cinema film image quality vs. 6mp

You are right... bad choice of words... not training, but our minds see 24fps and the film look and immediately it is like looking through a window into another world. It is easier to suspend disbelief when it has that special film look. When they filmed Episode 1 in digital, they had to use many special tricks to achieve that look.

Regards,
Sean

Gaetan J. said:

Gaetan J. said:

The only reason people like
the "movie film look" is because we have been trained that it is
bigger than real life.

Click to expand...

...

I beg to differ here, it's like a Van Gog or a Picasso. I do not
think it is because we were trained to find it better. Of course it
is less reel but like in other art form you do not go to see a
picture to see reality. If it were so Harny would still be an
unknown lifting weight somewhere. We go to see a movie for the same
reason some people go to a galerie or a museum. No, no training
about it.

have fun

--
Gaetan J.

Click to expand...

Yes that 'is' what the whole point is. You are right about there being no flaws to the Monsters Inc. But, going to see a movie in a digital projector theater that was "filmed" using film has an additional generation loss because every frame has to be scanned in before it can be shown on the digital projector. Episode 1 does not suffer a generation loss other than the loss of being 'filmed' but 'all' movies suffer that loss even with film, so your arguement is pointless. Neither does Monsters Inc. etc. have a generation loss, that is why I suggested going to see one of these types of movies at a digital projection movie theater, and avoiding making judgement seeing a regularly filmed movie on one.

Keep in mind the digital projectors are still only 2.1 mp and both Monsters Inc. and Episode 1 had to be downsampled to play on them, and they both looked better than film. That is why they were able to release it on IMAX as well. 35 mm film does not hold up at IMAX sizes, but lower than 6mp digital eg. Episode 1 did! See what I mean? So imagine how good 6mp would look at IMAX size.

Regards,
Sean

Gaetan J. said:

Sean Keegan said:

That is the whole point... episode 1 was shot in digital. No
generation loss for it either.

Click to expand...

no, no, no, not the same. The sensor is the first generation. Since
you are capturing something on the sensor the sensor will introduce
some artefact by itself, thing like moire and noise not to talk
about lens and other capturing "intricacies".

But in the case of monster inc and the like, there is no sensor to
begin with. They are digital animation without any sensor as a
first generation. So there is no noise, no moire, no lens
abheration or distortion.
--
Gaetan J.

Click to expand...

I also wanted to add that going to see Episode 1 on a regular projector is also not fair to the movie because it suffered a large generation loss because it had to be "printed" onto film first to be shown. People that complained about noise etc. on Episode 1 saw the movie on a film projector (more than likely). If anything it shows how good digital is because the vast majority of people saw the film in this way, on a film projector and could not tell the difference. Remember there are only less than 1% of theaters in the USA that have a digital projector. Everyone else saw Episode 1 on a film transfer! Pretty amazing if you ask me. And the cameras they used to film Episode 1 were no where near 6mp.

Regards,
Sean

Sean Keegan said:

Keep in mind the digital projectors are still only 2.1 mp and both
Monsters Inc. and Episode 1 had to be downsampled to play on them,
and they both looked better than film. That is why they were able
to release it on IMAX as well. 35 mm film does not hold up at IMAX
sizes, but lower than 6mp digital eg. Episode 1 did! See what I
mean? So imagine how good 6mp would look at IMAX size.

Regards,
Sean

Gaetan J. said:

Sean Keegan said:

That is the whole point... episode 1 was shot in digital. No
generation loss for it either.

Click to expand...

no, no, no, not the same. The sensor is the first generation. Since
you are capturing something on the sensor the sensor will introduce
some artefact by itself, thing like moire and noise not to talk
about lens and other capturing "intricacies".

But in the case of monster inc and the like, there is no sensor to
begin with. They are digital animation without any sensor as a
first generation. So there is no noise, no moire, no lens
abheration or distortion.
--
Gaetan J.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Sean,

Let me ask this...

Did episode one go through any kind of a film process to end up on DVD?

