Star wars Episode III came out in Japan last Saturday so I'm going to see it tomorrow but I noticed that the English version is available to watch in Digital form or Film form. Which do you think would be the best version to see? Both will be shown on the biggest screens with the same picture ratio but will the image really be that much better? The last movie I saw (in the same cinema) was Constantine which was pretty good I guess. I noticed that on fast moving images there was a sort of blur as if one frame was left behind. I take it that this was a film image not digital. I don't think I've ever seen a movie in the cinema in digital form. Yakumo
I think the Star Wars movies are made to be seen on Digital. I saw it on film, though, since there's no digital projection here - so I can't tell you which is better. But given the option, I'd go see the digital one for sure.
To be honest, I'm not sure what difference it makes if it's digital or film - it all looks the same to me anyways, and the hype over digital always sounded like a modern-day version of The Emperor's New Clothes. But yes, starting with Episode II (they may have done Episode I as well, but I'm not sure), Star Wars was filmed on digital media and the initial releases were digital.
Eh, I'm not sure how much stock I take in some random blogger's opinion on the film - while I'll be the first to tell you that LP is God's own media format for music, the digital vs. film debate isn't much of an issue for me because I just don't really care. I grew up watching VHS, and I watch mostly DVDs now, but I still don't see a bit of difference. Extra crisp and or more realistic-looking visuals afforded by digital media are not going to change the fact that I'm still watching a fantasy adventure on the boob tube (or it's larger brother, the movie screen.)
I can tell you there will be a difference between digital and film for sure - but it also depends on the quality of the projectors and the theatre in general. Star Wars went digital since Episode I, and it's meant to be seen that way, though a good film copy will be pretty much as good as the original, being that film is no longer that much analogue anyway. Thing is, the Digital media does not get scratched as badly and keeps its image quality over time, and the sound and image will be (maybe unnoticeable in some cases) better and crisper.
Well I went for the Digital option and must say that it did look much sharper than other movies I saw. the thing was that I could only really tell because of the Japanese subtitles looking very sharp Fantasitc movie that I'm glad I saw on the BIG screen Yakumo
im a film buff myself, and i must say its all debateable on look. Film (35mm) looks much better in a sence since it has a grain that adds to the qulity of the picture, however when something like the current star wars are shown, it is ment to be seen in digital as it is shot that way. This will baisicly give you a taste of what hd dvds are going to look like, think of it like comparing profesional photograph using a regular camera with film to a hd camera. And i must say though digital is impressive when it comes to sharpness, i was blown away, though as i mention with the grain and such it can make a regular movie look more like a cheap film due to the grain not being present, its real hard to explain the major difference in how it looks, but if your really into the art of film you can easily spot the difference.
Yes, things are better in their original format, no questions asked. Star Wars is one of the few films made for digital - but in the change of format, digital to film or film to digital, there will be some quality loss. A film's resolution is almost limitless, and it depends on how well it's digitised or projected. The digital option has an absolute unchangeable resolution because it is digital and not analogue. Which means it depends on the movie and the theatre.
XerdoPwerko: I don´t agree with you. Because the raw film( the master 35 MM what ever) is always archived, and can be developed again and again .and be digitally improved, thanks to our computer technology we have today. And that is why it is better to have an analog master film, than only a digital one (CD rot fungus etc.) can destroy a digital master. But a good archived master can always be redeveloped. Well my father has redeveloped pictures on glass plates(and restore/save them before they went bye bye ) and he is one of the last danes who can do that. (the pictures were over 100 years old) and he was good at it . And one of the pictures is a picture i have seen, since it is one of my old great great something grandmother. and he even knows how to manipulate the silver in the old pictures. My father has learned the ways of the old danish "masters" of photograhy, so i know what i am talking about . And peace XerdoPwerko
Actually, with non-digital masters especially, you run the risk of degrading the media a little bit every time it's used. And digital remastering only goes so far, especially depending on the original media's condition. The more information that is lost from the media over time, the more the digital remastering process has to essentially 'guess' to fill the missing parts.
You are both right, actually. It depends on the quality of the media (either digital or analogue) and the care taken of it. Analogue media does, however, degrade, like GSL said - which is the main advantage of digital media. Peace be with both.
this is true, in fact what they do now so they dont end up with a master that can no longer be used, when they do special dvd editions such as the orignal star wars,clerks, and even terminator 2, they make a hd master version of it, that way when they go to release the film on lets say a digital projector or a dvd/hd dvd they are able to do it with easy and the film does not degrade as its all digital. Digital restoration can make its film look best which helped make dvd a popular format, however for a film shot in digital to look like a regular film but high quality and not like a cheap movie, they do a process called color correction as well. This is what they did with super size me to not make it look like a movie that was shot on a mini dv camcorder, which it was.
