I saw the DLP last night.

In my opinion it was the most amazing picture ive seen....very crisp and clear.
i was very impressed with the picture quality..it would be hard to go and view
the 35mm version after seeing that. Definatly a giant step for technology.

The movie (as if you want to read another critical opinion) was good.
Better than EP1 but maybe a bit too much foreshadowing, stupid comical
pun's and unrealistic action scenes. Other than that it was great!!!!!
very impressed.

I recomend watching the DLP version if you can...very very nice!

<<<-- Originally posted by steadichupap : Martin:

Do you have any resources that describe the uncompressed recording that Lucas used? I couldn't find anything on the web... -->>>

I don't know if there is any web resources on this. A guy at SGI told me this. It makes sense. You don't shoot a 100% FX shot film like this to HDCAM tape as your original source for FX work. Ever tried to do chroma key work on DV (5:1 compression)? Well, it's worse on HDCAM (7:1 compression). Not everything was shot "uncompressed". Whenever I do chromakey from a DV camcorder I always go out S-video to a mac with an Igniter uncompressed card in 4:2:2 in stead of 4:2:0 DV/PAL. It really makes a HUGE difference when doing comps. Stairstepping is kept to a minimum.

By the way; the term "uncompressed" is not very easy to define. Lucas (and Tattersall) was working in 4:2:2 as far as i know but in 1:1 to disk compression. This still means the image does not contain all the information it should. Real uncompressed would be 8:8:8 in 1:1 1080p. The problem with this format is that it would take up 1, 6 GB per second (!). D6 is the only tape format that can store it. And those babys are extremely expensive. Regular HDCAM is 135MB/sec. Most HD cards (like the Kona and Digital Voodoo) will easily capture 230MB/sec (transfering more information).

_redone_

I agree the projection was great. And I'd love to see more films like this. I think a film with less special effects and comp work might show better. Or a film that's pure digital. Toy Story looked great in DLP.

Martin_M
I've pulled mattes from DigiBeta, with AE (which worked better than Ulttimate at the time and for our particular footage). A lot of EP2 reminded me of the problems we had in that process and noticed the type of problems that we had.

Granted it was much better than what we did. I did notice a shot where Amidala's (I think it was her) stray hair was severely compressed against the background plate.

I probably see these things more than other people, because I'm just used to seeing Star Wars stuff with noticeable pixels. The text crawl in the beginning looked exactly like the crawls we would render at high res. I could see the pixels and squarish stars in the DLP screening.

But again, I think the DLP screening was fantastic. Bright, clean and steady. I was mostly upset at the "artistic" values in the film. I didn't like the design and the story. Remember when characters had ideas, dreams, goals? I didn't see any of that in EP1 or 2. Oh, Anakin is a brat, I guess that's character development.

Maybe I'm just sick of Star Wars and have become a bitter man.

BTW, the Goldmember and Matrix Reload trailers were fantastic. So maybe there's hope for me yet...

The cool thing (production wise) of making Episode II the way they did is that ten or even five years ago you would never in your wildest dream do a film that way. Remember the matte work on the first Star Wars movie? Great work considering the tools they had to use but you can't even begin to compare that work with what's in Episode II. The mattes in the first Star Wars films are aging - real fast. In those days you couldn't even think of comping a shot containing footage of hair. In five years hair won't be a problem at all.

The future looks bright. I love it.

i agree...

i think the design was good...yet all the random alien characters got old.
they just put "weird" creatures in there just for the purpose of having
"wierd" creatures in the film....and the design of some of them werent that
great. The Fett family, father and son thing was way overplayed. Love story
was necesary yet plastic, no real emotion especially from Natalie Portman.

anyway i could go on for ever, though i am now intersted in seeing alot more DLP films.

Yeah, it's very exciting right now. You don't even need to do blue/green screen work. It's easier of you do, but hell, anything is possible.

The one thing that I miss, is reading about all the practical model and camera work that went into a shot. I read the Blade Runner and Star Wars Cinefex's over and over again. Plus the photographs were just so cool.

Unfortunately, now most of the time you have pictures of people looking at their computer screens.

The future does look great.

I've got some scripts that can only be done with a huge amount of digital work. I hope to start some work this winter.

More sitting in front of a computer for me...

