Eugen RochkoInteresting. 4K is mostly a lie.
YouTube
Vicente Perez@Gargron the fact that a movie theater projected 35mm prints at, best case scenario, 2K and now we scoff at anything below 4K for home video never ceases to bewilder me.
Bill Zaumen@vpermar @Gargron Some films were made with 70 mm film, but not most due to cost. If you saw such a film in a theater that had (and used) a 70 mm projector, you'd have noticeably better image quality.
I think there is a different problem with digital films - the cost reduction resulted in movies that are too long with lots of scenes that just don't add very much, and there are no intermissions.
Frank Heijkamp@bzdev
A massive 65 mm camera is heavy, difficult to handle and expensive. And so is the 65 mm film. The biggest cost however are the 70 mm films, with added audio tracks, that have to be shipped to theaters. And not many theaters have a 70 mm projector and the required lenses are very expensive. The dynamic range of film is however amazing and it doesn't have the artefacts of an image sensor.
@vpermar @Gargron
A massive 65 mm camera is heavy, difficult to handle and expensive. And so is the 65 mm film. The biggest cost however are the 70 mm films, with added audio tracks, that have to be shipped to theaters. And not many theaters have a 70 mm projector and the required lenses are very expensive. The dynamic range of film is however amazing and it doesn't have the artefacts of an image sensor.
@vpermar @Gargron
mossman@vpermar @Gargron 35mm film, depending on ISO and lighting, was supposed to be much more detailed than that.
I can attest that when I first saw digital projection (Planet of the Apes, some fancy cinema in New York, 2001), far from being the clear sharp perfect image it was promoted to be, I found it quite dull looking and low resolution compared to what I was used to.
fr0g