|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Digital vs. film: Latest 'Star Wars' episode renews battle
By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff, 5/17/2002If you want to see the new ''Star Wars'' movie the way director George Lucas wants you to see it, you have just three options in the Boston area.
''Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones,'' the first major movie release to be filmed entirely with digital cameras, is being shown digitally - as in no film being used - on just three screens: in Boston, Randolph, and Framingham.
Given the dozens and dozens of screens showing ''Star Wars'' all over the area, three may not sound like much. But that's a lot more than most cities have. There are only 94 theaters equipped for digital presentations in the world, 54 of them in the United States. The Boston area has as many as New York, and the only ones in New England north of Hartford.
The reason so few exist is that the projectors and servers needed to show a digital movie cost as much as $200,000, nearly seven times as much as a film projection system. Theater owners, if they have to pay the freight, are not sure whether the extra cost is worth it.
Even the gurus of cinema are split on digital.
Lucas adores the medium and has been a driving force behind it. He made a point of showing ''Episode I'' digitally on four screens in 1999, hoping for widespread digital deployment in the theaters by the time ''Episode II'' was ready.
But it hasn't happened, in part because of bickering over who will pay and concern over aesthetics. Steven Spielberg, another Hollywood heavyweight, says the clear, steady picture that comes with a digital presentation is exactly what he dislikes about it. Like the audiophile who swears by vinyl records, Spielberg likes to interact with grainy film.
If ever there was a film for moviegoers to see and then judge for themselves, ''Attack of the Clones'' is it. Lucas filmed it with digital cameras and digital effects are in every scene. Digital proponents say color and sharpness are lost in the conversion to film.
Most moviegoers aren't very knowledgeable about the digital-vs.-film debate, but they are learning fast. Yesterday, Sarah Dunn of East Bridgewater made a special point of buying tickets to an afternoon digital presentation of '' Episode II'' at the National Amusements theater in Randolph. Dunn, her boyfriend, and her two children had to settle for watching the movie on 35mm because they couldn't get four seats together for the digital version. (The ticket price for the digital and film versions is the same.)
''It's better,'' she said, when asked why she wanted to see it in digital. ''Another movie I wouldn't have cared, but this one I wanted to see in digital.''
Her 12-year-old daughter, Michaela, was convinced the special effects would be better in the digital format. Son Brandan, 10, insisted digital was more like Imax.
''I'll probably see it twice anyway,'' Lou Butler, Dunn's boyfriend, said of the unused digital tickets.
The differences between digital and film won't jump out at most moviegoers, but they are there. Walking back and forth between a digital and film version of ''Attack of the Clones'' yesterday at the Randolph theater complex, the digital version was unquestionably sharper and more detailed.
Perhaps the biggest difference could be seen in the opening scene, where the familiar words ''A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away'' scrolled off into the universe. The words were steady and sharp in the digital version, but they jiggled slightly in the film version, the result of the film going through a projector at 24 frames per second.
With digital, there is no film to jiggle, and that is where lie the real economic benefits of digital presentations. The current distribution system for movies is costly and very low-tech. Studios make a print of a movie and ship it on several reels to theaters in metal canisters. The cost of making and delivering a single film print is roughly $1,500 to $2,000.
Theater owners estimate the movie studios spend between $800 million and $1 billion a year distributing their product this way. Film also deteriorates as it is shown again and again, which shows up on the screen in the form of scratches and dust marks.
Digital movies eliminate the film and most of the distribution costs. They arrive on DVD-type discs, although they can also be transmitted over the Internet or via satellite at minimal cost. Once the movie is downloaded into a theater's hard drive, the digital bits never deteriorate, so the first showing will be exactly the same as the thousandth.
Theater chains across the country, many of which are just emerging from bankruptcy, are eager to experiment with digital presentations. Loews Boston Common added digital projection just for ''Attack of the Clones.'' But theater owners are wary of picking up the costs and want the studios to pitch in.
Rick King, spokesman for AMC Cinemas, which has a digital projection system at its Framingham theater, said advance ticket sales for the digital '' Episode II'' were stronger than for the film version.
''In terms of audience preference, I think we have a very clear answer in favor of digital,'' King said. ''But whether the digital presentations expand the overall audience is a question we haven't answered yet.''
This story ran on page C1 of the Boston Globe on 5/17/2002.
Follow Ups:
I was one of the folks who actually saw the digital projection of Star Wars I here in L.A. I found it vertually unwatchable. Sharpness in film is only a problem when there is too much of it. It is ugly. that is why we use diffusion filters. We judge the quality of film by its ability to handle gradiations in contrast amoung other things. Digital fails miserably on these levels. It exagerates contrast giving the illusion of greater clarity and detail and leaving us with an ugly picture. this is an issue both with the cameras and with the projectors. I was also involved in tests done with a digital camera. It was awful. It didn't even read diffusion. it couldn't even read smoke diffusion. It either read opaque smoke or nothing at all. There is no question that the digital projector has a steadier image with no flicker. This only allows you to see just how ugly the picture is more clearly. Another issue no one seems to be addressing on the projectors is the loss of information with camera motion or action. The effect can be nausiating.
the thing with Star Wars is that it is easier to fake with digital. They don't have to worry about color fidelity, and smoothed movement. Star Wars episodes have always made for preteens as Lucas has said several times. Unfortunately, many of us have hangovers from our youths.
