to be slashdotted? by tswinzig · · Score: 3, Funny

    Surcharge for buying my ticket four weeks early: 75 cents

    A ticket to see Star Wars II at the Pleasure Island AMC: $8

    Having to fight every /. geek in Florida for a place in line at the only digital theatre around: PRICELESS!

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  51. Allright! We got one in AZ!... by lugonn · · Score: 1

    ...And it's in Peoria! Just a few miles away from me abode! Thank god it's not in Tempe, Scottsdale, or Mesa.

    Anyone else here from AZ? Going to the Harkins on 5/16/02?


    Go to California...SEE THE ELEPHANT!

  52. resolution by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    Yeah, watching in in 1920 x 1080 is sweet. Looks good even on a 20 inch screen. Except when your MPEG decoder barfs.

    1. Re:resolution by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

      Really? I'll have to check the specs when I get to the office. At the office, we have been running at 1920x1080 and been using that as a format.

    2. Re:resolution by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1
      I suspect that resolution was for Episode I.

      The new JVC projector does 2048 x 1536.

  53. Easier distribution by yoink! · · Score: 2

    Although it might seem odd that, at the moment, only 19 theaters support digital projection, if the whole industry is going to eventually move that way, it will facilitate the transition by having such a large film behind it. Also, DVD production and other digital media formats will be much eaier to provide content for. The will be no film transfers involved, and it will be simpler for them to produce alternate edits for poor suckers like me.

  54. Actually, all 3 NYC screens might not have it by realgone · · Score: 2
    And as far as I can recall, 2 of them (AMC and Loews) are across the street from each other on 42nd street.

    You know, I was just thinking the same thing. Unfortunately, because those two theaters (Loews and AMC on 42nd) are so close together, they have a sort of "gentleman's agreement" in which they don't show the same movies in the same week. One would hope they decide to bend the rules for Star Wars, but ya never know...

    1. Re:Actually, all 3 NYC screens might not have it by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, this isn't just a "gentleman's agreement", it's an industry practice. In my town, Cinemark built a big theater next to an aging UA theater, planning to put it out of business (since they couldn't show the same movies, being so close together)... But they didn't count on the fact that UA would also build a new theater in another part of town.

      When it came to getting movies, the distributors would rather a movie play at both the UA's than just the one Cinemark... So the Cinemark's business went down the tubes.

      This may depend on the state you are in, or what distributor you use, though - I'm not really sure about the details. I just know that those two theaters, with 10+ screens EACH, never showed the same movies.

  55. The AMC 1000 Van Ness in San Francisco by Leperflesh · · Score: 1

    Is probably my favorite modern theatre in the city. The parking is not so great, but, I love how they lay out the theatres... a steep arc of chairs, so that even if the guy in front of you is 6 foot 5, he doesn't block your view. Plenty of leg room. The arm rest goes up so you can snuggle up with that special someone. Every arm rest has a cup holder.

    There are not giant huge great theatres there, because it's all in an old building, but that's good too... cause it means you don't have to share your film experience with 10,000 wailing babies.

    And best of all: they have a student discount!

    -Lep

    --
    I am allowed to criticize you: you are not allowed to criticize me. Sorry, that's just how things are.
    1. Re:The AMC 1000 Van Ness in San Francisco by DevNull+Ogre · · Score: 1

      The parking is not so great...

      That goes without saying. It's in San Francisco.
  56. Scandinavia by z-man · · Score: 1

    I know the only one up here is in Bergen, Norway. And I got premiere tickets, good seats too.

    This is going to be good ;).

  57. Hollywood should *give* each major market a DLP by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, they cost ungodly sums of money, but don't be fooled. Lucas isn't pushing DLP because of the great resolution. He is pushing it because a major release (3,000+ screens) means $33 - $35 MILLION in duplication costs.

    Digital distribution cuts that to a fraction. Add to that the ability to check dailies in Hollywood via an optical link -- so the execs don't have to get dirty on site, and you have a winner.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    1. Re:Hollywood should *give* each major market a DLP by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2
      Yes, they cost ungodly sums of money, but don't be fooled. Lucas isn't pushing DLP because of the great resolution.

      I'm sure that's part of it, but Lucas has been pushing for improved sound and visuals in theaters before it was cool to do so. Lucas is simply a technophile and single-handedly improved the movie going experience while theater owners were very hesitant, to say the least, to spend money on a system that works just fine. The fact that digital = cheap is a nice bonus, but not the main motivating factor.

      Short primer excerpt:
      Although he insists he's "a storyteller, not a technician," George Lucas has been a motivating force in advancing the technology of motion pictures for a quarter century. His Oscar-winning 1977 "Star Wars" pioneered the use of computerized motion-control model photography. Four years later, Lucasfilm's Computer Division began developing EditDroid, one of the very first nonlinear editing systems. Lucasfilm's THX division, meanwhile, has a long history of working with theatres and home-video distributors to improve sound reproduction.
  58. 'black level' = 'contrast ratio' by jelle · · Score: 2

    You can get those micromirrors in projection TVs too, it's called 'DLP'. I was really impressed when I looked at a DLP display at a specialty store. Still very expensive though ($10k or so)

    Btw, I've seen the term 'contrast ratio' used in the specs of projectors/TVs. AFAIK, LCD projectors often have a contrast ration of 200 or so, the better ones have up to 400. I think DLP has more than that.

    --
    --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    1. Re:'black level' = 'contrast ratio' by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      No, black level has nothing to do with contrast ratio.

