‘Star Wars’ producer gives ShoWest crowd an eyeful

Kirk Baird

Thursday, March 7, 2002 | 8:25 a.m.

Rick McCallum says he is convinced he has seen the future of filmmaking: digital. The problem is getting everyone else in the industry to see the future as clearly as he.

Speaking Tuesday at the 28th annual ShoWest Convention, a national trade show for theater owners that ends today at Paris Las Vegas and Bally's, McCallum strode to the podium amid loud applause. That is to be expected when you're the producer of the "Star Wars" prequels.

But Le Theatre Des Arts at Paris was not filled with "Star Wars" fans, rather theater owners, industry types and media.

And McCallum's appearance was not about wowing the audience with footage from the upcoming "Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones" though he succeeded on that front but to showcase a new and expensive film technology that many theater owners are reluctant to adopt.

"The shift to digital projection is going to happen," McCallum said. "Everyone is this room knows it. It's already in every editing room, every sound department, every visual effects company and now it's competing with film to capture images. The last step, of course, is exhibition."

Digital filmmaking is a relatively new means of making movies, having only become popular within the last decade. Filming digitally is similar to using a digital camera: Instead of using traditional film to capture the images, the scenes are recorded digitally.

Shooting digitally is considerably less expensive than using film. There has been a stereotype that only low-budget movies are shot digitally. Lucasfilm, however, is the first company to try to change that image, filming "Attack of the Clones," due in theaters May 16, entirely with digital cameras.

Developing the technology necessary to film a big-budget release in such a format took several years and required a joint effort from Sony and Panavision, as well as Lucasfilm, McCallum said. However, McCallum was quick to point out, there are many benefits to this process.

For example, gone is the deterioration in color and vibrancy that occurs when films are transferred from negatives to master prints and then to third-generation copies shown in theaters, he said.

And once a digital film is in theaters, there is no degradation in quality over repeated showings, or from dirt, tears and scratches, since there is no film to be spooled from reel to reel. A digital movie is stored on a computer hard drive, so the only danger is that the film could be accidentally deleted.

Plus, the film could be transmitted electronically, so there is no more waiting for limited-edition prints to make the rounds from metropolitan areas to smaller towns, McCallum added.

"The issue now before us ... is not an issue of whether film is better than digital. For the first time, the director and cameraman have a choice. And whether they choose to decide to shoot on film or digital isn't the issue anymore," he said. "Film and video will continue to co-exist and compete for the immediate future, each developing its own unique qualities.

"But however you capture your images, it is an irrefutable fact that once your movie is projected digitally you will behold pristine, flicker-free images, which virtually explode on the screen."

As proof of digital's picture quality, McCallum showed about eight minutes of footage from "Attack of the Clones" in high-definition digital format that previously had not been seen outside Lucasfilm.

He followed with another demonstration of the benefit of digital film by enlarging various scenes from the movie. Where conventional film loses focus somewhere between 15-18 percent enlargement, even at 300 percent the digital images remained clear enough to pass for a low-grade VHS tape.

"There have been many concerns from those within the industry about whether digital can fully duplicate the resolution and subtleties of film," McCallum said.

"There's quite a bit of hysteria about (how) the compression of the data will compromise the art of capturing images. I have to ask the question: Does anyone in this room seriously think for a moment that we would be reckless enough to risk $100 million of our money to make a movie digitally if we thought we were going to achieve less image quality than film? Or, for that matter, to go through all this just to achieve the same quality?

"We didn't just want to push the envelope; we wanted to lick it."

The question, then, is who pays for the theater upgrade? The equipment necessary to handle digital film costs around $100,000, making it cost-prohibitive for most small theater groups, and even larger movie theater chains would be hard-pressed to have more than one or two digital projectors.

McCallum said it comes down to the filmmakers, studios and theater owners working together to keep costs low and to provide the best quality film experience for moviegoers.

"Lucasfilm is really no different from everyone here. We all want to fill seats -- and I mean a lot of seats. And the only way to do that is to give the audience everything they want and more.

"The one thing I can promise you is this: 'Episode II' will deliver and deliver big time. It's a great film. The story is so complex and moving. All of you who are lucky enough to get it are going to make a load of money."