what is so great about a "film like" picture?

[lomarica]

After seeing a movie for the first time in a while, I was reminded how I really do not think the quality of the film experience in a movie theater is all that great. There were many artifacts and actually a small thin green line in the film, granted the line was only for 30 seconds or so but still my DVD looks much better.

any comments on what a "film like" picture is and why it is supposed to be so great
is that what people strive for in their home theater, a "film like" picture?

thanks

[E-Stat]

any comments on what a "film like" picture is and why it is supposed to be so great
We are referring to its capability, not its currently poorly implemented self. Such a reference would be to first generation 70 mm prints that were commonly used in the 50s and 60s for big budget films. I assure you there were no such imperfections as you have noted in those prints. There was a wide screen implementation used called Cinemascope that involved multiple projectors that took the format to a new level. Movies like "Grand Prix" were shot in that format. In 1970 when I was 13, I went to a 10 screen AMC Theatre. Such a concept was novel then, but is the norm today. Film quality has steadily declined since that date with one notable exception - IMAX films. Ever seen one of them? If not, you need to. Period. Run, don't walk. I recall the first time I saw "The Dream is Alive" filmed by NASA in phenomenal resolution.

Imagine a seventy odd foot wide screen that is more than fifty feet tall displaying an image with unsurpassed color saturation and utter lack of grain. Blacks are BLACK. It possesses a unique immediacy that mimics reality. There is a scene in Dream where you are looking out a window in shuttle Challenger as the bay doors open to a view of orbiting the earth. I get emotional just thinking about that singularly spectacular view of our planet in such high resolution splendor. There is a circular theatre version called Omnimax and there have been 3D variations as well. I saw an undersea 3D film that had kids around me reaching out to touch the fish that seemed only inches away.

That's what film can do.

rw

[lomarica]

ok I guess when film is done right it is great. I am too young for the references you provided but yes I have seen IMAX and it is a great sound and picture
thanks

[blackraven]

I have a 52" Sony XBR TV and a Blu Ray player. I still prefer watching most movies on the big screen, especially when its not on one of the mini-screens in the multiplex theaters.
There are a few theaters here that are using DLP and the pictures are very good.

Certainly I can get better resolution on my TV, but it can't compete with the movie theater experience.

[RoadRunner6]

To me, film-like means natural versus video-like which is overy sharpened in a digitally enhanced way. Go outside and look around (I'm not kidding). Look at trees, grass, the sky, birds, buildings, bridges,etc., etc,...... Notice that what you see in nature is clear and sharp but not overly so, not excessively edgy. No overly saturated colors unless they are meant to be that way. The edges on buildings are sharp but not with a razor's edge. Look around inside and observe the same. Nature is closer to film than to video. Video cameras and LCD displays tend to still have an overly pixelated, edgy, excessively sharp picture. This is similar to a digital photo that has too much sharpness compensation.

Have you ever seen the same scenes in film versus video? Very few people have. This is not a joke but if you are old enough to have seen any high budget adult films in the 70's and 80's and then viewed them in the 90's or later (I know Rich has) after they switched from film to video you will notice a very obvious degradation in picture quality. If ten years ago you had the opportunity to compare the same scene shot with a quality film camera versus one of the earlier digital cameras you would have noticed the superiority of the natural film-like picture quaity from the film camera.

The phrase film-like is many times used to differenciate the PQ between the best plasma displays and comparable LCD displays. Although LCD's are steadily improving, the difference is still visable. This is one of the main reasons I and many others prefer the film-like PQ of plasmas from Panasonic and Samsung (and previously Pioneer). They simply have that film-like naturally smooth and realistic color picture.

