Many thanks to silverhalides for the note on "Apocalypse Now, Redux" which was released in IB prints. Some prints of "The Wizard of Oz" and "Toy Story II" were also in IB. They are about ten years old now, but might still be floating around if they are not nabbed up by collectors.

So far movies shot on film and shown on digital projectors look better to my eye than those shot on digital cameras. This is because the smears of moving objects look more natural when captured on film. Digital cameras rely on a scanning function and the top part of the frame is scanned before the bottom. As a consequence an object moving screen left to screen right will be bent, its lower portion moved further to the right than the upper portion. This happened in Johnny Depp's "Public Enemies"--which looked terrible, despite the good acting. The film-makers tried to compensate by shooting a lot of low light scenes which are impossible to capture on film.

Digital projectors present a reasonably good image. The frame never shakes and all the specks of dust and splices are edited out. But since the number of pixals is fixed digital cannot present as rich an image as film. I once saw a print of "Out of the Past" with Robert Mitchum, cinematographer James Wong Howe, that was shot on "grainless" b & w film. We may never see digital approach that resolution.

Digital projectors are additive color processes; color films are subtractive. Counterbalancing the two processes provides a satisfying image; but we are used to seeing that when a color film is shown on color TV. Digital projectors are limited by the hue of their color filters, and some of these filters are a little weak. I doubt if they will ever come close to what Technicolor achieved with dyes on nitrate film stock.