I’ll take digital’s foibles over crappy unreliable film any day.

I’ll take digital’s foibles over crappy unreliable film any day.

We just uploaded Indy on our site…http://TheTrailerSite.com — It is kind of like youtube, but for HD movie trailers.

We just uploaded Indy on our site…http://TheTrailerSite.com — It is kind of like youtube, but for HD movie trailers.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If Stevie ain’t gunna allow this to be shown in digital houses, does that mean no Blu-Ray release next year?

If Stevie ain’t gunna allow this to be shown in digital houses, does that mean no Blu-Ray release next year?

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.

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.