Years ago, a company I was working with held a "digital screening" of the movie "Bicentennial Man". I was really impressed--it looked just as good as film! That said, it wasn't any better than film. But I'm not convinced that the images on the screen are actually somehow better than brand new film.

I'm reminded of a study that was done years ago by a television company. They showed the same TV show on two different models of televisions--one with stereo sound and one with mono sound. The people watching insisted that the TV with the stereo sound had a better picture.

I'm always reminded of this when I hear people talking about their home theatre systems and how their DVD player gives such a great picture. I wonder how much of that "great picture" sensation comes from all the speakers and the high-quality sound.

Don't get me wrong--there are tons of advantages to digital in theatres--the most obvious being that the prints don't wear out (so the first showing is as good as the 798th).

You're off on the reasons why the US is slow to transition to digital.

While it is true that theatre profits have been very weak over the past several years and that digital content delivery is cheaper, the economics have set up a confrontation between theatre owners and the studios.

The problem is that the theatre owners would have to pay for the very expensive upgrades to digital projectors (which also have somewhat higher operating costs), while the studios get the benefits of lower content delivery (I believe the cost for each copy on film is in the area of $50,000).

The theatre owners have stalled on upgrading while they fight with the studios for a larger percentage of early run ticket receipts to improve cash flows and profitability.

if all goes well, i'll be able to check out 2k DLP in Singapore, to watch revenge of the sith (again, this time in digital).... it's a 5 hour drive from where i am living right now... hopefully at the end of the month. i can't comment till i experience it in person, and see if it is nice enough or if 4k DLP or something is needed before we have true-film-like resolution (???)

Only once scene in The Phantom Menace was shot in digital. The rest of the movie is good ol film.

Only a few shots in The Phantom Menace were shot digitally in HD. The first Star Wars movie to be shot entirely digitally was Attack of the Clones.

I agree with almost everything said in the article, but there is one problem...

Sith simply sucks... there's no way around it. The movie is stunning visually and all, but it doesn't hold a candle to the old trilogy.

And that's the problem with new digital tecnologies... how any movies will be praised just because they are full of dital effects and not a shred of true narrative?

If you want to see something totally digital, but with some story under it go see Sin City... that's more like the future. Cutting edge technology and a good story, with a good director.

This would make around 500'000'000 $ for the simultanous 10000-screen-release of "Siths". About 3 to 4 times the mere production cost. And this on top of the huge marketing expenses. If this were true, digital is the way to go NOW. But I'm highly sceptical concerning the 50'000-figure. "Sith" would almost have to beat "Titanic" as the commercially most successfull movie until today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith converted back to film for "traditional" projectors? I think they might've been where I went to see it.

Before the movie, there were the ads and previews, and you could tell that those were projected digitally because you could see black horizontal lines in the picture.

I have to agree with the poster who basically said that the technology is irrevelant if the movie is no good. (Actually, I enjoyed Revenge of the Sith. Let's face it, though - it's hard to build suspense when everybody knows how the movie is going to end.)

I'm reminded of something Tom Scholz of the band Boston once said (ironically, back in 1976): "It depends completely on the person using [the technology]. People have already fallen prey to that, in my opinion, with items that they just go out and buy to get a certain sound without really understanding where that sound comes from and how to apply it."

Or, to put it another way: from Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the book, not the movie): "Humans are so primitive, they still think digital watches are cool." (I don't remember the exact quote.)

Film Is Dead is not true at all.

Digital Projection will be a slow transition. Lots of problems to be worked out.

Standards still need to be set, workflow, a predictable and repeatable process still needs to be put in place.

Star Wars is not a good example of digital cinema in the sense that it is not pure cinema. Most of the tricks are done in computer graphic work stations. While 90% of movies are more traditional filmmaking with the possibility of a small amount of visual effects.

Part of the reason 35m projection will be around for awhile is because of its simplicity.

All you need is a mechanism to move the film, a light bulb, and a lens.

Digital projection is far more complicated.

Mike Washlesky needs to go to an eye doctor. Digital progection and digital cameras are not superior to film. There will be time when thay will probably be better, but that time is not now. The equvqlent of today digital aqusition and progection is on the level of the 2mb stil cameras. Every one knows that film has much more information on it. And if your eyes are OK go to multiplex with digital and film progection and rum from one teater to the other. It is eye opening experiance. Digital has at least 10 more years to go. By that time the film technology will develope further. Here I am not even talking about IMAX. No digital will ever come closer to it. Yes every one when they hear digital imidiately think it is superior. I am sory to say but it is not.

I still want to know how Cameron plans to release Alita in 3D. I don't want to have to strain my neck to watch it in IMAX!

Mike Washlesky needs to go to an eye doctor. Digital progection and digital cameras are not superior to film.

Sorry Guest, you are very wrong. Believe your eyes, not spec numbers.

I live near a digital theater, and have seen several movies in both 35mm and digital. I can tell you that digital easily matches the best 35mm projections, and beats the tar out of 'average' theaters.

I'm generally a purist and I've heard good arguments for keeping with film. I don't see many movies anymore but recently saw both Hitchhiker's Guide and Revenge of the Sith on opening weekends no less. One of the first things I noticed is how jerky the projection on the screen is with film, especially when I sat close-up. Also, how can a movie have so many "splotches" or other signs of wear when it's only been shown a few times earlier that day?

Maybe the theatres around here aren't up the quality of most cities, but my recent experiences with DVD on a large widescreen TV with surround sound have left me wondering why put up with these issues with film. It's just not these 2 movies that I've noticed these problems with, it's most films I've seen in my life. As far as I'm concerned, bring on digital projection.

Really, this news is almost a month old.

I have seen Sith in both Digital and Celluoid versions of the film and I have to say, I prefer the film version. The digital version suffered from pixelation and did not render blacks as well as the film version. Maybe all the kids these days are used to playing pixelated video games and watching movies on cheap DVD players that don't render colors well and don't notice. But in my ripe old age of 29 years, I have to say I was completely disappointed by my digital viewing experience. Granted, the digital version had no dirt on the negative and no screwed up splices and mangled audio, which is a big plus in my book. But the pixelation and the fact that dark greys and blacks had not detail completely turned me off.