please help clear up the argument
 

hey there,
quick question. which has a higher resolution, blu-ray movies or the resolution films are projected on film theaters.
i tried googling it couple times but I'm still not getting a straightforward answer. maybe its not a straightforward question. but anyways wanted to see if any of you knew this cause i've been tryn to find out for a bit.

thanks

my guess is it depends not on the device but the compression codec.., remember though film is analogue and only has ' digital resolution' after it is digitized for on line edit.., i might be wrong.., excuse my guessing

well if you think about it, it's shot on film and then usually edited on computer and then transferred to film again.

because it was shot on film in the first place, that's the limiting factor... so i'd have to say their 'resolution' is the same. it also depends on the size of the film grain (so like ISO rating or speed), cause the smaller the grain the more detailed the image gets, but this is all just my opinion. it's like, 'how can the blu-ray have better resolution or better clarity than the film that it came from?'

good piont.., though these days and more so in the future.., 'film will be shot on digital.., the red camera comes to mind with a 'resolution' of up to 4096 horizontal by 2304 vertical

The blu ray discs use either MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, or SMPTE VC-1 as codecs.

I'm not an expert but I think that if you film with with film, convert into digital to do special effects and post production, and then convert back to film for the cimema, you are going to loose some quality as digital data can't replicate something that isn't digital exactly. If you filmed in digital and converted into film, then you loose quality too, as you can not make an accurate reproduction of something that is digital by using a medium that is not.

I don't think you are going to get a conclusive answer. Its like CDs vs. records vs. tape. Some people will always think one format is better.

theres your answer.., its only as good as the codecs you have given there Architect

next is the quality of the projector it is displayed from.., some are MUCH better than others.., plus the differences in the display screen.., colour settings, contrast,.., ect.., last but not least the operator.

you would need bench mark tests under a variety of controlled conditions to get a definitive answer.., but then that answer is immediately obsolete because of all the given variables.

Film has higher resolution than blu-ray. Film offers 10,000 lines of horizontal resolution compared to the 1920 X 1080 lines that consumer blu-ray offers. Digital Commercial Cinema uses the same resolution as blue-ray, but instead of using MPEG 2 or AVCHD codecs, Digital Commercial Cinema uses the JPEG 2000 video codec. The Digital Commercial Cinema projector also does a little up-scalling to bring the final output to 2048 x 1080.

So theres the final answer.

The film or digital projection will win every time. its the original size and source. After that its all secondary recording with compressions as already stated. theres going to be a loss somewhere, just so it works on your tv and dvd player. If you look carefully at some films on dvd you can see the compression a mile off.

Worth noting is that Star Wars Epsiodes 2 and 3 were shot digitally on RGB 12bit panavision cameras. The frame size is actually smaller than a 35mm camera...go figure that one! Anyway the transfer to a standard DVD would intially be of a better quality being digitally sourced, and therefore once George pulls his finger out of his clone and sticks them on blu ray then we should see something a bit more superior copywise on a blu ray disc as well. Even though compression will still come into play the recording should be better overall. Thats my theory anyway

Jay

I'm just wondering why they would use JPEG as the codec. Doesn't JPEG introduce artifacts during compression?

I think they decided on JPEG 2000 for copyright issues, but I'm not for sure. I also don't think your going to find hardly any consumer hardware that would use it either. So Commercial Digital Cinema use's something different. Also the digital signal is encrypted all the way to the projector, and the projectors all have fail-safes built in to prevent anybody from copying. And all the projectors are monitored from Dolby labs.

As far as the quality between MPEG, AVCHD, and JPEG 2000 is concerned, I don't know. I would have to see A B tests between the 3.

Film resolutions will always be superiour quality for all the reasons already stated. That is until all films are recorded digitally. Most Digital Cameras used at present will normally be a 2k Digi Camera, but the new 4k versions are also under release now and starting to get slowly used...

To test what I am talking about use a still image, photogrpah taken by a Digital Camera and upload it to your PC. As you see the resolution matches that of the Megapixel of the Digital Lens (2, 4,5 10 etc...) Now obvously the image at 10Mp is going to be of superior quality in comparison to the 2Mp image. Now take the negative of a film image and scan that in using a negative scanner system (only around 10-15k each lol, and made by kodak) and you will see the resolution is much clearer and of a higher quality, this is due to the way the film captures the image. And this is due to the infinite resolution that a standard film camera can capture.

OK, its not really a viable test, unless you get the kit. Now as Jay stated once the film is digitised, thats when you start to loose image quality, as the film is then set for its resolution:

720x576 for TV (PAL)
720x480 for TV (NTSC)
1280x720 for 720p Res
1920x1080 for 1080i +p
1920x1080 for Blue Ray

Now the original Image from Film could be as much as 2.5K, so loss will occur. But again this is all depandant on ISO ratings and speed rating of the film and wot original film camera was used.

Its a complex and difficult subject, but original film will always have a higher quality image than digital due to the way the lens and film work compaired to digital.

FYI I worked with the Military for 3.5 yrs doing Still and Moving image capture and editing whilst I served in Northern Ireland.

yeah they sure are. Its the way it works. Its like versions of software, the industry will always have the newest version which will then be written upon for improvements to pipelines, then usually a version of that will be introduced to the public. Its also like the muscle plugin for maya, how long ago was gollum created using this stuff? The consumer will get the technology in about 5 years time when its made more feasible for home use...or out of date as far as big companies are concerned

Jay

Are there not 50+ megapixel digital cameras out there? I recall reading about one last year in a photography magazine. The reviewer complained they captured too much detail or something :rolleyes:

I guess some people like to call blur "artistic" ;)

As for the digital cinema, I just read at Wikipedia that the main reason that it is used is becuase its easier for the distributor to apply copy protection :p

Digital is totaly easier to work with as the source format is in the standard you already need. so you can work with it far easier

As for the 50+ Mp cameras, I have no idea, but I would not put it past them :p

I do know that 4K Digital Cameras are now being used for movies.

I don't care to know much more detail about the systems used in theaters than I already do, but I can say from experience this weekend your average theater visually appears to be lower quality than a high-definition picture as it is projected. IMAX however is MUCH higher quality and with a screen that is 6 stories high, it LOOKS like you've got a huge high def screen.
I am of the understanding that your images are reproduced on the screen with light and not the result of light projected through film.
Correct me if I am wrong, but whatever the reason those Massive 1 tonne imax projectors do a DAMN fine job.