Is Movie theatre resoltuion 1080p or something better? I think its definitely HD but what is it?

Thanks

Film is higher than 5000x5000 once scanned... if i remember correctly.

Film is 4k-6k. The theatrical prints we see in theaters is about 1.5k. The reason they don't look as good as HD DVD is generally focus problems. It's difficult for them to see from that tiny window and they can't freeze the frame or the film will melt.

It's difficult for them to see from that tiny window and they can't freeze the frame or the film will melt.

Plus they don't give a sh**.

And a toroidial screen doesn't help either. Am I the only one that is bothered by the center of the screen being slightly out of focus while the edges aren't? I can tell it is because of the curvature of the screen...

I wouldn't know. Our theaters around here are so awful that it's been quite some time since I've gone to one. :(

There are a handful of prints (usually 10-12) that some distributors have struck directly from the original negative (EK prints). These are normally exhibited in NY and LA and a handful of other high profile locales. They look dramatically better than the prints that are distributed to the "masses." The other prints are, incidentally, graded as well. The best "boutique" prints go to other high-profile locations. The lesser quality ones go to Podunk, etc.

Eric

Film is 4k-6k. The theatrical prints we see in theaters is about 1.5k. The reason they don't look as good as HD DVD is generally focus problems. It's difficult for them to see from that tiny window and they can't freeze the frame or the film will melt.


Why not focus during the "The following preview" text. Nice white text on green background? That's what I do at home.

K

ive always wondered this waht about their audio setups in most theathers what do they consist of?

i havent been to the movies since the release of cars and it looked good but didnt wow me

most theaters do not have enough money or say they do not have enough money to raise a budget so theaters can upgrade outdated material most of the theaters i have ever worked at used old christie projectors looked like they were from 1960 or something fierce. the only theater i have ever worked at that had a good budget and great screens was star theatres in southfield, michigan that place is one of the busiest theaters in the nation though

What is this "theatre" you speak of?

HD-DVD looks better than the film at a local theater? Puh. SD DVD looks better, nevermind HD-DVD! :eek:

Is Movie theatre resoltuion 1080p or something better? I think its definitely HD but what is it?

Thanks

I havn't seen any theaters advertising 4k yet, however, 2K and Digital 2K using SDDS for audio are the highest I've seen.

Standard Resolution Aspect Ratio Pixels
Academy 4K 3656 × 2664 1.37:1 9,739,584

Digital cinema 4K 4096 × 1714 2.39:1 7,020,544
3996 × 2160 1.85:1 8,631,360

Academy 2K 1828 × 1332 1.37:1 2,434,896

Digital Cinema 2K 2048 × 858 2.39:1 1,757,184
1998 × 1080 1.85:1 2,157,840

http://www.mkpe.com/digital_cinema/faqs.php#available

most theaters do not have enough money or say they do not have enough money to raise a budget so theaters can upgrade outdated material most of the theaters i have ever worked at used old christie projectors looked like they were from 1960 or something fierce. the only theater i have ever worked at that had a good budget and great screens was star theatres in southfield, michigan that place is one of the busiest theaters in the nation though

The 1960's had some of the best projectors out there! I've seen a lot of theaters with even older stuff from the 20's. Most can be upgraded with all the modern sound heads/formats. A lot of them are better than modern film projectors. I'd use a old 1960's simplex instead of a 5 year old christie anyday!:D IMHO!

I can barely stand watching a movie in a theater anymore. My home theater is superior in every friggin way, including cheaper popcorn.

Greetings

How much detail you see on the screen tends to relate to how far back you are sitting. Someone sitting in row 5 will see more than someone in row 100 ...

It is estimated that people sitting at a distance of 1.5 screen widths in the theater can decern roughly 1 million pixels worth of information. Oddly .. this is close to 1280x720 ...

Regards

There are a handful of prints (usually 10-12) that some distributors have struck directly from the original negative (EK prints). These are normally exhibited in NY and LA and a handful of other high profile locales. They look dramatically better than the prints that are distributed to the "masses." The other prints are, incidentally, graded as well. The best "boutique" prints go to other high-profile locations. The lesser quality ones go to Podunk, etc.

Eric

In my 'choice' theater it's a royal toss up. One time the print is to die for (MI3 and Pearl Harbor come to mind) and other times the print is DOA ( Flyboys was hideous).

Anyway, most of the time my HT wins hands down. On the other hand, a great print makes a great picture. More great prints please.

Recently on a movie I care about PQ in the theater, I'll look for when they have their Digital Projection so I know what I'm getting, which definatly looks superior to normal viewings, Superman Returns on Digital Projection at my local theater was quite good, aswell as the previews before it.

The best "boutique" prints go to other high-profile locations. The lesser quality ones go to Podunk, etc.

Then once the lesser quality ones have run their course they're shipped of to theaters in my part of the world, so we get the pleasure of watching scratched up new release movies on hand me down film.

One more reason why i want to se HD-DVD come down under sooner rather than later.

