Why...

[J_UNTITLED]

So, since regular celluloid/film provides a much higher resolution or even better picture quality than what HD (or, more precisely, Christie 2k Super High Definition Digital Projectors) can provide, why even go to an HD/digital theater instead of a regular ol' one?

[BStecke]

Typically your regular old theaters are a little sloppy when it comes to changing bulbs, for one. The other reason being that as film is run through the projector the quality gets worse and worse every time you play it. With digital theaters you don't have to worry about the degradation of the print.

[Anthony P]

why you? you can go where you want.
why theatres? Digital is much easier (in every respect) and a digital copy does not deteriorate with each showing.

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

So, since regular celluloid/film provides a much higher resolution or even better picture quality than what HD (or, more precisely, Christie 2k Super High Definition Digital Projectors) can provide, why even go to an HD/digital theater instead of a regular ol' one?

The Watusi. The Twist. A little old. Take this brother, may it serve you well - J Lennon, Revolution #9

[bhampton]

J.

I would go out of my way to avoid digital video in a movie theater.

However,.. Around here there are none and the movie theaters are really poor anyway so I just wait for the Blu Rays.

-Brian

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

So, since regular celluloid/film provides a much higher resolution or even better picture quality than what HD (or, more precisely, Christie 2k Super High Definition Digital Projectors) can provide, why even go to an HD/digital theater instead of a regular ol' one?

Capability isn't execution.

The production of the film results in resolution loss because it's a copy of a copy. And for modern films that are edited in a Digital Interpositive form, there is loss when the digital image is laser written to the film master(s).

The trend is digital end to end. Digital cameras through to digital projection.

That said, my local new AMC opened up yesterday with all DLP projection. And it looks like CRAP compared to my HT setup. But, then I haven't experienced wow from film projection either since the great 70mm theaters of Toronto closed years ago.

Sadly, theaters are budget projection houses

Gary

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

So, since regular celluloid/film provides a much higher resolution or even better picture quality than what HD (or, more precisely, Christie 2k Super High Definition Digital Projectors) can provide, why even go to an HD/digital theater instead of a regular ol' one?

Penton-Man recently referenced a studio that found the opposite. While the film projectors in theory had higher resolution, in side-by-side testing they were found to be comparable to about a 1 million pixel picture. BD 1080p is 2 million pixels.

Apparently this is due to vibration of the film while it is projected, leading to blur that more than negates the theoretical extra resolution.

While I have heard of high-end theaters in big cities having excellent pictures, the digitally projected theaters that I have seen have hands down produced a better picture than any film projected theaters I have personally been to.

[Deciazulado]

You are wise Real Grashopper

[blackhawktraffic]

Ive seen digital projection and prefer it, because simply put you wait too long to see a movie that is film projected and the copy of it is terrible, cracks and pops in the audio and scratches everywhere.

[J_UNTITLED]

So, wait a tick... the consensus here is that overall an HD-equipped theater provides a better picture than a regular cinema?

[dialog_gvf]

I'm sure if they photgraphed in 65/70mm and projected in 70mm with properly setup equipment, you'd see film can be a lot better.

But, in this modern blockbuster and megaplex world, the consistency of digital is preferable to the crap shoot of film.

Gary

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

I'm sure if they photgraphed in 65/70mm and projected in 70mm with properly setup equipment, you'd see film can be a lot better.

But, in this modern blockbuster and megaplex world, the consistency of digital is preferable to the crap shoot of film.

Gary

Still, technically-speaking, film can provide a much higher resolution than what HD could ever attempt to, correct?

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Still, technically-speaking, film can provide a much higher resolution than what HD could ever attempt to, correct?

That would be correct, provided that the theater owners actually have ample projectionists with great experience behind the booth, constantly checking the screen so that the image projected is in focus and the sound has no hiccups.

The other added bonus FOR THE STUDIO is that digital delivery of 2-3 TB worth of compressed lossless data is under US$1000. One 35mm movie can cost up to US$50,000 per print. So imagine thousands of prints that has to be made each year. Then imagine the transportation costs.

The HDD drives can just be reformatted. And there are talks of secured satellite digital downloads for theaters.


fuad