> > > > Another issue no one seems to be addressing on the projectors is the loss of information with camera motion or action. The effect can be nausiating.Bingo.....did you notice the problems with rapid movement? It goes from here to there and something's missing in the middle. Film is not perfect, but digital video seems not nearly as fast. Perhaps that's why all the live action is so SLOOOOOOW in Episode II.
Doug Schneider
I had decided that watching digital projection for the first time, would be my excuse to see the damn thing.D'ya suppose that, even as we have with the sound on CDs, a better image will someday be extracted from today's digital-video masters?
clark
Samsung is sponsoring a free screening on Saturday night. rom the "Home Entertainment 2002" web site:"Samsung Saturday Night Movie Event! Samsung Electronics invites you to a private digital screening of "Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones" exclusively for attendees of HE2002. The film will be shown at the Ziegfeld Theater on Saturday evening, June 1st. The Ziegfeld is conveniently located directly across the street from the Hilton on 54th Street. To obtain your complimentary pair of tickets, please visit the Samsung exhibit in the Murray Hill A Ballroom on the second floor during show hours. Tickets for the free viewing will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis and seating is limited."
Must be costing them a truckload of money to hire that theater - the 2nd or 3rd biggest in New York I think - on a Saturday night!
I don't think we'll EVER see a better image than film. Why? Film is simply film, it's not real life. Would Scorcese shoot Raging Bull on color videotape to get something as pristine as possible? No. He shot it on B&W to create an effect.We make films on film, and the film itself is integral to the delivery.
Doug Schneider
> > > > > I don't think we'll EVER see a better image than film. Why? Film is simply film,The quality of digital still images now has come close to that of film and has the potential to be much better. I don't see how its not going to be the same for motion pictures. What is true is that the digital convenience is somewhat a necessity, its allowed photographers to really enjoy their artistic freedom, which will increase manifold for motion pictures. But it will take time because the great artists have already been hardwired to the old technologies, so it won't be a while to see a great artist in the new mediums.
I don't agree with you at all. I do photography as a hobby and compare digital to film all the time. Digital photography can be good, but is not close to what even 35mm is.Doug Schneider
The gap is still incredibly wide.
I think that what's happening is sort of like the old digital/analog debate in audio. With digital photography people are seeing something else (perhaps increased sharpness) and confusing it with something else. Is it truly sharper because of higher resolution? Or are all the gradient areas limited and everything jumps from one color to the next. Videotape on TV, for example, looks very sharp, but it's resolution is far less than film.Doug Schneider
Digital photography have improved at a very fast rate. There are people, e.g
this guy , who compared the latest digital quality to films. Even medium format is mentioned in the same breath. The weakest link with digital photography I think is the printing technology which hasn't caught up yet within reasonable price. However, digital film doesn't get to be printed at all; nothing is lost.When the two mediums are comparable (or even better with promising newer technologies such as Foveon on the horizon), then digital film will be absolutely the prefered choice. Why? If you look at the artistic quality and volume between users of leica or contax and those of say a good digital point and shoot such as canon g2, e.g here , it's not even close.
Certainly there probably are people who believe that, but there are also people who believe MP3 is equivalent to CD and LP. The resolution just isn't there, it's still at a fraction of it.Doug Schneider
its naive to simply make analogies. The person who makes the comparision is quite an accomplished photographer, judging his photographs. A 6 Megapixel file has more than half of the full resolution of a 35mm file, but this gap should be closed soon; not to mention resolution is the easiest parameter to improve.After all, its the question of "show me your equipments", vs "great rack now me show your pictures/music".
It's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about and neither does the "expert" that you reference.
Right...and I read it, but it's still far off. Someone today can look at a digital photograph and see something quite good. Untrained eyes might say it's the same. 1/2 the resolution is not really close at all to me so we're probably just disagreeing on the choice of words.Doug Schneider
There is alot more to this issues than just pixels. The comparison between film pixels and digital pixels is a coparison between apples and oranges and rotten apples at that. Film pixes are far more random in nature. They vary in size shape and placement. This is not the case for digital pixels. This is an issue in still photography. In motion picture quality it is a huge issue. The randomnes of the pixels in film create an effect of oversampling at 24 frames per second. The digital pixels never vary so you get no oversampling effect. The gap between digital and film in motion pictures is not close to being closed.
You've hit upon something very important here and something I've been thinking about for some time -- the randomness of real film vs. the linearity of digital.Doug Schneider
Notice it? It gave me motion sickness.
Guys,I've now seen Episode II twice (McClurg 3 in Chicago) and both versions of the film.
I thought something looked weird in the digital version.
My opinion of the film, however, has gone up after seeing it a second time. It was better than I thought. Some of the city shots of Coruscant are truly amazing and I still get a kick out of Jango Fett.
The one scene that made me crazy was the Yoda/Dooku lightsabre duel, especially when Yoda is bouncing around the set blocking and attacking Dooku. How crappy did that look?
I watched Empire earlier in the week and man did that film kick I and IIs behinds. Even with the campy dialogue and larger than life sets, it was so much better and easier to believe.
The DVD should be interesting.
Tosh Fortuna
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: