Originally Posted by coldmachine
I explained that above, with a need for 8k archiving to capture the grain fully, this fact has led to a significant ammount of confusion and misunderstanding, including within the industry. Also, don't confuse the capture capabilities of 35mm film, with the capabilities of a 35mm display system. 2 very different things indeed,
As I said above, a 35mm system has lower MTF, that is beyond dispute. It is therefore impossible for it to display higher levels of detail
I have a 35mm system and the difference is immediately obvious when comparing to a high resolving (high MTF) digital unit, and that's with a 35mm unit that is expertly maintained and inherently superior to the vast majority of commercial units. Even with a pristine print, the digital yields a more detailed image....assuming the BD transfer is good. When the source is a DCP, the difference is greater still.
Reading Your posts in this thread I came to conclusion that You say a good BD transfer with a good home cinema projector will show greater resolution and details than positive print. How did You came to this conclusion ?
Watching or measuring ?
There are many faults in Your conclusions.
And many generalaties which can not be used in this situation about 35mm quality.
First of all,
You say You have a 35mm projection.
But what do You watch there ? Release prints from Your local cinema, or similar quality prints ? That prints are usualy 6th or maybe even 7th generation from OCN. Try converting MPEG4 to MPEG1 and vice versa 6 times.
What will You get than?
Second of all,
Have You ever scanned 35mm print and analysied it to a frame taken from BD or JPEG2000 for DCI.
If not, than Your "I saw it" conclusion, about resolution and MTF can not be valid. It is just a generality.
Have You ever seen a 35mm direct print from OCN ?
Or a direct print made from 4k Digital Intermediate process ?
There is no 2k or HD projector which can come even close to color rendering,
shadow details, highlights of these prints...
All postproduction studios try to make their 2k projections to come close to the 35mm projection and not vice versa, and this is the first time ever to hear that BD with home HD projector is better than 35mm prints.
There are many issues when watching 35mm in local cinema:
bad/old/out of focus/ lens, strong ambient light, 6th generation print,...
And You compare the perceived sharpness of that print with brand new optics of 2K projector and perfect HT od Digital Cinema conditions.
This is not a valid comparision, since You do not speak about this local cinema print, but 35mm in general.
I do the 35mm Kinoton/2k Barco A/B
comparisions of the same materials all the time.
this is uncompressed 2k material, not some Lossy jpeg2000 or even worse mpeg4/mpeg2 blu ray compression.
And this is not just me. Hundereds of other people.
I have never seen in practice or heard from anyone that has made this comparisions, with a conclusion that their 35mm print was inferior to hd or 2k projection.
Just to remind You that in process of print from OCN or Intermediate materials there are no things like in BD:
Downconverting to HD, reducing color information to 4:2:2,
reducing bit depth to 8bit, noise/grain reduction (which degrades resolution and sharpness, so You have to add later artificial sharpening)
compression of 50-100 factor, if You compare it to uncompressed HD.
if You compare it to 4k the compression factor is 500.
At the very end, there is a thing called 3d LUT managment (cinetal ,filmlight, arri). People spend 10.000-30.000 $, trying to emulate film through 3dLUT on digital projectors and displays.
this is a long story and I already had a really long day at work ...