Movie News
Spielberg Says “No” to Indy in Digital
Posted by Chris Beaumont (chrisbeaumont@filmschoolrejects.com) on February 26, 2008
Have you seen a film projected digitally? Are you lucky enough to have a local theater specializing in this new projection format? Well, if you are and you happen to be anxiously awaiting the arrival of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (and honestly, who isn’t?), you will not be able to see Indy’s latest adventure in said format as reported over at JoBlo. It’s OK to sob a little, I know how you feel.
Digital technology has slowly been reshaping the movie business, from filmmakers like Robert Rodriguez and George Lucas shooting with digital cameras, to digital technology filtering down to the home user and thus allowing more and more people to try their hand at making movies, to home theater enthusiasts using gorgeous DLP projectors in their homes, not one area of film delivery has been left untouched. This goes right on through to digital projectors at your local theaters.
With all of this love for digital tech, including Indy creator George Lucas, one has to wonder what the thought process was that led up to this decision. Of course, the answer is as simple as saying Steven Spielberg. He retains his love for all things film, and prefers that his films be presented in their traditional format. By his decree, his latest film will not be available in the digital format.
I have only recently seen my first digitally projected film (it was 27 Dresses), and it was quite the gorgeous experience. It makes me want to see everything that way, so I am a little sad that Indy will not be seen this way, but in the end it does not really matter, as I just love movies.
However, if you live near an all digital moviehouse, you may want to drop them a line in case they have not heard already.
Read more articles by Chris Beaumont
25 Comments
February 27th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Well, its not as bad as your article paints it out to be. One of the advantages digital projectors have at the movie houses is longevity. By no means are any of these digital shows in high definition. On opening day, you will not notice the difference between a film version and a digital one (save for the occasional cigarette-burn at reel changes). However, over time, the film gets scratched, dusty, what have you. The digital version will obviously show no signs of wear-and-tear, and will look “better” than it’s film counterpart in, say, a month after opening night.
But do not go into the theater expecting a high-definition experience, because that is not what is happening.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Does this mean that theaters with the digital projectors won’t be able to show the movie? Or does this mean that it just wont look as clear as some other movies?
February 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I’m confused, why can’t the movie company shoot in film and convert it over to digital for
the theaters that have the capability.
On a side note, there are a minority of people like myself that find digital very difficult to
watch. If you are a person who can see a 60hz CRT computer monitor flicker out of the
corner of your eye then you’ll see the flicker of DLP in the theater. I’ve noticed it with
Talledega Nights, The Golden Compass, and that dancing penguin movie I got dragged to. I
had to squint.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Digital projection is nice in that the movie loks the exact same when played the 1000th time as it did the first, but it is very one dimensinal looking, overly sharp, and bright.
But don’t misunderstand me, I do prefer digital. Not degrading is worth the limitations.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I too can see the refresh rates on digital projections. However, film is even worse for me (film is 25hz). Whenever there is a bright white scene, I need to look away.
Its just the curse of good senses!
February 27th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
One of the other capabilities of digital is that certain colors are simply outside the gamut of
film. The most notable example I’ve seen of this was with Star Wars Ep. II: Look in the city
shots for some blindingly vivid purples and oranges that were just barely there in the film
version. (Yeah, I saw that lame film twice. It was the first opportunity I had to see the
digital projector in action.) I can see why Spielberg doesn’t want it with Indy, what with Indy
being a period piece and having been inspired by film shorts in the first place. From the
trailer, I don’t second guess his decision at all. I expect him to go digital on his next small
to moderate size project, just to get the hang of it. He’ll probably never go whole hog
digital.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
If this is true, I will never ever watch that film, any Indy film actually, they will be dead to me. I don’t even know where I’d find a theatre that still projects film…
February 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
My local theater has switched to digital projectors for all three of it’s screens. The next movie theater is 90 miles away. I don’t want to drive 180 miles just to watch Indiana Jones, screw you Spielberg!
February 27th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Just so you guys know, quite a few cinemas that have gone all-digital still have film projectors available for this sort of thing. At the theater I work at, three screens out of ten are still set up for 35mm film in the event that we have a movie that’s not available digitally. Of course, this only happens every once in a while. Since I worked there, I only remember three movies to come in 35mm: You Kill Me, The Darjeeling Limited, and Charlie Bartlett.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I completely dissagree with you. Yes, digital movies’ white and blacks have a greater contrast, but I’ve noticed over-sharp edges resulting in rastering and often digital artifacts during action sequnces. The digital format is not yet ready for movie theatres.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Alex, wth are you talking about that films shown in digital are not a high definition experience? All those projectors are at LEAST running at 2k and most are at 4k. Those are orders of magnitude over 1080p in the home, what most people consider to be high definition.
Clarify pls.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Remember everyone, 35mm film is several orders of magnitude higher in ‘resolution’ than even 4k digital projection. Since film is a chemical medium, there are no pixels (depending on whether the film edited digitally or not, in which case there are). A pure film experience has only the limitations of the film grain, somewhere around 5000dpi.
I refer you to this article:
http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html
February 28th, 2008 at 12:33 am
My god.
You admit to having seen only one digitally projected film. Why are you so quick to trash film and puff up digital projection? There *is* a noticeable differences between the two (go over to some technical forums and learn more), differences that give the edge to film.
Yes, digital is more cost effective and quicker, etc. But someone like Spielberg doesn’t really need to worry about those issues.
