There is a place for digital projection technology, but it cannot completely replace 35mm film in cinemas, and is being introduced for all the wrong reasons, argues Brian Guckian

Digital projection, currently being introduced in Ireland, promises to change the face of cinema-going here forever. Or will it? Balance has been lacking in a discussion which appears to have been shaped largely by commercial interests.

A key feature of commentary and promotional material on the subject has been unquestioned assumptions that (a) anything digital is good; (b) a total transition to digital cinema is "inexorable"; (c) 35mm film in comparison is "inferior", "outmoded" and "expensive"; and (d) questioning these assumptions is "Luddite" and unwarranted.

This essentially negative and narrow treatment of new technology in the cinema has had two unfortunate consequences; first, the true possibilities of digital cinema are being overlooked; and second, what is actually a false opposition of digital to 35mm does not serve either of these technologies, and nor does it serve audiences and film-makers.

In fact, digital and film are two separate media, with their own unique characteristics and possibilities. Film is a mature technology that has been in existence for more than 100 years, using interrupted sequential projection of still images which are derived organically (from the film emulsion).

Importantly, the interruptive character of film projection, in which a shutter obscures advancing film frames to create the illusion of movement, has been shown in scientific studies to be an important agent in relaxing viewers and facilitating suspension of disbelief. This is helped by very slight movement of the film image on screen.

Additionally, the organic nature of film, in which the image is formed on a negative or print by randomly-distributed silver halide grains, means that every frame is unique. A typical 100-minute feature film contains 144,000 individual photographic frames.

Digital projection, on the other hand, although a great engineering achievement, doesn't have these characteristics. The image is made up of picture elements arranged in a grid-like structure, and there is no interruptive shutter. And images must be processed because the volume of data needed to describe individual images is very substantial.

These important features differentiate digital images from their film counterparts, and are crucial to understanding this new medium, and its aesthetic and artistic aspects.

One cinematographer has encapsulated his difficulty in fully believing digital images: "I showed a piece that was period - somehow it didn't buy - I mean it was great looking, the actors did their stuff, wardrobe, costume etc, and the lighting was nice . . . but, but, but . . . A cold chill ran down my back. I'm convinced that the essential problem is that the materiality of the medium is somehow prohibiting entry into the viewing experience. For me cleanness in this medium is a problem."

REGRETTABLY, BECAUSE digital cinema has been presented so far solely in economic terms, issues such as aesthetics and art haven't yet been adequately discussed. But interestingly, the oft-quoted purported "cost savings" that digital is meant to bring when it will allegedly take over from 35mm film do not hold up under detailed analysis (see panel).

Moreover, several industry insiders have raised the fact that even if digital was to take over in one territory (eg in Ireland, as is being promoted currently), the prints made for that territory would still be needed elsewhere, thus meaning the film distributor will actually save nothing.

This is because prints for one territory are often shared with others in staggered release arrangements, avoiding unnecessary additional print runs.

Within an ill-advised negative approach, some promoters of digital cinema have resorted to rather odd anti-film arguments to push the technology. For instance, film is today often reputed to be "bulky". This strange contention was never raised prior to the advent of digital cinema. Indeed, many paintings, books and musical instruments could also be said to be "bulky". Does this mean that galleries, libraries and orchestras should be digitised? Of course not.

Similarly tenuous and unhelpful assertions have been made that film is "antiquated" and "easily degrades". First, today's film stocks are advanced and sophisticated, with computer-aided design, complex chemistry, multiple streams of digital audio data, and several aspect ratios for the director and cinematographer to choose from. Modern stocks also have a definition and performance far surpassing anything envisaged in the past.

On the second issue, cinema professionals report that very long runs of filmprints are possible without any perceptible deterioration. Indeed, a senior projectionist colleague recalls an unbroken run of The Sting in Dublin lasting one year and 11 weeks, and the print being returned in the same condition as it was received - this was in the 1970s with older film-handling equipment and techniques.

Unfortunately, the real reasons film is degraded in cinemas today are:

There are certainly conscientious cinema operators who value their staff and appreciate standards, and whose only desire is to provide quality entertainment to the public and make an honest living. Regrettably, though, there are equally as many nowadays who look on cinemas purely as property assets providing a cashflow, with the cinema aspect treated as an afterthought.

And digital cinema has further, less obvious characteristics which require deeper inquiry. For example, digital cinema equipment can be networked across and beyond territories, and be accessed remotely. Some business models also bring in third-party companies and organisations. This fundamentally changes the relationship between exhibitor and distributor, and raises serious questions of power and control.

Already in some parts of the world cinemas who sign up to private or state-sponsored digital cinema schemes have had their ability to control their own programming curtailed, as the equipment provider often specifies what films can be shown in return for use of their equipment.

Digital cinema has also attracted the attention of arts and other organisations whose motives are sometimes unclear. A leading independent arthouse distributor in the UK last year, for example, flatly contradicted arguments by arts administrators there that eliminating prints would enable a wider choice of cinema in communities, revealing that it was not allegedly high print costs which were an impediment, but lack of bookings for such films.

FOR THE FILM-MAKER there are additional issues. While the threat of piracy is often discussed, little has been said about the ability to maintain visual integrity of the finished work across potentially different display devices with different visual characteristics and resolutions.

Digital adds greater complexity, and though standards have now been finalised by Hollywood-based expert group Digital Cinema Initiatives (DCI), there are concerns that current installations may not meet these. There's also the question ofrapid obsolescence, and equally critically, of the ability to archive "digital prints" satisfactorily.

On a more positive note, if film is still capable of providing a high quality experience if done properly, then where does digital fit in to the picture? Unlike the tactics used by some, to be in favour of film is not to be anti-digital.

On the contrary - cinema needs to change as it has done many times in the past. The real application of digital is to extend the cinema-going experience beyond the current possibilities offered by film, and this is where the real opportunities lie. Consider the following:

All these ideas assume high production values to provide sufficient cinema quality.

In parallel, there's plenty of room to keep developing film technology. Large format film is enjoying popularity, especially through a new custom process which can enlarge standard 35mm images to IMAX format (70mm film run horizontally). Recent films so treated include Batman Begins and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

There is also discussion about reviving traditional 70mm film, and 35mm film stocks and projection equipment continue to improve.

The intelligent approach to digital technology in the cinema is to introduce it alongside existing film technology, to respect the two as distinct media, and to commit to excellence in both film and digital presentation now and into the future.