RR6

[pixelthis]

When someone wanted to experience HD in the early days I told them to go watch
movie, a movie will always beat video in res.
Also theres something called "grain", etc.
BUT when a lot are talking "filmlike" they are talking what "film" looks like on a TV.
Like plasma fanboys like the picture on plasmas because they are more "lifelike".
Actually they are phosper based, like a CRT, so its more about what they are used to.
Filmlike, like everything else, is in the eye of the beholder.:1:

[Woochifer]

After seeing a movie for the first time in a while, I was reminded how I really do not think the quality of the film experience in a movie theater is all that great. There were many artifacts and actually a small thin green line in the film, granted the line was only for 30 seconds or so but still my DVD looks much better.

any comments on what a "film like" picture is and why it is supposed to be so great
is that what people strive for in their home theater, a "film like" picture?

thanks

The issues you mention are specific to whatever's going on at your local theater. Faded and damaged prints, poorly maintained projection equipment, theater owners trying to save money by using lower powered bulbs, etc. -- all of these factors detract from the presentation quality at your local theater. In no way does this mean that DVD is inherently superior, after all what do you think serves as the original source for most DVDs -- a FILM print.

Your comparison with DVD is a total apples and oranges comparison because of the screen size. And a typical movie theater screen measures between 20' and 40' wide, whereas a typical flat panel TV screen will measure less than 50" wide. Projecting a DVD onto even the tiniest movie theater screens (~10' wide) will reveal flaws far worse than what you made note of. It might look cleaner and free from speckles, but it has other flaws such as compression artifacts and an inherent resolution limitation (35mm film resolution exceeds all digital formats).

Good film projection -- i.e., projection done using a decent print, on well-maintained equipment, using high powered backlighting, and using a screen with a high reflective emulsion -- is unequaled by any current digital technology. You'll get higher resolution, better color depth, and a more natural look in general. You don't even need to seek out 70mm or IMAX, you just need a theater that cares about presentation quality and knows how to optimally project a 35mm film print. When you go to 70mm and IMAX, the image quality can be jaw-dropping.

Even the best 4k DLP digital theater projectors can't hold a candle to what a good 35mm film presentation gives you. Every digital theater presentation I've seen looks flat and fake by comparison, and projected onto a large 60'+ screen, I can pick out the pixel grid even from a seat in the middle of the theater.

The industry uses film as the reference standard, that's why everybody aspires to a "film-like" presentation, because it more accurately reflects the intent of the directors, cinematographers, etc. Unfortunately, many multiplex operators don't care much for presentation quality, and the results are on the screen for all to see.

[blackraven]

Film like to me is a warmer picture for lack of a better word. My Sony LCD has temperature settings for the picture. One setting is supposed to give you a movie film like appearance and it is definitely warmer and a little softer in appearance. I have fiddled with this setting when watching movies and on many movies it does impart a different and more pleasing feel to the movie as opposed to a cooler setting.

[Kevio]

When someone wanted to experience HD in the early days I told them to go watch movie, a movie will always beat video in res.Probably should stop telling them that. Many of the big films today are shot wholly or partially with digital cameras (i.e. high-resolution video). Audiences are not widely aware of this shift because the resolution of these video cameras exceeds that of the 35 mm film the audience sees the film through.

[pixelthis]

Probably should stop telling them that. Many of the big films today are shot wholly or partially with digital cameras (i.e. high-resolution video). Audiences are not widely aware of this shift because the resolution of these video cameras exceeds that of the 35 mm film the audience sees the film through.

NO recording source, even 2,000p, will exceed 35mm film.
Although 2,000p comes close, its still mostly in developement.
Not too familiar with HD cameras currently in use but I have heard of some that are 1080p,
which wont beat 35mm.
There are those who can look at a "film" and tell you if its 35mm or HD video.
Doesnt matter tho, any picture you go to will be effectively HD, even tho other sources
will beat it.:1:

[Woochifer]

Probably should stop telling them that. Many of the big films today are shot wholly or partially with digital cameras (i.e. high-resolution video). Audiences are not widely aware of this shift because the resolution of these video cameras exceeds that of the 35 mm film the audience sees the film through.