Why do I ask? Because that's the only way I saw it. (I figured it wasn't worth seeing in a theater, but that's another story. I may never, ever see another Star Wars Episode...) Well, maybe I should have readjusted my television just to watch the DVD. It was visually very grating. The bright scenes (like all the outdoor stuff) had a very flat look to them. There was nothing for the eye to latch on to...a quite reduced tonal gradiation. The indoor scenes suffered their own kind of misery, but I am not going to watch it again just to remind myself what that misery was...

(By the way, I saw the very first Star Wars projected in 70mm. Now that was special...)

My best,

Ed

Sean Keegan said:

Regards,
Sean

Sean Keegan said:

Keep in mind the digital projectors are still only 2.1 mp and both
Monsters Inc. and Episode 1 had to be downsampled to play on them,
and they both looked better than film. That is why they were able
to release it on IMAX as well. 35 mm film does not hold up at IMAX
sizes, but lower than 6mp digital eg. Episode 1 did! See what I
mean? So imagine how good 6mp would look at IMAX size.

Regards,
Sean

Gaetan J. said:

Sean Keegan said:

That is the whole point... episode 1 was shot in digital. No
generation loss for it either.

Click to expand...

no, no, no, not the same. The sensor is the first generation. Since
you are capturing something on the sensor the sensor will introduce
some artefact by itself, thing like moire and noise not to talk
about lens and other capturing "intricacies".

But in the case of monster inc and the like, there is no sensor to
begin with. They are digital animation without any sensor as a
first generation. So there is no noise, no moire, no lens
abheration or distortion.
--
Gaetan J.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

You had to bring up one of the more prominent deficiencies of digital didn't you. Afterall, even Canons engineers stated that they wanted the 1Ds to match the gradation of slide and surprisingly enough . . . the D30!

Well of course it had to get processed, multiple times I'm sure, just to maintain that first generation look!

Ed Leys said:

Sean,

Let me ask this...

Did episode one go through any kind of a film process to end up on
DVD?

Why do I ask? Because that's the only way I saw it. (I figured it
wasn't worth seeing in a theater, but that's another story. I may
never, ever see another Star Wars Episode...) Well, maybe I
should have readjusted my television just to watch the DVD. It was
visually very grating. The bright scenes (like all the outdoor
stuff) had a very flat look to them. There was nothing for the eye
to latch on to...a quite reduced tonal gradiation. The indoor
scenes suffered their own kind of misery, but I am not going to
watch it again just to remind myself what that misery was...

(By the way, I saw the very first Star Wars projected in 70mm. Now
that was special...)

My best,

Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

Click to expand...

Most of the stuff outside are all matte paintings and things like that. Not because it was shot in digital, it wasn't, it was shot using film. They make things look flat because they are putting haze over things to make them look farther away and make the scale grander. Episode 1 is worth watching for the visuals if nothing else. And I just realized something else. HAHAHAHA, this whole time I have been writing Episode 1 as being shot digially. Episode 2 was shot digitaly, not Episode 1. OOPS sorry. In my head I had them right, I just kept typing 1 for some reason. Episode 2 is the movie I am talking about and the one that was shown in IMAX and shot digtially. I am really sorry!

Regards,
Sean

Ed Leys said:

Let me ask this...

Did episode one go through any kind of a film process to end up on
DVD?

Why do I ask? Because that's the only way I saw it. (I figured it
wasn't worth seeing in a theater, but that's another story. I may
never, ever see another Star Wars Episode...) Well, maybe I
should have readjusted my television just to watch the DVD. It was
visually very grating. The bright scenes (like all the outdoor
stuff) had a very flat look to them. There was nothing for the eye
to latch on to...a quite reduced tonal gradiation. The indoor
scenes suffered their own kind of misery, but I am not going to
watch it again just to remind myself what that misery was...

(By the way, I saw the very first Star Wars projected in 70mm. Now
that was special...)

My best,

Ed

Sean Keegan said:

Regards,
Sean

Sean Keegan said:

Keep in mind the digital projectors are still only 2.1 mp and both
Monsters Inc. and Episode 1 had to be downsampled to play on them,
and they both looked better than film. That is why they were able
to release it on IMAX as well. 35 mm film does not hold up at IMAX
sizes, but lower than 6mp digital eg. Episode 1 did! See what I
mean? So imagine how good 6mp would look at IMAX size.

