Does anyone know the resolution of a theatre screen?

[jakesully]

res. of blu-rays are 1920x1080P, but what are regular movie theaters?
Thanks.

[theknub]

unlimited in theory if it is on film. it is more of at what point do things become indescernable

[Turin]

that's a good question.
considerably lower than a Blu-Ray disc.

My assumption is Standard Definition, so 480i

Many production companies are worried that people will eventually stop going to movie theatres, since many people have home theatres which far surpass any sticky, dirty movie theatre. Especially with downloadable high definition versions of movies that are in theatres on the horizon (so said Sony at E3)

[X-Ninja]

hmmm. Never really even thought about the quality of a movie theaters sceen.
I guess i diddnt really care about the quality. Odd...

xD

Damn. I get the feeling that by the time this question gets answered im gonna say "WHA!? 480i!? Pfft... im never going to a theater again!" or somthing like that.

[BillCable]

Not sure on a regular theater, but IMAX is "comparable to about 10000 x 7000 pixels." Significantly higher than 1920x1080. I'd guess theaters are higher than 1080 as well. I remember reading how Episode was rendered for digital projection theaters, and it was higher than 1080.

[Deciazulado]

There are many film formats, but lets take a regular 35mm 1.85 format:

measured visible on screen resolution by ITU on a few theaters (including LA) a few years ago when sitting at a 0.8 screen widths/1.5 PH/0.71 screen diagonal seating distance ranged from about 650 to 875 lines (best case: LA) per picture height.

Multiply that figure by the aspect ratio to get the horizontal lines

[makingmusic476]

I'm not sure, but I went to see I Am Legend on Friday, and I found it very blurry compared to a BRD, though that could've been because the screen took up quite a bit more of my range of vision.

[miro]

not too sure but i found this link (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34432/135/) that suggest it can do 4 times 1080p.

[androvsky]

It is hard to quantify film's resolution, but from side-by-side demonstrations with digital projectors, a good 35mm print would fall between 1080p and 2160p. But that's if you get a quality scan of the film directly from the camera negative, edit in a computer, then do high-resolution prints for distribution. I will say from personal experience, that on a 2160p projector, it is possible to tell between a shot on 35mm and 70mm (both scanned at 6000p).

Sadly, in traditional film processing, there's so many copies of copies made that by the you hit the theater, you're somewhere between a DVD and Blu-ray.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by makingmusic476

I'm not sure, but I went to see I Am Legend on Friday, and I found it very blurry compared to a BRD, though that could've been because the screen took up quite a bit more of my range of vision.

I experienced the same thing at a DLP theater. Now, I did sit up a bit closer so that might have made the image appear softer, but what I saw appeared not much better than a well mastered DVD.

[TheRealBob]

See this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

In a nutshell, most digital theaters use 2K (2048x1080) or 4K (4096x2160) format. As it turns out, tons of stuff is recorded on 1920x1080 cameras, so a lot of movies are projected at 1920x1080, which is exactly the same as the 1080p HDTV resolution we're all familiar with.

Our local multiplex went digital recently, and it uses 2K/1080p format, which looks surprisingly good on the giant screen. Occasionally on very simple images (plain text on a plain background) I can see the pixels, but that is very rare. The rest of the time the image is much, much better than when they were analog, because it's in focus, it's brightly lit, it has no film scratches, it has no jitter, and it's framed correctly.

Film in theory has a much higher resolution (which is why some theater critics are anti-digital) but picks up wear and tear quickly and is less idiot-proof. In a big city at a high-end theater with professionals running the projectors and taking care of the film, you in theory could get a better picture. In smaller markets, digital ends up being way better.

[AV_Integrated]

Generally, it is well accepted that film masters run around 4K+ resolution if shot and produced well. From that, a digital master may be made for the final prints. Those prints, which are distributed to theaters, don't get nearly the same treatment, and generally run closer to 2K resolution... very close to 1080p. This is very normal and most of those prints will look darn good in a theater that is properly calibrated.

Of course - that's the biggest deal right there.

Most theaters are not properly calibrated and they are not going to be nearly as tweaked as many of the home theaters you have here.

Also, most people here aren't viewing at theater distances (THX standard). This means, that you may sit in the middle of a theater, which will be about 1.5x the screen width. If you have a 50" display at home, this means you MUST sit less than 6 feet from the screen to get the same effect as the center row of a movie theater.

Very few people do this, but instead base their viewing on what they see at 12' or so from their 50" (or smaller) screen. That's a very poor way to do a comparison.

Moreso, everytime the movie theater plays the film, it degrades in quality a bit, which is just no good at all if you are coming in on the 1,000th screening of the film.

Digital cinema runs much truer, and tends to get films distributed at 4K resoluiton or 2K resolution... depending on the theater. This is far less compressed material than what we get on BD, and has all the video and audio aspects at the highest quality levels. Any deficiencies that are visible, are there due to poor mastering, or due to poor setup and calibration within the theater.

But, if you want to compare your home setup, to a movie theater, you first gotta make sure your butt is parked in the same position you like to sit inside the theater.