<<<-- they just put &quot;weird&quot; creatures in there just for the purpose of having
&quot;wierd&quot; creatures in the film....-->>>

Come on! It's Star Wars! Not The Unbearable Lightness Of Being. It's a roller coaster ride. You could critizise the first film for doing the same thing. If you don't like the Star Wars concept, that's fine. But don't expect deep emotional drama and real people.

Justin,

you wrote "Oh, Anakin is a brat, I guess that's character development."...

WARNING SPOILER!



Annakin Skywalker: -"They are animals. And I slaughtered them all like animals. Not just the men, but the women and the children."

I'm greatful I don't have those kinds of brats running around in my neighbourhood. Yikes! ;-)

Yeah and I liked Natalie Portman's response to that comment. It's basically as if she said "That's nice, dear. Now give me a hug." She didn't seem to care at all. Wouldn't people with emotions be at least a bit bothered? Oh yeah I forgot, Lucas does not direct his actors so that they display emotion. The movie would have been much better if Lucas got someone else to direct it like he did with Empire Strikes Back.

Ep II Theater Experience
 

Hi Everyone,

I'm planning on viewing the movie again tonight at a different theater (35mm again) to see if I notice the same dark, contrasty image. Will inform everyone of my experience.

Tim

i agree it is Starwars for the purpose of various creatures at random times..

yet in the old movies the creatures had organic sense, a reason to be, plus a a story behind the face... it seemed like they threw characters in just becuase they could so easily due to technology. And in my opinion, the old movies
had good acting! and emotion.. I agree that Anakin had a good sense of
evilness to him and was well demonstrated. The Starwars story is so great
it seems to override the small flaws in the new movies...

I was also pleased to see that C3PO was the source of comic relief as in the old movies, other than Jar Jar. I loved the set design too, I think the yin tends to out balance the yang in this one.

The good stuff is just too good to forget, unlike the bad.

Justin...if you haven't yet, check out the current Cinefex issue with the Lord of the Rings peice...TONS of model/miniatures work in that one...great article...and a good mix of practical and CG visual effects...as opposed to just the shots of the guys at their computers ;)

I have that issue as well, Casey... the LOTR piece is amazing, but the articles detailing The Time Machine and Black Hawk Down are just as fascinating. Can't wait to see the forthcoming Cinefex coverage of Ep2.

Jar Jar's Role
 

SPOILERS!!!

I've always said that no good would come of Jar Jar's continued existence, and look what happened, he single-handedly created the Empire. I bet in Episode three the Emperor makes Jar Jar his bitch.

-Shawn

Redone said:

"I loved the set design too"

What sets? I think 98% of the sets were created in the computer in post.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joe Redifer : Redone said:

&quot;I loved the set design too&quot;

What sets? I think 98% of the sets were created in the computer in post. -->>>

Does the fact that they are build in a virtual environment make it less set design?

The debate on Episode II around the we is highly amusing. These are some of the most common opinions:

The film is to dark - The film is to bright
The design stinks - The design is great
The acting is bad - The acting is great
The FX sucks - The FX is ground breaking
The is no heart and soul in the film - At last Lucas brought some heart and soul back
The music is boring - The music is exciting
...and so on...

The only one that can tell us the quality of Star wars is the person it was made for - a twelve year old boy or girl that visits the Star Wars universe for the first time (or perhaps second). And so far they seem to like it.

I'm happy HD looks great. I love working in digital and Episode II was a major proof for me that HD holds up on the big screen.

Ep II Theater Experience
 

My concern when I saw it opening day was that the whole thing seemed too dark and contrasty. Well, I watched the movie for the second time last night, this time at a different theater to eliminate the possibility of a projector shortcoming. I haven't watched it in a theater equipped with digital projection so I can't formulate any observation which includes *that* evidence, but having seen it in two different theaters in 35mm format, I've concluded that the dark quality is intentional. Maybe it's to signify the encroaching shadow of the dark side. But at any rate, I walked away last night relieved since I initially feared that this darkness was a shortcoming of the HD video format and I really want digital to win the game... soon.

That the movie as released in 35mm is darker than the video material available for download from the Star Wars site is evident to anyone comparing the two formats scene-by-scene. If you look at the "Forbidden Love" trailer from the website you'll see what I'm talking about. Notice the scene in which Anakin and Padme pull up in a rickshaw-type transport on Tatooine. In the QuickTime trailer the Tatooine sand is really light sand in color. In the theater the sand is darker, bordering on brown rather than tan. Notice also the field scene in which Anakin and Padme are in front of some Niagra-type falls. In the QuickTime trailer, the field and sky, though probably modified a little to make Naboo surreal, are fairly light. In the theater, this scene seems almost like twilight.

In short though, I'm content that this is not a digital fault. And besides, maybe George Lucas was showing off the low-light capabilities of digital cinema.

well put martin_m....

i agree that the little guys maybe have the best input on this one.. it seems like were giving it to much technicall insight. which
may be too opinionated for a Starwars type of movie. ...

It could may be just as simple as arguing which Jedi is the best.
(like when we were young)

Set design in my opinion, can be great even if sketched onto a
napkin at a resturant...just like a car design would be good, if
even it wasnt made into a real car.

but agree i would have been more impressed if it some of the sets where ACTUALLY built. rather than CGI, but thats technology.

We saw it today with digital projection. My son has now seen both and he thought the both the sound and picture were considerably better today than in the 35mm version. The picture was rock steady throughout.

The only scene where I really wondered if film would have been better was the backlit wedding at the end. It seemed too contrasty with too little definition in the darker areas of the picture.

amazingly enough, I went to my small home town theater and they HAD 2 screens showing Episode 2 in digital projection. How they got the cash to foot the bill for 2 150,000 dollar projectors is a mystery to me, but I was super excited since I was expecting to see it on film. DLP is a new format plain and simple. It looks different than film, but is it worse? I don't believe so. Video has finally become an acceptable source for motion pictures, and the technology will only get better. I can't really say why I am so excited by the technology, but I think it has something to do with the fact that we are on the forefront of some big changes in the medium. I can't wait to see what happens next.

MusarInteractive: " That the movie as released in 35mm is darker than the video material available for download from the Star Wars site is evident to anyone comparing the two formats scene-by-scene."

I think the brightness on your computer monitor is turned up way too high. I too can make the images overly bright, or dim them down to black, if i so desired.

Either that, or the theaters that you were viewing at were using old xenon lamps which weren't meeting the 16f/l standard. This is an issue with DLP as well due to the fact that they use the same light source (Only dlp requies much higher wattages to light a smaller screen).

gvancott: How could the sound be better in the DLP presentation than 35mm? They use the same digital formats.

It's always fun to hear how great people think DLP is and suddenly they wish film was gone. That's natural I suppose, but guess what, there will be bad DLP theaters just like there are bad film theaters once 100% conversion takes place in a long long time from now. Exhibitors will get cheap and cut corners on lighting. Ever see a 4,500 watt xenon try to illuminate an 80 foot screen? I have. You only get around 10 fl's at best, but hey, it saves a few nickels and dimes. And DLP requires a 7,000 watt xenon to achieve the same brightness as a 4,000 xenon for film. That's gonna look horrible until they increase the technology which is done on a daily basis (how can exhibitors keep up?). In case no one noticed, the exhibition industry is rife with bankruptcy. Lucas thinks that there is "some kind of conspiracy" (his own words) in the exhibition industry since they REFUSE to buy DLP en masse. Brilliant Lucas is not. After spending tons of dough on DLP you bet cinemas will cut other corners to make ends meet. Trust me you have not seen the end of bad presentations with the arrival of DLP.

At least I know NEVER to see a movie in Las Vegas. I guess the theaters there suck much ass. That one guy who keeps posting from Vegas says every time he visits a theater the film is scratched and dirty. Is Vegas full of amateurs?

I don't know about you guys living in the US but here in Europe there is an on going debate about D-cinema (DLP) and content. The idea is that D-cinema opens up a whole new type of venue. Most cinemas only show films in the night time. With D-cinema you get your hands on HD content that you can put up for day time viewing. Everything from small independent films (that could never afford prints) to the soccer world series. This means $$$ to the exhibitor if he is smart. So there is not just money spent on DLP technology - you can earn some too. Profits 35mm can NEVER bring you. I think holding back this type of evolution is one of the thing that annoys George Lucas.

Seriously, DLP has all this untaped potential as a medium for delivering all types of entertainment. Think about how cool this could be; local distributors could be showing all sorts of media be it the super bowl, to motion pictures. What I love about the Digital fomat is that You can release on the big screen, cable, DVD as easy as making a choice. Video has truly become a motion picture making format. No question there will be good and bad DV movies, and good and bad exhibitors, but the format is the key. There is no excuse anymore guys! If you want to be making movies you can.

That's the spirit!

The reviews are poor. I'd rather go see Spider Man. Perhaps Enterprize will have a movie out some day (shot mainly with film). I think video's for TV. But who knows..., maybe one day DV will have resolution on par with film.

Has any of the Star Wars films ever gotten good reviews? Don't think so. Does that make them bad? Don't think so. ;-)

I just saw Episode II, in DPL last night (1024-1280 res- texas instruments), and I must admit it looked a lot better than I was expeting and for a prototype system its very impressive.

The picture quality was better than some 35mm films (Harry Potter for example) but I don't think its quite up to the best 35mm can offer yet, compaired to something like the "thin red line" or the "the straight story" - 35mm film can still look significantly better. The DLP blacks were never black, details got lost in dark scenes (When actors wore black you couldn't really see the folds in the robes) and there wasn't as much detail as well shot 35mm. That said the colors were very good and the lack of weave was nice, but I'd be disapointed if the current spec was adopted as the standard, double the resolution and increase the contrast ratio to something approching film and I'm sold.

I think digital has the potential to be better than 35mm film in terms of picture quality but to say its already better is jumping the gun a bit.

That said I'm sure many people wouldn't be able to tell the difference - but then lots of people still watch movies on VHS and are happy with pan and scanned movies.

How Episode II Reached Digital Theaters
 

Interesting item in the Chicago Tribune on this subject, and on Boeing.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-0205200012may20.story?coll=chi%2Dbusiness%2Dhed

Phil said what I've been trying to say, only a bit more eloquently. But I don't think that people on this forum are getting the message. The attitude seems to be:

"Digital...yeah!!!!!!! Digital means PERFECT!!!!! I am impressed by NTSC resolution so of course I'm gonna be impressed by 1024 lines of resolution that DLP offers. It's good enough as it stands now, bring it on! Yeah!!!!! Film gets degraded each time it is run, and I also believe everything I read."

I'm not at all certain that folks here believe that "digital" is necessarily better than film. If anything, "Episode II" might just showcase where each has visual strengths and weaknesses. As Roger Ebert recently noted, film looks best with film projection and digital looks best with digital projection.

But within a practical range of tolerance I think we'll gradually discover that audiences really don't care about the subtle little aspects that so deeply disturb videographers, filmmakers and projectionists. That said, it's logical to assume that digital production and delivery will move forward aggressively during the coming years.

I agree with you Joe. I've already heard comments from movie goers that digital is "perfect". I could only chuckle, quietly. The common perception is that because digital does not degrade when copied, all copies are therefore perfect. Quite a leap, for sure.

As for the folks in here, Ken is also right, the differences are recognized. Neither celluloid nor DV is perfect.

Reminds me of an expression I hear frequently...."perfect is close enough". ;-)

Episode II sucks.
 

Episode II sucks. It's not, as many of us STAR WARS fanatics were hoping for, the 25-years-in-the-making super-prequel that would erase the doubt incited by Episode I, make true believers out of infidels and new converts out of the disinterested. It fails both technically and aesthetically, and these two separate failures are distinct and unlinked.

This is the forum to discuss its technical failures, but I won't be able to write this entire post without venting about the film's absent artistry. First, let me say that until a year ago, I was one of those who believed that the long-prophecied digital revolution would rain upon the cinematic industry decisively and unmercifully in 2002. 24P would be a proven replacement for traditional photochemical acquisition, DLP would render projectors obsolete for exhibition, and satellite broadcasting of high definition digital content would be very near on the horizon as the be-all-end-all of theatrical distribution. I was telling all my peers in the film school at USC this in 1997, back when 24P and DLP were unknown as acronyms. And in the months leading up to Episode II, I've been involved in prep to shoot a film on 24P. But after seeing Episode II (and also a screening of the Roman Coppola film CQ, shot on film and about the love for film), I wouldn't recommend anyone ditch 35 mm stock in favor of 24P. 24P isn't ready for prime time yet.

Episode II has some serious image issues. Compression artifacts, swimming in a manner reminiscent of mosquito noise, become unbearable in shadowy backgrounds. The dearth of dynamic range makes foregrounds appear flattish. And the up-sampled image is soft.

