AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been reading the advance reviews of Star Wars Episode II. While the major critics all dump on the movie for its wooden dialogue, I was interested to see that Roger Ebert also criticized its lack of resolution. He saw the movie on "the largest screen in Chicago" and he saw it on a film transfer. He claimed that he thought the image was lacking. Here is an excerpt from his review in the Chicago Sun Times:


"But I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown. The images didn't pop out and smack me with delight, the way they did in earlier films. There was a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power.


Later I went on the Web to look at the trailers for the movie, and was startled to see how much brighter, crisper and more colorful they seemed on my computer screen than in the theater. Although I know that video images are routinely timed to be brighter than movie images, I suspect another reason for this. "Episode II" was shot entirely on digital video. It is being projected in digital video on 19 screens, but on some 3,000 others, audiences will see it as I did, transferred to film.


How it looks in digital projection I cannot say, although I hope to get a chance to see it that way. I know Lucas believes it looks better than film, but then he has cast his lot with digital. My guess is that the film version of "Episode II" might jump more sharply from the screen in a small multiplex theater. But I saw it on the largest screen in Chicago, and my suspicion is, the density and saturation of the image were not adequate to imprint the image there in a forceful way.


Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more you test their limits, the more you see that. Two weeks ago I saw "Patton" shown in 70mm Dimension 150, and it was the most astonishing projection I had ever seen--absolute detail on a giant screen, which was 6,000 times larger than a frame of the 70mm film. That's what large-format film can do, but it's a standard Hollywood has abandoned (except for IMAX), and we are being asked to forget how good screen images can look--to accept the compromises. I am sure I will hear from countless fans who assure me that "Episode II" looks terrific, but it does not. At least, what I saw did not. It may look great in digital projection on multiplex-size screens, and I'm sure it will look great on DVD, but on a big screen it lacks the authority it needs."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
It will be interesting to see if he publishes a change of heart after seeing the movie projected digitally. . .


I plan on seeing both just to satisfy my curiosity. =)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
chris, there is a thread on this in the section of Local HDTV Info and Reception called Digital Cinema(Chicago).

Ebert did see it on Digital, he loved the look.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the heads up Sam, I'll check it out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
I wonder if his problem with it was similar to what we all experience when we watch normal television on our high def monitors. I understand it's not the same thing, I just wonder if the analogy fits.


When I watch a show from standard cable on my monitor, the picture is not as sharp as the one I saw on my old analog TV.


In other words, the down side is that the experience in film based theaters will be less than optimal, but the up side is that the film will look much better than other films of its time in the not too distant future when film based theaters are a quaint memory of the good old days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
I think it really begs the discussion of why a 35mm print from a digital source

is not sufficient to carry the full image. Sounds like a transfer problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,240 Posts
Two Toronto theaters have equipped themselves with digital projectors for this event. Me, I'mnot a big SW fan so it means little to me, bu tthe technology wars (film vs. digital) at stake here mean a great deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,029 Posts
A source who claims to be in the know said that this movie was redigitized from film because of incompatibilities between the original data format and digital projection format. I guess it is too time consuming to do the conversion straight from digital to digital.


This would indicate that it should look better on film.


Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
Quote:
I wonder if the question should be, can the DV res Lucas shot at stand up to being projected that big.
The answer is of course it can't. The camera they used has only about twice the resolution of DVD once you account for the image shape.


Kevin C. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,771 Posts
I do not for one second believe "that source."


I also will get to see it via DLP this Saturday. We can all (well, some of us) judge it after seeing it in a few days. Until then, it is all speculation.


By the way, I must say that the 35mm trailers looked spectacular to my eyes. I own all of the trailers released for this film (Trailer B is on my desk right now) and have seen them projected on small, medium and large screens and they were not even close to being soft. They actually looked better than the other trailers shown for other films, by far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by MikeM
Two Toronto theaters have equipped themselves with digital projectors for this event. Me, I'mnot a big SW fan so it means little to me, bu tthe technology wars (film vs. digital) at stake here mean a great deal.
Do you happen to know which ones?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
One other point about Roger Ebert. He discounts George Lucas' opinion about the quality saying that Lucas has cast his lot with digital, but Roger Ebert has been moaning about digital cinema for a couple of years now.


He may have an axe to grind as well (as do I: I'm eager for the quick adoption of digital cinema because it advances the cause of HDTV).


I'll be making a point of seeing it both ways this weekend. I have this notion that it will be like the comparisons of LD vs DVD before the introduction of DVD. It's amazing how many people were certain DVD looked horrible compared to LD. Similarly, there are still some ultra-purists who prefer the sound of vinyl to digital audio. Their spectrographs may notice a difference, but we'll see what normal humans can notice.


Small, off-topic, side point: My local theater, the Arrowhead Fountains 18, is showing a grand total of one movie this weekend. 18 screens: all Star Wars (unless their web site has a glitch). Notably, this is also true of the Metrocenter 12 Cinema. 12 screens: one movie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,771 Posts
That's crazy. Lucas wants the film on the best screens. He didn't allow megaplexas to do that with MENACE and I cannot imagine ANY theater getting rid of SPIDERMAN to fill ALL of their screens with STAR WARS. They will make MORE money on SPIDERMAN this weekend, since each weekend the studio take drops and the theater take rises.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,846 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Matt_Stevens
That's crazy. Lucas wants the film on the best screens. He didn't allow megaplexas to do that with MENACE and I cannot imagine ANY theater getting rid of SPIDERMAN to fill ALL of their screens with STAR WARS. They will make MORE money on SPIDERMAN this weekend, since each weekend the studio take drops and the theater take rises.
Century 22 in San Jose has dropped Spiderman for Ep II. Though, there are plenty of other screens right around it owned by the same people. I think that they maybe wanted to consolidate the SW people into one building and keep them away from the normal people. There is a bunch of tents in the parking lot outside!


Cheers!

DAve.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I am not an expert in these matters but I have read that a single 35mm film frame has the equivalent resolution of 6 million pixels. At best, Attack of the Clones will have 2 million pixels of resolution per frame. Future Hi-Def cameras will have to shoot at 2000p+ lines of resolution to compete with traditional film. We aren't there yet but I am still psyched to see the best hi-def video image possible with Attack of the Clones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Coleman



The answer is of course it can't. The camera they used has only about twice the resolution of DVD once you account for the image shape.


Kevin C. :)
It was shot at 1920 X roughly 820 or more than 4 times the resolution of DVD.


Many films are digitally manipulated at 2K by 2K then transfered back to video.


Trailors look good. Ebert got a bad print.


-Mr. Wigggles
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top