[Jordahn]

Originally Posted by jakesully

res. of blu-rays are 1920x1080P, but what are regular movie theaters?
Thanks.

Normally anywhere from 3000 to 4000 horizontal lines according to Sound and Vision.

[tofur69]

Originally Posted by TheRealBob

See this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema

In a nutshell, most digital theaters use 2K (2048x1080) or 4K (4096x2160) format. As it turns out, tons of stuff is recorded on 1920x1080 cameras, so a lot of movies are projected at 1920x1080, which is exactly the same as the 1080p HDTV resolution we're all familiar with.

Our local multiplex went digital recently, and it uses 2K/1080p format, which looks surprisingly good on the giant screen. Occasionally on very simple images (plain text on a plain background) I can see the pixels, but that is very rare. The rest of the time the image is much, much better than when they were analog, because it's in focus, it's brightly lit, it has no film scratches, it has no jitter, and it's framed correctly.

Film in theory has a much higher resolution (which is why some theater critics are anti-digital) but picks up wear and tear quickly and is less idiot-proof. In a big city at a high-end theater with professionals running the projectors and taking care of the film, you in theory could get a better picture. In smaller markets, digital ends up being way better.

Amen. PROPERLY run movie theatres will have better image quality than HD home theatres. No question. You will need to get a resolution over 3k to rival the theatre. However, there are a quite a few theatre chains that just don't give a damn about quality and just try herd in the patrons and get them out as fast as possible to make a buck because the studios have all chains bent over the barrel with no kiss and KY. The chain I work for is the only one that major one that has implemented a certification program to make sure we put the best image on screen possible. However, I will admit that even some of my fellow workers within the chain don't give a damn and screw the pooch. It is a real shame too. A GM that cares will make sure that the best image possible is put up on screen by his projectionists. I am one of those because I was a projectionist back in the day.

[Jacobisthe]

Originally Posted by jakesully

res. of blu-rays are 1920x1080P, but what are regular movie theaters?
Thanks.

i think when they are editing them they turn them into something like 5000x2500 uncompressed video.

[Eddie who?]

Originally Posted by tofur69

Amen. PROPERLY run movie theatres will have better image quality than HD home theatres. No question. You will need to get a resolution over 3k to rival the theatre. However, there are a quite a few theatre chains that just don't give a damn about quality and just try herd in the patrons and get them out as fast as possible to make a buck because the studios have all chains bent over the barrel with no kiss and KY. The chain I work for is the only one that major one that has implemented a certification program to make sure we put the best image on screen possible. However, I will admit that even some of my fellow workers within the chain don't give a damn and screw the pooch. It is a real shame too. A GM that cares will make sure that the best image possible is put up on screen by his projectionists. I am one of those because I was a projectionist back in the day.

I agree. Our 2k digital projectors are actually set up with multiple resolution outputs for flat and scope films. 2048x1080 is a common res, but then so it 868x1080. It depends on how compressed the production company wishes to go with their film. I have seen movies come everywhere from 60 GB to 180 GB.

Sitting too close can cause some softness. But so can idiots putting their dirty hands on portwindows too. All in all, I am very pleased with my DLP. Much more so than I ever was with film. The sharpness and clarity is unsurpassed when comparing the two.

[tvted]

See if these help:
http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Tech...Resolution.pdf
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ma...nemas_special/

ted

[MrBogey]

I work with analog and digital telecom stuff every day...whew boy can it be confusing explaining the difference to people.

People are conditioned to assume "digital" means better service. Digitization is exactly this. You take an analog signal and apply a digit value to sampled parts of the signal so you can approximate the signal. Digitalization allows flawless transmission of the image/sound. That's about it.

For the bulk of human history we had to deal with the degredation of saved info. We had to compromise throughout history with trying to preserve and transmit without needless difficulties. Sure, paper would fall apart faster than stone tablets...but it was easier to transmit.

Now here were are, near at a point where we can near flawlessly copy and transmit without having to compromise quality or convenience. The promise of the digital age is nearly here.

But yeah... the questions been answered already for the most part and I jsut like to lecture so people will notice me. there ya go.

[Sylin]

Originally Posted by Turin

Especially with downloadable high definition versions of movies that are in theatres on the horizon (so said Sony at E3)

Not to drift too OT, but this is already available, and has been for some time. I've got a producer friend up in NYC who receives satellite downloads of digital films and even screeners to his home theater. Over the weekend he was IM'ing me funny lines from the new Get Smart film while he watched it at home. I guess it's all about connections, cuz I've also seen a few rappers on MTV's Cribs with the same thing.

[Iceman_II]

There is another thing people are forgetting here in their rush to embrace Cinema 2K as having 1080 lines of resolution....

I believe that their 1080 lines are a TRUE 1080 lines.... on a 1080p TV, a letterboxed video will LOSE many of those lines due to the letterboxing... I could be wrong, but I believe theaters use "constant height" projectors, and anamorphic lenses so they don't lose anything.

in a nutshell, Cinema 2k is clearer than our 1080p