As an Amazon associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks for your support!                               
×

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals


Best Blu-ray Movie Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | New deals  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Australia Netherlands Japan Mexico
Hard Boiled 4K (Blu-ray)
$49.99
 
Back to the Future 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.96
15 hrs ago
In the Mouth of Madness 4K (Blu-ray)
$36.69
 
Casino 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.99
16 hrs ago
The Mask 4K (Blu-ray)
$44.73
3 hrs ago
Spawn 4K (Blu-ray)
$31.99
 
Shin Godzilla 4K (Blu-ray)
$34.96
 
Daiei Gothic: Japanese Ghost Stories Vol. 2 (Blu-ray)
$47.99
 
The Toxic Avenger 4K (Blu-ray)
$29.96
1 day ago
Shudder: A Decade of Fearless Horror (Blu-ray)
$80.68
 
Airport: The Complete Collection 4K (Blu-ray)
$86.13
1 day ago
The Terminator 4K (Blu-ray)
$14.44
1 day ago
What's your next favorite movie?
Join our movie community to find out


Image from: Life of Pi (2012)

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-25-2008, 04:59 AM   #61
ajmrowland ajmrowland is offline
Senior Member
 
Oct 2008
77
Default

[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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:01 AM   #62
Chevypower Chevypower is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Default

film has a certain amount of definition to it. It's just not measured in pixels.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:06 AM   #63
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajmrowland View Post
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
Quote:
...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.

Last edited by 4K2K; 10-25-2008 at 05:32 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:28 AM   #64
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post
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):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man
most film grain is roughly about 8 to 16 pixels in ‘size’ in an area at 4K or larger.

Last edited by 4K2K; 10-25-2008 at 05:30 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:34 AM   #65
Liquid-Prince Liquid-Prince is offline
Active Member
 
Liquid-Prince's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
78
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:39 AM   #66
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince View Post
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.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.

Last edited by 4K2K; 10-25-2008 at 05:44 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:41 AM   #67
Liquid-Prince Liquid-Prince is offline
Active Member
 
Liquid-Prince's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
78
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:47 AM   #68
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince View Post
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/
Quote:
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.

Last edited by 4K2K; 10-25-2008 at 05:52 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:49 AM   #69
Liquid-Prince Liquid-Prince is offline
Active Member
 
Liquid-Prince's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
78
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
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...
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:56 AM   #70
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince View Post
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?

Last edited by 4K2K; 10-25-2008 at 06:01 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 05:59 AM   #71
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:01 AM   #72
Liquid-Prince Liquid-Prince is offline
Active Member
 
Liquid-Prince's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
78
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:05 AM   #73
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:09 AM   #74
Liquid-Prince Liquid-Prince is offline
Active Member
 
Liquid-Prince's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
78
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:14 AM   #75
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

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).

Last edited by 4K2K; 10-25-2008 at 06:18 AM.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:17 AM   #76
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:19 AM   #77
Liquid-Prince Liquid-Prince is offline
Active Member
 
Liquid-Prince's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
78
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:21 AM   #78
Liquid-Prince Liquid-Prince is offline
Active Member
 
Liquid-Prince's Avatar
 
Oct 2008
78
5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4K2K View Post
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.
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:21 AM   #79
PanasonicPlasmaMan PanasonicPlasmaMan is offline
Special Member
 
PanasonicPlasmaMan's Avatar
 
Jul 2008
California
14
25
1
18
Default

yes its alot higher then 1080p
 
Old 10-25-2008, 06:22 AM   #80
4K2K 4K2K is offline
Special Member
 
Feb 2008
Region B
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid-Prince View Post
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.
 
Closed Thread
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Movies > Blu-ray Movies - North America

Similar Threads
thread Forum Thread Starter Replies Last Post
What's the Resolution of 8mm & 16mm film? General Chat OrlandoEastwood 2 05-23-2017 09:12 PM
IMAX Quality for whole film Display Theory and Discussion harry_hman18 36 08-27-2009 05:57 PM
Topic: Imax Film vs Imax Digital Movies Neil_Luv's_BLU 7 03-24-2009 04:36 PM
1080p TVs DON'T all have the same resolution? Display Theory and Discussion radagast 18 10-31-2008 06:42 PM
Any IMAX (70mm Film) Transfer to HD ? Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology JimPullan 5 09-27-2006 04:45 PM



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:00 AM.