Is IMAX better than 1080p? what resolution are they film?

[ajmrowland]

[QUOTE=JadedRaverLA;988951



Well, there are two issues you bring up. The first (aspect ratio) is a matter for debate. Yuo can certainly show a 2.39:1 image on an IMAX screen, but especially early on, that wasn't done. They reformatted the Super35 negative to match the screen's AR. Many newer films (including TDK) don't do this, they just show the correct AR "letterboxed" on the screen.
[/QUOTE]Attack of the clones was in Imax?

All the normal movies i've seen in imax have never been altered.

[Chevypower]

film has a certain amount of definition to it. It's just not measured in pixels.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by ajmrowland

I read somewhere that to view 1080 on a cinema screen is likely to make you scream from the "jaggies" and is probably more or less like viewing 480 on a 100-inch home screen.

Someone said somewhere on this forum said that, on a normal/average 35mm cinema screen (not digital) you are probably only getting around 720p in actual resolution, due to film weave and other stuff lowering the actual resolution.

Most recent films have had a 2K digital intermediate, which is somewhere around 1080p (though it varies - this is assuming non-anamorphic and 1.78:1 - though they may not be) for those films you won't really be getting more than around 1080p in resolution, if the scans (digital intermediates) were about 1080p and then they were printed onto another piece of film (which reduces resolution) for projection (again more resolution loss). You probably won't see the pixels in films that have had a digital intermediate - the printing onto film etc. and projection will probably soften them a bit.

http://www.digitalpraxis.net/zippdf/di-guide.pdf

...Due to these losses, and further losses throughout the film processing and duplication operation, the final projection print has a resolution more closely represented by 1K pixels. This obviously depends on the number of intermediate stages undergone and the quality of the processes used, but represents a true situation for the average release print film.

They graded their Pinocchio (2002) film for digital projection at a resolution of 1280x1024 pixels.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

film has a certain amount of definition to it. It's just not measured in pixels.

Well a final, edited film, if it used a digital intermediate, can't be any higher definition/resolution than the number of pixels in it's digital intermediate.

Also, the image on a piece of film is made up of film grains, when a film is scanned, those individual grains which make up the image can be counted/measured, so there you can have your approximate resolution of film. Yes a pixel doesn't equate exactly to a pixel, but (probably assuming 35mm film):

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

most film grain is roughly about 8 to 16 pixels in ‘size’ in an area at 4K or larger.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

See my edited post above
If film doesn't have a resolution, why not shoot everything on 8mm film? Why bother shooting in 16mm or 35mm or the most expensive 65mm/IMAX formats?

Isn't it because 35mm has more resolution than 8mm and 16mm, and that 65mm/IMAX has more resolution than 35mm film (assuming all else is equal)?

No, that's not it at all. You have different dimensions of film because the bigger the actual physical film reel is, the better it will look when you scan it in 8K or whatever other resolution. I mean, you can scan a 8mm film in 8K, but if the actual exposed image isn't that size, then it doesn't matter what you scan it in, because even at 8K you're seeing a maximum amount of exposed detail.

That's exactly why IMAX cameras are so detailed with their shots. IMAX film reels are huge, about 10 times bigger then a 35mm film reel and thus have a much bigger image exposed onto them. That bigger exposure can then be scanned to high resolutions to give you a very detailed image.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

No, that's not it at all. You have different dimensions of film because the bigger the actual physical film reel is, the better it will look when you scan it in 8K or whatever other resolution. I mean, you can scan a 8mm film in 8K, but if the actual exposed image isn't that size, then it doesn't matter what you scan it in, because even at 8K you're seeing a maximum amount of exposed detail.

bigger the actual physical film reel is, the better it will look

Yes - and why does 35mm film look better than 8mm? Because of the increased resolution (because the increased size allows the image to be made up of more grains - more resolution).

That's exactly why IMAX cameras are so detailed with their shots. IMAX film reels are huge, about 10 times bigger then a 35mm film reel and thus have a much bigger image exposed onto them. [B]That bigger exposure can then be scanned to high resolutions to give you a very detailed image.

