Originally Posted by coldmachine
Then youre still mistaken.
The lack of pixel structure of film does indeed allow for closer seating distance, but a commercial 35mm presentation has significantly less detail than a 2k DCP.
I alluded to that much previously:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
In an average multiplex I can't argue with that statement. But that doesn't mean that all the added noise of 2K structure somehow is off the hook. Sure the MTF of an average 35mm print in a multiplex isn't that great, but so what? You can still sit really close to it, the only weakness is it looks a little softer than it might.
The MTF of a DCI machine, and a good domestic unit, is well ahead of an commercial 35mm capability. The lower small area contrast of a 35mm system, which is MFT anyway, results in significant loss of detail.
Fine. That doesn't mean that 2K projector doesn't add a bunch of noise on top of that which I object to. I said that above.
Being able to sit closer to an image does not mean it has higher resolution or more detail. If it did, all our displays would simply comprise a single gigantic pixel.
I didn't say that it did. Again, you're interpreting what I said about "resolution weakness" in comparison to 35mm which I didn't intend in that fashion, but that 2K digital projector doesn't have enough resolution to match 35mm in a way that I find important: lack of visible display structure at rather close viewing angles. You could blur a 2K display so it has low MTF, and if done conservatively I might actually consider it an improvement if you are sitting close
What I want is the best of both worlds. With 4K or higher, you can have the MTF you're striving for, but without all the added noise (structure) of a lower resolution digital display which is crap at closer viewing distances. If you only have 2K, you're either stuck with the noise, or you're forced to blur the image(either optically, or just by sitting farther away) and then you lose the MTF advantage.
Don't get me wrong, I love film and that's why I have a 35mm system. There are some things that film does better, but resolution, or detail, isn't one of them. Many of films advantages are moot anyway, as the print is simply derived from a digital master.
That's great, but I want the move to DCI to be an unabashed step forward, not a step forward in one direction and a step backward in another. I am exaggerating my displeasure for effect, but I do not see 2K as a fully adequate replacement for 35mm film. It is not enough resolution if you're sitting close because you can see the display structure and this is a bigger issue for me than a softness of film in comparison. If it were 4K or beyond, you could have both advantages, and I'm pushing for the best possible, not simply what is cheap and convenient and easy to do and "good enough" compared to the garbage that passes for 35mm at average multiplexes where the "projectionists" are teens picking their noses and flicking their boogers on the film...