As for the CG and animation, it's ridiculously bad, on par with the work done on the Special Editions and The Phantom Menace. Yoda looked far more real as a puppet. Why is ILM still using a scanline renderer rather than doing things right with a good global illumination renderer and HDRI environmental radiance map lighting? CG work stopped being impressive with this film. No longer are we wowed with all the cool stuff that can be done in movies, because we've seen it all, and it's all overkill. The concept of the "digital backlot" movie doesn't seem thrilling any more, it just seems lazy. And watching characters walk everywhere they go--or just plain stand still--looks absurd on screen. Actors need environments to play with as much as they need other real actors to interact with.

The unfortunately mediocre acting, atrociously bad dialogue, unfunny humor, nonexistant story, and pointless pilfering from The Matrix and Braveheart make this film just another prologue to the original STAR WARS trilogy rather than a cool movie that stands on its own. We should call them preambles rather than prequels.

I'm going to state something that's probably going to p*** a lot of people off:
I'm willing to step down in quality to get a wider variety of films to choose from. That's what digital distribution will provide. Good (not great) image quality and an excellent distribution opportunities.

I'd rather watch everything in HD than only Harry Potter (and a few other blockbusters) in 35mm. There are a lot of great films out there that we never get to see or that never get's produced because of distribution difficulties.

And I think Episode II is a great film (being a Star Wars fanatic).

I liked it to.

And frankly, the cgi in star wars was incredible. A couple of polysylabic words does not change that. Chill out brothers, digital has/will bring good things. When I hear people decry the format because of some image issues, I stop and wonder about all the bad movies that have been released on film. I heard one guy say "I aint paying to see half the resolution" or some other nonsense. Content is the core of a picture, and I believe some of the best new films will come from a Digital format.

Back in 1977, the first STAR WARS movie (I guess now referred to as Episode 4) was not only released in 35mm, but also in 70mm. Projection in 70mm provided a brighter, sharper and more grain-free image than the 35mm scope format (which in itself was very good).

Although the original camera footage was the standard 35mm, the blow-up allowed the advantages of projection with the larger gauge film and provided an extremely immersive quality.

This move to digital represents a giant leap backwards in picture quality from what was available, and I suspect those who are touting the DLP so much here have no such frame of reference to understand what actually has been lost.

For it to truly be considered "progress," there really should be improvement. If we just refer to the STAR WARS series, this new acquisition and projection technology represent a substantial loss of image quality in favor of convenience and expense (Primarily in eliminating scanning camera film for CGI).

Digital projection may allow a greater opportunity of theatrical venues for more indie films, but the marketplace will eventually decide if that is sustainable or such projects are better suited for IFC or the Sundance Channel.

I'm with the others who write that digital projection is ready when it's at least as good as 35mm. They really should be striving to equal 70mm.

"Good enough" just isn't.

<<<-- Digital projection may allow a greater opportunity of theatrical venues for more indie films, but the marketplace will eventually decide if that is sustainable or such projects are better suited for IFC or the Sundance Channel. -->>>

Hillary,

most of the world don't have IFC or the Sundance Channel. I know I don't. Do not forget that the BIG $$$ could never be made without your foreign markets. Perhaps you could even get the opportunity to watch some foreign films that you would never have the opportunity to watch otherwise. Some very great films are made without even a thought of the American "domestic" market today. Digital video breaks down all boundaries in distribution.

atomicworkshop,

I'm with you bro. The asteroid chase scene was absolutely smashing! As was the Jargo Fett/Obi Wan "rain fighting" scene. I wish all films could be like that... Of course a film that has 100% FX shots is going to have some shots that are weak. But who cares about those? :-)

<< Hillary: "For it to truly be considered "progress," there really should be improvement. " >>

How shall we measure "progress"? Is subjective image quality the only measure of progress?

<< Hillary: ""Good enough" just isn't." >>

It's a darn sight better than "not at all", which reflects the distribution opportunities that the majority of independent movie projects face today.

<==As for the CG and animation, it's ridiculously bad==>

jeez, if that is bad CG, i would like to see whats good!

I know when i first saw the image from the DLP in the theaters,
despite the all technicall aspects and the "not good enough for big time"
bandwagon, I thought the image quality was nice...not "the best it will
ever get", but it was really nice! definatly made for a clearer picture.

those of whom think this picture quality was poor, then im missing out on something big that none has told ME about. I know its not up to 35 or 70 mm
standards, yet for what it was it was superb! I wouldnt want to see a 35mm
film projected digital, I would beleive that the format it was shot in should be the format it should be played in. ...fair enough.

