Hi, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > You seem to be basing your original comment on something you read > rather than having seen the results with your own eyes. That doesn't > lend much credence to your POV.
Agreed. But this is baby technology that very few (comparitively) people have had the opportunity to see. What I quoted, which seems to be an already obsolete system, was the one with the highest density chip and therefore presumably best definition. As this is only about 4x the definition of the best projector we have at work, which produces an obviously "grainy" image at about 1/10 of cinema projection screen size, I drew some reasonbable conclusions. > It's interesting to note that at least one of the major theaters in > California, where we saw the digital movies, sometimes projected the > same movie conventionally, since not every screen in the multiplex was > set up for digital projection, and some movies were popular enough to > be played on more than one screen. In all instances when we compared > the digital projection with conventional projection, the results > showed no clear superiority of film over digital. On the contrary, > the digitally projected movies offered more than the film, as noted in > my earlier message. What is even more interesting is that different digital projection systems were used for "The Phantom Menace" to evaluate consumer reaction. There are at least five systems in development but only one available at the moment for purchse. > Further, this article refers to the Kodak system. Is that the only > system in use? I doubt it <L> See above - there is only one available but it's not, and never will be, the Kodak one. Looks like there will be a system installed in a UK cinema soon. _If_ they show anything interesting, I will have to go and look at it. m
