The End of Blu-ray

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,664
35mm film can be transferred at up to 12K digitally depending on the resolving resolution of the film and cameras used. A digital source is never going to be any better than its original resolution no matter how good the upscaling algorithms get.
While I agree that film can better some of the lesser digital cameras, I'd like to see some real resolution testing on film that shows anywhere near 12K for 35mm color film.

I have been a DPreivew forum member, practically since the beginning, and have looked at Film vs Digital comparisons for years, and while there is lots of theory crafting about the massive resolution of film, I don't think I remember ever seeing a comparison were people bettered the resolution of a good 12MP DSLR with color film (Note that 12MP is nowhere near 12K). Note this testing was done with still cameras, in optimal focus, shooting still subject from a tripod, with optimal apertures, etc... Movies are shot within MUCH more constrained conditions, negatively affecting their ability to capture detail.

Also note that 35mm Still camera Film actually has 36mm Wide exposed width of film, as still cameras run the film horizontally. While 35 mm motion camera film has less than 25mm (typically 22mm or less) width of exposed frame since it runs the film vertically.

This all leads to 35MM motion picture capture have a lot less resolution than 35mm still cameras.

You can scan deeper but after a while you are just getting bigger bits of film grain.

IMO, there is no doubt that 35mm film can deliver results that exceed standard HD/2k, but I really doubt there is much usable beyond UHD/4K in left in it.

Naturally 2K digital cameras, have nothing to offer beyond 2k.
 
Last edited:

motomonkey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
1,461
While I agree that film can better some of the lesser digital cameras, I'd like to see some real resolution testing on film that shows anywhere near 12K for 35mm color film.

I have been a DPreivew forum member, practically since the beginning, and have looked at Film vs Digital comparisons for years, and while there is lots of theory crafting about the massive resolution of film, I don't think I remember ever seeing a comparison were people bettered the resolution of a good 12MP DSLR with color film (Note that 12MP is nowhere near 12K). Note this testing was done with still cameras, in optimal focus, shooting still subject from a tripod, with optimal apertures, etc... Movies are shot within MUCH more constrained conditions, negatively affecting their ability to capture detail.

Also note that 35mm Still camera Film actually has 36mm Wide exposed width of film, as still cameras run the film horizontally. While 35 mm motion camera film has less than 25mm (typically 22mm or less) width of exposed frame since it runs the film vertically.

This all leads to 35MM motion picture capture have a lot less resolution than 35mm still cameras.

You can scan deeper but after a while you are just getting bigger bits of film grain.

IMO, there is no doubt that 35mm film can deliver results that exceed standard HD/2k, but I really doubt there is much usable beyond UHD/4K in left in it.

Naturally 2K digital cameras, have nothing to offer beyond 2k.
Having scanned 35mm negatives using a dedicated film scanner, I know it can be a slow process to get the best from it, I can't imagine trying to scan an entire movie frame by frame at 4K. even with multiple high end scanners it must take a very long time. How many frames are in a feature length film?

Edit:searching this, it's about 130,000 frames. that's a lot of scanning....
 

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
6,588
Having scanned 35mm negatives using a dedicated film scanner, I know it can be a slow process to get the best from it, I can't imagine trying to scan an entire movie frame by frame at 4K. even with multiple high end scanners it must take a very long time. How many frames are in a feature length film?

Edit:searching this, it's about 130,000 frames. that's a lot of scanning....
and that would take how long?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,664
Having scanned 35mm negatives using a dedicated film scanner, I know it can be a slow process to get the best from it, I can't imagine trying to scan an entire movie frame by frame at 4K. even with multiple high end scanners it must take a very long time. How many frames are in a feature length film?

Edit:searching this, it's about 130,000 frames. that's a lot of scanning....
Pretty sure, they will have automated equipment for this. Load up a film reel and walk away...
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,329
While I agree that film can better some of the lesser digital cameras, I'd like to see some real resolution testing on film that shows anywhere near 12K for 35mm color film.
It's not impossible, but- it's going to be pretty rare. One major issue is going to be diffraction, which is something that plagues current photographic science, or really, current optical science. Essentially, you need the very best technique using the best film stock and the best lenses, all in great condition, to get that kind of resolution out of color film. Black and white is a bit easier, though that's actually true for digital as well.
 