The highest resolution a standard 35mm film frame gets scanned at is 4096x3112 and thats the fullap film frame including soundtrack area. On release print it will have been hard masked and repositioned to something like 3656x1976 for 1.85 and 3656x1555 for 2.35 if it hasn't been anamophicized. (the repo and squeaze might be done digitally or it might be done optically it varies...optically was still more common last time I looked) .

Scope for reference will usually be 3656x3046 on projection (give or take a bit in the y axis) but this needs unsqueazing to display properly ( square pixel res being 7312x3046 if you want to put it in those terms). Scope is commonly 2.40 or wider (not 2.35) to allow for adequate splice space but 2.35 is so commonly misused to describe it that its fallen into general use.

Its normal practice to do the DI at 2K 2048x1556 . Most widely released films will go through a digital intermediate stage these days.

On projection you probably get somewhere around 1.5k due to instability in the film path. However the intensity range of film is much larger than video be it HD or SD.

The United Nation's ITU study a few years back, the basis for a SMPTE paper as well as consultant Matt Cowan's earlier pdf paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf), concluded theater on-screen film resolution approximates 720p (equivalent of ~1280x720 lines). Cowan's paper shows (graph) the drops in resolution with various print stages (instrument measured), and observers recorded resolution bars on international theater screens. (Kodak objected in a SMPTE letter that filmed square-wave test patterns, not ITU's sine waves, would have provided somewhat higher resolution readings.) This recent post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7408766&&#post7408766) touches on both film and HD video resolution. -- John

Ill take pics of my theatre's audio setup if ya want, I am doing projection on Thursday night :)

And we are in the top 5 busiest theatres in Florida, so we have some good stuff I guess compared to other theatres.

Ill take pics of my theatre's audio setup if ya want, I am doing projection on Thursday night :)

And we are in the top 5 busiest theatres in Florida, so we have some good stuff I guess compared to other theatres.

Which Theatre?

I have noticed theaters with great equipment, that are set up poorly, and rarely, if ever, re-calibrated.

I know we have a lot of THX certified theaters here in C-bus. At one time (about 5 years ago) we had the most screens per capita. I'm not sure if that is still true or not. The Lennox right next to OSU used to be in the the top 10 busiest theaters in the country. I know we had the most people watching Episode III compared to the rest of the country at midnight on release night. They used all 24 screens at once. Anyway, We do have some good quality screens here in C-bus and nice sound systems as well (some SDDS, some DD-EX/DTS-ES, some THX certified). I guess we're spoiled, except for no digital cinemas yet.

Which Theatre?

Cobb Theatre in South Florida

Film is analog it has no resolution however as many people in this thread have indicated analog is more subjective and depends more on the equipment, operators and the quality of the print.

Theaters will move digital within the next 10 years. Digital distribution is vastly cheaper. The film industry spends over $100 million per year on the creation, distribution and maintaining the film stock all over the country. A 3 hour digital movie at 4K resolution plus uncompressed sound can fit on a 500GB hard drive. Digital equipment tends to be easier to calibrate and the media always remains faithful to the original digital master. Of course 4K theaters will eventually make videophiles want a 4K setup in their house.

Please tell me this is a joke, right?
Film -owns- HD-DVD, top to bottom, left to right. There is no comparison. Sorry. Bottom line, end of story. You can debate me, but you'd be wrong. Higher resolution, better contrast, no compression blocking.
Higher resolution? Depends on the print. Better contrast? Certainly not in the cinemas I know. My home cinema has easily 10 to 20 times the contrast (as measured as the deepest black versus the brightest white) of a regular cinema. Compression blocking? HD-DVDs have practically no blocking from compression. If there is loss due to compression it's not visible as blocking.
Film as in camera negative or DI from the negative has more information than HD (consumer or professional) but the film you see in cinemas is usually another kind of film with several more transformation steps in between. So it's no so one sided as you claim.

It is not reasonable to assume a 2K scan of even the original negative somehow has more than 2K resolution. And it goes downhill from there.

- Tom

Is Movie theatre resoltuion 1080p or something better? I think its definitely HD but what is it?

Thanks

This fellow claims that by the time film gets to your local hell-octoplex it is roughly equivalent to home theater, in terms of resolution: http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf

-Bill

Go to page 8 of consultant Matt Cowan's pdf white paper (http://www.etconsult.com/papers/Technical%20Issues%20in%20Cinema%20Resolution.pdf) on this topic and you can see the results of testing in 4 theaters. (Horiz. res. is in picture heights, requiring multiplying by 1.78 or 1.85 for lines/PW.) The SMPTE published a paper a while after this one with similar conclusions since both are based on U.N. ITU data. -- John

EDIT: Sorry, missed the preceding post with the same link. Just a few added details then. Oh yes, Kodak wrote the SMPTE objecting to ITU's use of sinewave rather than squarewave test patterns, saying the latter would have shown somewhat higher resolution results.

Sigh here we go again.

