Celluloid − death by a thousand pixels?

For some people, the words “digital” and “cinema” should never go together. But how many of us can actually tell the difference between film and digital cinema?

On one side of the debate, purists say celluloid film has an aesthetic quality digital cannot replicate.

The other side says the technical advantages of digital cinema outweigh the minor picture quality differences.

Jay Goodey is a freelance film editor and also works fulltime as the TV editor of Life Church in Mt Eden. He says the difference in picture quality is a matter of opinion.

“If you see them [digital and film] side-by-side you could tell the difference,” says Goodey.

However, he says there are purists who say if you go to a cinema and the movie is shown through a digital projector, you should ask for your money back.

In an attempt to sum up the elusive difference between film and digital cinema, Goodey says there is “crispness” to the analogue picture.

In a blog on the Millimeter forum website Josh Kairoff says: “While many components within movie theatres have evolved, the method of showing an image has remained essentially the same since its introduction.”

But now this is changing. The traditional means of projecting by shining light through moving celluloid is meeting competition from digital projection techniques.

New Zealand cinema chains are slowly starting to introduce digital cinema in established movie complexes.

Marketing manager for Sky City Cinemas Lisa Chambers says the company has plans to make all cinemas digital.

“This is a long-term goal for both our business and internationally as an industry,” says Chambers.

Of the company’s 107 screens in 14 complexes, five are currently digital.

Technical and property manager for Berkley Cinema Group Robert Jeromson says his company is not in a rush to adapt to digital cinema.

Berkley has 21 screens in four complexes, with only one screen at Botany Downs being a digital cinema screen.

Jeromson says there are advantages to digital projection. “Digital projectors don’t require the same amount of interaction that 35mm film projectors require,” he says.

“They come already loaded up with trailers and start on time.”

Lisa Chambers says there are also disadvantages for staff projecting digital films.

“It’s a different process that simplifies the mechanics, but comes with its own issues,” says Chambers.

Both Berkley and Sky City cinemas receive digital films physically, shipped on hard drives – despite the possibility of having them sent through a broadband service.

Films need to be “ingested” onto the cinema’s system. This means the movie is downloaded from the hard drive so projection can be controlled from a central computer.

“Electronic equipment requires different servicing and the settings of every film can be unique and need monitoring,” says Chambers.

Jay Goodey says the main difference for film makers is that the workload of film making can be reduced by using digital film.

“I could capture something and have it faster than real-time on my computer,” he says.

Goodey works mainly with digital and says that analogue film is reserved mostly for feature-length motion pictures and some advertisements.

He says the picture quality of digital film is increasing all the time, but in his opinion will never rival the “raw quality of film”.

Those wanting to read more on the digital cinema debate should check out Josh Kairoff’s blog at Millimeter.

For a thorough overview of the technical aspects of digital cinema, read the Australian National Film and Sound Archive Journal.