You fail to mention that the supposed big advantage is really for the theaters, who won't have to cart around hundreds of pounds worth of film.


This is true, the theaters won't necessarily save, but the production company will because it cost them an estimated $1,500 per print.

What sort of degradation? All the prints come stright from the studio. There's no copying beyond the mastering that would also be required for a digital ``print''.
Oh, wait. You probably mean scratches and whatnot. I suppose that's true. It'd be nice if folks just took better care of their equipment.


I meant over time because film eventually fades where digital is as good as the first time that it is displayed. It allows for better archiving of movies also.

I've never seen an audio sync problem (besides between splices). Digital tracks or sync marks directly on the film took care of that many years ago. But you'll still have the same problem with jitter (of a different sort) as it'll still be a huge screen at 24fps.


The time code is recorded on the bottom of the film to keep the digital audio in sync as I experienced at a theater and had them fix by adding a second track to carry the film