      Contrast ratio compares the brightest white to the darkest black. Digital projectors (LCD, DLP, and D-ILA) tend to do well here (in roughly that order). CRTs, on the other hand, have really miserable contrast levels -- so bad that if you don't watch them in a totally dark room the picture will be badly washed out.

      Black level is a measurement of how black your black is. All digital projects leak light, even into pixels where there's supposed to be none (black pixels). Because of this blacks on digital projectors tend to show up slightly gray. LCDs are the worst, DLPs are (currently) the best.

      That said, you generally won't be able to notice the increased black level on a very good DLP or D-ILA projector unless you compare it to a CRT projector.

      DLP rear projection systems are still on the expensive side compared to RP CRTs, as you noted. Meanwhile front projection DLP is considerably less expensive than front projection CRT. Why? Because most big screen TVs are rear projection CRT. Meanwhile CRT is essentially dead in the front projection (99% business) market, with only HT buffs still using it. The advantages of digital for business use (ease of setup, much brighter, reduced maintainance) vastly outweighed CRTs (oh, did I mention that a digital projector is far lighter than a CRT?). So it's all supply and demand right now. But odds are that DLP and D-ILA will replace CRTs in the rear projector market in the next few years as well.

    2. Re:'black level' = 'contrast ratio' by jelle · · Score: 2

      When you say that 'LCD' has a better contrast than a 'CRT', you've got to be kidding. My 21" trinitron CRT on my desk still is visible when the sun shines directly on it, yet my TFT/LCD laptop has serious problems when that happens.

      In addition to that, 'black level has nothing to do with contrast ratio'. Hmm. contrast ratio = white level divided by black level. Quite much so something to do with it.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    3. Re:'black level' = 'contrast ratio' by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not kidding.

      The CRT used in front/rear projectors is different from the CRT you're thinking of as a monitor. CRT projectors use 3 7-9" tubes, one each for red, blue, and green, and then project the image onto a screen. The CRT monitor you're using has one huge freaking tube and you read directly off that tube. There are other differences as well, but suffice it to say that your monitor is not a projection system.

      Similarly the LCD and other projection systems are not the same as an LCD monitor.

      Go look into the technology before doubting.

      And sure, contrast ratio may be the absolute difference between brightest and darkest, but it has absolutely no indication of what "darkest" is. Digital projectors simply don't have as low as a base level. CRT projectors simply don't have as high of a top end. But the latter can be fixed through modifying the environment (a dark room). The former cannot be fixed no matter what. (And, again, the difference in black levels is pretty minute nowadays, at least between the good projectors - unless you're a fanatic with way too much money digital is widely considered better. And you don't have to have a blacked out room to watch TV either).

    4. Re:'black level' = 'contrast ratio' by jelle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CRT is still CRT, it doesn't matter whether or not the tube is big or small, or where the phosporus is located. A CRT monitor is still a projection system, because the electron beams project an image to the front of the tube where the phosphorus converts it into visible light. The only difference with a large screen 'rear projection TV' is that there the phospohurus is located farther away from the screen.

      Ditto LCD, LCD is a light filter. An LCD panel is a light filtering LCD layer on top of a backlight. In a projector, it's an light filtering LCD screen in front of a more intensive bulb. Possibly the projector includes a mirror (and cooling) surface right behind the LCD screen and the light performs a 180 right before or after passing through the LCD, but it's really the same thing, the LCD filters the light.

      What is darkest is not important. All you need is sufficient contrast ratio, and then you control the light in your viewing room and you colour your projection screen and its surroundings to reflect the absolute black level that matches your viewing room and preferences.

      This discussion contains some interesting material to read.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  59. maybe I'm getting too old by RestiffBard · · Score: 2

    but star wars interests me only as it pertains to my status as a geek. I'm far more interested in seeing Spider-Man than episode 2. Spider-Man I intend to see on day 1. Episode 2 I'll wait to see until someone tells me something good about it. A Jar Jar death scene would be nice.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
    1. Re:maybe I'm getting too old by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I hear ya', man. EPII will be the first Starwars I will not see on opening night. Hell, after EPI I might not watch it at all. Spiderman, however, I've been waiting for since the 70's!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  60. Hardcore by oflanigan · · Score: 1

    I camped out for Phantom Menace tickets at the coolest theatre in Denver (the Continental). When I first saw the list in Wired, I considered doing a road trip to a digital theatre to top myself. In the end laziness won out. Ah, the things I will do to garner bragging rights as a hardcore fan. I guess I'll just be pleased if the film is any good.

  61. My bad!! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    Whoops!!

    I should have read the Wired magazine article first. I didn't know Disney already installed a digital projection system there. :-/

    1. Re:My bad!! by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Yup. They've been showing their animated and non-animated movies in digital there for the past few years, too. Disney very much wants this to take off.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  62. where the hell are the 70mm prints? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Screw digital. Lucas had 70mm prints for the initial releases of SW ep. 4-6. Where are they now? Have quality standards dropped this much since 1977? (DLP may come close to 35mm, but will not touch the quality of 70mm for many years to come)

    1. Re:where the hell are the 70mm prints? by Hyped01 · · Score: 1

      70mm is truly breathtaking. The problem is many of the new movie houses wont/dont go that route. One reason (if you've ever seen a 70mm reel set) is they are massive and tough to deal with. Back when there were lots of independent movie houses and people who knew what they were doing, that was one thing... but now when high school and college kids (nothing against them - but they arent experienced film projectionists) run most of these projectors, you really want to entrust 6-7 massive 70mm reels to them and expect it on the screen properly?

