Originally posted by: zombie84
I'm not sure if I understand what your asking. Are you suggesting that a totally true-anamorphc HD image would be equal to the 35mm original? HD is about equal to 16mm in resolution (though IMO its actually not as good), but without the aesthetic advantages of 16mm; there seems to be a myth that HD is better or equal to 35mm film but its a total fabrication of marketing, as 35mm is roughly four times the resolution of HD, to say nothing of the technical limits and aesthetic flaws of video.
To get back on topic in regards to movies wider than 16:9, since it's being shot in 35mm either way aren't we not really "losing" any lines of resolution unless the movie was shot in 70mm?
I'm not sure if I understand what your asking. Are you suggesting that a totally true-anamorphc HD image would be equal to the 35mm original? HD is about equal to 16mm in resolution (though IMO its actually not as good), but without the aesthetic advantages of 16mm; there seems to be a myth that HD is better or equal to 35mm film but its a total fabrication of marketing, as 35mm is roughly four times the resolution of HD, to say nothing of the technical limits and aesthetic flaws of video.
It had nothing to do with the whole HD issue, that's why I started with "to get back on topic." All I was saying was that a 1.85:1 movie utilizes practically all of the 16:9 frame (be it dvd, blu-ray or otherwise) whereas a 2.35:1 movie does not, but since both of those are 35mm aspect ratios the 2.35:1 movie doesn't really have a lower resolution than 1.85:1 movie, right?
Also, I've noticed that some movie theaters frame 2.35:1 movies by simply lowering the curtain whereas others will frame a 1.85:1 movie inside the other sized screen leaving black bars on either side.