• 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
          2
          ·
          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.

          • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The extra resolution isn’t completely useless from an editing standpoint.

            If you’re working with 16k footage and a 4K deliverable and the shot isn’t quite right you can crop up to 75% of the image with no loss in quality.

            This kind of thing would be mostly useful for documentaries, especially nature, or sports where you can’t control the action.

      • 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

        • Shurimal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, we’ll have this brief digital gap from the era when film was going out of fashion and 4k and higher resolution digital cameras weren’t a thing yet. But now that even average youtubers are shooting 4k with cheap(ish) DSRL-s, we generally don’t have to worry about the content having “not good enough quality for the future”.

          The bigger problem IMO is the ephemeral and profit-driven nature of modern content distribution. Once the studio decides a film/series is not making enough money and pulls it from streaming, it’s gone. IIRC, DRM of DCP is also remotely managed so even if a cinema physically has the drive with the movie, they can’t play it when the studio pulls the plug–this was not the case with film.

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

            Yeah all that is a huge problem, I remember Microsoft pulled the game Scott pilgrim from the Xbox 360 so if you didn’t buy it beforehand you couldn’t get it anymore until they did some legal stuff to get the game back in the store.

            I still think film today is a great tool for getting high resolution photography at a cheap entry cost, a full sized digital sensor camera can be pretty pricey where as a 35mm film camera can be had pretty easy, then once you go to medium format it’s gets more expensive and then I’m not even sure there is large format digital cameras

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

          The JVC DLA-NX5 I have the pleasure to have set up for demos at work is 1800 lm, or 525 nits. Plenty bright, HDR looks amazing on it.

    • average650@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think there’s any reason we couldn’t make a store 18k video.

      And we could make screen at much higher resolutions that that at imax size, or even quite a bit smaller, though I suspect it would be absurdly expensive.

      • fidodo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Storing it isn’t the problem, you’ll still need to be able to record and project at that resolution.

        • average650@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          As I said I’m sure we could make screens that could do that. They would be absurdly expensive and heavy and stupid, but it could be done. Not worth it though.

          And it looks like at least 16k cameras have been made.

          https://youtu.be/oIhCyPaDP6g

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The screens aren’t the problem. It’s often the hardware driving it. The current top generation of gaming gpus struggles at 8k. There’s very little chance of being able to render and play 16/18k