Could an analog optical disc format be made today which could equal or exceed the quality of a 35mm film print?

Using something like Blu-ray discs, and an analog scheme like LaserDisc (but with something better than the composite domain, such as RGB) — if transferred from a 35mm negative, or better yet, a 70mm negative — could the quality of a 35mm film print be matched or bettered?

Something like that combined with a high-end CRT projector (to keep it all analog) like a Sony G90 with a 150 kHz scan rate (well beyond 1080p) would allow commercial theater quality and the look of film right at home, without the hassles (such as switching reels), huge expense, and potential legal red tape of owning actual 35mm film prints. 

It is too bad that some of the best CRT projectors can handle well beyond 1080p, yet the highest quality consumer analog format that can be fed to them is something like LaserDisc or S-VHS. Yes, they display digital 1080p content, but media that's high resolution and completely analog would be really cool. It would probably be indistinguishable from a film print when viewed on an analog display. 

Hey, I would just be happy if we could get a movie on video that went at its original 24.000 frames per second rate.

I'm not too concerned about the imperceptible difference between 23.976 FPS and 24 FPS; though it is more of an issue for PAL countries (25 FPS). The Blu-Ray format and associated compatible hardware do support 24 FPS though, don't they?

I'd still like to see high quality analog audio and video formats introduced for these newer high capacity optical discs. You'd think that the music and movie industry would be in favor of such a thing, since making 1:1 copies of analog recordings is impossible; so in order to get the best available quality, you'd have to buy the real thing.

Um, I'm pretty sure you can't store a terabyte of information on an optical disk. Even if you split it across multiple disks, like Laserdisc did, there's no way to get close to an uncompressed 35mm 4K scan (at the least). I'll admit, off the top of my head I don't have exact figures, but the space to save a 35mm scan is at the very least in the hundreds of GB range, and I'm pretty sure, actually in the terabyte range. Aside from which, digital display can't 100% replicate the color and density of film.

Um, I'm pretty sure you can't store a terabyte of information on an optical disk. Even if you split it across multiple disks, like Laserdisc did, there's no way to get close to an uncompressed 35mm 4K scan (at the least). I'll admit, off the top of my head I don't have exact figures, but the space to save a 35mm scan is at the very least in the hundreds of GB range, and I'm pretty sure, actually in the terabyte range.

You're thinking in terms of digital storage, which is not what I'm talking about. For example, capture a 2 hour movie from LaserDisc in uncompressed video with enough resolution to do it justice, and that will come to what, a couple hundred gigs? Whatever it comes to, it is far more than a LaserDisc's digital storage capacity would be.

BTW, there have been optical discs demonstrated with a TB or higher capacity. HVD claims up to 3.9 TB capacity.  

Aside from which, digital display can't 100% replicate the color and density of film.

It would be wasted on a digital display anyway, simply because of the conversion to digital, which defeats the purpose; which is why I was talking about displaying it on a high-end CRT-based display.

lordjedi said:

zombie84 said:

Um, I'm pretty sure you can't store a terabyte of information on an optical disk.

Yet.  I have no doubt we'll see something that can (consumer ready even) in my lifetime.

 

I'd be surprised if we didn't see this in the next six or seven years the way things are moving now.

As far as the original question though, no you could never 100%, let alone better, replicate film through electronic means, no matter if its analog or digital. Its simply not possible; the process of converting it into electronic signals means you can never get it in a pure form. You could probably get it to the point where the difference is invisible, however, though I'm sure some might argue that the "inperceptible" difference is where the difference actually is. In terms of analog, there's not sufficient technological development to even get us to this point, however, since everyone has gone digital for the last decade and a half. If you're going to convert film into an electronic replication, it really doesn't matter if its analog or digital, whats lost is lost already so you might as well stick with the technologically superior digital realm.

I'd be surprised if we didn't see this in the next six or seven years the way things are moving now.

Optical discs with 1 TB capacity were first demonstrated in like 2004 or 2005, and now they are talking about 3.9 TB with HVD using the same "holographic" storage technology.

As far as the original question though, no you could never 100%, let alone better, replicate film through electronic means, no matter if its analog or digital. Its simply not possible; the process of converting it into electronic signals means you can never get it in a pure form.

I'm talking about equalling or bettering the quality of a 35mm film print (see thread title and OP). A film print already has a degree of loss compared to the original negatives; so all that would need to be done is to equal or reduce that amount of loss for an optical disc format; and you can equal or exceed the quality of a film print. It is certainly possible in theory. 

jfett said:

Digital is the future, because the film can be made to look the way it was supposed to look - richer blacks, whither whites, full balanced colour, etc. Others disagree and I can see that, fact is that digital can reproduce everything on the film AND remove the negative effects of film. If you don't believe me, see if a 16mm film version of your favourite movie looks better than the DVD.

 

film can be made to look the way it was supposed to look?   Are the Patton and Gladiator Blu rays the way they are suppose to look?    I'm not sure I like the idea of digital "improving"  film.    Maybe the director didn't want richer blacks or whitier whites.    The object should be to reproduce the look of film not "improve" it.