Im not a "film tech" nor "picture quality anylist" but i do know as a movie goer
and videographer i think the DLP picture was great.

Theres plenty of films out there shot on digital with a "technically poor" picture, though portrayed a flawless peice of motion picture.
Isnt that what counts???

Guys help me.. where and when should I look for those artifacts?

The only Fx flaws I noticed were the bad compositing of the bomb assassination on Amidalas double in the beginning of the movie and the scene with the pear, where there was virtually no motion tracking. And in a couple of scenes the CG actors moved, well, like CG actors.

The movie looked a bit soft, but overall still better than most 35mm presentations.

As I am no cinematographer like most people aren´t I think most people will see it like I saw it.

IMO this whole quality thing is never going to be a big issue among "normal" people, just like the articles in American Cinematographer it is only a matter for few trained professionals, who might, like a violin player might have a perfect hearing, have a "perfect seeing" that comes from education and the knowledge how these things are done.
The mass audience won´t see these flaws unless you freeze the frame and tell them where to look for the mistakes.

So is digital filmmaking/projection going to come? A matter of artistry, money and time.

Artistry because many FX and image processing are easier accomplished when the source material is digital and 99% of the FX today would not be possible with chemical filmprocessing. How many layers can you do on film-stock?

Money and time because time is money. Not having to wait for the dailies for example saves a lot of time and money. And money makes the world go round. And all the money points have already been mentioned here before.

So I think this (temporarily) step back in resolution is worth the change from a hundred year old technique that has no advantages exept resolution.

my 2 cents.

Oh, yeah... I liked the movie a lot.

Cheers,

Martin,

I'm all for expanding venues for filmmakers, especially independent producers. However, theatrical distribution is a business and if people won't come to see independent projects on a regular basis, then it cannot sustain itself, and screens will be reserved for films with greature production value and mass appeal. Enter your projects in film festivals. If it has commercial appeal, you may just have the next "El Mariachi" and be on your way to a career within the industry (if that's what you want). Regardless of format, if you want anybody to see your project on more than one festival screen, you'll need a distributor. And in reality, the life of most such projects is much longer on video anyway. A favorite director of mine, John Waters (whose films have never been defined as the hallmark of any kind of quality) has great difficulty in getting his films on many screens, especially around here and I live not very far from his hometown. I must resort to seeing his films (produced on 35mm) ultimately on video. Regardless of this new technology, home video will still be the primary venue for independents.

Ken,

I believe the above reply to Martin can partially respond to your last question to me. Don't misread me, I'm not trying to blast the opportunities for indies to get their work seen. I'd like lots of people to see my stuff too. But I've sat through lots of amateurish work that should never see the light of any projector again. Forgive me if I don't feel that just because you shoot in a digital format, and a theatre is equippeed with a digital projector, it will be easier from a distribution standpoint to have your work seen. Technically possible, but your work has to be good enough to convince someone other than an arthouse manager it should be seen by the masses.

My stance is that it's premature for the major Hollywood filmmakers to adopt a format that is not up to par with current motion pictures when they can darn well afford it. George Lucas does not have to work in miniDV (or HD for that matter). If we accept this (sub)standard now, there will not be any business incentive for them to improve the system. And before long, the difference between seeing a movie in a cinema will be barely distinguishable from seeing the same movie in your home theatre (except for the people talking on their cell phones).

And your question regarding subjective image quality being the only measure of progress; Considering that we're discussing the projection of moving images, I'd have to say it's right up there on top. What good is the most advanced 21st century technology if it cannot match the current (regardless if it began in the 19th)? If you're dazzled with the bells and whistles of all things digital, more power to you, but when I go see a movie, I'm looking at the picture on the screen, not the machine in the booth. I've worked on 35mm productions and never got the warm fuzzies from the knowledge that I'm watching "Spider-Man" in the same format.

I just think that the industry standard should be able to project pictures with at least 4k of data per frame (equivalent to 35mm film). CGI is great, although as far as special effects are concerned, we've just replaced one kind of fake with a new kind of fake. But when scanned to film (for as long as that will be), it shouldn't be done at the usual 2k. I have no doubt that digital will become the standard. From many standpoints it makes sense, as long as we don't have to do with less than we've had before.

That's not asking too much, is it?