Thoughts on Hi-Def trailer? (Robert Rodriguez)

[Nick Medrano]

Well this movie was shot on 100% digital. What do you all think of the quality? I personally can not tell the difference.

Once upon-a-time in Mexico

[Bob Benkosky]

I saw this trailer on the big screen and let me tell you, it looks like film. I did think it lacked the exact look of Desperado and maybe now I know why, but it still looks completely watchable as a film. Makes you kinda happy. Looks better than 28 days later though.

[Alex Taylor]

I think the next few years will be similar to the early beginnings of sound in movies when the theatres went through a massive change to update their systems for the Dobly standard. Once the big theatres go digital, HD will really come into its own and improve dramatically. Right now I think that looks great - maybe not the same as film but it definitely is watchable, and undetectable to the average moviegoer.

[John Locke]

I can't give out too much information here...so I won't mention the developer of this or any other details. There IS a digital projector that exists now and is getting prepped to hit the market with these specs:

- 3840x2048 resolution
- 30 bit color
- RGB (10 bit)
- 24 fps, progressive scan
- JPEG2000 Codec
- 300-450 Mbps bit rate

Apparently, it's already been demoed to some studio execs.

I think that'll make a visible difference.

[Alturo Nguyen]

i'm sure alot of people know, but alot still don't so....
spy kids 2 (rodriguez)
and
stars wars episode 2(lucas)

were both shot with HD, believe the same Sony HD Cinealta

[Bill Pryor]

Bob, the reason it looks better than "28 Days Later" is that 28 Days was shot with PAL XL1's, not HD.

[Bob Benkosky]

Yea, I guess I just mentioned that because that's the first thing that came to mind. HD would indeed make a big difference compared to the XL1 PAL. It's 1080i right? Compared to 720 x 480 DV format. Quite a bit higher in resolution.

[Curtis T. Stoeber]

The problem with theatrical DLP is that the studios want the exhibitors to pay for the projectors. But it's the studios who save the $$$ in the long run, since they don't have to pay for printing of film, etc. Technicolor used to offer the projector for free for a percentage of the gross, but that offer didn't last long. At well over $100,000 PER PROJECTOR (for the current low grade ones, no less), no one wants to pay for it, and thus the digital movement in the cinema hasn't gone very far. Exhibitors certainly don't want to give up making all the money they are now with film prints.

Alex: Sound was introduced to movies in the 20's. it wasn't until the late 70's that Dolby Surround came along. I also think that comparing digital cinema to the introduction of sound is a bad analogy. Sound added a whole new dimension to movies, but digital cinema does not. I'd compare it more to the introduction of digital sound to cinemas, which began with the ill-fated CDS in the 80's, then moving to Dolby Digital, DTS, and the 8 channel SDDS we have today. Soon DTS will offer up to 10 channels of discrete sound in the cinema. Digital sound improved things, but wasn't a radical transformation in the way people see movies.

[Rob Lohman]

Lets keep on the subject of discussing the trailer. What most
people were anxious to see is how the the camera would hold
up which such extreme colorful settings as Robert is using. No-
one is debating whether it has the same resolution. To my eye
the trailer looked very very good. And yes, we cannot judge
resolution from the QuickTime. That wasn't the question.

The question was if it looked good (and that not only inlcudes
resolution, but also color etc.). Again, looked great to me. I've
been waiting for this movie a long long time and I hope now
that the trailer is out they'll finally go into screening it!