[Jimakros]

With this digital star wars i hear all around people saying that digital cinema has finally arrived.I dont have anything against digital cinema and it will be fine if it happens,who doesn't want to have all the advantages of digitized medium against the wear and tear of rolls of film.But i dont want to be sold short so that the studios just save money and just make THEIR life easier.I'm not any expert in photography so i just want to ask anyone who knows more on this.I'll just limit this message to resolution.I see latest digital still cameras have reached 6Mpixels.And i hear photographers will be satisfied to replace 35 mm photographic film at around 9Mpixels.

Now according to TI's own site the best aDMD projection chip can do is 1.310.000pixels.

That's a long way to the 9Mpixels of 35 mmm film isn't it?Okay i realize that photographic film is larger than 35mm cinema film but i dont think this covers the huge difference.

 

[Huckster]

You are absolutely right. The difference in pixels between photographic equipment and the current digital cinema is tremendous.


Unfortunately, *you* don't normally get to see that much resolution in a movie. As the movie goes through the normal production and replication processes, the quality of the image is reduced to the point where what *you* normally see doesn't approach a 35mm camera print. There are exceptions but the VAST majority of people in the world never see even a *good* movie print much less a *pristine special* print.


The positives of digital cinema are not just for the studios, some work for the average consumer too.


There is only one digital print. Since there is only one, a bit more time can be spent making it right. Unlike film, the duplication process doesn't destroy the digital source as it is duplicated so EVERY copy is the same.


You mentioned wear and tear on rolls (or platters) of film. This is a big one for me as I usually can't spend the time to stand in line for an opening night of a movie. Instead I go see it 3-4 weeks into the run and have the theater to myself and family. With the digital projection systems in use near my house, I can see the exact same presentation as the first night, without the line. I went to see Spider-Man (on film) this last weekend (3rd week and opposite Star Wars = few people) and the FILM looked like crap. It may have had more resolution at one point but I couldn't tell due to the dirt and judder.


There is a bunch of propaganda at the Texas Instruments web site.

 

[tyanger]

I don't know much about the technical aspects of digital vs. film cinematography, but I saw Star Wars Episode II yesterday in a DLP equiped theater and the color and sharpness were much better than any film based movie I've ever seen. However, I usually don't see a new release film for several weeks after it's been out, so I guess the film could be worn out. I suppose that's one of the main benefits of digital theaters. On the other hand, I must admit that during some scenes with big wide expanses of sky or in scenes withOUT a lot of motion you can definitely see what almost appear to be vertical lines that compose the picture. They are extremely fine, but present. I know there are no "scan lines" in DLP projectors so i don't how to explain it. (Of course I was in the third row center - I like the BIG screen experience) Anyway, overall good flick, but I love any form of Sci Fi. Just my 2 cents.