This clipping is from today's paper... the person being interviewed is Rick McCallum, the producer...

>>Apart from the inherent fascination of seeing what Lucas's imagination can conjure up, there will be many watching to see the success of the decision to shoot with high-definition digital cameras instead of the traditional 35mm film.

"We're kind of at an evolutionary step right now in the whole digital world of making films. The thing that's interesting for us is how do we acquire images digitally, because most of our film is digital. For us it's a very important thing because we may have 2,200 to 2,300 shots in the film and they're all digital in one way or another."

McCallum says digital technology makes it an exciting time to be making movies. "Especially if you're young, especially if you're just starting out. You don't have to be a member of the club any more. You can have the total freedom to make your own movie as long as you have a story that's good enough to tell."

The film-makers hope to release Episode II in a number of cinemas with digital projection, presumably delivering it by satellite or disc rather than in the traditional can of film. "The more [digital cinemas] the better. That has to do solely with the audience. Nothing's more painful than spending millions and millions of dollars and a year of your life trying to create a print that is the most perfect print both visually and sound-wise and then have it go to some theatre where it's running practically in the dark and three speakers are out."<<

I'm not exactly sure how Digital Projection will have any effect on getting speakers to all work 100% of the time, but I would say if he thinks three are out with normal projection, then you could easily triple that number with digital 'cos there won't be a projectionist around to give a stuff about minor things like that...but hey, at least they'll be rid of having to fork out that extra wage every week.

For the full interview and story, go to http://www.smh.com.au/news/0005/13/review/review5.html

I love how it's going to be delivered by satellite only two years from now, but never let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh?

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage".
Indiana Jones.

3 blown speakers and low brightness? I bet that when (and if) digital is around for awhile, we will see plenty of unserviced and maintained digital systems. A cheap theater owner is still cheap. The customer will still be the loser.

Looks to me like too many people already have the "total freedom" to make their own movies with stories that are NOT good enough to tell.

Digital projection does not solve problems. It just creates new ones no matter how good it may eventually get. If upper management is not willing to provide high quality presentations, it makes no difference what medium is used.

Assuming equally good technologies (which at the moment is not a valid assumption), it is NOT the technology, it is the people that run it that makes the difference.

Whether is 70mm, 35mm, or digital cinema, if you are not willing to maintain your facilities in the very best condtition, you will suffer the same problems that so many theatres suffer now.

------------------
Oscar Neundorfer
Chief Engineer
SMART Devices, Inc.

I really liked Lucas when he started THX. It was the first time the "studios" took an interest in the theaters since the breakup in the 1950's.

And it's fine if he wants to try out digital; anyone would have to admit that it's a cool thing. But don't rape the theaters, then bad mouth them.

------------------
The man with the magic hands.

The newspaper reported: >>You can have the total freedom to make your own movie as long as you have a story that's good enough to tell."<<

This means everything.

------------------
Better Projection Pays!

"And it's fine if he wants to try out digital; anyone would have to admit that it's a cool thing. But don't rape the theaters, then bad mouth them.

Here's some Latin for you, George: "penis maximus."

-----

what's so funny about that? i have a fwiend in Wome named Penis Maximius!

jasoN

Did you all notice how Episode One was never really sharp and you were always thinking you could do better? It was because almost every scene in the film had a digital effect. Whenever an effect such as this is added - pulled off film, digitally enhanced etc and put back ontp film - resolution is lost.

 |  IP: Logged

My point? It looks great. Even the matte work lived up to the 70mm challenge (I don't know if they were digital mattes or "traditional." I just assume they had to be mattes because there's no way these guys built real, Mayan-style pyramids in Hawaii just for this movie.) I wish George Lucas could take a ski trip to Salt Lake City and drop in to see that movie for 70 minutes. While it doesn't look as good as Lawrence of Arabia it far exceeds anything I've seen which originated on 35mm... and I can only imagine how it compares to Digital. My faith in film has been re-affirmed (and that's not even the kind of faith this film was trying to influence!). But doesn't it just kill you that the best looking 65mm film was made in 1962? We haven't been able to top that in nearly 40 years! Pathetic!

I imagine those digital cameras they're using for "Episode Two" are a lot more fragile than good, old, proven film cameras. And I don't imagine they'll be risking any underwater shots with their precious, digital cameras. My point? There's some kind of film camera rig available to handle any filming situation you can imagine. I don't know about digital. Is that the reason he'll be doing some 35mm work?

 |  IP: Logged

------------------
The man with the magic hands

 |  IP: Logged

Page 28 of the September 1999 issue of "American Cinematographer" specifically identifies the nightime scenes of Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) discussing the power of the Force with young Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) as being shot with the prototype 24fps 1920 X 1080 Sony HD Video camera. (This was the scene where the blood sample is being taken from Anakin the prior to the Podrace).

The article notes "The revised concept is to photograph the next Star Wars installment spherically in a 1.78:1 (16:9) aspect ratio while composing for 2.35:1, and then digitally resample the image, cropping enough vertical information to achieve a 2.35:1 ratio with a final resolution of 1920 X 800".

For comparison, most experts agree that a 35mm anamorphic negative frame (0.825 X 0.690 inch image area) has a resolution of at least 4096 X 3426, and much greater dynamic range and "bit depth".