      --

      WebMaster:
      BinFeeds
      XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but

  63. the fickle editor by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm.

    Say what you will, I can't wait for AotC- digital projector or not. I just wish *blatant non subtle hinting* some kind soul could get me into an early showing in the Detroit/Ann Arbor area ;)

    I'm really not sure how that fits in with this, a post from taco earlier today. For the lazy:

    just the same as I no longer have any interest in seeing the upcoming Star Wars movie

    This is one fickle editor to be sure... PSST! Taco, gotcha :-)

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
    1. Re:the fickle editor by theCURE · · Score: 3, Informative

      Offtopic but actually, the post you linked to is not from the real "CmdrTaco", it's from "CmdrTaco (editor)" so technically speaking, taco wants to and always wanted to see it. The other guy who must like taco a lot doesn't want to see it. However, you state that your post is "For the lazy:" and i'm lazy so i'll just pretend you really got him...

      ps. for future reference, look at the User #

      --
      "i can never say no to anyone but you"
    2. Re:the fickle editor by jdavidb · · Score: 2

      The post you are referring to was posted by someone claiming to be CmdrTaco, but not. His username is "CmdrTaco(editor)". His userid is somewhere in the 500000's, a very recent user. Finally, his signature is a reference to a post about why we should forget about Linux on the desktop.

      The real Taco has a username of "CmdrTaco". His userid is #1. He was, after all, the first. Taco's real signature is the string, "Pants are still optional, but recommended for you," or at least, it was last I checked. In fact, for me it was the signature that gave it away; I was thinking, "Hey! He finally changed his sig!"

      In short, you've been had. I found it pretty believable at first, though, since Taco's made plenty of statements about how disappointing he felt TPM was.

  64. Everyone should enjoy a good sail :) by Sorcerer13 · · Score: 1

    Too bad I can't get into the premium theatre for another 3 years, because it's only 15 minutes from my house.

  65. Lucky me by darkbuns · · Score: 1

    Fortunately one of those theatres (the edward's irvine) is the closest theatre to where I live). I guess the title of the wired article doesn't apply to me =P

  66. OT :: Want the Episode II Script? by totallygeek · · Score: 3

    Go here.

  67. Mercado 20 by threephaseboy · · Score: 1

    My brother went to see ToyStory 2 in digital at the AMC Mercado 20 theater in Milpitas, and when he went back a couple years after they had taken the digital out (!!)

    --
    .
  68. Getting to General Cinema Framingham, MA by maggard · · Score: 2
    The Framingham GC is in a difficult location for public transit.
    1. Reverse-commute on the Logan Express bus from the airport out to a short distance from the cinema. Indeed before the trees leaf out you can see the two buildings from each other; later just ask directions from the station staff, it's a trivial 5 minute walk. To catch Logan Express go to the lower level of the Airport and watch for a large red coach-style bus, the one you'll want is the hourly Framingham one.
    2. Take the Commuter Rail out to Framingham station. There are buses that connect from there around Framingham but I've never seen a good map or schedule of them, Google or ask on ne.transportaion for current status. Personally I'd just catch a cab over.
    3. Look into getting a ZipCar or just convincing a friend to drive you out. The cinema is a hop-skip-&-jump from the Framingham exit on the Mass Pike. Offering tickets & popcorn is good incentive.
    Finally, contrary to some reports the digital projection isn't in the Premium Theater - that's standard 35mm insofar as I know. Instead I recall the large #9 screen is the one with the digital projection and special audio equipment. While the Premium screen does seem to get the freshest prints and often have the best focus & other projection niceties it appears to be just a well executed traditional film theater sans children & mystery stuff sticking to the seats & floors.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  69. Only as good as your eyes by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    My glasses are almost six years old, my contacts at least two (i ordered bulk a while back), so everything beyond six feet appears a tad blurry. I'm wondering now if I should get my prescription updated just for this.

    I wonder how many out there are in the same boat? Oh, and that digital dolby doesn't do much either, my hearing took a beating from all those Ozzy concerts.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  70. Re:Jar-Jar Stinks by joshsisk · · Score: 1

    Just look at how quickly planes started blowing up on tv (FOX's "24") after the Trade Center bombings.

    well, to be fair, this was probably already filmed before Sept 11th.

  71. And for us Brits? by icemind · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if there is even a single one of these digital projection theatres in the UK?

    1. Re:And for us Brits? by Golantig · · Score: 1

      Out of interest I did an internet search and discovered that these cinemas were showing Toy Story 2 in digital when it first came out; The Odeon Leicester Square, London; UCI Trafford Centre, Manchester; Warner Village Finchley Road, London (both from 11 Feb).

      One would hope that there were now more, but there may be even less?

  72. Bigger things to worry about by chrisspurgeon · · Score: 1

    Happy Boy should spend less time creaming over digital projection, and more time coming up with a decent plot, decent dialogue, and decent characters.

  73. Digital Theaters In Canada? by mrmcwn · · Score: 1

    I really can't believe there is a digital theatre in Kansas, but the nearest digital projection to my humble central Canadian abode is in Boston. Hello? Toronto? Montreal?

  74. Several experts DONT think it's better. by nobodyman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are several perople that are rallying against digital projection. Roger Ebert, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg to name a few. These are people who have a vast amount of experience in this field. Ebert, for one, has been the most vocal about his distaste for digital projection: claiming that it yields muted colors and compression artifacts.