Regards,
Sean

Gaetan J. said:

Sean Keegan said:

That is the whole point... episode 1 was shot in digital. No
generation loss for it either.

Click to expand...

no, no, no, not the same. The sensor is the first generation. Since
you are capturing something on the sensor the sensor will introduce
some artefact by itself, thing like moire and noise not to talk
about lens and other capturing "intricacies".

But in the case of monster inc and the like, there is no sensor to
begin with. They are digital animation without any sensor as a
first generation. So there is no noise, no moire, no lens
abheration or distortion.
--
Gaetan J.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

Click to expand...

You have been fooled. Episode 1 was shot on FILM! Not digital. There goes your theory.

LesDMess said:

Ed Leys said:

Sean,

Let me ask this...

Did episode one go through any kind of a film process to end up on
DVD?

Why do I ask? Because that's the only way I saw it. (I figured it
wasn't worth seeing in a theater, but that's another story. I may
never, ever see another Star Wars Episode...) Well, maybe I
should have readjusted my television just to watch the DVD. It was
visually very grating. The bright scenes (like all the outdoor
stuff) had a very flat look to them. There was nothing for the eye
to latch on to...a quite reduced tonal gradiation. The indoor
scenes suffered their own kind of misery, but I am not going to
watch it again just to remind myself what that misery was...

(By the way, I saw the very first Star Wars projected in 70mm. Now
that was special...)

My best,

Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

In all of my posts I just realized, this whole time I have been writing Episode 1 as being shot digially. Episode 2 was shot digitaly, not Episode 1. OOPS sorry. In my head I had them right, I just kept typing 1 for some reason. Episode 2 is the movie I am talking about and the one that was shown in IMAX. Episode 1 was never shown in IMAX. I am really sorry! For all of my other posts substitute Episode 2 for episode 1. DOH!

Regards,
Sean

tim martin said:

This may be a bit of a silly question...

But if a 6mp digital camera image was projected onto a regular size
cinema screen, say 30 feet high, and 40 feet wide (or whatever
the average cinema screen size would be), how would it look ?

When I switch over to "view actually image", and make one pixel
on my computer screen be one pixel in my 6mp images, it's
pretty impressive, all the detail there, but ...

on a 25 foot screen, it would probably look quite bad, right ?

But then again, those cinema film reels I have seen don't really
look that wide, maybe not much more than 35mm film, I think,
maybe.

Thanks for any info.

Click to expand...

But you are right too... digital cameras do not have the dynamic range of print film.... The S2 was measured by Thom Hogan and found it had about the dynamic range of slide film, but not print film. Every digital camera has different dynamic range capability too, but in general film is better. But not by more than a couple stops ususally.

Regards,
Sean

Sean Keegan said:

LesDMess said:

Ed Leys said:

Sean,

Let me ask this...

Did episode one go through any kind of a film process to end up on
DVD?

Why do I ask? Because that's the only way I saw it. (I figured it
wasn't worth seeing in a theater, but that's another story. I may
never, ever see another Star Wars Episode...) Well, maybe I
should have readjusted my television just to watch the DVD. It was
visually very grating. The bright scenes (like all the outdoor
stuff) had a very flat look to them. There was nothing for the eye
to latch on to...a quite reduced tonal gradiation. The indoor
scenes suffered their own kind of misery, but I am not going to
watch it again just to remind myself what that misery was...

(By the way, I saw the very first Star Wars projected in 70mm. Now
that was special...)

My best,

Ed
--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

we made the same mistake, thinking about the scene from e2 but writing e1

LOL

.... but....... but ......., i m getting older, memory is going away .... oh yes we were tlking about when will Aliens (2) will go out ... what's my name ?
--
Gaetan J.

Gaetan J. said:

Interesting point but wrong reasoning. It do look good but it is
because of the motion blur. That's why we are starting to see video
camera (like the ag-dvx100) that run at 24p (23.97frame/s) so we
can have the film look, the film esthetic that is so pleasing to
the eye.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the standard film frame rate is not somehow more magically appealing to the eye. Look back on the history of film projection and you'll see that the basic rate is pretty the the MINIMUM needed to get an acceptable experience. OTOH, more frames-per-second only offers a somewhat neglible improvement, while increasing costs.

