Digital projection in cinemas...Like/dislike??

[Weequay]

The other day I looked up film listings as I wanted to see warrior. For the first time, I noticed that nearly every listing had the 'disclaimer' DIGITAL PROJECTION next to it.

So a few days went by and I forgot all about it.

I sat down to watch warrior and something was different with the trailers...

They were crystal clear!!! No blur, no scratches, just a crytal clear picture

Now, Im pretty old school when it comes to films. I hate CGI (or at least where CGI has gone, I like film grain, and dislike the eroddation (that is a real word right??) of the 'traditional' in cinema. BUT I have to say that this was one thing I whole heartedly approve of!!!

The difference was so noticable, that even my my friend commented (and he knows nothing about the tech of cinema ect).

So what do you guys think? Are you in favour of this tech, or do you prefer the tradional projectionist?

Weequay

 

[JD]

The theater near my house has been all digital for some time now. No more scratchy, skippy, dirty movies. Other than an occasional dirty screen, the movies tend to be pretty clean.

Good CGI can be as good as and better than practical effects. Bad CGI is can be just as terrible as bad practical effects.

 

[jlee562]

As long as they're not using the 3d projectors/lens array for 2d movies I'm fine with digital projection.

 

[dbuck]

In my area you have to watch digital 2d in the smaller theaters as all the larger ones show the 3d version of the latest crapfest.

It reminds me of playing a cd for my father almost thirty years ago. I asked him what he heard between the songs. He got a puzzled look on his face. "No hissing or pops, Dad".

Digital projection is the same. Until you point out there are no film scratches and so forth most people don't even notice it.

 

[Weequay]

Digital projection is the same. Until you point out there are no film scratches and so forth most people don't even notice it.

But thats what really stuck out to me. We both noticed it.

I had forgotten all about the 'DIGITAL PROJECTION' disclaimer, and my friend wouldnt even know the difference. It was the furthest thing from his mind.

Yet he turned to me and said something like '**** me! thats clear. Its not normall like that'...

weequay

 

[JPolacchi]

I watched "The Doors/Jim Morrission" documentary "When You're Strange" and it was shown digitally in a theater and can't complain about picture or sound quality.Plus is didn't have the annoying *dots* in the upper left hand side of the screen where the film was edited and spliced together for a new scene.

 

[cboath]

It supposedly saves lots of money since film doesn't have to be printed/developed and distributed. Even if you had to burn it on 10 BR disks, the shipping costs would be a fraction of an actual film. I believe most theaters download the digital version don't they?

They other concept behind it is that the last showing should look as good as the first. You pay the same $X regardless of when you see it in first run so you should get the same view quality. I don't think i've seen one yet, though. They just converted the big theaters here over the summer i think. Last time I looked, the two bigger theaters had all movies showing saying 'digital projection'.

 

[JLeezy23]

Digtal is awesome, but the first time i seen a digital theater movie we came out and our eyes hurt like we got lasers in our eyes! not sure why, it was weird. i like both film and digital. either way its all good, LOVE iMAX projection!

 

[robn1]

I'm a big fan of digital projection, and digital photography too. Which is strange, I've always been a traditionalist about film. I rejected DVD when it first came out because of the low quality of the early releases, I could see the blocking and other digital artifacts in the picture. LD looked better to me. But once they improved it, I became a convert.

The release print was always the weak link in the cinema chain, most looked just awful. Unless it was 70mm, they put a lot of effort and care into those, but 35mm could sometimes be unwatchable.

I saw AOTC in a digital theater, and I was blown away by the image quality. I expected the picture detail to be lacking somewhat, but it looked great to me. The difference was especially noticeable on the text in the credits, instead of weaving slightly they were rock steady. They looked like a slide show! I loved it, I don't miss film at all.

CGI I can take or leave. As long as it looks good it's fine, but usually it doesn't. I'd rather see traditional models shot digitally, the best of both worlds And just a bit of CGI to tweak things a bit if needed.

 

[Zombie_61]

Plus is didn't have the annoying *dots* in the upper left hand side of the screen where the film was edited and spliced together for a new scene.

If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, those are (were) known as "cue marks" (or "cue dots", or "changeover marks"). They are (were) a signal to the projectionist that the current film reel was nearing the end, and that it was time to switch to the next reel. They were referred to briefly in the movie Fight Club as "cigarette burns", but this term wasn't actually used in the film industry.

Back to the topic, I don't really care if I'm watching digital projection or traditional projection as long as the movie is good. :cool

 

[GotWookiee]

I have to say I prefer digital projection. A digital projection doesn't get scratched up or worn out the way a film print does.

 

[Double T]

I know I'm really looking forward to catching Ghostbusters on Thursday night, since it is in digital.

Last time I saw it on the big screen, it wasn't just on film, it was at a Drive In when it was released. So not only was the picture not the best, the sound was through a little box hanging in the window. :lol

T

 

[JD]

Wasn't there a campaign in the recent past about the brightness levels of films in movie theaters (digital in particular)?

Kodak even has a cheat sheet: http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/newsletters/archived/pytlak/dark.pdf

 

[sycor]

As long as they're not using the 3d projectors/lens array for 2d movies I'm fine with digital projection.

Doesn't quite work that way. If you move the 3D aparatus in fron of the lens while it's playing a 2D movie it jacks the picture all up and wouldn't be watchable. They are actually seperate files for digital 3D and digital 2D.