Better Than 1080p?

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Aspect ratios for cinemas is 1.85:1 or a scope ratio (between 2.35:1 and 2.40:1). 2k is in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, blu ray is in 1920x1080 resolution, which is a 1.78:1 aspect ratio whent he whole image area is bieng used up.

2048x1080 is actually about 1.89:1.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

I challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference. They won't be able to.

Nah, no way.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

70mm, more or less is always much higher then a 2k equivelant resolution. (somewhere between 3k and 6k is what is generally said.

35mm get a bit more interesting, I wouldn't say that it goes all that far above 2k, but it is really hard to judge as most prints I see that wern't edited at 2k are from old prints of old films (it's generally said to usually to be around an equivelant 2k to 3k resolution though).

How many of you saw jumps in the quality of the footage in Inception. If you didn't then for you at least you can tell the difference between 35mm and 65mm [which more or less = 70 mm film], or maybe you where to caught up in the movie.

35mm film is always the same resolution. Of course it depends on the film stock used, the condition of the film etc on whether or not scanning it in at a higher res would be a waste of space or not.

I don't really remember seeing in pic quality difference for Inception, but I wasn't really paying attention. However I certainly can notice a difference in picture quality in The Dark Knight during the IMAX sequences.

70mm film prints are made from 65mm negatives (at least the old format dunno about IMAX). The extra space is for the sound track.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

35mm film is always the same resolution. Of course it depends on the film stock used, the condition of the film etc on whether or not scanning it in at a higher res would be a waste of space or not.

And it depends on the lens used/filters, what's in focus, what's in motion and things like that which determine the resolution of what is on the film. And they may add filters and other things in post that will also reduce the resolution.

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

1.78:1 is used for tv's as it is the best overall fit for all the diffent aspect ratios that have been used.

How was that worked out? Wouldn't around 1.865:1 be a ratio that would be half way between 1.33:1 and 2.40:1? And there are films with wider aspect ratios than 2.40:1 - maybe the intention was to make it closer to 1.33:1 because that was what most of the existing TV programming was in.

[DiscoDan]

Thanks for all the great responses! A lot of it is still a little over my head, but your explanations helped a lot

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

How was that worked out? Wouldn't around 1.865:1 be a ratio that would be half way between 1.33:1 and 2.40:1? And there are films with wider aspect ratios than 2.40:1 - maybe the intention was to make it closer to 1.33:1 because that was what most of the existing TV programming was in.

Think about it this way:

4:3 is the narrowest AR in common usage, 2.4:1 is the widest*. On a 16:9 monitor exactly 1/4th of all pixels are wasted when displaying 4:3 content (1440x1080). Also, almost exactly 1/4 of all pixels are wasted when displaying 2.35:1 content (1920x816).

So in that sense 16:9 is a very good compromise.

*Yes I know ultra-panavision and multi-camera formats are wider, but only about a dozen movies were made in those formats. And I know I flubbed it a bit for 2.35:1 (pre 1970 scope).

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Think about it this way:

4:3 is the narrowest AR in common usage, 2.4:1 is the widest*. On a 16:9 monitor exactly 1/4th of all pixels are wasted when displaying 4:3 content (1440x1080). Also, almost exactly 1/4 of all pixels are wasted when displaying 2.35:1 content (1920x816).

So in that sense 16:9 is a very good compromise.

*Yes I know ultra-panavision and multi-camera formats are wider, but only about a dozen movies were made in those formats. And I know I flubbed it a bit for 2.35:1 (pre 1970 scope).

Yeah, theres alot of details on this (and personally I prefer a scope screen), but that is more or less the reason.