There's really only a few reasons to have video run at the same film rate. One is that it is a "look" we happen to be used to, but perhaps more importantly, 24p allows you to match film and video frame-per-frame, w/o needing to "convert" one speed to another speed first. See:

http://www.brushfirefilms.com/bff/pages/hdtvfive.html

Member said:

... but where film suffers is when a negative or transparency is
scanned - this is the point where additional degeneration of image
quality is usually found...

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with the point I think you're making here, in that I find digital prints of scanned film to be superior to optical enlargements. Given a good scan, a good digital print will beat out the optical one of the same size. The back-end process will, to a certain extent, compensate for the detail lost scanning.

Member said:

Yes, of course there is but one fixed true "potential" resolution
for any particular ISO film, but this "potential" can't be reached
with a 35mm platform simply because you run up against grain long
before the resolution is exhausted.

Click to expand...

This is especially true if you're doing optical printing from film, since at some point you're simply enlarging a small blurred gradient (dot) into a larger one. Proper interpolation and sharpening will maintain lines and edges in a digital print that would simply be blurs when enlarged optically.

When your bulb (or carbon arc) is burned out, it does not matter how many FPS you use does it?

N8

Sean Keegan said:

Regards,
Sean

tim martin said:

This may be a bit of a silly question...

But if a 6mp digital camera image was projected onto a regular size
cinema screen, say 30 feet high, and 40 feet wide (or whatever
the average cinema screen size would be), how would it look ?

When I switch over to "view actually image", and make one pixel
on my computer screen be one pixel in my 6mp images, it's
pretty impressive, all the detail there, but ...

on a 25 foot screen, it would probably look quite bad, right ?

But then again, those cinema film reels I have seen don't really
look that wide, maybe not much more than 35mm film, I think,
maybe.

Thanks for any info.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hahaha good one N8!

lightp8nter said:

N8

Sean Keegan said:

Regards,
Sean

tim martin said:

This may be a bit of a silly question...

But if a 6mp digital camera image was projected onto a regular size
cinema screen, say 30 feet high, and 40 feet wide (or whatever
the average cinema screen size would be), how would it look ?

When I switch over to "view actually image", and make one pixel
on my computer screen be one pixel in my 6mp images, it's
pretty impressive, all the detail there, but ...

on a 25 foot screen, it would probably look quite bad, right ?

But then again, those cinema film reels I have seen don't really
look that wide, maybe not much more than 35mm film, I think,
maybe.

Thanks for any info.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hey Michael,

Now that is a good point. I also get better quality from scans than from when enlarged using an enlarger. I know enlargers/projectors are bad for resolutiion, which is why you can get by with a 2.1 mp digital projector at a movie theater, but I never really thought about why I get better results from a scan rather than an enlargement. Makes sense.

Thanks,
Sean

Michael Long said:

Michael Long said:

... but where film suffers is when a negative or transparency is
scanned - this is the point where additional degeneration of image
quality is usually found...

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with the point I think you're making here, in
that I find digital prints of scanned film to be superior to
optical enlargements. Given a good scan, a good digital print will
beat out the optical one of the same size. The back-end process
will, to a certain extent, compensate for the detail lost scanning.

Michael Long said:

Yes, of course there is but one fixed true "potential" resolution
for any particular ISO film, but this "potential" can't be reached
with a 35mm platform simply because you run up against grain long
before the resolution is exhausted.

Click to expand...

This is especially true if you're doing optical printing from film,
since at some point you're simply enlarging a small blurred
gradient (dot) into a larger one. Proper interpolation and
sharpening will maintain lines and edges in a digital print that
would simply be blurs when enlarged optically.

Click to expand...

I didn't read all of the replies, so sorry if I'll repeat someone.

The reason why movies look better than expected at a given resolution is that there you see 24 pictures in a second. This means, you can't recognize noise like in a still picture, becouse the noisy pixels different in each image, but the filmed object doesn't change during that time.

