I'm confused; are you agreeing with me that the visual quality differences are negligible, but then giving me reasons why it's used?
I think we're talking in circles; you're trying to tell me why DCP is good, and I'm saying that it's (more often than not) a waste of time and/or money making a DCP if I have the option to project from Blu-Ray (or computer).
I'm not trying to tell you why it's good. I'm trying to tell you that if you want to be able to play something in just about any theater in the US or many other countries without having to worry about what equipment they have, how it's set up, or whether you have access to it, a DCP is the best way to achieve that. If you're projecting from a BluRay disc, the chances are that you're not doing it in a typical theater used for audience screenings. If that's your situation, then yes, making a DCP is a waste of time. If you're just talking about "quality," you have a much better shot at being more transparent to your original source using a properly made DCP than you do using something like BluRay, if for no other reasons than compression and color space. Whether that's obvious to you or any of your viewers is largely dependent on the material and the projection environment.


