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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.