It took me a while to sit down and write this commentary. Exactly two weeks ago, I saw "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" in a theater that was projecting it digitally (in the AMC Pleasure Island at Disney World, one of only three theaters in Florida equipped with digital projectors... there are about 50 theaters in the United States that are showing "Star Wars" through digital projection). It was my second time seeing it, but I drove three and a half hours to see it digitally because of everything I heard about it. George Lucas himself said that he wanted everyone to see his movie projected digitally because that's how he intended for everyone to see it. He said that the difference was clear. So I took the drive and went to see it.
After seeing the movie projected digitally, I knew that I was gonna write a commentary about it, but I didn't know what approach to take. Most of the theaters were showing "Star Wars" through regular film projectors, so not a lotta people even knew that there were theaters projecting it digitally. So did I just wanna write a puff piece about seeing "Star Wars" through digital projection, or did I wanna do tons of research, and write a big, long commentary explaining the state-of-the-art digital camera George Lucas used to shoot it, and the state-of-the-art digital projectors used to screen it? Originally, I was gonna do the latter, but after doing some thinking, I decided that it would make for a very boring thing to read, but more than that, I didn't wanna write all that shit. So this commentary is gonna be a puff piece about what it was like to see "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" through digital projection. But I'll have one paragraph briefly getting into the camera and projector. One little paragraph, and that's it.
Not a single frame of film was used to shoot "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones." George Lucas shot it using a digital camera that shoots 24-frames-per-second (regular film cameras shoot at that speed, whereas typically, digital cameras shoot at 30 frames-per-second). Sony provided their new progressive-scan CineAlta Digital HD camera, and Panavision provided new kinds of lenses specifically made for that camera. It was shot digitally, but the result remarkably has the "warm" look that's usually only found in movies shot on film. The digital capture is then imported into an Avid non-linear editor for editing, then there's post-production and scoring. After all of that is done, and the movie is ready to go, one of two things happen. The movie is transferred to film so regular film projectors can project the movie. The other option, which is the preferred one, is to send the movie file to the theater projecting it digitally. It can be sent via satellite, optical discs, or fiber optic networks. The movie is stored on a server which sends it to a digital projector for each screening of the movie. There are two companies making the digital projectors, Christie Digital Systems and Barco. Both incorporate technology called DLP (Digital Light Processing) Cinema, developed by Texas Instruments, and it's the only digital projection technology approved by Hollywood for feature film display.
I love the idea of digital projection, but the quality of the image is secondary. I've complained about film projection numerously. The Regal Cinemas South Beach on Lincoln Road (it's in Miami) seems to always have some major screw up when they project their movies. Either the audio is outta synch, too much of the image is "leaking" off of the screen, the focus is off, the film breaks midway... no matter when I go to that theater, SOMETHING seems to get screwed up in the projection room. Maybe I'm a little too anal when I pay to see a movie, but I wanna see it the way the director intended, and a subpar presentation is NOT the way the director intended for his or her movie to be seen. I recently wrote a commentary called "The Perfect Movie Theater" where I wrote about what I would consider to be a perfect movie theater. One of the things I wrote about was that there should always be someone in the projection room, and if at any point, the projector messes up, or the movie is presented in any way that's not proper, the projectionist can take care of it immediately. With digital projectors, that sorta thing is irrelevant. The image will always be projected perfectly. Of course, this is all theoretical. Though all the old projection problems are fixed, I'm sure that new ones will spring up.
But the real reason that digital projection is getting such high praise is because of the quality of the image. I wanted to see for myself, and that's why I drove 235 miles to see "Star Wars" projected digitally. Truth be told, the difference is astonishing. But not all the time. There are some times when you're in awe of the beauty of the image. Then there are other times when what you're seeing is noticeably worse than through typical film projection.
Sitting there waiting for the movie to start, I first had to watch the trailers. These were movies shot on film and then converted to digital for the projector, and there was really no difference, except for when text was displayed. Text looked awful, but I figured that it was because it was for movies shot on film. But when it finally got to "Star Wars," and the familiar text scrolls up into infinity, it was obvious that digital projection has not quite perfected text. It looks jagged, and it's definitely worse than through film. I don't know why, and it may have to do with the fact that I sat in the second row of the theater, but even so, that's where I usually sit, and it's never been a problem when watching a movie projected on film.
After that, however, things were a lot better. I can't begin to tell you how awesome the image is. Yeah, the digital backgrounds and computer animation looks a lot better, but the most obvious improvement is with flesh tones and human characters. An extreme close-up on Natalie Portman's face is breathtaking, not only because of her beauty, but because of the amazing crispness of the image. It's truly incredible. But then problems arose again, where I noticed that in group shots, characters in the foreground looked great, while characters in the background looked too dark, and even slightly distorted.
When I walked out of the theater, I took a few moments let it all sink in. I thought about the experience of watching "Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" projected digitally, and the reality was that I was slightly disappointed. I expected a perfect image, and it wasn't. I mean, at times it was, but it's apparent that the technology is very young, and there's lotsa room for improvement. Still, knowing that I saw new technology in it's early stages, I can tell you that the future is very promising. Soon, the digital resolution will be higher, the text will be perfectly smooth, and we really WILL be looking at movie images that are shockingly pristine. Improvements will be made, it's just a matter of time. I'm really looking forward to the day when digital projection is the norm, the image is perfect, and I don't have to walk outta the theater in the middle of the movie to bitch to the manager that the audio is outta synch.