    No doubt it's better than DVD quality, but there definitely some compression going on. To match the quality of 35mm print, you need something like a 5 megapixel camera. For 1/1.85 aspect ratio projection you're talking about a 3,000 x 1600 pixel image. Is the resolution on DLP that good? On the DLP website I couldn't get any hard numbers for what the resolution will be for digital projection (there's alot of info there, so be my guest). Even with DVD compression levels you're gonna have to put this thing on a 100gig hard drive, and the compression is quite noticable to film buffs (admittedly, I can only tell with poorely encoded dvd's).

    Besides, there are alot of things that influence the quality of the cinema experience. Hardly any theatres use the correct brightness for their projectors. Furthermore, the jump to 50mm or 75mm film would have an astounding leap in quality. You could double the framerate, but you'd also double the number of film canisters (I worked at a theater during high school, those suckers can get pretty big and heavy).

    1. Re:Several experts DONT think it's better. by blowhole · · Score: 2

      Roger Ebert can go to hell. He probably gets to watch all his movies first-run, not after they've been scratched-up/worn-out after having been watched 1000 times.

      --
      "Ask me about Loom"
    2. Re:Several experts DONT think it's better. by jo42 · · Score: 1

      I second the motion.

    3. Re:Several experts DONT think it's better. by SkywalkerOS8 · · Score: 1

      TI just recently released it's highest resolution DLP chip yet at 1920x1080(HDTV). I'm not sure there are DLP Cinema units shipping with that chip yet(though a quick search on Google came up with plenty of $10K Comsumer HDTVs). I agree that the resolution still does not rival 35mm, but I've seen HDTV and I bet that it will hold up well on the big screen.

  75. Digital Projector, The Mummy and some blotter acid by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 2

    I saw both Toy Story 2 and Monsters, Inc. on the DLP at the Cinemark Legacy in Plano. Three things really blew me away. First, it's bright! When the green "the following preview has been approved..." slate goes up, the sheer amount of light coming back off that screen is just amazing.

    I used to work for a video company. We rented out Hughes/JVC ILA video projectors, $250,000 each, circa 1993. Nothing compared to the ones at the Famous Players down the road from my house, but we'd light cigarettes off the lenses of these things. I loved those Hughes. 1024x768 at 72Hz refresh and x-deflection up to 55kHz in 1993. Man, did I ever love those things.

    The next thing that surprised me is the noise: there isn't any. You don't notice the sound of the projector (that "tuh-tuh-tuh-tuh" sound of the gate opening and closing) until it's gone. When the house lights go down before the movie starts, it's completely silent in the theater, which is pretty cool.

    Not just the audio noise of the film being snapped through the gate and the shutter exposing the screen, but also the video noise - dust, cigarette burns in the film, color differences when the alternate projector spins up and the system switches to another reel. Just a perfect image, silent, solid, stable and bright.

    My first ever digital movie experience was The Mummy. I was with friends and we were in a trippy sort of mood. One of them was a roadie, and sure enough, out came the acid. Three hits of good old 1960s blotter, sat down in the movie theater, and I was convinced that my brain was going to melt. The carpet was attacking me. And then I experienced a digital movie projector for my first time. That was powerful enough, but imagine the effects of a digital projector, acid and The Mummy all at once. (Those who don't know what I'm talking about are encouraged to see the movie "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", then view "The Mummy" in that mindset.)

    Every scene from that movie is burned into my brain. And I think I'm probably the only person I know who actually enjoyed The Mummy.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  76. DLP in Canada by kboy1 · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to point out that, in addition to the 19 screens in the US, there's at least one digitally-equipped theatre in Canada. Here in Toronto, the Paramount (Queen and John) has shown a number of films on DLP, and it really is awesome.

    For me, the biggest difference was the lack of image noise; the "hairs" on screen from flaws in the film that are blessedly absent in a digital system.

    And this is probably a coincidence, but the theatre happens to be across the street from TI's Toronto office. The Toronto office is completely unrelated to DLP though.

    ---
    Kern

  77. I think you've been trolled by ehintz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I rather expect "CmdrTaco (editor)" is not the same as "CmdrTaco". I also rather doubt that Tacos user # is 564483. But most glaringly, that post was reasonably well written, with no painful grammatical errors, which almost certainly eliminates Taco from the field of persons who could conceivably have written it...

    --
    ehintz
  78. Why digital projection is unpopular by Animats · · Score: 2
    • The projectors cost about 10x as much. They have a much shorter projected life. Current models will probably be obsolete five years from now, while 35mm projectors have a useful life of decades.
    • Distribution hasn't been figured out yet. Current technology is a truckload of hard drives.
    • Standards are lacking. It's not even well-established how many pixels should be on a theatrical movie screen. Do we stay at 24FPS forever, or increase the frame rate to something that doesn't flicker?

    Another decade is probably needed to get this worked out. Right now, it's not cheaper to go digital.

  79. Projector Potential... by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I hope digital projectors do take over. One potential improvement they can make is in frame rate. Sometimes, if I'm close enough to the screen, strobing is visible at 24fps. Particularly in animated movies where the screen scrolls without blurring, I can see a double image as it pans by. IMAX theaters are aware of this and have film that can run as high as 60fps. Unfortunately, for film that's pretty expensive.

    But in the digital world, 60 fps is feasible (or will be before too long.) Even if the resolution's a little lower, the improvement in frame rate'd easily make up for it.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Projector Potential... by srvivn21 · · Score: 2

      In a properly set up film projector, the film should also scroll without blurring.

