Is 35mm film considered HD?

[Cinemaddict]

I found this online:

The term "High Definition" refers to a certain number of vertical lines of resolution in an image (720 and 1080 being the most common). Because 35mm technically has no "resolution," it cannot be called "High Definition." That does not mean High Definition is better. It is just a term that does not apply to 35mm film.
From a filmmaker's perspective, High Definition offers many advantages. You don't have to wait for the film to be processed; you can upload it to a computer and begin editing that very day. But which one produces a better-looking image? That's the debate.

Is that fair to say?

[Rob J in WNY]

Not fair at all to say.

35mm film can resolve about 4K of horizontal resolution, in most cases. Even movies made decades long ago can have astonishing transfers to today's standards of HD. Blu-ray, with its 1080 x 1920 standard resolution, offers just under 2K horizontal resolution. That said, 35mm is more than sufficient enough to produce a high-definition image.

I think what that quote is trying to say is that capturing in digital is superior over 35mm film. For the practical purposes of "instant editing," the superiority of digital is very much correct, but to say that 35mm film is not "High Definition" is a misgiving.

Quality of the stock 35mm film, camera equipment, and camera operators have a lot to do with how well the imagery comes out, but make no mistake, 35mm movie film is quite "HD-ready."

[Cinemaddict]

Originally Posted by Rob J in WNY

Not fair at all to say.

35mm film can resolve about 4K of horizontal resolution, in most cases. Even movies made decades long ago can have astonishing transfers to today's standards of HD. Blu-ray, with its 1080 x 1920 standard resolution, offers just under 2K horizontal resolution. That said, 35mm is more than sufficient enough to produce a high-definition image.

I thought "High Definition" refered to the number of vertical lines of resolution. So, how can 35mm film be considered "High Definition" if it doesn't have a "resolution"? 35mm is better, but when people say "An HD camera," they are always talking about a digital camera, right?

Wouldn't it be fair to say "A 35mm camera is better than an HD camera."

[CasualKiller]

High Def is technically any signal in 16x9 format with a minimum of 720 lines of vertical resolution.

Film is not HD because it is measured using a completely different set of standards. Even today's blu ray discs do not fully reveal the full amount of detail present on 35, 70 mm film.

[Texitura]

The problem is that if you just say "35mm is not High Definition", it may give the impression that 35mm is inferior in resolution to HD, when the opposite is actually true.

[jibucha]

stated very well and accurately - great post

Originally Posted by Texitura

The problem is that if you just say "35mm is not High Definition", it may give the impression that 35mm is inferior in resolution to HD, when the opposite is actually true.

[ijokr]

Originally Posted by Texitura

The problem is that if you just say "35mm is not High Definition", it may give the impression that 35mm is inferior in resolution to HD, when the opposite is actually true.

the post stated it's not inferior

Because 35mm technically has no "resolution," it cannot be called "High Definition." That does not mean High Definition is better. It is just a term that does not apply to 35mm film.

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by Texitura

The problem is that if you just say "35mm is not High Definition", it may give the impression that 35mm is inferior in resolution to HD, when the opposite is actually true.

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Film has MUCH higher resolution than 1080 lines, therefore it will look better. For ease of working with, though, the edge definitely goes to digital.

+1


CK out my post 35/70mm, lots of info.

Originally Posted by Dubstar

you're also forgetting that mass produced 35mm prints struck for distribution can vary theatre to theatre - I've seen some that look downright grainy and colourless.

I agree, the production print is often sub-par. However, film grain is meant to be part of the viewing experience. The amount we see, I hope, is a result of the director's artistic sensibility. Goes along with that OAR thing. See Partitive Colour

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Cinemaddict

I thought "High Definition" refered to the number of vertical lines of resolution. So, how can 35mm film be considered "High Definition" if it doesn't have a "resolution"?

Film has "resolution" which is measured in line pairs per millimeter or cycles per millimeter. (I tend to give this answer every few months)

An example a Super-35 movie 10 mm x 24 mm resolving 50 line pairs per millimeter gives you 1000 x 2400 lines.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Cinemaddict

But which one produces a better-looking image? That's the debate.

Is that fair to say?

Don't understand the statement. Film has MUCH higher resolution than 1080 lines, therefore it will look better. For ease of working with, though, the edge definitely goes to digital.

[singhcr]

Being an analog medium, it is hard to compare 35mm to BD, but one can estimate. BD has an approximate resolution of 2k whereas 35mm film has been estimated to range anywhere from 4k to 6k.

One interesting thing is that almost every film made these days uses something called a digital intermediate (DI) where all of the color correction, effects shots, etc are done to a film after it has been scanned into the computer and then once finished the final cut is printed back onto film for distribution to theaters. Digital cinemas and BD's will use this DI master directly. This is usually done with a 2k resolution, so any resulting prints, even film ones, are now at 2k.