Not true. The most advanced digital cinema camera on the market outputs the equivalent of ~8 megapixels (referred to as 4k resolution because the image is 4k x 2k), while 35mm film has a pixel equivalent of up to 16 megapixels, depending on the film stock used.

Most digital cinema cameras and digital theater projectors use the much lower 2k resolution (~2 megapixels), and IMO the results are less than convincing. Only the most prominent showcase theaters even use 4k digital projectors in the first place.

[Kevio]

...while 35mm film has a pixel equivalent of up to 16 megapixels, depending on the film stock used.I'm fairly certain that the stuff they send to the theaters around here is not the 16 megapixel stock.

Do you have a reference for this 16 megapixel figure?

[canuckle]

NO recording source, even 2,000p, will exceed 35mm film. Although 2,000p comes close, its still mostly in developement. Not too familiar with HD cameras currently in use but I have heard of some that are 1080p,which wont beat 35mm. There are those who can look at a "film" and tell you if its 35mm or HD video. Doesnt matter tho, any picture you go to will be effectively HD, even tho other sources will beat it.
Utter nonsense.

Do a search of Modulation Transfer Curve theory. You'll be able to find several scientific studies that demonstrate that the highest perceptible resolution of a theatre-print film is 875 horizontal lines with the average being 685. Well, well below the 1080 available on digital home systems today. It is a well-established scientific fact that audiences are unable to distinguish film from digital in a theatre.

The lines of photographic resolution on a negative mean very little when you record it on analog film, copy it, and project it on a screen that people are sitting a large distance away from.

1080 is not the upper limit of HD, nor is it the likely format of a professional film-maker. Ultra-HD is widely available and offers 4520 lines of resolution.

[Kevio]

It is a well-established scientific fact that audiences are unable to distinguish film from digital in a theater.I'd like to see a reference on this one too. There's more to it than theoretical resolution.

There's usually a large gap between what can be perceived as a difference (i.e. through ABX testing) and what is perceptually significant (i.e. clear preference for A vs. B).

I have no problem believing that there are people, perhaps many of them (cinematographers would presumably be among them) who can, from a theater seat, readily see how a movie is shot.

Many pardons for getting back to the topic of the thread but the question is: which do you prefer, grain in analog film or stark high-definition video? It's sort of a vinyl vs. CD thing isn't it?

[Woochifer]

I'm fairly certain that the stuff they send to the theaters around here is not the 16 megapixel stock.

Do you have a reference for this 16 megapixel figure?

That's the equivalent for good quality 35mm film stock -- the stuff used to shoot the movies. The quality of the release print will depend a whole lot of other factors (i.e., whether it's a wetgate print or one created from a 5th generation negative). But, considering that most digital cinema cameras and theater projectors are currently at the 2k resolution level, any 35mm release print will easily top that resolution and look a helluva lot better when projected onto a large 60'+ screen. The only claims that digital cinema/projection is even close to 35mm quality are for the 4k cameras and projectors, which cost a lot more and are not widely adopted.

[pixelthis]

Utter nonsense.

Do a search of Modulation Transfer Curve theory. You'll be able to find several scientific studies that demonstrate that the highest perceptible resolution of a theatre-print film is 875 horizontal lines with the average being 685. Well, well below the 1080 available on digital home systems today. It is a well-established scientific fact that audiences are unable to distinguish film from digital in a theatre.

The lines of photographic resolution on a negative mean very little when you record it on analog film, copy it, and project it on a screen that people are sitting a large distance away from.

1080 is not the upper limit of HD, nor is it the likely format of a professional film-maker. Ultra-HD is widely available and offers 4520 lines of resolution.

1080 is not the theoretical limit, but the practical one.
Next step is 2000p, but that is hardly nessesary.
As for ultra HD WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM?
I read somewhere about this, and its so pie in the that a lot question whether it will be used in the forseeable future.
And I dont know where you get the 875 line BS.
Film resolution is dependent on grain, sometimes the film elements are microscopic,
wheareas resolution on a video display is limited to the size of the pixels.
There is no such limit to film.:1:

[Kevio]

How about we talk about the facts, not from which planets we hail.

