[CT] Star Wars, Boba Fett

[Daniel Moran]

I could see pixelation in the digital image -- along the edges of diagonal 
sharp lines, in particular. I've never seen film suffer from that.

Star Wars was shot on digital cameras and some artifacts that were visible 
on film -- there was some bad pixelation in one shot, love scene w/Portman 
and Hayden -- wasn't there on the digital projector, so that's plainly an 
artifact of the digital-to-film transfer. If I had to guess, off this one 
little exposure to digital projectors, the quality of the experience should 
rank something like this:

1. Shot on film, projected on film
2. Shot on digital, projected on digital
3. Shot on film, projected on digital
4. Shot on digital, projected on film

Film is inherently less clean than digital, true. But I don't think the 
resolution compares, not yet.

At 09:16 PM 5/19/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>--- Daniel Moran <dkm@QueenOfAngels.com> wrote:
> > Had an interesting experience last night -- I saw "Clones" for the
> > second
> > time, this time on a digital projection screen. Film is better -- a
> > good,
> > clean 35 millimeter print is clearer and sharper than this new
> > high-falutin
> > digital projection from Lucas & Texas Instruments. If you wanted to
> > go to
> > 70mm, man, there wouldn't be any comparison at all.
>
>I completely disagree.  I've seen it 3 times on film (in very nice/new
>theaters), and I just saw it on a DLP today and I was blown away:  I've
>never seen film look anywhere near that sharp.  There was no fuzz, no
>flecks or cigarette burns, and the colors just leapt off of the screen.
>
>
>Ross
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
>http://launch.yahoo.com
>____________________________
>continuing-time mailing list
>continuing-time@ralf.org
>http://www.ralf.org/mailman/listinfo/continuing-time

____________________________
continuing-time mailing list
continuing-time@ralf.org
http://www.ralf.org/mailman/listinfo/continuing-time