Slashdot Mirror
Are Digital Movies Really Better than Analog?
Beatlebum asks: "I have watched two digital presentations of AOTC, the first at AMC1000 San Francisco and the second at the Metreon S.F. I did notice a few digital artifacts; however, what bothered me most was the lack of clarity of the colors. Many scenes seemed to be very slightly foggy. I expected the colors to be clear, crisp and rich. The Matrix Reloaded trailer looked significantly better in this regard. Am I crazy or did anyone else notice the same thing? I'm especially interested in hearing from those of you that have seen both analog and digital versions."
If you saw the feature digitally, the trailers were digital also. So if you liked the color in the Matrix trailer, then you liked the color of a digital projection. The trailers were loaded in a playlist before the feature (along with the THX logo, the DLP logo, and perhaps one other depending on which playback device was in use by that particular theatre.)
This sig intentionally left justified.
...and render unto 35mm that which is analogue.
- star15.html http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/0 5/051001.html
What you noticed is actually the *opposite* of what is generally the case regarding *AotC*. Mo0st likely, if the digital projections looked worse in some way--more blurry, less saturated, etc.--than the film projections, then this is entirely the fault of the digital projector or some other element in the theater being set wrong. It's probably that the digital projector's settings were not all adjusted optimally, since the tech is so new. Hell, my local multiplex often sets their standard film projctors sub-optimally, and that tech is ancient...
The fact is, assuming the digital projector is set up correctly, *AotC* will look better on a digital screen because it is an entirely digital movie. The masters are digital, and when you see a digitally projected version, it should be as pristine as the masters (or nearly so, if resolution has to be adjusted). If you see a standard 35mm print of the film, you're seeing a digital->analogue conversion which willn not be as crisp and vibrant.
This is not true of showing most films, though, because most are primarily shot on film and not digital--even films with a lot of digital effects everywhere are generally primarily film. This has the advantage that a 35mm print has a far superior resolution than even the special custom digital camera which Sony made for George Lucas to shoot his digital movies with. 35mm film also has much greater sensitivity to a broader spectrum of colors than current digital cameras will allow--50 years of development on the color film stock front has produced some amazing things. So, while there is generational loss in th analogue->analogue transfer from master to new print, it hardly matters since the resolution is so vastly greater than the resolution of digital, and since the color spectrum is wider than current digital video camera sensitivities. This is why people like film critic Roger Ebert, and even me, can't stand digital projection for 35mm movies--even with my 20/100 vision, I can see the inferior resolution and color saturation of a film that was intended for 35mm when it's projected digitally on a very big screen.
So, naturally, it would seem that all-digital films like the new *SW* movies and digital animation like *Shrek* should best be viewed on digital projectors, while movies which are primarily 35mm are bet viewed on a traditional 35mm projector. And the fact is, until digital technology makes resolutions and color spectra approaching that of 35mm film possible both on the shooting and the projecting ends, I don't believe digital should be adopted as the standard.
Don't get me wrong--the time will come to go digital. But until its resolutions and color sensitivities can truly rival 35mm, that time is not now.
As an aside, here's film critic Roger Ebert's take--he's an outspoken critic of current digital projection for films shot on 35mm, but he shows an even-handedness when it comes to allowing that digital films naturally look better on digital projectors: http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr
The fact is, except for all-digital special effects films like the *SW* movies, the current push for digital is coming out of economic penny-pinching rather than better quality. There was a time when Hollywood was interested in greater quality and experimented with impressive 70mm filmstocks and 48fps speed. 35mm and 24fps stuck around because it's cheaper, albeit less visually stunning. And now digital, which has 1/5 to 1/7 the resolution and less color sensitivity at the moment, is chomping at the bit. For all-digital special effects flicks likw *SW* and *Shrek*, naturally it makes sense since rendering isn't yet done at very high resolutions (compred to 35mm). For other films, it doesn't, especially when projected on a rally impressive screen where the resolution, saturation, and intensity will be exposed for their inferiority.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
I'm a projectionist. In fact, I own and operate a theatre.
I believe these are still fairly common, even though larger theaters have moved to platter systems rather than 2 projector systems that require reel changes. With a platter, I believe the film is looped back to the center of the spool (like an old 8-track tape) so the reels don't require rewinding between showings.
This is all correct. However, the changeover dots are still present on film reels because not everyone has a platter. Old theatres use two-projector systems with 2000-foot reels (the ones that the films are actually shipped on), and some "newer" ones use two-projector systems with 6000-foot reels which allow for less changeovers but still have to be rewound.
Platters allow for no rewinding between shows and no reel changes.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!