• Shurimal@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wasn’t normal 35mm film about the equivalent of somewhere between 4k and 8k depending on the film stock?

    Plus, the projector optics will always limit the sharpness of the picture. No lense is ideal, and even ideal lenses would have fundamental limitations due to diffraction.

    • hungry_freaks_daddy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Something like that.

      As far as lens optics, we’re really splitting hairs here. 70mm through a quality lens in an imax theater is going to look absolutely fantastic and stunning. Digital is just more convenient and at some point it will catch up and surpass film.

      • Shurimal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point was more like that even IMAX film doesn’t quite get to 18k equivalent, more like 12 to 16k. Honestly, anything above 4k (for normal widescreen content) even on big screens is barely noticeable if noticeable at all. THX recommends that the screen should cover 40° of your FOV; IMAX is what, 70°, so 8k for it is already good enough. Extra resolution is not useful if human eye can’t tell the difference; it just gets to the meaningless bragging rights territory like 192 kHz audio and DAC-s with 140 dB+ S/N ratio. Contrast, black levels, shadow details, color accuracy are IMO more important than raw resolution at which modern 8k cameras are good enough and 16k digital cameras will be more than plenty.

    • variants@possumpat.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup that’s why people can go back and rescan old film movies to make them into 4k now that we have better cameras, but you can’t do that with movies that were recorded with digital