Your Eye vs a movie in the movie theater vs Blu Ray
sheepherder -- Fri, 04/10/2009 - 16:53
How many pixels do we see in our boring everyday normal activities? And what is the resolution?
How does this compare to an analogue film in a movie theater? A digital version of the same film?
And a bluray disc at 1080p on a display that can handle 1080p?
Just finished watching Live and Let Die on Blu ray and was mazed at the detail.
TIA
Sheepherder
I have read that it would take a minimum of 4K to correctly render the complete image available on 35MM film.
But, watching a BD in 1080p/24 on my 57" DLP rear projector seems to convey the film look, very nicely to me.
I prefer DLP, as it is, to me, the most film-like, and all the digital cinemas us it.
It has gobs of detail, lots of texture to it, and with the Lossless sound, hard to beat.
The most common issue, I feel, is that the studios want a BD to look like a live sporting event, with razor-sharp images, no grain, or anything like that, "spoiling" the look.
But, a lot of cimematographers use grain as a choice to convey a mood, or look to the film.
Removing that is not preserving the original intent.
Juat like an old analog recording which had hiss should be as it was, no digital cleaning up. But, one could arge that the hiss is not part of the music, just a flaw with analog tape.
All just observations.
BYW, I used to live in the Shenandoah Valley, too, in Roanoke, where I was born, but now live on the West Coast in Portland.
Enjoy.
Mike
VinylGuy
The "removal" of grain is not the issue as much as the color space. I've seen a number of BluRay DVDs in showrooms where the "film" looks like it was shot on video. The result is that it looks like a televised soap opera instead of a movie and it loses its believability. I've seen this happen in both Pirates and Iron Man. (It's possible that the TV was not setup correctly.) Yet that doesn't happen in theatres using digital presentation - there it just looks like very clean film with even brightness and no weave or other projection artifacts.
Even on regular DVD, when you look at "bonus feature" documentaries that were shot on video, when you look at the performances, they seem to have a phony and "acted" quality to them. Yet when you see the final film, it works. I've always been fascinated by that.
The grain in the original negative should be preserved (although this will happen less and less as more films are shot digitally) and any grain purposely added in the opticals should be preserved. But IMO, the grain associated only with the "print" should not be preserved, that's just a byproduct of the printing process.
Post new comment