      There is (effectively) a fan blade whirring between the xenon bulb and the film gate which causes the light to flash 48 times/sec (twice per frame). Every other flicker the frame is changed. There should be no blurring. Unless, of course the film is moving while light is shining through it. That makes for a "ghosting" image.

      Personally, I can't wait for the end of film. I'm no longer a projectionist though. ;o)

  80. Woohoo! Showcase Cinemas Springdale is on the list by buckeyeguy · · Score: 2

    Now that would bring back some memories (after driving back down to the Cincinnati, Ohio suburb where that theatre is located)... saw the first Star Wars movie there, 4 times. Back then, the Showcase was the big new deal in movie-going... all 3 screens of it. The original has since been torn down to be replaced by a 24 or 30 screener... but then I'd guess that's why they have the digital in place... gotta be a new facility to have it. (?)

    --
    I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  81. spanking new film vs. DLP by gdyas · · Score: 2

    I can understand deterioration of analog film making a digital viewing better, but if, like I'm sure 99% of us here will be, I'm sitting in the first midnight show of AotC watching a digitally-produced analog film print in an otherwise tricked-out theater, am I really going to see that much of a difference?

    I ask only because unless it's appreciably better than a NEW print it's not really worth the 50 mile drive into LA. I'd analogize it to listening to a song on a CD vs. listening to it on a brand-new vinyl disc - the analog printing might even look smoother, I don't know. Hell, just 'cause that's the way Lucas wants it doesn't mean it's better - ask Jar-Jar.

    And on the subject of DLP as a whole, the studios are jacking theaters big-time. They want them to foot all the costs of going digital in an age where they're raping them to the tune of about 90% of the profit from ticket sales. After the "cinematic arms race" over stadium seating, many have gone out of business already, and those still running are hurting. I'm amazed they get by on candy/popcorn/soda sales as it is.

    If you're ever wondering why your local theater has no money for improvements, look no further than the studios.

    --

    The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.

  82. how can you spell raimi wrong :/ by coene · · Score: 1

    sam raimi > george lucas

    1. Re:how can you spell raimi wrong :/ by Strange_Attractor · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You took the words right out of my mouth.

      <signed>
      Steve Raimi (your answers, in order:

      1. yes
      2. a second cousin
      3. extremely proud
      4. No, I can't get you [or me!] any freebies/access/jobs
      )
      --

      ----
      WWJD...For a Klondike Bar?
  83. WooHoo! by BitHerder · · Score: 1

    The one in Olathe KS is about a mile from my house! I knew living in East Bumf*** would pay off someday!

  84. Re:note for taco by BitHerder · · Score: 1

    Any relation to Murray Spiderman, of Spiderman's Kosher Deli?

  85. JAGGIES!! by peter303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Digital projection of digitized analog movie sometimes has problems. I saw a movie about white water rafting that disturbed me. The white water spray was fractal, and kept flickering on the screen. Another problem movie was the DVD version of 2001: A Space Odyssey (seen at MIT, of all places). Some of the model details flickered, especially the craters on the moon.

    I suspect an "all the way through" digital processing shot with digital camera, post-processing digital and projection digital would have fewer of these problems. Second, proper spatial filtering to reduce jaggies helps. Third, a director who understands the limitations of digital would film scenes that reduce these problems.

    I look forward to seeing Lucas's results.

  86. This case may be very limited by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 2

    The reason why youcould say that digital is better for starwars, is that a large part of the movie was rendered in digital anyway.

    But for movies that film real life, digital projection is terrible - it shows a great reduction in quality.

  87. AMC South Barrington, IL by chronos2266 · · Score: 1

    I go to this theater regularly, and lemme tell you. DLP is amazing, though the clerks there couldnt quite explain what it was when me and my friend asked. At first you can't really tell the difference, but when action scenes come up, thats when the technology shines. I'm gonna fight the crowds even more this year to get tickets to the opening show of ep 2 now.

    1. Re:AMC South Barrington, IL by mookoz · · Score: 1

      But the best part is that I can wait a week and see it at the same theater, and the quality will be just as good.

      Of course, if you're just camping out to be the first to see it, then that's another story.

  88. AMC Mission Valley 20 San Diego, California by _pi-away · · Score: 1

    Wow how sweet is that, that's where i go anyway, it's like 5 minutes from my house. Course i'll probly never notice the difference, but hey, always up for something new.

    --

    "The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
  89. Roger Ebert on Digital Projection by mshea01 · · Score: 1

    Movie guru Roger Ebert didn't have much good to say about digital projection. Poor lightning, pixelated displays, washed out colors. To me it sounds like the problems I have seen with DLP projectors for the home. Thats why I went and got a nice analog CRT hdtv for my home movie viewing =) I think I will stick to nice analog film.

    1. Re:Roger Ebert on Digital Projection by YourFavoriteBandSux · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, let's not forget that this was the same guy who gave "Phantom Menace" three stars.

      --


      ---
      Two rights don't make a wrong, but three rights make a left. -Me
    2. Re:Roger Ebert on Digital Projection by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Ebert gives everything 3 stars now-a-days. :(

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  90. Working for the man... by NBrooke271 · · Score: 1

    You'll notice that one of the theatres is in Laka Buena Vista, Fl, which is another name for DisneyWorld. The Pleasure Island AMC 24 will offer a Disney Cast-Member DLP screening of the film midnight of the day it's released. Tickets are only $4. So boo-yeah. Glad I work for Disney.

