I'll say it: HD looks better than film in theaters.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't want to start a flamewar here. I realize that film has a higher grain resolution than HD (something like 3k x 3k grains, or so I've heard).

But after watching some HD clips from Gladiator, among others, I've gotta say that a good HD transfer beats any non-70mm non-IMAX film presentation I've ever seen. It's really not even close. The image was crisper, the colors more vibrant, the image rock solid instead of flickering and jumping. It was stunning.

Films shown at my local movie theaters (I frequent three, all of which are modern) appear far closer to DVD quality than HD quality. Whether that's because of the duplication process or the focus process or the quality of the projectors themselves, I don't know. All I know is that good HD on my screen provides an image I haven't seen touched.

I've got a JVC G15 projector on a 102" DIY screen and a HTPC with a HiPix.

So, am I missing something? Are my local theaters just pathetic? Or is HD just visibly better than most projected film? Sure seems that way to me!

STAR WARS ATOC was/ is being shown in theatres in digital as well as film format. It has been widely reported that the Digital presentation is not as good as the film. But, they also speculate and wonder that perhaps it is due to improper theatre equipment as ATOC digital projection should be 1920 x 1440, where as, most of the theatre have only 1280 x 1024.

Has any one seen both presentations??

Rana

Michel Hafner, I await your additions and corrections to my post :p

The reasons film looks so bad in America's are that:

#not only in America

1) The projector bulbs are not running as bright as they should. Theaters do this to prolong the life of the bulb, but from what I've read, it doesn't prolong its life by a significant amount.

2) With so many screens, theaters can't afford to hire trained projectionists to monitor each screen's performance. I believe they usually just start the film, then leave and start another film.

3) 1.85:1 and Super 35-originated 2.35:1 are normally quite grainy.

#All correct. 35mm presentations are often very bad these
#days, prints and projection quality. Prints are often
#high speed prints on cheap stock that look grainy, fuzzy,
#with washed out colors and bad contrast. And projection
#equipment is not properly used and maintained. Often the
#halls are built in such a way that the angle of projection
#prevents a sharp picture everyhwere. Lights are reducing
#contrast, screens are dirty, have big holes for the sound..


So what Chris Carollo is doing is comparing a good DLP presentation to a mediocre 35mm presentation. Hardly fair.

#It's fair as a comparison of what people mostly do see in
#cinemas. It's not fair as a comparison of 35mm as medium
#versus HD as medium. 35mm is better, but we rarely see
#the quality of 35mm masters. The closest we usually come
#are HD versions made from good 35mm masters. And these tell
#us that 35mm looks spectacular if done right. Even when
#limited to HD resolution it leaves most 35mm prints in the
#dust. In addition if you watch the HD on a good
#CRT projector you get blacks cinemas can't give you (film
#can not block the light as much as a CRT projector can).
#Add to that the usually 99,9% mint images, the gorgeous
#colors and very good sharpness and 35mm prins have a though
#time to keep up, even good ones. I prefer watching good HD
#to almost all 35mm prints I can see. MH