CatBus said:
zombie84 said:
Yeah, I don't buy that study either. I've done extensive lab-quality tests of my own using Panaflex cameras, resolution charts and 35mm film, and I wasn't getting those results. 800 is a believable number, but 500 in the average? Sorry, there's a reason why we don't screen really good VHS tapes at theaters. There is great generational loss, but 500 discernable lines is pretty crappy, I find that hard to be typical, plus there are things other than resolution, which was the problem with early HD.
That's the problem with "average". Assuming a credible study, they were averaging in hundreds of crappy 16mm slasher flicks shot in low light. That's what could have been at the average theatre at the time, right? And "globally" average too?--ugh, so Bollywood comprises most of the sample, great. See the problem? Averages are meaningless when trying to make a statement about something specific. Ask any woman who wants to be a firefighter, and is told the "average woman" isn't strong enough, but nobody bothers to check if she's strong enough...
Yeah that's the thing.
A typical Hollywood release print would not show up with 500 lines of resolution, or else they would all look blurry. A film like Star Wars Episode I, for example. But if we are talking Bollywood, then sure, maybe.
The thing is, film has no fixed resolution so it depends on the variables, which depend on your equipment. Low-speed Kodak stock shot on new Zeiss primes on a Panaflex Millennium, in a controlled and well-lit location, will not give you 500 lines on a release print, it will be more like 800 or 1000. However, Bollywood often uses older equipment, shot in gurrella style--in fact they often buy a lot of the American equipment when Hollywood rental houses are looking to get newer, updated inventory. So, the conditions the films are shot and the equipment being used is different, because they don't have the same type of budget. Hong Kong used to make films like that too, although it is changing now.
So, although the results of this study may be accurate--I've read the study before--in terms of what you and I were to actually see when we go to the theater, it's way off. When I saw Inception on 35mm the other year, it certainly had more 500 or 600 lines of resolution--in fact, it had a sharper image than the digital projection I saw of it later that summer. Like I said, I would believe a figure like 800 lines or so, but for the "average" figure to extend to 500 lines is pretty unbelievable. I worked in the Cinematographer Guild as a camera assistant, and before every production I would be at Panavision, or whatever rental house we were using (Panavision, nine times out of ten), and start doing these kinds of tests. You have to, to make sure the camera provides what you are expecting when you bring it to set.
There's also the matter of Digital Intermediates. I don't know if this study took that into account. No one really does film-to-film photochemical only anymore without any transfer stage, so it's useless to study a process that doesn't involve digitizing the footage.
That info about dupe stock for Star Wars is interesting though, I hadn't heard that before.