How does 1080p do in cinema screens?

You've probably seen it many times, just didn't know it. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was 1080p. So was Avatar. So was anything that's been shot on an F900 or F950 or Panavision Genesis or Sony F23 or F35. It's used all the time.

Of course, there's a world of difference between the 1080p you get out of an F950, and the 1080p you get out of a T2i, so don't think that the simple numbers equate, but ... well, point is, 1080p looks great when properly shot and handled.
 
What are the main differences between 1080p on a T2i vs F950? I know it looks better on the F950 but how does it?
 
Ewan L said:
What are the main differences between 1080p on a T2i vs F950? I know it looks better on the F950 but how does it?
Click to expand...

In really simplified terms... the difference is in how much of the sensor is used to create the image. The T2i does not use all of the CMOS sensor, so it doesn't actually collect a 1080p signal; it just enlarges the image to fill a frame for 1080p recording and output. This creates some problems like aliasing and moire, and it softens the image a bit. It can make a beautiful image if used properly, but it's not going to be as sharp as something from a camera that actually uses 1920x1080 pixels (or better) to create the recorded image.
 
Alex H. said:
In really simplified terms... the difference is in how much of the sensor is used to create the image. The T2i does not use all of the CMOS sensor, so it doesn't actually collect a 1080p signal; it just enlarges the image to fill a frame for 1080p recording and output. This creates some problems like aliasing and moire, and it softens the image a bit. It can make a beautiful image if used properly, but it's not going to be as sharp as something from a camera that actually uses 1920x1080 pixels (or better) to create the recorded image.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for clearing it up!
 
Ewan L said:
What are the main differences between 1080p on a T2i vs F950? I know it looks better on the F950 but how does it?
Click to expand...
Well, to use a car analogy: the F950 performs like a car that costs as much as it does (about $100,000) and the T2i performs like a car that costs about as much as it does (about $650). So while you could apply the term "car" to both a 1974 volkswagen beetle and a 2012 Maserati, ... well, yeah, that's about as much as they have in common, is that you can use the term "car" to describe both.

:)
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, to use a car analogy: the F950 performs like a car that costs as much as it does (about $100,000) and the T2i performs like a car that costs about as much as it does (about $650). So while you could apply the term "car" to both a 1974 volkswagen beetle and a 2012 Maserati, ... well, yeah, that's about as much as they have in common, is that you can use the term "car" to describe both.

:)
Click to expand...

Good way to put it :)
 
And even then, that perceived resolution is only achieved if you're sitting fairly close to the screen. From the back of the room what you see won't be nearly as high-res...
 
This is semi-off topic, but...
I've always considdered The Phantom Menace to be kind of like Roger Rabbit. Including the third act that's almost all ToonTown.

The actors and some parts of some sets seem to have been real, with green screen addons (like windows) and cartoon aliens.
Most of Naboo seems to have been completely animated. The entire battle between the gungans and the robot army was 100% CGI, even the grass and sky. The whole sequence in the gungan city and the subsequent underwater chase must have been mostly CG as well except for Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor and possibly some submarine interiors.

So while The Phantom Menace might have been shot on film, not much of the film was actually shot at all.
 
To get back on topic, my film was shot on a 7D in 1080p (some scenes 720p because of the 60fps resolution limit) and I think it looks fine.

It's obviously softer than if it had been shot on for instance Red, but you don't go out and shoot District 9 or The Hobbit on a 7D. You shoot moody indie semi-dramas where a softer image will work to your advantage.
 
If you want to see how 1080p looks from a DSLR, go see Act of Valor. I believe about 90% of the film was shot on Canon 5d cameras.

Now, keep this in mind: It was shot by a highly skilled ASC cinematographer with access to plenty of lighting, grip gear, etc. to make it look great. You could hand me an F950 (or an Epic for that matter) and I couldn't make it look nearly that good. Most of us couldn't.

It's not in theaters, but To Hell and Back Again was shot I believe 100% on the 5D, often with stock lenses, and most often on the fly by one person. No gaffer, grip truck, sets, etc. And it's a better movie than Act of Valor, without question. Oh, and it looks pretty good too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top