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

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

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.

That is a measure of how much image can be exposed into the film. Once that image is exposed I can then scan it any any resolution.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

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.

You still haven't answered the questions I asked in the post you replied to.

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

2. 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?

Do you believe the 2 things I asked above?

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

You still haven't answered the questions I asked in the post you replied to.

I asked:

Do you believe the 2 things I asked above?

Whether I believe them or not is irrelevant to the debate... Yes you could count the grain on a piece of film. That doesn't equate to the resolution. Let's just for examples sake say that a piece of film has 100 individual pieces of grain. I can scan that piece of film at 2K or 4K and it will have those resolutions respectively regardless of the grain count...

[Chevypower]

4k2k film is not analog, it's an optical medium not electronic. Not all 35mm movies are scanned digitally for editing, so I am correct in saying film has a limited definition, not measured in pixels. You can have two lots of film stock of equal size, but not equal definition.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

That is a measure of how much image can be exposed into the film. Once that image is exposed I can then scan it any any resolution.

No. Resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution

Optical resolution describes the ability of an imaging system to resolve detail in the object that is being imaged.

A 35mm film can resolve more details (more of the individual posts) in the picket fence than 8mm film. 35mm has more resolution than 8mm film.

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

No. Resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution

A 35mm film can resolve more details (more of the individual posts) in the picket fence than 8mm film. 35mm has more resolution than 8mm film.

NO, IT DOESN'T.

Did that grab your attention. Okay good. 35mm film is a bigger film stock and have greater image exposure. When you have a bigger image, you can have more "pickets" on the film.

And I answered you before. Whether I believe them or not is irrelevant to the debate... Yes you could count the grain on a piece of film. That doesn't equate to the resolution. Let's just for examples sake say that a piece of film has 100 individual pieces of grain. I can scan that piece of film at 2K or 4K and it will have those resolutions respectively regardless of the grain count...

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

Whether I believe them or not is irrelevant to the debate... Yes you could count the grain on a piece of film. That doesn't equate to the resolution. Let's just for examples sake say that a piece of film has 100 individual pieces of grain. I can scan that piece of film at 2K or 4K and it will have those resolutions respectively regardless of the grain count...

In your example, no matter what resolution you scanned the film, it wouldn't have any more than your 100 individual grains worth of detail/resolution.

It's like saying a standard definition DVD has as much resolution as full HD because you can resize it to full HD. Yes you can resize it but the resolution in the actual source isn't full HD.

Say if you had a picture made up of 100 circles, no matter how many pixels you use to scan that picture, the resolution of the actual picture is still 100 circles.

[SAM LN32A650]

The intent of IMAX is to dramatically increase the resolution of the image by using much larger film stock at a resolution comparable to about 10000 x 7000 pixels

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

In your example, no matter what resolution you scanned the film, it wouldn't have any more than your 100 individual grains worth of detail/resolution.

It's like saying a standard definition DVD has as much resolution as full HD because you can resize it to full HD. Yes you can resize it but the resolution in the actual source isn't full HD.

Say if you had a picture made up of 100 circles, no matter how many pixels you use to scan that picture, the resolution of the actual picture is still 100 circles.

Yeah, it wouldn't because certain film stocks run out of a certain amount of space for exposed images. In comes IMAX film stock which is huge and can have huge image exposure. Which is why I said before you can scan any film stock at any resolution but it won't make a difference unless the film is big enough to hold a certain exposure.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

NO, IT DOESN'T.

Did that grab your attention. Okay good

There's no need to be rude.
If you think wikipedia's definition of resolution is wrong you are free to change it. There are many definitions of resolution where it basically says it's how much resolvable detail something is able to produce. Even the resolution of analogue video. Look up definitions of resolution on the web.

Here's webster's definition:

Originally Posted by Webster's Dictionary

6 a: the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light b: a measure of the sharpness of an image or of the fineness with which a device (as a video display, printer, or scanner) can produce or record such an image usually expressed as the total number or density of pixels in the image <a resolution of 1200 dots per inch>

As in my example:
making distinguishable the individual parts of an object=the individual posts in a picket fence as recorded by an 8mm film camera or a 35mm film camera

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

There's no need to be rude.
If you think wikipedia's definition of resolution is wrong you are free to change it. There are many definitions of resolution where it basically says it's how much resolvable detail something is able to produce. Even the resolution of analogue video. Look up definitions of resolution on the web.

Here's webster's definition:

As in my example:
making distinguishable the individual parts of an object=the individual posts in a picket fence as recorded by a picket fence.

It was not my intention to be rude. Here I will explain it one more time. You have a piece of film with a certain amount of exposed image. You can scan that film to whatever resolution that you want. It's just that if the image is not any more detailed then it is because of the small exposure then it won't make a difference. The film is just too small to expose any more image and it will be the same no matter what resolution it's scanned at. Then in comes bigger film stocks which are designed to counter balance scanning movies at higher resolutions.

Hope that's clear.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

It was not my intention to be rude. Here I will explain it one more time. You have a piece of film with a certain amount of exposed image. You can scan that film to whatever resolution that you want. It's just that if the image is not any more detailed then it is because of the small exposure then it won't make a difference. The film is just too small to expose any more image and it will be the same no matter what resolution it's scanned at. Then in comes bigger film stocks which are designed to counter balance scanning movies at higher resolutions.

Hope that's clear.

Okay no problem
The thing is, I think you are thinking that when we say resolution we are only talking about the number of pixels used to scan a piece of film. eg. a 4k scan or a 2k scan.

The definitions of resolution on the web, in books etc. also define resolution as being things like "the ability of a microscope, or a television or computer screen, to show things clearly and with a lot of detail:" or

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

resolution quantifies how close lines can be to each other and still be visibly resolved. .

