Mark Schubin Reviews Digital Cinema Screening of 'An Ideal Husband' Using Hughes/JVC ILA Projection

As Colossus noted shortly after Dr. Forbin hit the power switch, "There is another system." "Star Wars - Episode I" isn't the only movie being screened digitally to paying audiences. Miramax's "An Ideal Husband" is being shown at the Clearview Chelsea Cinemas in Manhattan and at the Laemmle Sunset in Los Angeles. The Manhattan screening uses the Hughes/JVC ILA technology (not the Texas Instruments DLP technology by means of which I saw "Star Wars"); I don't know about the L.A. theater. The digital screenings are supposed to continue at least to July 15, according to one report (according to another, they might stop on Thursday). Unlike the "Star Wars" screenings, these are stealth digital -- the newspaper ads in New York didn't note it until recently, and I saw no signs at the theater.

Today's New York Times ad notes at the bottom that a bonus in the digital screening "is the short '20 Years of Great Miramax Movie Moments.'" The short was booed loudly in the screening I attended. I suspect it was because of its unabashed commercialism, but, if I had to rate it technically, I'd boo, too. Some of it appeared to have come from U-matic. Much of it had NTSC artifacts, like dot crawl. I dreaded the movie as a result. Fortunately, most of my fears were groundless. The ILA projection was fine. It did not appear to be quite as bright or crisp as the DLP projection of "Star Wars," but nor was there any aliasing visible on text nor any grid structure, scintillation, or edge twitter. It was also perfectly bright enough and pretty clear, too. I sat about as far from the screen as I did at "Star Wars" from a retinal angle perspective (I use my eyeglasses as a guide), but the auditorium was smaller, so I was actually closer to the screen.

The same friend who had accompanied my wife and me to "Star Wars" came to this screening (my wife wasn't available). Her only negative comments involved focus (more soon) and, to her, the visibility of a hairpiece line on Rupert Everett's head (I did not notice that at all). She also mentioned that a rose looked fake (again, not something I picked up on). Otherwise, she loved the "clarity" and will recommend digital projection to everyone.

On further questioning, it appeared that her "focus" problem was based on depth of field in shooting. She complained that portions of the scene depth were in focus and portions not. Based on the size of Minnie Driver's pupils, the shooting was done in fairly low light levels, which could explain the narrow depth of field. There was something bothersome to me about the focus, too. I wonder how I would feel seeing the same movie on film (not an option at the Chelsea).

To me, there was one pathetic looking shot in the movie, Westminster Bridge leading to Parliament a night. It looked to me like a cheap paste-up job. I wonder how it would have looked on film. The friend didn't really notice.

She also didn't notice what seemed to me most bothersome, a seemingly over-wide aspect ratio. Not only did all the actors look fatter to me, but the buttons on their shirts and the irises and pupils of their eyes all looked slightly oblong. But the experience was fine; I'd have no complaints running into this by accident (except about the dreadful Miramax "short").

If I get to see this on film, the ILA screening of "Star Wars," or another film projection of "Star Wars," I'll let you know.

FYI, Texas Instruments cannot currently meet demand for DLP (digital light processing) micromirror chips.