So, you get this:

Original film (~4k)->DI (2k)->Final film print/Digital cinema/BD release (2k)


Whenever we get to 4k+ home displays, the full detail of older 35mm and especially 70mm prints can be seen, although I wonder how much more detail you'd see on a standard size TV set. However, modern movies will be forever locked at 2k which is what you get with BD now.

[jibucha]

Hello

Digital Intermediaries are done at 2K - 4K - 6K, and either already, or soon to be, 8K.

I just thought that this clarification would be helpful to all.

It should be obvious, that the Digital Intermederie should always be of a higher digital resolution that the original, to make certain that all of the original information is captured, that the highest quality is available for mastering to Blu-ray, which can be appreciated by the human eye.

Thank You

[crobb666]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Being an analog medium, it is hard to compare 35mm to BD, but one can estimate. BD has an approximate resolution of 2k whereas 35mm film has been estimated to range anywhere from 4k to 6k.

One interesting thing is that almost every film made these days uses something called a digital intermediate (DI) where all of the color correction, effects shots, etc are done to a film after it has been scanned into the computer and then once finished the final cut is printed back onto film for distribution to theaters. Digital cinemas and BD's will use this DI master directly. This is usually done with a 2k resolution, so any resulting prints, even film ones, are now at 2k.

So, you get this:

Original film (~4k)->DI (2k)->Final film print/Digital cinema/BD release (2k)


Whenever we get to 4k+ home displays, the full detail of older 35mm and especially 70mm prints can be seen, although I wonder how much more detail you'd see on a standard size TV set. However, modern movies will be forever locked at 2k which is what you get with BD now.

Just a cool little fact: The reason they color time with DI for digital cinema and BD is that film can capture more color than video so the director has to make new decisions for color timing to try and stay as true to the source as possible, but video actually has a higher contrast ratio then film. Also, with traditional film projectors, there can be less apparent detail on screen than BD because of judder as the film travels through the film gate, heat, and other factors, not to mention if they properly focused the projector or not.

[BLindsay]

So is the only reason we cant go back and take an old 35mm movie and transfer it to blu and have a great looking transfer is just because in alot of cases the original film isnt kept in good shape?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by crobb666

Just a cool little fact: The reason they color time with DI for digital cinema and BD is that film can capture more color than video so the director has to make new decisions for color timing to try and stay as true to the source as possible, but video actually has a higher contrast ratio then film. Also, with traditional film projectors, there can be less apparent detail on screen than BD because of judder as the film travels through the film gate, heat, and other factors, not to mention if they properly focused the projector or not.

you're also forgetting that mass produced 35mm prints struck for distribution can vary theatre to theatre - I've seen some that look downright grainy and colourless.

[tikoz]

Compared to 35mm film, digital media is easier to understand in terms of resolution notwithstanding the lense (an analog device) must be considered. Was the lense on the camera able to resolve say 1920 x 1080? If not, the picture may have as well been recorded in say 1280 x 720. Likewise, was the projector lense able to achieve the resolution when projecting? As has been noted in other posts, 35mm original (what the image was first recorded on in the camera) may have a resolution of 100 lines/mm which may equate to say 2400 pixels. However by the time it reaches a cinema release print, that resolution can be badly degraded, with or without a DI. On the other hand, sometimes you get a release print that is a pleasure to watch, exceeding HD quality. In considering overall quality, one might also consider the detracting aspects of digital artefacts, absent from film (unless introduced through a DI).

[vveksuvarna]

Originally Posted by singhcr

Original film (~4k)->DI (2k)->Final film print/Digital cinema/BD release (2k)

35mm cannot be equalled to 4k, the fine detail on a 35mm can surpass the 4k resolution any day. (considering the film was handeled well & was shot using good quality film stock.)

and there are 4k digital cinemas all ready, so no more 2k res.

yes they are going to upgrade their post production to 8k or more, depending on the available technology & the need for it.

but for now, the digital world ends at 4k.

but 35mm can produce more detail than a 4k camera.

[RiseDarthVader]

Such a shame that over 90% of movies are getting scanned in at 2K for the DI. So 35mm prints and 2K Digital cinema have essentially the same resolution. Hollywood really needs to push 4K DI. Oh well I guess they mostly stick with 2K cause it is alot easier to render CGI at that resolution but once you project it on a large screen or at a real IMAX it looks pretty bad.

[vveksuvarna]

speaking of which ILM pipeline, has been on 4k..

[Rob J in WNY]

Originally Posted by Cinemaddict

I thought "High Definition" refered to the number of vertical lines of resolution. So, how can 35mm film be considered "High Definition" if it doesn't have a "resolution"? 35mm is better, but when people say "An HD camera," they are always talking about a digital camera, right?

Wouldn't it be fair to say "A 35mm camera is better than an HD camera."

Yes, High Definition in the television sense is defined by the vertical lines of resolution. 480 vertical lines is "Standard Definition," for instance.

35mm film, properly digitized, can resolve much greater than 480 vertical lines, or 1080 vertical lines for that matter. Generally, the film transfer will start off greater and is then downsampled or "reduced" to fit the Blu-ray standard (which I believe was mentioned in someone's previous post).