    --
    Free messageboards and more! Your girlfriend's seen myWang
  91. Private Digital Screenings by drmofe · · Score: 1

    Question: Where do Hollywood movie producers go to the movies? Well, apart from premiere night I mean.

    Answer: Private screenings.

    How much would you be willing to pay for private screening at location of your choice _at the same time as general movie release_ ? Think home cinema with digital projector, good sound, your own choice of seating, companions, food etc.

    Now think pay-per-view digital capability of live events. Whatever takes your fancy - any major sporting event, concert, expedition. Direct digital-feed by satellite straight from the distributor.

    Now think movie-industry supplied and controlled projector with encrypted digital feed from the distributor so that you can't bootleg the feed.

    I think with digital capability and micro-outlets like this, the role of the film distributor could be about to change significantly.

    STF

  92. how they do this stuff by dougie404 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Saw Episode 1 in two different digital theaters. Had a chance to talk with some of the engineers who developed these technologies.

    The first theater used an infrared-modulated liquid-crystal image light valve, developed by Hughes. An interesting feature of this technique is that the resolution is continuously adjustable (there are no pixels in the projector). Because the transfer function of the liquid crystal is nonlinear, it needs to be calibrated frequently, and that process (at that time) was not very automated -- perhaps that is why the TI mirror chip dominates this application today.

    The second theater used the TI mirror chip. It provides fixed HDTV resolution, although it is possible to run this chip at various frame rates.

    Both theaters used identical sources, at the same frame rate and HDTV resolution. (The projector uses an appropriate lens to stretch the image into the desired aspect ratio.) The compressed and encrypted movie was stored on a redundant array of disk drives (RAID5 I assume) that had a total capacity of 350 GB. An industry standard [don't remember the name] box was used to decrypt and uncompress the frames on the fly. Episode 1 used up about 250 GB, compressed.

    Obviously, the compression used in this application is nowhere near as severe as the compression used on DVDs. I suspect this is one of the most important reasons why the image quality is so remarkably good. Yes, this is merely an HDTV picture writ large, but you will never see an image this good on any home theater -- at least not until you can get a 250 GB file at home.... :-)

    The biggest improvement I noticed with (both of these) digital projections, compared with film, was the total lack of frame jitter. With film, there is always some wear and tear of the sprocket holes, and even a brand-new print will have the image jittering back and forth a little bit. (Imax, with its film registration pins, is largely immune to this problem.) Digital projection eliminates this annoyance forever.

    Although the images looked just fabulous, everything was not perfect. The end credits, in particular, showed some artifacts, although these were not really obvious unless you walked up toward the front of the theater. Perhaps these were due to choices made during the compression process -- after all, Episode 1 was not a fully digital movie, and in fact this version was digitized from a completed film print. It will be interesting to see how a fully digital Episode 2 compares in this regard.

    Ultimately, I would like to see digital theaters break away from their current limitations of resolution and (especially) frame rate, but I expect nobody will invest in these kinds of improvements until digital projection is much more widely accepted.

  93. Loews Century Plaza ain't so hot by possible · · Score: 2

    This theatre is old and no longer has the greatest reputation.

    See these reviews for more information.

  94. Raimi not Rami by SaXisT4LiF · · Score: 1

    Personally, I consider Sam Raimi to be an excellent director who at the very least deserves to have his name spelt correctly.

    --
    Fight or flight its all the same
    Live to die another day

    --Ryan
  95. Re:Warning about Irvine CA. by Aiku1337 · · Score: 1

    I think someone missed the humor intended in the original post. =)

  96. Lucas, it's like I said before: by acoustix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're the reason, George, why there aren't more digital screens today. You demand 80% of the box for your movies and even a cut of the concessions! (which by the way is unheard of).

    Theatre companies don't make as much money off of your movies as you think they do (especially since you take 80%). So where are these theatres supposed to get money from to buy these $100,000-$500,000 digital projectors? Most theatres have a hard enough time trying to pay employess, advertising, and performing maintnance on the theatres without you asking these theaters to do costly upgrades.

    Besides, when would the theatres use the digital projectors? Once every 3 years when you release a movie?

    Maybe Lucas should open his own Theatre Company and realize that money for upgrades is hard to come by.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Lucas, it's like I said before: by Hassman · · Score: 1

      Its not all George's fault. From what I've seen, heard, and read most movies companies work this way. It is a sliding scale:

      1st week - Prod company gets 75% of the profit
      2nd week - Prd company gets 50% of the profit
      3rd week - Prod company gets 35%
      4th on - Prod company gets like 20%

      I'lll say right now that i'm not 100% sure about my numbers, but I know they are very close. Does George always take 80% for as long as the movie is shown? Or does he follow the "industry standard"?

      As far as the whole digital projector thing, I think movie theates would upgrade if more movie MAKERS would use the digital technology. I can only think of a handful of recent movies that would even be able to take advantage of the digital projection...

      I'd like to see more about this...

      --
      -Mark
      Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
    2. Re:Lucas, it's like I said before: by Hyped01 · · Score: 1
      Sorry... 80% of the box IS standard. And no movie house owner I've talked to agrees on the cut of concessions - unless it is for Star Wars merchandised material. In which case, once again, standard practice.

      This, btw, is the reason movie houses charge so much for concession food - because all first run movies are in the 80% range. Plus rental costs. The box office percentage drops after ___ # of weeks (varies depending on the movie and the contract, etc, etc, etc...). Usually 2 - 4 weeks. Movie houses also pay a penalty to stop showing a movie before a certain date (for instance if it's a flop and they want to get something else in).