Long live film.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:36 am
It makes sense to not show this movie digitally projected. It’s a movie that is supposed to evoke an era of classic hollywood and showing it crisp and clean might not deliver that kind of experience as to watching a film with artifacts and inconsistent focus. It’s just not the experience that Indy is going for if it’s clean.
February 28th, 2008 at 1:28 am
I agree with even, I’d be disapointed with anything else.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Texas Instruments has done an impressive snow job on everyone by putting the word
“digital” everywhere they can. People these days practically associate that word with
“magic”. Digital=good, non-digital=bad, and that’s as far as the thought process goes.
It’s more accurate to call it DLP a micromirror device. It’s also more accurate to call film a
silver-hallide crystal emulsion.
The question then is not “is digital better than non-digital”, it’s “is a micromirror device
better at modulating light than a silver halide crystal emulsion”. The answer, with today’s
technology, is currently no. Kodak’s 2393 print stock (which I hope Indy 4 is printed on)
has greater resolution and vastly more contrast than any DLP projector available. This is a
measurable result, and having seen lots of movies presented with both technologies,
often carefully comparing the two using the same movie, I have to say silver halide still
wins.
Maybe someday there will be an output device with higher quality than today’s film
stocks, but for now, Spielberg is correct as to which one is higher quality.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Ya’ll are missing the important question.
If Stevie ain’t gunna allow this to be shown in digital houses, does that mean no Blu-Ray release next year?
February 28th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
What about the audio? Iis that going to be anlalog like the old time hollywood movies as well? Oh sure SS has no problem with 7 channel digital surround sound but heaven forbid he should embarace the 21st century when it comes to his precious film stock. Do you have any idea what the difference in distribution costs is between these two mediums?
February 28th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Perhaps someone has already mentioned this, but isn’t it George Lucas’ ultimate decision as to what format the film will be presented in?
February 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I hate digital projection. Hate it to bits. I don’t know if your first digital experience ever the other day (I’m sure 27 Dresses is loaded with the sort of detail that would never survive projection in old-time celluloid) gave you the same sort of nausea that digital projection gives me, but having experienced it a few times, I never see films in digital if I can avoid it.
I’m no eyeologist, but let’s see if I can explain what I hate about digital in a little more detail than just “it’s digital so you’ll love it”.
Digital projection splits the signal into three channels: red, green and blue. It then outputs these channels and they blend on the screen, bouncing off the surface and into your eye. But because of the “refresh rate” of the human eye, particularly when a larger-than-normal saccade (the movement of the eyeball to take in detail) takes place, the colours sometimes separate: try sitting close to the screen and flicking your eyes quickly from one side of the screen to the other, particularly when there’s a high contrast of light/dark images onscreen.
On older/cheaper projectors, it’s easier to notice: a deeply unnerving “colour shift” takes place, whereby for an instant, you can see the red, green and blue channels that make up a bright onscreen area split and trail after one an other. Following action like this for up to two hours can cause an unsettling, disorienting nausea.
And I’ve never seen a top-of-the-line digital projector that doesn’t do that. So even if Indy 4 offered digital projection, I wouldn’t go to it.
Also, your funny little photoshop is a different type of blur to that which bottom-of-the-line film stock (such as Indy 4 won’t be printed on anyway) would produce, but now I’m just splitting hairs. Enjoy your silly techophile geek-out.
February 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Tom,
I think you are confusing single chip DLP projection (like home theater projectors) with 3 chip projectors like the ones used in the cinemas. The cinema projectors use a separate chip for each of the primary colors (red, green, and blue). All of the colors are projected on the screen at the exact same time. It is not possible to see color separation with this type of technology unless the panels are misaligned.
A VERY small percentage of people are able to see color separation (rainbow effect) on single chip DLP, but this is not possible on 3-chip.
DLP projection may not be appealing to you (I happen to think it is better), but I do not want people to be swayed by inaccurate information.
March 4th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Jayc,
Thanks for the correction. I maintain I DO see those rough edges in professional, fully-outfitted digital cinemas (and as I don’t work for the film companies, what would I have to gain from lying?), but I would not people to be swayed by inaccurate information either.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I saw IronMan in DLP and have to say DLP is not ready for prime time. Digital is probably good enough for the masses and probably saves money. The resolution is not as good as 35mm. I noticed jaggies and lagged panning. It was difficult to watch at times.
There also was compression artifacts on blue sky scenes. I do not think the digital chip has 5000dpi resolution.
The grey scale seemed to be off as well.
Flicker - yea I noticed it, I wanted to turn the refresh rate up.
I am a cpu geek so I tend to notice things like this. I think most sheeple can deal with DLP and don’t forget the placebo effect. Just tell people its digital and they think it must be better.
The next round of DLPs in theaters will probably iron this out. But they need to pay
off the first round of duds so it may be sometime.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:09 am
I wonder what George Lucas thinks about Spielberg’s decision. I think they should battle it out. Digital vs Film…let the audiences decide. Does anyone know of a list of theaters that project digitally?
We just uploaded Indy on our site…http://TheTrailerSite.com — It is kind of like youtube, but for HD movie trailers.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
It doesn’t matter if film is superior when the theater hires incompetent projectionists. My brother just saw Indiana Jones and he said there was flutter the whole time. When I saw Star Wars Episode 3 on opening night, right before Obi Wan cuts up Anakin but good, the picture got cut in half and started rolling up.
I’ll take digital’s foibles over crappy unreliable film any day.