You've just admited that IMAX has more resolution than 35mm film. Therefore film does have a resolution. IMAX has more resolution than than both 35mm film and 8mm film. Therefore film has resolution. I rest my case

If you still don't believe that 8mm film and IMAX film have resolution, just say so and I'll give further proof.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

You've just admited that IMAX has more resolution than 35mm film. Therefore film does have a resolution. IMAX has more resolution than than both 35mm film and 8mm film. Therefore film has resolution. I rest my case

If you still don't believe that 8mm film and IMAX film have resolution, just say so and I'll give further proof.

No... That isn't what I said at all. A film reel can have greater exposure. If something is bigger and has more image exposed into the film, then it can be scanned at a higher resolution... Film itself has no resolution.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

No... That isn't what I said at all. A film reel can have greater exposure. If something is bigger and has more image exposed into the film, then it can be scanned at a higher resolution... Film itself has no resolution.

Look at the link I provided above to http://www.digitalpraxis.net/

Originally Posted by their article

the final projection print has a resolution more closely represented by 1K pixels

They are people who work in the industry, they do film scanning and digital intermediates. They themselves say that film has a resolution. They themselves say that a normal 35mm film when projected has a resolution equivalent to only around 1K.

Why can a film of a larger film gauge (35mm) be scanned at higher resolution than one at a lower film gauge (8mm)? Both can be scanned at 4k if you wanted. 35mm would produce the better image when scanned at that resolution though. Why? The larger gauge film uses the same size grains as 16mm or 8mm film, but more of them=more resolution.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Look at the link I provided above to http://www.digitalpraxis.net/
They are people who work in the industry, they to film scanning and digital intermediates. They themselves say that film has a resolution. They themselves say that a normal 35mm film when projected has a resolution equivalent to only around 1K.

Listen my friend... They said equivalent. Do you know the meaning of equivalency? It means that once a certain film reel has been SCANNED DIGITALLY, it will have an equivalent resolution. Film itself has no resolution until it is scanned. Why is this so hard for you to understand...

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

Listen my friend... They said equivalent. Do you know the meaning of equivalency? It means that once a certain film reel has been SCANNED DIGITALLY, it will have an equivalent resolution. Film itself has no resolution until it is scanned. Why is this so hard for you to understand...

No. Read their entire PDF. It's not the resolution once it's scanned digitally. They are talking of what can be viewed in the final release print. You could scan it at 400000x400000 pixels if you wanted, but when you put that back on normal 35mm film for a release print and project it in an average cinema the resolution you actual see will be around 1K according to them.

If film is made up of a countable number of grains of measurable size how can you not say it has resolution?

[4K2K]

If film does NOT have resolution they would be using 8mm as it is a lot cheaper than 35mm.

If film doesn't have resolution (assuming the lenses could cope with it), on am 8mm film you should be able to see individual atoms that the camera recorded onto the film if you blew the film up enough. You won't be able to though will you.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

No. Read there entire PDF. It's not the resolution once it's scanned digitally. They are talking of what can be viewed in the final release print. You could scan it at 400000x400000 pixels if you wanted, but when you put that back on normal 35mm film for a release print and project it in an average cinema the resolution you actual see will be around 1K according to them.

If film is made up of a countable number of grains of measurable size how can you not say it has resolution?

Oh, my, God...

I explained this. Bigger film reels have bigger exposures. More image means you can scan at higher resolutions to produce a higher quality image.

What you're saying is irrelevant, because you can scan something the size of you fingernail at 400000000x400000000 but that wouldn't mean anything if the exposed image is only a certain size. Which is why we have 35mm, 70mm film and then IMAX film, which has huge reels with huge amounts exposed image which then equates to higher quality images. Resolution is a digital term, and film has no resolution until it is scanned.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

Oh, my, God...

I explained this. Bigger film reels have bigger exposures. More image means you can scan at higher resolutions to produce a higher quality image.

What you're saying is irrelevant, because you can scan something the size of you fingernail at 400000000x400000000 but that wouldn't mean anything if the exposed image is only a certain size. Which is why we have 35mm, 70mm film and then IMAX film, which has huge reels with huge amounts exposed image which then equates to higher quality images. Resolution is a digital term, and film has no resolution until it is scanned.

