What about HD in the movie theaters

[paul_pci]

Wouldn't offering high definition picture and audio in movie theaters, not only bring people back to the theaters, but also be a powerful marketing tool for high-def DVDs, or am I missing something?

[kexodusc]

Hmmm, it seems....too easy.

Then again, I don't know what kind of resolution theaters use now...I'm just guessing it must be pretty darn good to get movies looking as good as they do on screens so big.

The audio could always be improved too.

Maybe it'd just be waaay too expensive and too much effort industry wide to change, or set new standards at this point in time.
Are we sure they're not HD or better already?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well, actually movies projected in DLP in theaters already exceeds what we consider Hi Def. While we consider 1920+1080P full hi def, DLP based movie projectors have three DMD's at 2048+1080P resolution, or what is known in the movie industry as 2K resolution. Sony annouced not too long ago a projector that is 4096+2160P which is known as 4K resolution.

So by all definitions of hi def, the movie theater already exceeds the home version by a long way.

[edtyct]

35mm film is inherently a much higher-defintiion source than what we discuss in home theatre. In its pure state, it has the equivalent of 4000 to 5000 lines of resolution, although the print that hits the local screen has usually lost at least twice that resolution because of its generational distance from the master and the quality of the projector. But it still qualifies easily as HD on these terms. Film also has a different look than hi def "TV," more seamless and less compromised in dynamics, especially at the lower end of the brightness scale, though light looks more natural as well. It just doesn't have to suffer the indignities of NTSC or, for that matter, ATSC or QAM, before it reaches your eyes.

Digital movies, of the type that George Lucas purveyed in his latest Star Wars installments, is an interesting case. Some people like the flexibility that a digital delivery system offers, with at least a theoretical claim to maintain quality, but to this point, many people aren't completely sold on the look of digital display compared to film. Think of the transition from analog to digital when the CD first arrived. Sampling can leave the impression that something is missing (because it is). Some people still don't think that digital music can reach the heights that analog music can. And there certainly is a digital look, as well as a digital sound. We've alluded to it many times on this board when comparing CRTs to fixed pixel displays. Every display device has something on its side, but the ability to convey subtlety definitely falls to analog video at this point. It may take a while for digital movies to supplant film, some of them aesthetic and some of them practical. When it does, practicality, not aesthetics, is likely to be the reason.

Ed

[Woochifer]

Wouldn't offering high definition picture and audio in movie theaters, not only bring people back to the theaters, but also be a powerful marketing tool for high-def DVDs, or am I missing something?

As others have mentioned, HD resolution would be a step backwards compared to conventional film projection.

The digital projection presentations that I've seen so far are a mixed bag. It's nice that the image does not change the color balance or focus when the reels change, it does look a touch brighter, and you don't see dirt or scratches. But, I've not been impressed with the resolution of digital projection, and on a large 60' screen like when I saw Episode III I thought that the image looked dark (and this was on a screen that uses a silver emulsion and normally looks bright and vivid with 35mm prints).


Well, actually movies projected in DLP in theaters already exceeds what we consider Hi Def. While we consider 1920+1080P full hi def, DLP based movie projectors have three DMD's at 2048+1080P resolution, or what is known in the movie industry as 2K resolution. Sony annouced not too long ago a projector that is 4096+2160P which is known as 4K resolution.

I heard rumors that the Cinerama Dome had actually acquired a 4k projector for its screenings of Episode III. If this is the case, then I guess my next question would be what the resolution is on the digital film that was used in production.


Digital movies, of the type that George Lucas purveyed in his latest Star Wars installments, is an interesting case. Some people like the flexibility that a digital delivery system offers, with at least a theoretical claim to maintain quality, but to this point, many people aren't completely sold on the look of digital display compared to film. Think of the transition from analog to digital when the CD first arrived. Sampling can leave the impression that something is missing (because it is). Some people still don't think that digital music can reach the heights that analog music can. And there certainly is a digital look, as well as a digital sound. We've alluded to it many times on this board when comparing CRTs to fixed pixel displays. Every display device has something on its side, but the ability to convey subtlety definitely falls to analog video at this point. It may take a while for digital movies to supplant film, some of them aesthetic and some of them practical. When it does, practicality, not aesthetics, is likely to be the reason.

You're totally right about that. But, digital film has a surprising amount of resolution to it from what I could pick up. I saw Episode II in IMAX, which entailed transferring the digital image onto a 70mm/15 perf print. The presentation was not letterboxed, so I saw the full image on that large IMAX screen. The image quality really surprised me. It was more vivid and sharper than I expected. The main flaw that picked up on was that everything on the screen looked flat and two dimensional. There was not much depth and subtlety to the imagery. Not sure if it has to do with the digital film or the heavy usage of CGI in nearly every scene, but that was what I observed. When I saw Batman Begins and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in IMAX, the images just seemed more realistic and three-dimensional.

[paul_pci]

Thanks for the answers. I thought I was missing something; It just seems that high def on TV looks different than theater grade film projection. I'm trying to catch Batman in IMAX tonight, so I'll be keeping this in mind.

[abstracta]

My comments on this topic since I have a pretty strong background with film to digital and digital to film reproduction.

I've seen pretty much every big movie release this summer, and I'd have to say the trend for quality optical film projection is the pits, and I'd rather stay at home and watch DVD's because the quality is better. I have half a dozen state of the art theaters within a 10mile radius, and *EVERY* film I've seen has been a grainy, washed out, blurry mess that begs to be cleaned up and remastered for DVD release. I have a friend who has a $40,000 DLP in his sports bar, and the image is spuerior to every optically projected theater print I've seen this year.

I also have an IMAX screen 5 miles from my house, and that process is an exception. However, the IMAX process extensively *digitally* remasters the orginal film footage, so it has nothing to do with conventional theater viewings.


When I saw Batman Begins and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory in IMAX, the images just seemed more realistic and three-dimensional.

Ditto, saw them as well on IMAX and marveled at the clarity, but again realize this is a result of the IMAX remastering process above all else. 35mm film stock does not take well to being 'imaged' with digital writers because of it's small size, but larger film stocks like 70mm are *amazing* when digitally written to. You should see it in 4x5.

I did not see 'Sith' in a digtal house, but the optically transferred print I saw was OK otherwise. It was far superior in terms of clarity and color range compared to 'Clones' which was also shot on a digital motion picture camera of earlier heritage. I'm not an expert on digital motion picture cameras, but from what I've seen they still have many problems to overcome. Increasingly, the cinematographers learning to use them properly