which has better PQ, movie theater or Blu-ray

[AbsentAbe]

I think it entirely depends on your home theater setup, and exactly what theater you go to and when you go. If you see a big box office movie the day it comes out, you should be getting the highest quality theater experience outside of home. If it's some movie that is playing on one screen about half the size of their biggest, the picture quality may not be as good, probably because it's not as important.
I've always had mixed experiences at the theater. The last big movie that I remember seeing in theater, Enchanted, had perfect picture quality! On Blu-ray it is still amazingly clear, but it is different. The look of film versus a perfectly clean BD image give different outputs. Maybe it's just that my 37" inch monitor isn't large enough, but I wish I could see both side by side so I could examine each of them individually to compare the differences.

[cajmoyper]

Originally Posted by john_1958

yeah i remember when movies in theatres would burn a hole in the film
plus with blu-ray no idiots talking or cell phones going off but i have seen my share of bad blu-rays displayed in stores

Exactly.

[Zten]

You folks are off the mark. If you think the image resolving ability of blu ray on a 1080p set is better than 70mm or even 35mm photographic analog film, you're only happy becuase the screen you are watching on is relatively tiny as compared the the "Big Screen". Think of it this way. Blu Ray is 1920 X 1080 pixels (this is the same resolution as a 2MP digital camera). On a screen that is 128cm x 72cm (about the size of a big screen TV), that means each pixel is 0.66mm x 0.66mm. This is quite small and is why the resolution of Blu Ray looks so good on your big screen TV at home. Now if you put that on the movie theatre screen that is 16 meters wide and 9 meters tall, each pixel would be 8.3mm x 8.3mm (almost a square cm) or about the size of a finger nail. If you are in the back of the theatre, you may not be too bothered by it, but if you are in the front row, you would be quite unhappy.

Professional photographers use 12MP cameras becuase they may need to blow the picture up to poster size. A 2MP image blown up to poster size looks pretty bad, compared to 35 film or even the 12MP image....

[Zten]

Its impossible for Blu Ray to be better. Even if it could EXACTLY reporduce the resolution of the source material, it would only be the same as the real film movie. Anything less than 100% exact reproduction would only be worse. It could never be better....

Now the other factors (Old or abused/damaged film, noisy kids in the theatre, people talking, no beers, expensive, have to drive there, etc) still exist making movie theatres worse than home theatres w/ blu ray!

[sheldonison]

Originally Posted by Zten

Its impossible for Blu Ray to be better. Even if it could EXACTLY reporduce the resolution of the source material, it would only be the same as the real film movie. Anything less than 100% exact reproduction would only be worse. It could never be better....

Now the other factors (Old or abused/damaged film, noisy kids in the theatre, people talking, no beers, expensive, have to drive there, etc) still exist making movie theatres worse than home theatres w/ blu ray!

We all know that the 35mm original negative has more resolution than blu-ray, especially if its low speed film shot using good lenses. But the theater doesn't project the original negative. And even if the release print isn't abused or damaged, the movie theater stiill might not get the movie shown in focus.

As far as 1.85:1 goes, I think blu-ray would always have better PQ than a theatrical print. That would be mostly based on the smaller negative used for 1.85:1, versus the full 1080x1920 for blu-ray. I still think a widescreen 2.35:1 theatrical print ought to have better PQ than blu-ray at 817x1920, but first I have to find a theater that knows how to keep their projector in focus.

[Zten]

Originally Posted by sheldonison

I still think a widescreen 2.35:1 theatrical print ought to have better PQ than blu-ray at 817x1920, but first I have to find a theater that knows how to keep their projector in focus.

I was going to say "if blu ray is better, then just think of the money that the movie theatres could save by upgrading movie theatres to the DLP projection or LCOS projection when the old film projector finally dies. Sending out 5000 copies of a movie on BD disc would be way cheaper than 5000 copies on film". BUT, this would still require the movie theatre to focus the projector. You should demand the money back for admission AND the overpriced popcorn if they can't project a focused image.

The other problem with theatrical movie distribution via BD or even via digital download (the day will come!) is piracy, buit they will figure out some way to protect it....

[sheldonison]

Originally Posted by Zten

I was going to say "if blu ray is better, then just think of the money that the movie theatres could save by upgrading movie theatres to the DLP projection or LCOS projection when the old film projector finally dies. Sending out 5000 copies of a movie on BD disc would be way cheaper than 5000 copies on film". BUT, this would still require the movie theatre to focus the projector. You should demand the money back for admission AND the overpriced popcorn if they can't project a focused image.

The other problem with theatrical movie distribution via BD or even via digital download (the day will come!) is piracy, buit they will figure out some way to protect it....