      Not saying GL isnt greedy - nor saying he is. Just saying these are indeed standard rates in the movie industry. As for the DL projectors, most (all?) movie houses were getting them for nothing but installation. A few hundred installs were scaled down to the few everyone has been talking about.

      Robert

      --

      WebMaster:
      BinFeeds
      XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but

  97. Feck the lot of ye by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

    Here in Switzerland we don't have cinemas (digital OR analogue). We have Popcorn sellers who show films , insist on seating everybody together elbow-to-elbow in the middle of the room and pausie the film for 10 minutes (sometimes in the middle of a line).

    I'll wait for the DVD.

    --
    I am a Karma Library.
  98. Re:Poor Don Cheadle... by lugonn · · Score: 1

    ...He seems like a really good actor. To bad he picks such cheesey movies like "Mission to Mars" and "The Family Man". Those movies would actually be watchable if the characters weren't so contrite and phony.

    It's like watching Jackie Paper burn...morbid entertainment.

  99. Re:Jar-Jar Stinks by Dynedain · · Score: 2

    those planes were filmed quite a bit before 9/11....in fact, fox delayed release of 24 because of 9/11 and even considered dropping it entirely

    --
    I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  100. It's compression... by E-Rock · · Score: 2

    Your jaggies are coming from the compression of the image, not just becasue it's digital.

  101. Canada by re-Verse · · Score: 1

    So there are 17 in the USA, interesting. As far as i can tell there are none in Canada at all? Can anyone verify this? What about the rest of the world? Would lucas make sure a deal about 17 theatres?

    I'm very curious. Does someone have a master list of digital theatres worldwide?

  102. Re:Poor Don Cheadle... by i_am_nitrogen · · Score: 2

    I thought Family Man was pretty good.

  103. Are there any digital showings in Vancouver? by donglekey · · Score: 2

    I was surprised that there was one in Kansas two. Something cool happens in Kansas and its a month after I jumped ship. Are there any digital theatres in Vancouver? Oh well, Kansas sucks in general, it was worth it.

  104. Or you can do what I do... by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 2

    I just wait for a nice high-quality VCD transfer to be posted to USENET--which always happens within a week of a big film opening--and watch it in the comfort of my own home cinema. Sitting close to 55-inch HDTV is better than sitting in the middle of a theater watching a big scren, as far as my tastes are concerned. And it's completely quiet, unlike the time *Blair Witch Project* was ruined for me when an obnoxious couple kept snickering...

    The only problem is avoiding low-quality VCDs with poor image or sound quality or glitches; but there are certain websites where different VCDs get "graded," and the best VCD groups put their wares across all of 2 CDs, for the best possible quality. But since I wouldn't want to change discs in the middle, I just use TMPGenc to combine them into one whole movie beforehand, and play from the HD of the "home theater PC," output to the TV thanks to ATI's beautiful All-in-Wonder. I still remember the looks on the kids' facs when I let them watch Hary Potter all day long, three days after its theatrical release. ;-)

    Martini? You can have whatever you want without getting gouged by rapacious movie-theater-and-MPAA-monopoly prices, when you watch a top-quality VCD at home. :-)

    Hmm, when Episode II comes out and I wrangle a HQ copy, maybe I should do something special that you can't generally do in theaters, even the nice kind. I'm thinking "geek menage-a-trois" with Episode II in place of the PC... ;-) Now, which call-girl do I pick? :-o I don't think your theater can compare with *that* kind of service! heehee...

    --

    Chasing Amy
    (We all chase Amy...)
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
  105. General Cinema Framingham=AMC by Wag · · Score: 2

    It's now owned by AMC, although how this will effect the digital theater I can't say.

  106. Which theater in MA? by rschroeder · · Score: 1

    with both Framingham and Randolph available in the greater boston area, which do I choose? Any body been to both?

    BTW theforce.net's current thinking is that tickets will be available for pre sale May 3rd. (at least at AMC theaters)

  107. Plano? by niftyeric · · Score: 1

    A week ago I called the Plano theater asking about advance tickets. The woman I spoke with said she wasn't even sure if they were going to have Star Wars. Excuse me? You want to lose money? Can anyone else confirm this crazy thing she told me, because I can't believe it.

    --
    proton != antielectron
  108. Malco Theatres by NSupremo · · Score: 1

    This was posted on theforce.net April 22.
    http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/tfn.cgi?stor yID=1 5746

    Clint writes in, with very good news for Memphis area fans:

    I recently emailed Memphis' major theater chain, Malco, about their plans for digital projection of Episode II. Their response was quite exciting. It seems they are planning on installing no less than 6 DLP projectors in the Memphis area before the release of Episode II. Here is the response:

    Dear Clint,

    If all goes as planned, in Memphis there will be two digital projectors for STAR WARS at the Majestic (Auditoriums 1 & 15), two at CORDOVA (Auditoriums 1 & 2), and out of Memphis two at Rogers, Arkansas (Auditoriums 1 & 2).

    Thanks for your interest!

    Alan

    --
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._Election_co ntroversies_and_irregularities
  109. Roger Ebert Doesn't Like Digital Projectors by grum · · Score: 2, Informative


    Here is the article by Roger Ebert about why he isn't a fan of digital projectors.

    And to be fair, here is the response from a film maker in British Columbia.

  110. YEs!!!11 by Fatal0E · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    AMC Empire 25 Theatres New York, New York

    Now how the fuck am I gonna get tickets?

