my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » approximate resolution of film (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: approximate resolution of film Mike Carro Film Handler Posts: 67 From: Tempe, Az USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 01-29-2006 07:02 PM                        What would be the approximate digital equivalent resolution of a frame of 35mm movie film(not still). Is it 4k X 3K approximately? thanks  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-29-2006 07:30 PM                     There are differences of opinion on the matter. Some numbers suggest a 4-perf 35mm frame can display 24 million pixels of image detail. Others say a 4K video stream (4096 pixels across) would be adequate to replace 4-perf 35mm. Most agree 2K (2048 pixels across) or HD (1920 pixels across) is not good enough to match 35mm.  |  IP: Logged Monte L Fullmer Film God Posts: 8367 From: Nampa, Idaho, USA Registered: Nov 2004 posted 01-29-2006 07:33 PM                     ..probably is this why SONY is pushing to the 4K systems - to get to that 4096 resolution?  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-29-2006 08:19 PM                        Back when all this digital hoop-lah started I read and article that said 13+ million pixels per frame  |  IP: Logged Mike Carro Film Handler Posts: 67 From: Tempe, Az USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 01-29-2006 11:29 PM                        Yeah Greg, I remember something like that too. I think the 24 million pixel number is for a still image of 35mm film being double the area of 4 perf frame. I'm wondering because if you can really better the image resolution then I think that digital is a natural progression in movie making. I'm a long time film collector so I don't need convincing on how great it looks. I'm just starting to come around because I see the improvements.  |  IP: Logged Darryl Spicer Film God Posts: 3250 From: Lexington, KY, USA Registered: Dec 2000 posted 01-30-2006 11:06 AM                    I just wonder on that digital stuff just how much is exagerated imagery. In other words if you go into an electronics store you have all the display devices set up. None of them look the same. All the settings are wacked out. You have to run a calibration program to set the set up for the best playback and then rely on the source.  |  IP: Logged Mike Carro Film Handler Posts: 67 From: Tempe, Az USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 01-30-2006 02:14 PM                        yeah, that's true but for the most part in looks pretty damn good. And once you get something set up in your home you wouldn't have to fuss with it that much.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-30-2006 03:45 PM                        There's little argument that AT LEAST a 4K scan is needed to fully capture the detail in a 35mm frame. With a 4:3 aspect ratio full frame, that's approximately 12 megapixels per frame, a simplified figure that Kodak used in its ads for awhile. In actuality, it's probably somewhat higher. Image quality is measured by much more than resolution --- dynamic range, tonality, color reproduction, archivability, lack of aliasing, etc. all still favor film.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-30-2006 06:53 PM                        I think video has pretty much gotten the "archivability" feature down pat since it's digital. All you have to do is make a direct digital copy every 12 or so years and you're set. The 6,000th copy is exactly like the first 72,000 years later. Digital is perfect in every way except where it's flawed.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-31-2006 02:34 PM                        Digital is like "Ice Age" --- Migrate, or your images may be extinct. Trouble is, many of today's digital image formats have considerable compression, so migrating to new storage formats may be sensitive to missing the bits that are no longer there.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 01-31-2006 02:50 PM                        But then wouldn't or shouldn't anything considered really worth preserving, if not distributed and played back, then at least be stored in uncompressed formats? Digital images and films do take up a lot of storage space, but then the storage media are not that expensive anymore.  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-31-2006 04:16 PM                        Imagine at 13+ meg per frame how big a file would have to be to store one movie, if it were not compressed  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-31-2006 04:32 PM                        John/Greg, if you were intent on ARCHIVING something in digital, I don't think you're gonna compress it into MPEG or DIVX. And surely when the file "migrates" it's not going to be recompressed. That would be stupid. The storage mediums aren't there yet, but they will be very, very soon. I submit to you that digital data can last LONGER than film with absolutely ZERO loss from the original source.... EVER! What are your opinions about solid state memory? No more "ice age"!  |  IP: Logged Larry Myers Master Film Handler Posts: 371 From: Herndon, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2001 posted 01-31-2006 05:07 PM                 Both still and motion picture film image resolution will be measured the same way. The best way is the use of MTF contrast measurements. The quick and dirty way is by the use of resolution targets. The actual measurement is in line pairs per millimeter much like a image printed in a book which is measured in dots per inch. I would say the average is about 35 lines pairs per millimeter high contrast for a typical good quality 35mm motion picture frame. Can be as low as 15 and as high as 100. [ 02-01-2006, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Larry Myers ]  |  IP: Logged Greg Mueller Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1687 From: Port Gamble, WA Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-31-2006 06:29 PM                        This might sound far fetched but would solid state memory be subject to EMF pulse or other electrical fields? Magnetic fileds?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.