The same is true for the resolution, the projected moving picture seems to have more resolution and detail than a still picture. You can check this if you take out one picture and project it the same way.

tim martin said:

This may be a bit of a silly question...

But if a 6mp digital camera image was projected onto a regular size
cinema screen, say 30 feet high, and 40 feet wide (or whatever
the average cinema screen size would be), how would it look ?

When I switch over to "view actually image", and make one pixel
on my computer screen be one pixel in my 6mp images, it's
pretty impressive, all the detail there, but ...

on a 25 foot screen, it would probably look quite bad, right ?

But then again, those cinema film reels I have seen don't really
look that wide, maybe not much more than 35mm film, I think,
maybe.

Thanks for any info.

Click to expand...

Fabro said:

I didn't read all of the replies, so sorry if I'll repeat someone.

The reason why movies look better than expected at a given
resolution is that there you see 24 pictures in a second. This
means, you can't recognize noise like in a still picture, becouse
the noisy pixels different in each image, but the filmed object
doesn't change during that time.
The same is true for the resolution, the projected moving picture
seems to have more resolution and detail than a still picture. You
can check this if you take out one picture and project it the same
way.

Click to expand...

Great answer Fabro! Images in motion do hide a lot of ills.

I didn't read the entire thread either, but here's something to keep in mind.

A standard cinema film frame is just half frame 35mm. I've had to make 8x10 prints in the past from 35mm motion picture frames, and the resulting prints looked far worse than an 8x10 from a 6 megapixel camera.

Cheers!

Fabro said:

The same is true for the resolution, the projected moving picture
seems to have more resolution and detail than a still picture. You
can check this if you take out one picture and project it the same
way.

Click to expand...

That's a silly reply. This logic favours both film and digital to the same extent. The discussion is around digital @ 1.3 or 2.1 MP looking better than 35mm film (which according to film advocates has to scan at 9 to 12 MP).

This is the current "state of the art" digital cinema hardware.

Origin by DALSA
8.2mp
48 fps
Full Frame (35mm)
Optical view finder with NO black out
14bit data

http://www.dalsa.com/dc/design/dc_design.asp

Enjoy,
Matt

tim martin said:

This may be a bit of a silly question...

But if a 6mp digital camera image was projected onto a regular size
cinema screen, say 30 feet high, and 40 feet wide (or whatever
the average cinema screen size would be), how would it look ?

When I switch over to "view actually image", and make one pixel
on my computer screen be one pixel in my 6mp images, it's
pretty impressive, all the detail there, but ...

on a 25 foot screen, it would probably look quite bad, right ?

But then again, those cinema film reels I have seen don't really
look that wide, maybe not much more than 35mm film, I think,
maybe.

Thanks for any info.

Click to expand...

Juri D said:

That's a silly reply. This logic favours both film and digital to
the same extent. The discussion is around digital @ 1.3 or 2.1 MP
looking better than 35mm film (which according to film advocates
has to scan at 9 to 12 MP).

Click to expand...

The original question was:

"But if a 6mp digital camera image was projected onto a regular size
cinema screen, say 30 feet high, and 40 feet wide (or whatever
the average cinema screen size would be), how would it look ? "

There are no words about that this 6MP pixel picture is a moving picture.

But I wrote about that the picture is getting better if you see not a still but some moving picture. The 6MP will look better the same way as all the other formats. (for example the standard video formats (those are very noisy pictures belive me))

And the other question about wich one looks better a 2MP digital or the original 35mm film format, well this is a much harder question. What you see in your cinema is a copy from another copy. The quality is not even close to the original resolution etc. of the film. The same is true for digital?

I am not sure. The pictures you see at the movies, are at least 3rd or 4th generation copys, that is why you can't tell, if it was originally shoot to 35 mm or s35 format or 65mm... If you could compare the 2MP image with the 1st generation film, well I am not sure, but in that case maybe the film would win, but with just a little.

Anyway, there should be some truth in what I am thinking, becouse the new wave of digital cinema cameras are going to use 8MP sensors.

Greetings: Fabro
(and sorry for my bad English