Here's a reference (http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm) that mentions both Woochifer's 12 megapixel number and canuckle's 875 line figure.

It's an internet reference but provides pointers to more legit sources should you care to truly get to the bottom of this. But what would be the fun in that?

[E-Stat]

Here's a reference...
Here (http://www.geektyrant.com/2008/05/mazers-rant-digital-imax-camera/)is another that provides visual contrast from what can be done with IMAX film vs. current HD. As for me, I find IMAX films perceptually significant.

rw

[Kevio]

IMAX uses 10x the area per frame compared to conventional 35mm projection. I'd therefore expect it to have approximately 10x the resolution. If we're to believe my previous reference that argues that 35mm and HD are comparable, clearly IMAX stands above them all.

[pixelthis]

How about we talk about the facts, not from which planets we hail.

Here's a reference (http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htm) that mentions both Woochifer's 12 megapixel number and canuckle's 875 line figure.

It's an internet reference but provides pointers to more legit sources should you care to truly get to the bottom of this. But what would be the fun in that?

That link of yours is trying to sell a cinematography course, and not a very good one from what I read.:1:

[pixelthis]

IMAX uses 10x the area per frame compared to conventional 35mm projection. I'd therefore expect it to have approximately 10x the resolution. If we're to believe my previous reference that argues that 35mm and HD are comparable, clearly IMAX stands above them all.

Thats not the way it works.
An IMAX image covers a much larger area, so the picture will probably have less
overall resolution.
Another thing about the "ultra HD " cameras, if they are used the res will be cut down
because the bandwidth required to transmit such an image is enormous.
STILL pie in the sky.
BTW here is a site chock full of information, and they arent trying to sell anything.
Takes some study, but "wheres the fun in that"?:1:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html

[pixelthis]

BTW that website refers to still photograpy mostly(what I care about) but there is still good info.:1:

[pixelthis]

HERES something that lays it out a lot more plainly.
Basically, film stores more information in one frame than an equivelent digital image.
A lot more.:1:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

[E-Stat]

...so the picture will probably have less overall resolution.
How many IMAX films have you watched?

rw

[Kevio]

That link of yours is trying to sell a cinematography course, and not a very good one from what I read.:1:

From the link: There is an international study on this issue, called Image Resolution of 35mm Film in Theatrical Presentation. It was conducted by Hank Mahler (CBS, United States), Vittorio Baroncini (Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Italy), and Mattieu Sintas (CST, France)

This looks like a credible reverence to me. They projected the same MTF test patterns referenced in your links projected through 35 mm film in real theaters and had viewers assess their resolution.


HERES something that lays it out a lot more plainly.
Basically, film stores more information in one frame than an equivelent digital image.
A lot more."Original research" by some guy on the internet. This dude is not good at math. Not a credible reference.

[pixelthis]

How many IMAX films have you watched?

rw

We have one in Birmingham.
Not saying they dont look great, and most of this talk is extraneous, because most of the time you wont be able to tell the difference.
But the larger screen of an IMAX in going to dilute most of the increase in picture density
you get from the larger stock.
AND I never flew in a stealth bomber, doesnt mean I dont know basic aerodynamics.:1:

[E-Stat]

... because most of the time you wont be able to tell the difference.
Speak for yourself! :)


But the larger screen of an IMAX in going to dilute most of the increase in picture density you get from the larger stock.
Diluted color saturation? I suspect you don't understand that IMAX is more than just running 70mm stock longitudinally. Read about the luminance here. (http://www.thehenryford.org/imax/about.aspx)Since you never really answered my question, I suspect the number is very small. I've seen about two dozen "originally shot in IMAX" films in Atlanta, Branson, Chattanooga (in 3D), Smithsonian Air & Space Museum, Las Vegas, Dallas and Cape Canaveral ("Dream is Alive", "Blue Planet") and have a very different opinion. But then, I'm not at all surprised.

rw