BD quality + Theaters = Possible?

[kings35]

If movies are able to be seen in 3d in movie theaters, then why can't they start showing them in Blu Ray quality? Think about it, it would boost sales even more because people would see the quality before buying the movie. Sure ticket prices might rise but hey you get the best quality out there. And it could possibly convert DVD goers and regular people to Blu Ray.

[MaCruz]

That's what IMAX is for

I know it's not as clear as BD, but it's pretty close to me. Just wish it was cheaper.

[dougotte]

Do you mean reduce the quality from 35mm to 1080p?

Doug

[teamneedle]

Originally Posted by kings35

If movies are able to be seen in 3d in movie theaters, then why can't they start showing them in Blu Ray quality? Think about it, it would boost sales even more because people would see the quality before buying the movie. Sure ticket prices might rise but hey you get the best quality out there. And it could possibly convert DVD goers and regular people to Blu Ray.

what are you talking about?

theatrical resolution is far superior to blu-ray...

[kings35]

Originally Posted by teamneedle

what are you talking about?

theatrical resolution is far superior to blu-ray...

Is is really? I thought it was just basic resolution with insanely good audio.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by kings35

Is is really? I thought it was just basic resolution with insanely good audio.

BD is vastly inferior to film in capable resolution........ The audio aspect actually is difficult to control, so it's usually not ideal..... although it's "loud" so if you equate loud to good.... then you're in luck at the theater.

[tiger roach]

If you shrunk a good movie image down to anywhere near the screen size of your HT, it would look amazingly clear and detailed.

[shawngg]

Thought I could just put this in pretty simple terms. BD at 1080 provides a resolution fo 1920x1080 or 2,073,600 pixels. A consumer off the shelf DSLR D60 camera from Nikon has 10.2 million pixels for a still image.

Digital projection in a theater is not done via MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 compression. It is done with Motion JPEG (M-JPEG 2000) where each frame of a movie is its own JPEG image, stored on a large hard drive and then projected at 24 fps.

The quality of the image is determined when the high resolution film is coverted to digital JPEG. This can be lossy or lossless, but in either case, the resulting still frame is of higher resolution than 1920x1080.

[Alan Brown]

Originally Posted by kings35

Is is really? I thought it was just basic resolution with insanely good audio.

Please define what you mean by "basic resolution."

[kings35]

Originally Posted by Alan Brown

Please define what you mean by "basic resolution."

Not Blu Ray quality but basic DVD quality. Pretty much resolution that can be enhanced.

[surfdude12]

the dallas cowboy stadium giant LCD screen...that's what the movie theater should look like..and it doesnt. not even close. of course, this is just based on my subjective eye, which perhaps is a horrible pixel compuptator.

[Alan Brown]

Originally Posted by kings35

Not Blu Ray quality but basic DVD quality. Pretty much resolution that can be enhanced.

Google is your friend. Try a search term like: movie film resolution. Here's one of the results that covers a lot of bases: http://www.avforums.com/forums/high-...-recorded.html .

[swifty7]

I'm totally confused what the OP is trying to say.

if somebody knows please explain!!!!

[BStecke]

While the resolution of film is vastly superior to Blu-ray, I think we can all agree that theatrical presentations are not.

A lot of the theaters in my area are converting to the Sony 4K projection systems, which basically give you the same effect of a Blu-ray on a theater sized screen.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by dougotte

Do you mean reduce the quality from 35mm to 1080p?

Doug

35mm prints look like garbage.

35mm masters look great.

masters != prints

Digital projection is better than projected film prints. It doesn't help that the prints are struck from 2K DIs most of the time either.

the resulting still frame is of higher resolution than 1920x1080.

Digital cinema are measured in things like 2K or 4K.

2K is 2048x1080. Not dissimilar to BD's 1920x1080.

Most digital cinema is 2K. I think I heard AMC is supposed to convert to 4K digital across the board, but my local theater hadn't the last time I was there.

[Alan Brown]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

the dallas cowboy stadium giant LCD screen...that's what the movie theater should look like..and it doesnt. not even close. of course, this is just based on my subjective eye, which perhaps is a horrible pixel compuptator.

Large modern stadium screens are usually LED arrays, not LCD. They are super bright and purpose built to compete with high ambient illumination. There are many characteristics of electronic imaging that comprise a picture. Resolution is only one small part of picture quality, and not even the most important.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

BD is vastly inferior to film in capable resolution........

BD resolution holds up fairly well against even the most recent releases when viewed on the majority of home screens (up to 100 inches?). Of course, theatre-sized screens are a different story, and IMAX is its own world.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by kings35

Is is really? I thought it was just basic resolution with insanely good audio.

Blu-ray has the insanely good audio.

[Deciazulado]

This comes up every so often and people say film resolution is immensely better, but you always have to specify what element are you referring to. The resolution achieved on the camera negative where the image was first exposed? The resolution on an answer print struck from it? On regular theatrical prints? Or the final resolution your eyes see projected on the theater screen?


In my own informal tests with this very sharp laboratory test film (which has 1800 actual lines recorded on it which is almost double the 1000 lines of a release print) the screen reached about 900 lines in most projectors I ran it on, but seen it do 1280 lines in the most prestigious Hollywood theater I've ever been.

According to this industry test http://www.fixetdefix.fr/IMG/pdf/35m...on_english.pdf as measured on real normal shooting/printing/exhibition conditions, using standard deviation analysis the average resolution on seven theaters was 675 lines per picture height, and only 1 theater in 6 would reach 780 lines. Only 1 in 40 would reach 885 and only one in 200 would reach 990 lines.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Alan Brown

Large modern stadium screens are usually LED arrays, not LCD. They are super bright and purpose built to compete with high ambient illumination. There are many characteristics of electronic imaging that comprise a picture. Resolution is only one small part of picture quality, and not even the most important.

well my broader point was that i rarely, if ever, see movie theater resolution (as projected on the screen, and visible with my naked eye) as anywhere approaching Blu-ray quality. i'm no expert in film resolution knowledge, but i am an expert in terms of subjective movie theater resolution assessment, as i've visited them thousands of times, sat down, and watched films there. it is much closer to 480 of DVD quality IMO, and honestly looks shockingly awful at times, especially as i watch 1080p blus on a daily basis at 8 feet viewing distance on a 67" DLP. the audio is sometimes very loud but sometimes very faint (varies greatly from theater to theater).