Resolution is not a digital term. In the analogue world they refer to resolution too.

You obviously haven't read their article. You keep mentioning bigger film reels - it's not the size of the reel - it's the size of the film gauge. A reel is a whole 30min or whatever length of film.

35mm obviously has more grains in it than 8mm film. Do you dispute that? The grains are the same size but there are more of them due to the larger film gauge. more grains=more resolution. Therefore 35mm has more resolution than 8mm film. Both have a resolution.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Resolution is not a digital term. In the analogue world they refer to resolution too.

You obviously haven't read their article. You keep mentioning bigger film reels - it's not the size of the reel - it's the size of the film gauge. A reel is a whole 30min or whatever length of film.

35mm obviously has more grains in it than 8mm film. Do you dispute that? The grains are the same size but there are more of them due to the larger film gauge. more grains=more resolution.

More exposed image on the film grain equals more resolution once the film has been SCANNED... Although again, irrelevant because where else was the image going to be exposed on if not the grain. This brings us back to my original statement. Film has no resolution. A 35mm film can be scanned at 2K, 4K, 8K or any other resolution, and the quality depends on the actual size of the film and exposure.

So once again, to recap, film has no resolution.

[4K2K]

If you filmed a picket fence with a film camera. Say an 8mm film camera and the fence was going off into the distance, where the distance between each fence picket was getting smaller on the film image, there'd be a certain point where they merged together.

If you film the same scene with a camera using 35mm, they'll seem to merge together also, but the point that they merge together will be different. In the image from the 35mm film the point where they merged together on 8mm film they will be clearly separated on the 35mm film - as 35mm can record images/scenes of higher resolution than 8mm film. The 35mm will record the picket fence with a higher resolution (you will see more of the individual fence posts/pickets with the 35mm film than the 8mm film).

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

So once again, to recap, film has no resolution.

The image on a 35mm film is made up of film grains. Do you believe this or not?

Do you believe that, given the right equipment (like a scanner/microscope/whatever) that the number of grains making up a particular image could be counted?

So image is made of individual grains. Number of grains can be counted?
Image/film has a resolution.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

If you filmed a picket fence with a film camera. Say an 8mm film camera and the fence was going off into the distance, where the distance between each fence picket was getting smaller on the film image, there'd be a certain point where they merged together.

If you film the same scene with a camera using 35mm, they'll seem to merge together also, but the point that they merge together will be different. On 35mm film the point where they merged together on 8mm film they will be clearly separated on the 35mm film - as 35mm can record images/scenes of higher resolution than 8mm film. The 35mm will record the picket fence with a higher resolution (you will see more of the individual fence posts/pickets with the 35mm film than the 8mm film).

That's just because 8mm has a lot less space for exposure as opposed to any bigger film. The bigger the film and the image exposed onto it, the better it will look scanned at higher resolutions. A 8mm film has a certain resolution that equates to it looking it's best, however any film can be scanned at any resolution. The film only gets a resolution once digitally scanned into the computer and from there it can be set to any resolution the filmmakers see fit.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

The image on a 35mm film is made up of film grains. Do you believe this or not?

Do you believe that, given the right equipment (like a scanner/microscope/whatever) that the number of grains making up a particular image could be counted?

So image is made of individual grains. Number of grains can be counted?
Image/film has a resolution.

No it doesn't, because that certain 35mm film can be scanned to whatever resolution that you want it to be scanned to. I can take a 35 mm film and scan it to 2K, 4K, or 8K. However the bigger an film gets and the bigger the exposure of the image, the better it will look scanned at higher resolutions.

[PanasonicPlasmaMan]

yes its alot higher then 1080p

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

That's just because 8mm has a lot less space for exposure as opposed to any bigger film. The bigger the film and the image exposed onto it, the better it will look scanned at higher resolutions. A 8mm film has a certain resolution that equates to it looking it's best, however any film can be scanned at any resolution. The film only gets a resolution once digitally scanned into the computer and from there it can be set to any resolution the filmmakers see fit.

It's not how "good" it looks. More of the individual posts making up the picket fence will be resolved on the 35mm film than on the 8mm. This is a measure of resolution.