darinp2: > Is that 875 lines per picture height?
Yep, and presumably they meant "line pairs" (a dark
line visible only because it has an adjacent light line),
or 1750 total lines high, which would be 2328x1750
on an academy frame, 2328x1258 on a masked 1.85:1
frame or 2328x1750 in anamorphic 2.39:1.
Except that you can't directly compare analog "lines"
and digital "pixels" resolutions due to sampling theory
and artifacts at degenerate and limiting cases.
Also, these test results were from "state of the art"
halls, and were the top result. Your average popcornplex
is apt to be lower, easily below DCI's 2K (2048x1080).
The problem isn't the theoretical resolution of
Kodak 5274 negative stock, but the generational losses
to print, film weave, registration jitter, projector vibration, etc.
All of which is moot. The exhibitors have decided that 2K
digital is "theatrical quality".
ChrisWiggles: > 2K simply is not enough resolution for
> a theater display. Period. Unacceptable.
Those who think so are, alas, not the target demographic
for contemporary theatrical exhibition. Theatres around
here seem content with 2K. If they spend any money on
upgrades, adding 3D capability is likely above 4K on the list.
DCI 2K (2048x1080) is only 5% greater res than
HDTV (1920x1080). If you care about presentation quality,
spend your theatre-going dollars on HT upgrades.