I did some online searching on DLP and 35mm.

Superman Returns review comparison of dlp versus 35mm
Harry Potter Chamber of Secrets DLP review study.

Also, apparently a film projector needs to be re-focused every time there's a splice, or the film is reloaded, but DLP doesn't. There is a local DLP cinema, and I will probably check it out next time I go to the theater. Obviously, a 70mm IMAX showing should handily beat blu-ray in PQ, but I would be more interested in a comparison between blu-ray and a high quality 35mm anamorphic theatrical release.

[Slackr89]

i havent been to one in a while. but when summer hits ill go to more with my friends since school is out. but theatres really need to up their technology. i dont see why they cant use blu-ray projectors instead of those ancient pieces of crap they use.

[Ferris]

Originally Posted by Banjo

Movies would look better at the theatres if they were projected properly, and the film does get worn out after being projected several times.

I couldn't agree more. Given the fact that the celluloid format is not digital, it's not restricted by pixel resolution.... just the quality of the film and camera.

Originally Posted by john_1958

my theatre ticket doesn't include rude patrons
but i have enjoyed once in awhile in theatres when novelty of new shows wear down

Same here. I used to attend films opening night, when I was younger and less irritable! However, as I grew older, I cared less about seeing films the moment they came out, and cared more about what I was getting for my $8 ticket. I now wait about 1 or 2 weeks, and enjoy my seat freedom!

Originally Posted by Hecmor

The Popcorn is better

I air pop my popcorn at home. Plus, I put real butter on it! Movie theatres can't beat that for me!

[Zten]

Originally Posted by sheldonison

Obviously, a 70mm IMAX showing should handily beat blu-ray in PQ, but I would be more interested in a comparison between blu-ray and a high quality 35mm anamorphic theatrical release.

I'd be interested as well, but I must say I'd be very surprised if Blu Ray beat a high quality 35mm film release. Simply compare the still photos from a 35mm camera to the still photos from a 2MP camera. 35mm is signicantly better. I'd say there needs to be another 5x improvement in digital video resolution to make it comparable to 35mm film.

That said, if the movie theatre has smaller screens (which is for sure the trend!), and they don't put the front row of seats too close to the screen, then maybe the degradation going from 35mm film to Blu Ray would not be noticed.

[sheldonison]

Originally Posted by Zten

I'd be interested as well, but I must say I'd be very surprised if Blu Ray beat a high quality 35mm film release. Simply compare the still photos from a 35mm camera to the still photos from a 2MP camera. 35mm is signicantly better. I'd say there needs to be another 5x improvement in digital video resolution to make it comparable to 35mm film.

I'm pondering your comparison between 35mm still and digital, and I think 5x seems high. A blu-ray at 817x1920 is 1.6 megapixels. An anamorphic release print is not 7.8 megapixels. Sure, a 35mm still is better than a 2 megapixel digital image, but enlargements from a 35mm still negative are not better than the enlargements from a 6 megapixel DSLR. A 35mm still negative is 2.35x times larger than the anamorphic release print, and the the anamorphic release print is also a copy of a copy of a copy.

Doing the arithmetic, comparing a 35mm still with theatrical prints, has inadvertantly convinced me that a wide screen anamorphic release print is roughly equivalent to the 1.6 megapixels in blu-ray at 817x1920. Start with 5-6 megapixels, divide by 2.35x area (still vs theatrical anamorphic), and then drop off another 1/3rd of the resolution for the copying process, and, lo and behold, they're very close.

Then factor in the fact that the theater can't focus, and that blu-ray has more contrast, and better audio quality...

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by sheldonison

I still think a widescreen 2.35:1 theatrical print ought to have better PQ than blu-ray at 817x1920, but first I have to find a theater that knows how to keep their projector in focus.

Well if the 2.39 theatrical print comes from the 2K DI of a Super 35 film, they have the same digital resolution.

Originally Posted by Zten

I'd be interested as well, but I must say I'd be very surprised if Blu Ray beat a high quality 35mm film release. Simply compare the still photos from a 35mm camera to the still photos from a 2MP camera. 35mm is signicantly better. I'd say there needs to be another 5x improvement in digital video resolution to make it comparable to 35mm film.

You're falling inrto the common misconception that still photo 35mm is the same size as motion picture 35mm.

Still photo 35mm is 24 mm x 36 mm . Its motion picture equivalent would be between VistaVision and Technirama.

Motion picture 35mm currently ranges from 10 mm x 24 mm Super 35 (less than a third the size!) to 17.5 mm x 21 mm (less than half the size of still photo 35mm) for 35mm shot with anamorphic lenses.




