: Digital Cinema vs. Film Cinema
2008-04-30, 05:14 PM
as the highly anticipated iron man releases this week, the decision needs to be made, when i got to my local cineplex scotiabank theatre in Vancouver:
-Largest Film Theatre
-Smaller Digital Cinema
....do any of you have comments on the which would be the better experience?
check the article for more info: http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/3D+Movies+Arrive+in+Metro+Vancouver+Theatres/3410491.html
2008-04-30, 09:04 PM
Link didn't work for me -- said article not found.
2008-04-30, 10:18 PM
I think you're asking a lot, for me is which theater has less heathens that would ruin a movie by talking, cell phones, young morons etc...
2008-05-04, 02:47 PM
The link didn't work for me, either. I personally would go to the theatre that projects film rather than a digital theatre as you get way more detail from film plus it has the smooth, soft focus look to it.
On the other hand, if it was a movie that wanted to look like a documentary or live TV such as 28 Days Later, I would opt for the digital theatre.
I would prefer digital if the title were shot digitally, if it were shot on Film I would prefer projection.
Also I would always go with what the director suggested if he had an opinion.
2008-05-04, 10:56 PM
I had my first digital theater experience on Friday, also for Iron Man; didn't mean to, it's just the way it worked out. I was quite impressed; the trailers and movie were pristine, no speckles, scratches or flaws anywhere in the picture.
This film used super35 source and a 2K digital intermediate for special effects. Hard to say which cinema would produce the better result given the heavy use of digital effects. Now if the source was digital then there is no contest. I wonder how many frames are actually untouched by a computer these days?
2008-05-05, 01:27 PM
Re: digital effects.
I recently saw "I Am Legend" on DVD and the movie was spoiled for me by the poor CGI work. The zombies were just not believable and looked totally fake! Other than that, I enjoyed the film.
Eventually, most movies will be made digitally as it's much cheaper and quicker (less steps) than shooting on film. The main thing that is holding up the transition to digital is the high cost of the DLP projectors (over $100,000 U.S.)
On the upside, the longer the theatre chains stall on acquiring the digital equipment, the better the end product will be due to the rapid improvements in the technology!
I hope the improved digital movies will be able to capture all the detail that film is able to do and give the final product the smooth soft focus look of film instead of the somewhat stark, edgy image of HD shot movies.
2008-05-06, 02:19 PM
i decided to watch it on the main theater, which was the largest screen, in film. as it was the first time the reel was used, the pic quality was great. however, i havent seen a digital film yet so i cant compare. but as digital cinema at my theatre is restricted to only a 50-foot screen, i think size does matter!
2008-05-07, 10:57 PM
ds7777 "i havent seen a digital film yet so i cant compare."
I've seen several movies shot on HD tape and transferred to film (so they can be seen in theatres that do not have DLP projectors) but I've never seen any movies yet that were completely in the digital realm i.e. captured on digital Hi-Def cameras and tape and then projected digitally in a theatre.
BTW I prefer HD movies that were shot on 35mm or Super 35mm film and then telecined (digitized) to HDTV tape, disc or hardrive as they still retain the smooth look of the original film source as opposed to movies shot in HD Digital (unless the director/producer wanted the "live TV/ documentary" look to his film.) IMHO