35mm film is awesome

[Joe Redifer]

While perusing some of the reviews, I noticed that one member said that the AC/DC concert was shot in 35mm, so the picture quality could NEVER be good. There is a serious lack of understanding about 35mm film here, I think... at least with some members (I'm sure that many other members aren't that naive).

35mm film can vary in quality, but generally it will beat the pants off 1080p as far as overall image detail goes. It beats movies shot digitally like Star Wars Episodes 2 & 3, Apocalypto, Superman Returns, etc. Those movies were shot at a 1080p resolution, and then cropped for a 2.39:1 aspect ratio (so the movies themselves were actually no more than about 1920x805 on the master source). If one were to rate standard 35mm film in resolution, it would be close to 4,000 x 3,000px. Of course lenses, film stock, cameras and overall handling have an effect on picture quality for better or worse.

Lots of studios do bad transfers mainly because idiots are in charge of those transfers. It really comes straight down to that. A well maintained print of a movie from 1960 carefully transferred to Blu-Ray can look every bit as good as a Pirates of the Caribbean (which was also shot on 35mm film). So don't blame the source unless the source truly sucks. 35mm is great, and it means we can get awesome looking transfers of older great movies if/when the studios care enough.