Re: Resolution of film

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfilm.html

The answer is that film doesn’t have pixels, but the resolution question is ignored. I think the intent of the question was to determine the needed size of a computer image (in pixels) to be able to output to film and not have a lower quality than the analog sections.

As in, how detailed would the computer image have to be for seamless special effects?

And film does have a maximum resolution. There are fine and coarse grain films. No doubt the image is sharper on the fine grain film. These grains may not be dots, like pixels, but they are picture elements.

I’d also like to know a bit about how close we are to digital movie cameras and when we could skip the whole film stage, except maybe as the final copy to send to theatres.

Anyone here work in this field?

2

I also wonder about that 1600 dpi figure. Is that per inch of film material? In that case, a 35mm film would be about 2200 pixels across (4400 pixels for 70mm material). More than enough for the video release, but it seems pretty lousy on a big screen, although maybe you don’t notice with sufficiently fast motion. (The pictures in Jurassic Park, for instance, did seem blurred at times.)

3

I’m in this field any digital movie cameras are already being used, especially in indie film making. they are a lot cheaper to record and edit on, but having a film transfer is very costly, usually more than an indie film maker has. also, it would cost theaters millions to buy digital projectors, so digital in the theater won’t be here anytime soon. also, as when talking about resolution, there is a very big part of film viewing that you’re not considering. when you watch a film, it’s different than looking at a photo b/c to project, your are sending light thru the film and you would have to consider the resolution of the screen itself. i don’t digital will ever achieve the same effect. It make make a clearer picture sometimes, but it just doesn’t have that same ‘certain something’. there are also programs for the comp. that will take a digital piece and try and add the film quality, but they suck.

4

and so does my editing, obviously, sorry

5

I agree that digital video will never look quite like film, but I fail to see the problem.

Not, that I said ‘like’ not ‘as good as’.

Every medium has its own look. Oil painting are different than water-based paintings, etc. Often a medium has certain defects. In my opinion (based on creating on a computer) water-based paints are ‘flawed’ in that they aren’t as thick, and are fairly runny. These qualities can be worked around, or even used creatively by a master, but imho it’s a defect for paint to not stay exactly where put, etc.

Art isn’t ruined by the medium it’s done in (in most cases.) In fact, we’re quite forgiving of medium shortcomings even when they keep the art from looking exactly as the artist intended.

So, yes. There are differences. Oil will never be water. Digital video will never be film. But I don’t think that you can say digital will never be as good as just because it isn’t, when examined with a magnifying glass, maded of tiny grains, etc. That ‘film look’ might even be what some people look for when they watch a movie, because they’re in the industry and are used to judging the production quality.

I don’t think though that anything like that matters at all though. If I look at something directly and don’t see a ‘film look’ to it, I shouldn’t see one in a movie. Ditto on things like lens flares… (I want to strangle the person who put those filters into art programs. Why not go all-out to simulate the problems of the camera and include ‘thumb over lens’ and ‘camera shaken during exposure’?)

This is a long way of me saying that I discount things that involve one medium not being enough like another when the real message (Unless you’re Marshall Mcluhan) is in protraying the intended scene in a way that leads a viewer to feel as if they were witnessing it directly.

So, how good will digital video have to be before it produces an image as good as, not necessarily identical to, film?

Also, are there any fundamental problems with digital video? Are there significant exposure times, or are pictures nearly instananeous? If they are very quick, is there much motion blur, and does that affect the perception of motion, etc. Are current technologies workable in the long run, or are CCDs bad at capturing a wide range of colors, for example?

This also relates to the topic of the resolution of human vision. At what resolution will the eye not be able to distinguish the real thing from video? (Asside from depth cues, etc.)

6

you’re basically right, and not contrary to what i said. digital has a long way before it can record the same range of color as film, because film processing is an actual chemical reaction. other than that, it has many qualities better than film.

why won’t it be as good you ask? one word>>new coke. ok, that’s two words, but people are very picky about things they are comfortable with.

but the most important thing, as i said before is projection.

the best example of why is film better…
try and blow up (increase size, not tnt) a piece of film and then try resizing a digital image. in digital there will always be a loss of resolution b/c the number of pixels are already set and it just increases pixel size (i think). but film, you can resize (if you use the negative) without loss because the chemicals will re-react, but on a smaller scale.

7

also, i agree with what you said about oil being oil, and water based being that. that is exactly right. so don’t try and make a ‘film’ with video. make a video with video. they are two different mediums so use them that way. you never see a watercolors try and paint a car.

8

I was under the impression that George Lucas has already had Episodes II and III shot in both formats (film and digital) as well as having had select screenings of Ep. I in digital. At least, it was popularly reported that way here in the Bay Area. Info.?

My understanding is that the skipping of this last step is one of the things that makes digital so attractive - you save 1/3 of your production costs (except for really bloated productions, I suppose) when you download your movie direct to the theater instead of making copies. That, and inserting digital effects can be pretty seamless (and therefore less expensive).

If Lucas is planning to show digital versions of his movies, then there must be a fair number of theaters planning to upgrade their equipment…

9

Roger Ebert wrote an article about seeing TPM screened in digital, and he said it was amazing, and he liked it as much as or better than film.

10

Film does have a ‘resolution’, it is measured in lines/mm. A reasonable good film/lens combination can get around 100
l/mm. Since it takes a minimum of 2 pixels to represent a line, that would be equivalent to about 7000x5000 pixels for
35mm film.