  111. Re:AMC Pleasure Island 24 Lake Buena Vista, Florid by CannonCyx · · Score: 1

    Wow I like never reply to stuff on here..heh. It's not normally $5 there? darn the two places I normally go are 5 bucks how much is it normally there? How does one take advantage of the student discount sense my college doesn't give ids.

  112. ohhhh yea by Hassman · · Score: 1

    AMC South Barrington 30 South Barrington, Illinois

    10 min from my house. BOOOYAAAA!

    --
    -Mark
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain.
  113. DLP not yet ready for prime time... by Hyped01 · · Score: 1
    For those of you who make the effort to see Episode II on DLP and regular... here's something to do:
    (1) Try to see the "regular" version on one of the few theatres getting a Kodak VisionPremier print. They are awesome and faaaaar exceed the DLP quality.
    (2) Whether you see it on a VisionPremier print or not, the differences you should look for (and will notice if you do) is that the colors are slightly washed out (like a bad mpeg) or faded looking - check the deep blues and greens for instance, look for motion blur in the encoding, blockiness, line clarity (like looking for anti-aliasing artifacts and such on sharp contrast diagonal surfaces).

    If you are in or near Baltimore [especially since there are no (inferior) DLP projectors in the area] I'd suggest the Senator Theatre in Baltimore just south of Towson (on York Road/Rt 45). Largest screen in the area (42' if memory serves), 16,500 watts of sound system, Dobly extended surround and more (you can FEEL when the big ships fly by). Amazing projection as well - family owned theatre, and the same guy running the projector since (what seems like) the beginning of time (or at least the last 63 years - and the quality of that experience shows). Their website is at The Senator Theatre. Heck, if you are within 100 miles of the place, it's worth seeing the movie there. I think tickets are going on sale there this Saturday... and there will probably be a line forming Friday night (and a drum circle and maybe a fire pit... if you play some sort of percussion or other fitting instrument, bring it along)... I live 3 blocks away, and the Episode I crowd and ticket campout was sh|tloads of fun. They do some kick ass stuff every Star Wars movie.

    Rob

    www.Hyperforce.com

    --

    WebMaster:
    BinFeeds
    XXX Thumbnailed Image Newsgroups but

  114. So wait..... by inKubus · · Score: 2

    ...does that mean that once theaters go DLP the tickets will be cheaper?!

    Sorry, bad joke.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  115. DLP by inKubus · · Score: 2

    I learned from the website that the 3 chip projectors use 3 chips each at 1280x1024 (1 for each color). That works out to more than 3000x1600. Also it is my understanding that the picture is much brighter because the lamp isn't being switched. I dunno. I will check it out for myself. There is a theater here in Vegas that has DLP.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  116. More details (resolution etc)... by fluor2 · · Score: 1
    More details (resolution etc)
    The movie is delivered to the theatres on many DVD-discs. The resolution is 1280x1024. The DVD-discs are transferred to a special server from Avica Technology ( http://www.avicatech.com/ ). Then the movie is sent to the advanced digital projector.

    The picture is, according to one of the attendees at a 35mm projector-test in Las Vegas, a LARGE improvement. Contrast, colors and depht is better.

  117. we aint got premium nothing! by labradore · · Score: 2
    A few years ago AMC opened in my neck of the woods what was touted locally a the largest theater in the country but it was quickly supplanted by bigger and "better" theaters in Orlando and elsewhere. Unfortunately, as with everything else where I live, the theaters cater to the lowest common denominator. This is a trend that seems to be universal. Theaters, resturants and chain stores seem to be producing as much medium to low quality merchandise and service as the market will bear, yet most people don't even seem to realize that they could be getting much better products and services.

    To me the resturant situation is particularly frustrating. My general sub-urban area (a section of unincorporated county that would probably have become a township long ago if it were in a northern state) is home to around 100,000 people. It is for the most part a middle-to-upper-middle class area. There are no less than 20 different national chain resturants (Chilli's, Hops, Outback, Macaroni Grill, etc.) located in a 5 square mile area around two arterial highways. 18 of them feature service that is no better than average and only one (Macaroni Grill) has food that is consistantly better than average. In other words, with over 100,000 people in economic classes ranging from middle to upper-middle and a significant population of high income households (probably 5 to 10 thousand) there are still no premium (or high-quality) resturants, theaters, other entertainment venues, or convienence service companies. On top of that there isn't even a significant population of locally-owned resturants, retailers or groceries. Even the bars seem to be chain stores.

    We all still have to drive into the city to eat anywhere that requires a jacket or to find an arts venue other than local "volunteer" theater or the mass-market AMC theaters. Some times it seems like my "home town" is just one gigantic truckstop. Bring on your mass-market sci-fi George Lucas. Appearantly, we all love Jar-jar and we aren't going to leave unless you sell us happy-meal action figures, plastic light-sabers, collector's edition plates, stamps, coins, jackets, books, legos, towels, and any other artifact that can be stamped out by an injection molding machine and painted red and shiney with a Lucasfilm trademark on the bottom.

  118. Re:AMC Pleasure Island 24 Lake Buena Vista, Florid by Rasvar · · Score: 2

    Not only that, the AMC PI actually has two digital screens, not just one.

  119. Digital theatres in Detroit Metro area by The+File · · Score: 1

    "...digital projector or not. I just wish *blatant non subtle hinting* some kind soul could get me into an early showing in the Detroit/Ann Arbor area." Star Southfield says they're gonna be "testing" a digital projector for SW Episode II.