please help clear up the argument - Page 2 - Simply Maya User Community

# 16 20-07-2008 , 12:15 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: /dev/null

Posts: 891

Looking at IMAX - Wikipedia, it seems that IMAX has a resolution of 10,000 x 7,000 pixels (70 megapixels)! :bow:

C. P. U. Its not a big processor... Its a series of pipes!

Quote

# 17 20-07-2008 , 01:55 PM

Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: Minnesota, USA

Posts: 3,709

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

Originally Posted by

No. You would be suprised.
It's a bit different than compressing a Jpeg in Photoshop for example user added image

Israel "Izzy" Long
Motion and Title Design for Broadcast-Film-DS
izzylong.com

Quote

# 18 20-07-2008 , 03:57 PM

19 year Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: U.S.A.

Posts: 2,140

The Architect:wrote

Looking at IMAX - Wikipedia, it seems that IMAX has a resolution of 10,000 x 7,000 pixels (70 megapixels)!

Originally Posted by

IMAX is 10 times the resolution of 35mm. 35mm film offers 10,000 lines of resoluton. I think WIKI mabe mistaken.

Quote

# 19 20-07-2008 , 05:31 PM

Subscriber
Join Date: Jun 2005

Location: cleveland ohio

Posts: 313

Originally posted by THX1138
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.

Originally Posted by

exactly what I was looking for and follows what I researched thanks.
my friends always believed blu-ray had higher res because of its high res to screen size ratio. but I would always doubt it because theater screens are much larger and even though it looks a bit blury at points, it didn't neccessarly mean the resolution is less.
thanks for clearing it up and thanks everyone for their help.

-Dan

Last edited by danotronXX; 20-07-2008 at 05:34 PM.

Quote

# 20 21-07-2008 , 04:31 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: /dev/null

Posts: 891

OK, I was just looking around a few sites where film makers gather and it seems that a lot of them are saying that 35 mm film is resolvable into approx 4K resolution and IMAX into 16K. Are we comparing theoretical maximums (the number of molecules on the film) or the actual usable numbers? Who's right and who's wrong?

C. P. U. Its not a big processor... Its a series of pipes!

Quote

# 21 21-07-2008 , 09:14 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 2,752

i agree, no definitive answer

too many film types, vs, too many codecs and formats (and rapidly changing everyday)

but for shooting at night.., id go film at the drop of a hat.

take it easy and life will be easy

Last edited by mirek03; 21-07-2008 at 09:20 AM.

Quote

# 22 21-07-2008 , 09:32 AM

19 year Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: U.S.A.

Posts: 2,140

If industry experts your looking at are saying that 35mm is resolvable into 4k, they mean it matches the quality of "proper" projection standards in modern cinema. If the industry ever had the technology to copy the full resolution of 35mm ( that being 10k ) and present it digitally, it would be incredible.

Don't let the numbers they say fool you into thinking thats what their native resolutions are. Film is 10k and IMAX is like 100k because IMAX is 10 times the resolutions of 35mm.

2k in my opinion matches current film projection standards and betters it. The problem with film projectors is that the lenses are cheaply made and are not calibrated properly. Proper lighting is also a major factor. The lense of a digital projector is like 2 to 3 times the size than that of a film projector lense.

Quote

# 23 21-07-2008 , 09:52 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: /dev/null

Posts: 891

OK, I did some more research and some people say that there is around 20 million pixels in the best quality 35 mm film on the best equipment. These figures are still lower than what you claim to be achievable in film. We might as well count how many grains there are as well... user added image

Thread evolving into a "tape vs CD vs record" disscussion?

C. P. U. Its not a big processor... Its a series of pipes!

Quote

# 24 21-07-2008 , 11:35 AM

Subscriber
Join Date: Feb 2006

Location: Australia

Posts: 2,752

or acoustic guitar vs electric..,

take it easy and life will be easy

Last edited by mirek03; 21-07-2008 at 11:38 AM.

Quote

# 25 21-07-2008 , 12:25 PM

19 year Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002

Location: U.S.A.

Posts: 2,140

The Architect: wrote

OK, I did some more research and some people say that there is around 20 million pixels in the best quality 35 mm film on the best equipment. These figures are still lower than what you claim to be achievable in film. We might as well count how many grains there are as well...

Originally Posted by

Film is analog so there are no real "pixels." However, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD.

Film has 10 times the capture area as compared to HD video.

So you ask your self why are people quoting digital to be better than film? It's because of the crappy projection standards of your local cinema using film. You would be shocked to hear about the carelessness that goes on behind the scenes of a cinema showing film. Cheaply made equipment is also a major factor as well.

Last edited by THX1138; 21-07-2008 at 12:28 PM.

Quote

# 26 21-07-2008 , 02:15 PM

Moderator
Join Date: May 2005

Location: Manchester Uk

Posts: 6,300

Nice and informative THX!

"No pressure, no diamonds" Thomas Carlyle

Quote

# 27 22-07-2008 , 02:14 AM

Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2006

Location: /dev/null

Posts: 891

Yeah, I know that film is analogue (not really - doesn't analogue only apply to non-digital electronic signals???), so there isn't a way to compare it to blu ray or any other digital format.

C. P. U. Its not a big processor... Its a series of pipes!

Quote

# 28 22-07-2008 , 03:03 AM

Moderator
Join Date: May 2005

Location: Manchester Uk

Posts: 6,300

Films analogue, meaning it has almost infinate variations, where as digital has a finite set of levels, And as film is based of a chemical reaction to light it's analog in nature.

"No pressure, no diamonds" Thomas Carlyle

Quote