Blu-ray vs. cinema; how close?

[k20king]

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

For that you need a dozen guys, some beer maybe and the right kinda movie to play.

Or just three kids, lots of soda and Spider-man.


fuad

Go Blu-ray!

[BluCanuck]

Me and the girlfriend don't go to the movie theatre anymore - better eveything by staying at home and watching some Blu

[Micker]

I always wondered what people were thinking when they compared blu-ray to the movie they saw in the theater. Movies are just too stretched in the theater and all the other factors, make blu ray look way better, right in your own home .

[ronjones]

When we talk about the resolution of movies shot on 35mm film (i.e, used for the vast majority of movies) we cannot simply talk about the resolution of the film itself. Let's assume that a low grain film is used in the movie camera and the film itself is not the limiting factor. A quality lens (but not the best possible) will produce a resolution on the order of 100 lines per mm on the film (perhaps a little better at the center and a little worst at the edge) and for a 35mm movie the dimensions of each frame is approx. 16mm x 22mm for the orginal Academy Standard format for 1.33:1 movies and even smaller at approx. 12mm x 22mm for the Cropped Academy Standard 1.85:1 format that is commonly used today. Note that this is substantially smaller than the 24mm x 36mm used for 35mm still cameras where to images are rotated 90 degrees on the film as compared to movie camera. Thus for a 1.85 ratio movie the typical resolution as captured on the film in the movie camera would be something on the order of 1200 x 2200 (equivalent to vert. x horz. pixels) for a typical lens and perhaps something as high as 1800 x 3300 if a very high quality lens is used. However the camera uses a negative film and the projection print that is delivered to the movie theater is at least 2 generations away from the original camera print. With each generation there is a loss of resolution and what we ultimately see projected onto the screen of the local cinema is most frequently well below the 1080 x 1920 resolution of HDTV. You can easily confirm this yourself by going to see a recent movie at a cinema equipped with the new 2K (i.e, 1080p) digital cinema projectors. The images are much sharper than for movies seen via a film projector.

[aristotles]

I recently went to see National Treasure: Book of Secrets and the picture was fuzzy and out of focus.

I think my 40" 1080p LCD has a better picture than the screens at my local Capital 6 Empire theatre. Having said that, I've seen some impressive screens at the local Silvercity complex but the old school theatre screens seem to be worse than what I get from Blu-ray on my LCD TV.

[Maaz]

blu-ray movies are actually clearer and more better looking in everyday than movies in theaters.

[Seretur]

And let's not forget the way theater owners save on power bills by reducing the luminance of their projector bulbs.

This makes the image fuzzy and dim, and reduces color saturation.

I'm into Blu-ray precisely because I don't want to experience films that way, even though I have free passes and everything.

[beavis667]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

How close in picture quality is Blu-ray to a film being played in an actual theater/cinema? What are the exact tech specs there between the two if anyone knows them?

I like the audio better than what I get at the theater.

[halmo20]

Originally Posted by Seretur

And let's not forget the way theater owners save on power bills by reducing the luminance of their projector bulbs.

This makes the image fuzzy and dim, and reduces color saturation.

I'm into Blu-ray precisely because I don't want to experience f1ilms that way, even though I have free passes and everything.

Precisely..
Plus, some guy's head going across screen?!?!
Some stupid girl's cell phone's mixing with the surround sound?!?!

I'm saddened to say this but I'm almost done going to theaters..