DFW, TX Myths about DLP, film and the Galaxy

Well, let's finally put this puppy to rest...

Roger Ebert just SLAMMED the Film version.
Not just the story, BUT the actual visuals that he saw from the unclear, "fuzzy" Film print. He said that it lacked and that it "didn't look that great".

Like we've been saying all along, he said that the Film version loses alot from the transfer from digital.

Well there ya go.

 

Hey, that is very much possible since it was shot on video it could look better on DLP due to the conversion process to film, but the numbers don't add up which is why I plan on seeing it both ways to make a final judgment with my own eyes, but I am choosing to watch it on film for the first time. (Also because I know the sound will be better.) Only a couple of days until we can all see for ourselves.

Stone, didn't ya know that krwade3 is my personal hero?

 

"...since it was shot on video it could look better on DLP due to the conversion process to film..." Flix

Um... Dont want to say told ya so, but...



And like I said, I still will go to both theaters several times before the run is over.

 

From the front page of TFN:

Ebert Prefers Digital Clones
Tue, May 14, 02 09:50:10 AM EDT


Roger Ebert has seen Episode II digitally and admits it's superior to the projected version he'd seen a few days prior. However he still has qualms about Lucas changing the status quo of a digital hollywood. From the Chicago Sun Times:

After seeing the new ''Star Wars'' movie projected on film, I wrote that the images had "a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power." But I knew the film had been shot on digital video, and that George Lucas believed that it should preferably be seen, not on film, but projected digitally. Sunday I was able to see the digital version, and Lucas is right: "Star Wars: Episode II--Attack of the Clones" is sharper, crisper, brighter and punchier on digital than on film.
This will come as melancholy news, I suppose, to the vast majority of fans destined to see the movie through a standard film projector. Although an accurate count is hard to come by, there are apparently about 20 screens in America showing "Episode II" via digital projector, and about 3,000 showing it on film. Lucas is so eager to promote his vision of the digital future that he is willing to penalize his audience, just to prove a point.

But he does prove the point. On Sunday, I returned to Chicago's McClurg Court Cinemas, where I had seen "Episode II" on film the previous Tuesday. On Wednesday, technicians from Boeing Digital Cinema swooped down on the theater to install a new Texas Instruments digital projector, and that's how I saw the film a second time--sitting in almost exactly the same seat.

Watching it on film, I wrote, "I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown." On digital, the images were bright and clear. Since the movie was being projected on film on another McClurg screen (both screenings were part of a charity benefit for Metropolitan Family Services), I slipped upstairs, watched a scene on film and then hurried downstairs to compare the same scene on video. The difference was dramatic: more detail, more depth, more clarity.

Head over to the link above for the full commentary and thanks to Andres for the alert.

 

I've got a wacky idea:

Let's watch the movie in both theaters!

Film AND digital.....

 

I've got an even WACKIER idea!

Let's call Roger Ebert an idiot and leave it at that.

Of course, we all knew the DLP was going to be far and away better than the old 35mm film. He was a stupe to watch it on film first. With the pull he has, he could probably have got an advanced sceening of the DLP, but he chose to watch the film just in order to slam AOTC like only he knows how.

Yes, we are all going to go see it on both. We'd be dummies like Roger if we didn't.

Roger and out.

 

I just saw it at the Galaxy 9 - 7:30 sneak preview. You guys are going to love it!

Anyway, I paid close attention to the Galaxy experience so that I have a frame of reference before watching the DLP version. Here's what I noticed:

Sound: Waaay better than the Legacy; the THX literally moved me in my chair without making me cringe.

Picture: I paid particular attention to the sharpness. IMO, it looked good. I couldn't see at all what Ebert would complain about. That said, the screen did vibrate somewhat (as I expected), but here's the kicker:

There were plenty of artifacts throughout the screening. Most were really small specks that would the equivalent of maybe a 5x5 speck on a 1024 monitor. Some were large black oval splotches (I counted 6) that with a relative size of a dime on a 17" screen. These appeared on single frames throughout the movie. Less noticable were vertical streaks that I could occasionally see that were slightly lighter than the rest of the image. These streaks would run for a few seconds then disappear.

Certainly, the only reason I saw those artifacts was because I was looking for them. Nonetheless, the fact that this was likely only the second time that reel had been run makes me think that "flawless" projection is rare indeed.

When I see the DLP version, I will post a followup with the strengths and weaknesses of that experience. Having seen a few digital movies there before, I expect the artifacts and the screen vibration to be absent, but I'll pay careful attention to the resolution detail and the sound.

 

Vijay, to address a couple of the things you saw, here are their explanations.

The very small specks were from dirt in the shipping canisters. You saw the first run of that print and as such, it was on it's first run through the wet gate film cleaner. Those will be gone after several runs.

The large specks you saw were a screwed up "CAP code", which is the MPAA's defense on bootleggers. The print that ran in #5 had improperly printed codes, but I had no idea of the defect until I screened the print after hours that night. The defective reels from that print are being replaced by Fox.

The streaks were from the online wet film cleaner. Since the print was made less then 24 hours before it ran, it was still green from the lab, meaning it was very tacky and was running rough through the equipment. The midnight show ran much better and I expect by tonight's evening shows that it will be running like a charm. Those faint streaks disappear within 2 shows.

I will be interested in hearing your comparison on artifacts and such when you compare it to the DLP. However you should consider watching Episode II in the Galaxy's #2 or 6 house for any film vs. DLP comparison, as that size screen most approximates the size screen that the Legacy is playing the movie on in DLP. Comparing a 35-40ish foot wide DLP screen with a 7000 watt lamp to a screen more than double that size with a 4500 watt lamp is not a fair comparison. This is why Lucas refused to allow DLP to be ran on any screen larger than 40 feet...the blowup shows off too many defects in the source digital image.

To everyone else, I would not recommend seeing the film in the Galaxy's #1 house at this time. The print is substandard quality and has sound issues which most people would not notice, but anyone picky certainly would. #1 is the smallest screen that Episode II is running on at the Galaxy, which is why I placed that particular copy in that auditorium. I am currently requesting another copy. Of course, #5 is the house to see it in if you choose to experience the film at the Galaxy. It's 80 feet wide and has the best THX sound system around.

 

Thanks for the heads up Flix!

I am headed their in the next day or two, to check it out for myself.

I agree with Eric D, that the sound could have been a bit louder in the Legacy, but the picture quality was incredable! The colors were spectacular, and like he had said, almost too bright, but I think that comes from staying up too late, and sitting in line outside too long, my eye's had had it by then.

Anyway, I'll be going to the Galaxy soon, and will go to both soon again.