Quote:
Originally Posted by deathscripture
I was thinking about this yesterday and wanted some opinions on it.
Can a Cartoon really look that much better in HD? I was running The Lion King through my PS3 for my daughter yesterday and thought that it looked pretty amazing. It is just lines and solid colors, so I higher pixel count can't really be beneficial, I wouldn't think.
|
Every time the topic of animation in high resolution comes up, someone always asks this. Exactly the same. Who told everybody (not just deathscripture here) that since Animation was just lines it could be conveyed with low res and there would be little improvement?
http://media.outnow.ch/Movies/Images...ovie.ws/01.jpg
Animation is art and the better reproduced the art, the more beautiful. What's the point of vector graphics? To be able to resize the objects without losing quality. Well, think of high resolution reproduction of animation cels (and background paintings) as a kind of the art being "upscaled" vector-like from 480 to 1080 to the end result you'll see in the screen
http://media.outnow.ch/Movies/Images...ovie.ws/12.jpg
Animation is shot in 35mm film from large artwork (like a page of a coffee table animation art book) so it'll look great on BD
http://media.outnow.ch/Movies/Images...ovie.xl/02.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banjo
Should look quite nice as it's a 70mm movie. :-)
|
Correction, it's a 35mm movie but with the image shot horizontally and in Technirama (an Anamorphic "VistaVision"), the negative area 24 x 36mm with a 1.5x anamorphic squeeze (1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25). Since it's a Disney Technicolor film, so you have an idea, if you have March of the Penguins BD, look at the Bugs Bunny Technicolor toon there. The Bugs Bunny is 15 x 21mm, Sleeping Beauty is 24 x 36mmm so the negative is 3 times larger!
I hope they show the correct 100% OAR image this time.
http://media.outnow.ch/Movies/Images...ovie.ws/17.jpg