motomonkey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
1,461
and that would take how long?
no idea, the scanning I did was for 35mm stills, dusting the negatrives, setting up the negative holders, prescanning and then scanning at max resolution takes a while for one strip. several minutes or more depending on things like dust and scratch correction. like someone said, I imagine they have automated scanners for 35mm film.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,676
35mm film can be transferred at up to 12K digitally depending on the resolving resolution of the film and cameras used. A digital source is never going to be any better than its original resolution no matter how good the upscaling algorithms get.
That's fine, but what irks me is that it's not uncommon for them to film at 4k or higher, but they do the DI in 2K. I'm sure that saves lots of HD space and probably makes processing quicker, but come on. Do it right from the get go...especially on movies that are just coming into theaters. These days, I'm starting to notice, in some movies, the limitation of 2K in theaters. I'm really surprised they aren't converting to 4K (or even 8K) for theatrical releases.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,676
I think Laserdisc is ready to make a comeback, with a blu-ray laser! Just think about how much storage you could get on just one side of a 12" disc.
Kidding, of course... I cannot believe we aren't using encrypted SD cards since it's all digital anyway. I know price is a factor, it probably costs less than a buck to press optical media.
Oh well we'll see what the future holds when 8k becomes mainstream. If you think streaming isn't awesome now, hold my beer and wait until 8k lands. It's coming.
Problem is that SD cards are easy to lose. Besides, I kinda like getting a disk with nice art on it (in most cases).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,676
no idea, the scanning I did was for 35mm stills, dusting the negatrives, setting up the negative holders, prescanning and then scanning at max resolution takes a while for one strip. several minutes or more depending on things like dust and scratch correction. like someone said, I imagine they have automated scanners for 35mm film.
They definitely do automated scanning. For that matter, even stills can be automated using an attachment for the Nikon Scanners (and I assume others do the same). Problem for stills is most still negatives are cut into strips of 4-6 frames, so there's limited benefit to it (unless you mount them in slide mounts).

I wouldn't be shocked if studios have some sort of setup where film is fed into a set of several scanners so they can scan, for example, 24 frames at the same time, but I suppose the work done on the actual scans could take far longer than scanning the film in.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,596
While I agree that film can better some of the lesser digital cameras, I'd like to see some real resolution testing on film that shows anywhere near 12K for 35mm color film.

I have been a DPreivew forum member, practically since the beginning, and have looked at Film vs Digital comparisons for years, and while there is lots of theory crafting about the massive resolution of film, I don't think I remember ever seeing a comparison were people bettered the resolution of a good 12MP DSLR with color film (Note that 12MP is nowhere near 12K). Note this testing was done with still cameras, in optimal focus, shooting still subject from a tripod, with optimal apertures, etc... Movies are shot within MUCH more constrained conditions, negatively affecting their ability to capture detail.

Also note that 35mm Still camera Film actually has 36mm Wide exposed width of film, as still cameras run the film horizontally. While 35 mm motion camera film has less than 25mm (typically 22mm or less) width of exposed frame since it runs the film vertically.

This all leads to 35MM motion picture capture have a lot less resolution than 35mm still cameras.

You can scan deeper but after a while you are just getting bigger bits of film grain.

IMO, there is no doubt that 35mm film can deliver results that exceed standard HD/2k, but I really doubt there is much usable beyond UHD/4K in left in it.

Naturally 2K digital cameras, have nothing to offer beyond 2k.
AI (an overused term for just sophisticated code integrating sophisticated logic and math) will be used to give low resolution images more detail. Some algorithms now just smooth out the aliasing, they don't really add anything. I'm talking about AI that will fabricate more detail such that you'll have a higher res image with correspondingly more detail that if you went backwards in resolution would be very close to the original.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,329
AI (an overused term for just sophisticated code integrating sophisticated logic and math) will be used to give low resolution images more detail. Some algorithms now just smooth out the aliasing, they don't really add anything. I'm talking about AI that will fabricate more detail such that you'll have a higher res image with correspondingly more detail that if you went backwards in resolution would be very close to the original.
Machine learning can do in real-time (or even faster) what a human could do. Details may be filled in on individual frames using 'motion resolution', and if reference imagery is available such as set pictures, that could be used too.
 

amittalkin

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
346
Well I hope one day flash storage will be cheaper to produce than optical disks and market will move towards it for hard copy storage.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,676
Well I hope one day flash storage will be cheaper to produce than optical disks and market will move towards it for hard copy storage.
I said this before, but the problem with flash is that it's form factor is quite small and it'll be very easy to lose or eaten by young kids (and no parent wants those Disney films eaten before the kids are too old to watch them again....hmm or maybe they do :LOL:
 
Top