Film is not video . It has a far larger intensity range, there are parts on the tone scale on film that simply do not make it through a telecine ( mainly towards black and towards white). Telecine is all about compromising the intensity from a film range into a video range and to do that you have to lose some of it.

This has to be decided upon on a shot by shot basis which is why atelecine has to be performed by a human being making decisions as to how best compromise the material whilst still maintaining the director's original intent.

Its is not all about resolution . 1k film colourspace material still looks significantly more impressive than HD video.

Its is not all about resolution . 1k film colourspace material still looks significantly more impressive than HD video.
And is that more due to 10 or 12 bit samples versus 8 or the different color primaries?

And is that more due to 10 or 12 bit samples versus 8 or the different color primaries?

Its primarily down to the bitdepth and the perceptual encoding used for a film vs video colourspace , you can't really seperate the two. For instance you can get away with 8bit log encoding for full negative density film material with quite a lot of imagery , its not just the number of bits , its the colourspace itself.

Its primarily down to the bitdepth and the perceptual encoding used for a film vs video colourspace , you can't really seperate the two. For instance you can get away with 8bit log encoding for full negative density film material with quite a lot of imagery , its not just the number of bits , its the colourspace itself.
So the next HD consumer format better support 10 bit data and alternative color primaries. Time to rebuy the whole catalogue yet again. :eek: Or maybe some clever processing can guess what the real color could have been and using today's projectors with primaries outside the HD standard can give a good simulation of cinema colors.

Here's an interesting article (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/videoedsys/revfeat/video_going_tapeless/) about the production of the upcoming "Zodiac" feature made with digital Viper cameras and hard drives; (tapes only for archiving). Outlines film versus tapeless digital production pros/cons. ( Windows Media and Quick Time trailers (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/zodiac_hd.html)). -- John

Film is analog it has no resolution however as many people in this thread have indicated analog is more subjective and depends more on the equipment, operators and the quality of the print.

Theaters will move digital within the next 10 years. Digital distribution is vastly cheaper. The film industry spends over $100 million per year on the creation, distribution and maintaining the film stock all over the country. A 3 hour digital movie at 4K resolution plus uncompressed sound can fit on a 500GB hard drive. Digital equipment tends to be easier to calibrate and the media always remains faithful to the original digital master. Of course 4K theaters will eventually make videophiles want a 4K setup in their house.

To be more precise, analog film like any analog image does not have a pixel resolution, but it most definitely has a spatial resolution, which can be precisely measured. Usually the copied and projected image has much worse resolution than the film for reasons others have mentioned.

I for one welcome digital distribution with open arms. Other than IMAX, watching films in theaters is an exercise in pain. Mostly I find the judder, scratches, and odd hairs and dirt that show up to be intolerable, less so than actual defocus issues. I understand from SLR work that there is less dynamic range than film, but I don't think it needs to be very limiting if done carefully. It's certainly worth the tradeoff in my book.

One of the things that has always impaired resolution during the telecine process is sloppy sprockets that cause successive frames to jump around a bit and not line up perfectly. According to this CNET article (http://news.com.com/Digital+tech+sharpens+Technicolor+films/2100-1026_3-6146834.html) it looks like Warner & AOL have some new techniques to line things up and otherwise enhance the detail a bit.

- Tom

So the next HD consumer format better support 10 bit data and alternative color primaries. .

Personally I think you could improve things whilst sticking with 8bit. like I said you can get away with 8bit for an awful lot of the imagery used in film and that's from the perspectve of dealing with a full film negative density range. Chop some of the headroom in the whites off to get you down to something closer to a print dynamic and it makes things even easier in 8bit.

The main problem to my mind is getting displays that can cope with the more complex and critical transfer functions as current digital displays don't even handle a video range that cleanly so you risk trading more intensity variation for more banding with some imagery. Although as digital displays tend to have a nominally linear display they usually ( I assume) have LUTs applied somewhere in the image chain anyway.

Essentially I suspect/know that some of the innefficiencies in the way 8bit video is encoded are overhangs from compromises inherently necessary from mechanical limitations when video standards were created. Whilst things have improved over time as standards develop there are still some roadblocks with video as a delivery format rather than going to "something else" which is maybe just a little too different to maintain easy compatability with production and display systems and paradigms that are well established. (a bit like colour analogue broadcasts having to maintain compatability with monochrome TVs).

My proposal would be to pick something along the lines of the digital "negative" formats like cineon/dpx (10bit log encoded film colourspace) and chop it down slightly to give us an 8bit log encoded print type colourspace with some yuv colour sampling thrown in for good measure. So you end up with more gammut although maybe not any more colour resolution and more intensity variation (smoother transitions towards minimum black and peak white with a softer roll off).

The newer digital capture formats that the viper and genesis use are more like those cineon/dpx formats from the perspective of setting a white ref and recording useful headroom above it. this is what I'm getting at with regard to them not really being the same as 1080p "video"regardless of bitdepth.

I don't actually think we need to go higher than 1080p for a home format in fact I'd even have prefered 720p with a more print like dynamic range and gammut ( I always spell it wrong).