Originally Posted by encarta

[Resolution]
quality of detail in image: the quality of detail offered by a TV or computer screen or a photographic image

It's not only used to describe the number of pixels used to scan a certain type of motion picture of film

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Okay no problem
The thing is, I think you are thinking that when we say resolution we are only talking about the number of pixels used to scan a piece of film. eg. a 4k scan or a 2k scan.

The definitions of resolution on the web, in books etc. also define resolution as being things like "the ability of a microscope, or a television or computer screen, to show things clearly and with a lot of detail:" or

It's not only used to describe the number of pixels used to scan a certain type of motion picture of film

But that is not really relevant to our discussion. If you want to consider that resolution, then we can say everything has a resolution. What your describing is anything that is put together multiples times to create something bigger, such as a bunch of lines put together to show you a picture. This is however not using the term in the proper context. Film does not have a resolution but has a certain amount of image that it can show. It's actual resolution depends on what it is scanned at.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

But that is not really relevant to our discussion. If you want to consider that resolution, then we can say everything has a resolution. What your describing is anything that is put together multiples times to create something bigger, such as a bunch of lines put together to show you a picture. This is however not using the term in the proper context. Film does not have a resolution but has a certain amount of image that it can show. It's actual resolution depends on what it is scanned at.

The term Resolution is being used in it's proper context. It's not just the number pixels you scan at. The resolution of film could be the amount of detail it is able to resolve. You could point the camera at a test chart with lines becoming smaller/narrower/closer together and see how much detail it was actually able to resolve.

I know a film grain does not equal a pixel. But as one film maker once said something like "film has capability due to it's grain structure of resolving only so much - and no matter how much you blow up film, there's a certain limitation on how much can be resolved" - or something like that

[Liquid-Prince]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

The term Resolution is being used in it's proper context. It's not just the number pixels you scan at. The resolution of film could be the amount of detail it is able to resolve. You could point the camera at a test chart with lines becoming smaller/narrower/closer together and see how much detail it was actually able to resolve.

I know a film grain does not equal a pixel. But as one film maker once said something like "film has capability due to it's grain structure of resolving only so much - and no matter how much you blow film, there's a certain limitation on how much can be resolved" - or something like that

You proved my point in your own words. There is a limit to how much an image can be stretched out due to how much image is exposed on the film. In come the bigger film stocks such as IMAX film stocks which can then be scanned at very high resolutions. The film it self has no resolution, but bigger film stock and exposure can equate to a bigger image being scanned.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince

You proved my point in your own words. There is a limit to how much an image can be stretched out due to how much image is exposed on the film.

Have you read the definitions on the web or in dictionaries on the word "resolution" and how it also means how much detail can be resolved in something?

Here's what askoxford.com says about resolution:

• noun 1 a firm decision. 2 an expression of opinion or intention agreed on by a legislative body. 3 the quality of being resolute. 4 the resolving of a problem or dispute. 5 the process of reducing or separating something into components. 6 the smallest interval measurable by a telescope or other scientific instrument. 7 the degree of detail visible in a photographic or television image.

Here's what "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000." says about resolution:

6. The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal.

Here's one of the definitions dictionary.reference.com gives for "resolution":

the act, process, or capability of distinguishing between two separate but adjacent objects or sources of light or between two nearly equal wavelengths. Compare resolving power.

resolving power
 
–noun
1. Optics. the ability of an optical device to produce separate images of close objects.
2. Photography. the degree to which a lens or photographic emulsion is able to define the details of an image.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

4k2k film is not analog, it's an optical medium not electronic. Not all 35mm movies are scanned digitally for editing, so I am correct in saying film has a limited definition, not measured in pixels. You can have two lots of film stock of equal size, but not equal definition.

Yes I say you are correct that film does have a limited resolution. A movie that hasn't had a DI won't have a specific number of pixels, though it will have a resolution (you could scan it at high res though and see how many pixels each grain took up). I'd say that the 35mm film itself is a physical medium too. ie. it's a physical piece of film with "silver halide" grains on to store the image.

I think most of the recent movies (well the big releases at least) have been scanned digitally for editing/grading (digital intermediate) - usually at 2K. I think they usually scan the negative for this. So for these films (that have had a 2K DI) the final film can't have more than 2K of actual resolution.

For older films they'll probably have had more optical processing stages I think (lowering the resolution) and they don't usually scan the original negative (they often scan the interpositive I believe or perhaps even another generation film) - and so they can look lower quality than some of the more recent films that have had a digital intermediate (even at 2k) I think. Also, newer film stocks are better than older ones.

You can have two lots of film stock of equal size, but not equal definition.

Also true. One 35mm film stock could be finer grained to another 35mm film stock. You could also lose resolution due to the type of lens/focusing/filters etc. so even two movies using the same film stock could be of different resolution in actual film content (resolvable resolution) stored on the 35mm film.

[JustinCredible_13]

well sadly we dont have a IMAX in Hawaii, so i havent seen the preview before I Am Legend, but i did buy Batman Begins on Blu Ray and watched the 6 or 7 min open scene of The Dark Knight and it looked great! im hopping it will look that good when it finally comes out on Blu Ray!

[Dubstar]

according to an article in American Cinematographer 35mm is about 6K in resolution, IMAX is about 8K.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Film (including IMAX) doesn't have a "resolution," the way video does. Even Super35mm can resolve to quite a bit higher than 1080p video when scanned (actual resolution varies by film stock). IMAX film can easily scan at 10,000x7,000 pixels or higher... though the new IMAX Digital is going to be just 2k digital projection.

IMAX Digital is 4K