Anyway maybe this PDF will be interesting for some, specially the comparisons between a 1080p digital projector with lens MTF (the 1024 x 2048 blue line) vs the MTF of negative, internegative, interpositive, and release print, before they go through a mechanical projector + lens (black lines), vs after they do (green line).


And a direct view 1080p Plasma or LCD display has no lens.

[Zten]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Well if the 2.39 theatrical print comes from the 2K DI of a Super 35 film, they have the same digital resolution.



You're falling inrto the common misconception that still photo 35mm is the same size as motion picture 35mm.

Still photo 35mm is 24 mm x 36 mm . Its motion picture equivalent would be between VistaVision and Technirama.

Motion picture 35mm currently ranges from 10 mm x 24 mm Super 35 (less than a third the size!) to 17.5 mm x 21 mm (less than half the size of still photo 35mm) for 35mm shot with anamorphic lenses.




Anyway maybe this PDF will be interesting for some, specially the comparisons between a 1080p digital projector with lens MTF (the 1024 x 2048 blue line) vs the MTF of negative, internegative, interpositive, and release print, before they go through a mechanical projector + lens (black lines), vs after they do (green line).


And a direct vew 1080p Plasma or LCD display has no lens.

Thanks for the great info! yes, I did not know that. I will read your .pdf. So if this does mean that Blu Ray is as good or better, why is movie industry not moving to it? (or maybe they are, and I just don't know it?) It would have be much less expensive for them.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Exactly.

and lets not forget high priced food in theatres
since old movie theatres are on the way out
i perfer theatres to start being more digital and more like
http://www.trilogix.co.uk/sp-fxtheatres.html without glasses
http://www.musion.co.uk/watch_setup_video.html
http://www.cinovent.de/data/presenter_en.htm

And some theatres are serving booze what a joke i don't need a drunks hollering at the screen
people can get a case 24 watch it at home and not worry about drunk driving after the show

[PS3-Playb3yond]

I'm going with Blu-ray.

[Roland1919]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

What a ridiculous question. I'm only joking but for real, the theater can't even compare to BD.

Are you like, Tooooootallly serious, I mean like duh everyone knows this...its like that Movie Theater Butter Popcorn from that guy Reddedbaucher or his name isn't Red Butler....they really didn't put Butter from a movie theater in your bag....thats what my friend Sally said...Oh, the answer is theater

[syncguy]

As previously pointed out, film should (or could) be much better than BD. It has higher resolution, deeper blacks and larger number of colour levels etc. However, in practice this may not be the case. I have seen some threads that people discuss low quality cinemas that don't have even proper focus. Apparently, it is not trivial task for the projectionist to achieve sharp focus. Also, if the film uses 2K DI, it would be close to 1080p but uses a larger screen and this would reduce picture clarity.

IMO, blu-ray produces an outstanding picture in properly setup home theater mainly due to the relative smaller screen size (in comparison to theater screens) limited by the typical real-estate dimensions.

Always theaters have the edge as new movies will not appear on BD, until a sufficient collection is achieved via the movie theaters.

[nycomet]

Originally Posted by DutchBoy

...the thought of kids growing up one day, never having made out in a dark movie theater is frightening...

Wow. Even I never made out in a theater. But if I did, it would really be frightening.

I will stay home and make-out --oops! I meant watch blu-ray movies. I'm not even planning to see Indy4 in the theater. It'll be on Blu-ray soon enough.

[Deadset]

joke topic

[sendmorebrains]

Originally Posted by sheldonison

laughing. I haven't been to the theater enough, since getting spoiled by HDTV/blu-ray to know, but lately I'm not impressed by the 35mm theatrical release.
In theory, a theatrical 2.35:1 print could be better than blu-ray, since the 2x vertical means more negative area, and since blu-ray has only 817 lines vertical for 2.35:1. I'm curious to see what opinions others have.

WHen There is a FOCUS problem and or a VOLUME problem ie: too low. That really ruins the "Theater"experience.

BUT 35mm film will beat BluR everytime - It gets even better whne u watch a 70mm print and then u can go to the IMAX print which again is larger - try like 70megs on a screen thats 3 stories high a bulb thats 10x brighter than home projectors.

The home standards are still crude in comparison. But when you get only one projectionist taking care of 10 - 12 movies at 7pm and then you have the bulb issues, dirty screens well it adds up. BUT if the eqpt is all running right and the guy in the booth isnt being like Tyler Derden( pls watch Fight Club for reference) then a theater experience cant be beat.

Think about it whats a home screen 150inch compared to a 150foot theater screen with a sound system that has multi amps multi speakers and subs ?

Jude