Learning about true big screen resolution. quick question, please help

M

Marshallarts

Well-known member
I'm just now learning (or perhaps am being confused by) a few things regarding what I see at the movie theater.

I came to the output and compression forum since this seems to be the place for a resolution related question but please advise me if I should be posting elsewhere.

In researching the Red Camera (I currently use a 1080i60 Sony F900) I read that even the 4K capability of the Red isn't necessary for Big Screen distribution because "most" films are scanned in at only 2K (reserving 4K only for hi-end FX work) Is this true in any way?

Does that mean that when I go to the movie theater the films I watch typically only have a resolution of 2K? Admittedly I'm unfamiliar with this side of the business, does this assume all films are scanned this way these days?--- if not then do the films that obtain release prints directly from the negative, or all those thousands of prints made back in the "old-days", have a noticeable higher resolution that modern day alleged 2K releases?
 
Yes, that's true, and you'd only get that 2K if you were watching a digital projection. Once transferred to film, and especially when multiple prints have been struck, the real-world resolution of a movie theater screening is about 800 lines. And that of course depends on where you sit; the front row will obviously let you see more detail than the back row.

There was a study done on film and release prints that concluded the 800-line number.

The Red demo theater at NAB 2008 showed footage that was way sharper than anything you're going to see from a conventional film print released in a theater.
 
Thanks Barry, I'm glad I caught you, didn't think you'd be here in the Output/compression area.

It's amazing that an academy35 print (optically produced) in the real-world only appears to have the resolution of a 800 line moving image!?? Just a step above DVD. I do not have a bluRay or HD-DVD player so I'm unfamiliar with that comparison but I imagined it would still be much greater in the movie theater. The viewing experience in a theater also adds to the grandness I'm sure, but an 800line image blown up that large you think would look like crap. I guess that's the benefit of analog, right?

Digital imaging would say a 35mm still is around ~25Megapixels (although that being a full frame 35mm STILL photo, something entirely different). Still one would imagine an academy 35mm print would be much higher in resolution, way higher than 800.

So in the end you don't need 35mm. You don't even need 16mm. It appears even 1080 would be overkill, right?---- I say this because I know I'm missing something but not sure how to ask it.

Why 35mm? Is 4K Red complete overkill for theatrical release?

Thank you so much for the expert feedback, I'm trying to understand something I'm not familiar with yet and so don't know the questions I want to ask. But I can figure it out if I had a knowledge base to refer to.
 
That's after the release print, and the jitter of the theater, and all that.

A 35mm movie film frame, on the original negative, is said (by Kodak) to be about 12 megapixels' worth of information. But by the time you go through all the printing and get to the end theater, the test results showed about 800 lines of final resolution getting through.

And yes, you do need and want 35mm; 16mm has no real point anymore, an HPX3000 in 1080 is going to produce a far sharper image than 16mm ever would. 4K from a Red is fabulous, especially from digital projection.

Garbage in, garbage out - you want the best source you can get. Same reason why broadcast is shot on premium cameras, even though our final delivery system might be 6mbps MPEG-2 over the air...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top