HDTV format comparison article by the EBU

[movmasty]

From the Wikipedia article on IMAX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX):
The intent of IMAX is to dramatically increase the resolution of the image by using much larger film stock at a resolution of about 10000 x 7000 pixels. To do this, 70 mm film stock is run "sideways" through the cameras. While traditional 35 mm film has an image area that is 48.5 mm wide and 22.1 mm tall (for Todd-AO), in IMAX the image is 69.6 mm wide and 48.5 mm tall. "

That would make 35mm film about 6968 x 3190, although I would suspect that the reality of most 35mm film is much lower than that in a practical sense. The 4K (4096 x 2160 pixels) quoted above seems like a much more reasonable number for what might be possible. Though I wonder what resolution nice digital theaters project at. 1920x1080 seems much to low for a real theater.


I know it's all about personal tastes, but I personally prefer to view clean/smooth video. I know people talk about "grain" and such, but usually it just annoys me when watching movies. Same goes for the low framerate. I would prefer if the framerates were increased to 48 or even 60 fps for truly smooth video in fast pans and such.


It is worth mentioning the different methods out there for creating frames using different types of motion estimation. Depending on your content, this technology can work really well, and results in a very smooth looking video. I expect that at some point in the future some projectors/displays will be equipped with this internally to be able to create extra frames to make the video more smooth.
Well, i read on italian Wiki :o
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

"È intenzione di IMAX di aumentare considerevolmente la risoluzione delle immagini usando pellicole cinematografiche più larghe e ad una risoluzione di 38720x24120. Per fare questo, il fotogramma da 70mm viene esposto orizzontalmente all'interno della macchina da ripresa. Mentre le tradizionali pellicole da 35mm hanno una zona di immagine che è larga 48,5mm ed alta 22,1 millimetri (per il Todd-AO), con il sistema IMAX le immagini sono larghe 69,6mm e alte 48,5mm"

now, if 48,5 is 24120,

22,1 should be 10991......

yes, seems too much for me too

[movmasty]

Well, not french nor espanol and deutsch, say anithing about pixels....only english and italian, and with 2 values very different.

ill write this to wiki, but i think english article is right, italians are always wrong.


So we are at 10000x7000 on the analogical side, far beyond than digital, maybe more than 3-5 years.

[movmasty]

From the Wikipedia article on IMAX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX):
That would make 35mm film about 6968 x 3190, although I would suspect that the reality of most 35mm film is much lower than that in a practical sense. The 4K (4096 x 2160 pixels) quoted above seems like a much more reasonable number for what might be possible. Though I wonder what resolution nice digital theaters project at. 1920x1080 seems much to low for a real theater.


I know it's all about personal tastes, but I personally prefer to view clean/smooth video. I know people talk about "grain" and such, but usually it just annoys me when watching movies. Same goes for the low framerate. I would prefer if the framerates were increased to 48 or even 60 fps for truly smooth video in fast pans and such.

You wont believe, but i think that 12fps is quite good, at least on computer.....:D

[foxyshadis]

35mm is typically about 400 mm sq, which is often cropped as far down to 260 mm sq, while IMAX is 3376 mm sq. That should give some idea of the raw maximum resolution differences attainable between then. It's quite possible that digital can catch up by using entirely new techniques, but the 3-5 year timeframe does seem a bit optimistic now.

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Imaxcomparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Super35_and_Techniscope.png

[2Bdecided]

When people talk about analogue vs digital resolution wrt film, it's quite problematic.

This site is great...
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/
(there was a link to a specific article earlier in this thread, but the whole site is worth reading!).

What you find is that you might need a very high resolution digital format to capture every last little detail on a film negative, but normally you'll be capturing a huge amount of noise. In no sense could you say that the film was equal in quality to the very high resolution digital format - the latter is clearly superior.

Consider the reverse: how good a film source do you need such that the film itself does not limit the quality of the digital transfer? You'll find you need 65mm 50fps to even come close to this at 1080p - the grain/noise of standard 35mm is easily seen at 1080p and native 1080p video looks vastly superior, due to the lower noise.

I think HD-DVD will be a big disappointment for most films. Of course each specific movie will look better than it did in SD, but it will often look so much worse than native 1080p digital content that people will be quite disappointed.

Cheers,
David.

[movmasty]

When people talk about analogue vs digital resolution wrt film, it's quite problematic.

This site is great...
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/
(there was a link to a specific article earlier in this thread, but the whole site is worth reading!).

What you find is that you might need a very high resolution digital format to capture every last little detail on a film negative, but normally you'll be capturing a huge amount of noise. In no sense could you say that the film was equal in quality to the very high resolution digital format - the latter is clearly superior.

Consider the reverse: how good a film source do you need such that the film itself does not limit the quality of the digital transfer? You'll find you need 65mm 50fps to even come close to this at 1080p - the grain/noise of standard 35mm is easily seen at 1080p and native 1080p video looks vastly superior, due to the lower noise.

I think HD-DVD will be a big disappointment for most films. Of course each specific movie will look better than it did in SD, but it will often look so much worse than native 1080p digital content that people will be quite disappointed.

Cheers,
David.

i read in that site:
"Digital cameras have a long way to go to match even the low end of 35 mm film"

and digicams have far more resolution than hd movies....
and then?

[2Bdecided]

i read in that site:
"Digital cameras have a long way to go to match even the low end of 35 mm film"


Then you didn't read it fully, or are quoting only from one of the older pages.

and digicams have far more resolution than hd movies....
and then?

35mm still film has higher resolution than 35mm movie film (different film orientation for one thing, no anamorphic or cropping/masking for another!)

No one doubts 35mm film has greater than 1920x1080 resolution - that doesn't mean that 1920x1080 digital video images made from 35mm film looks great - native 1920x1080 video often looks much better!

Cheers,
David.

[*.mp4 guy]

If you have come to that conclusion based on ATSC or DVB sources you really aren't getting the entire picture. If you have access to uncompressed samples you have to make sure they are of the same subject taken under the same conditions or its really just speculation on your part. You also have to keep in mind that some people dislike noise a lot more then others, just becuase a picture is noisy doesn't make it bad; I would rather have a noisy picture with detail then a smooth one without it, and that seams to be the opposite of your preference. Anyway in the end it is easier to remove noise then create detail ;).

[movmasty]

Then you didn't read it fully.
i didnt

[2Bdecided]

If you have come to that conclusion based on ATSC or DVB sources you really aren't getting the entire picture. If you have access to uncompressed samples you have to make sure they are of the same subject taken under the same conditions or its really just speculation on your part. You also have to keep in mind that some people dislike noise a lot more then others, just becuase a picture is noisy doesn't make it bad; I would rather have a noisy picture with detail then a smooth one without it, and that seams to be the opposite of your preference. Anyway in the end it is easier to remove noise then create detail ;).

Whichever you prefer, watching a 35mm film on digital video (SD or HD) is the worst of both worlds - "lower" resolution of video, high noise of film.

Given that very few of us have 35mm projection facilities in our own homes, and even fewer have access to new clean prints of the films we want to watch, the best most of us can hope for is 1080p HD.

In this case, it would be much better if the picture had not been recorded on 35mm film first!

Cheers,
David.