AntcuFaalb said:

danny_boy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

I see you forgot to include the following:

It should be noted that this data is widely discredited by the film community – the numbers that resulted from looking at test patterns did not measure up to the resolution that is widely believed to exist on film. On the other hand, none of the discrediting parties has published any test results that show better performance. Politics cloud the science.

Ummmm----this proves my point!

On the other hand, none of the discrediting parties has published any test results that show better performance. Politics cloud the science.

So a lack of further research "proves" your point? I must have learned the scientific method incorrectly, then.

On the contrary the research has concluded the following:

Lucasfilm technical director Mike Blanchard says, "Almost all of the resolution that’s lost is through the printing process. It’s really funny about technology and the film business right now. People get caught up in these numbers games that are flat-out ridiculous. They say, ‘Film is 4k,’ but it’s not 4k. It’s 4k on the camera negative, but no one has ever seen a camera negative projected. Countless studies have shown that what is shown in U.S. theaters [via the interpositive/internegative photochemical printing process] is between 700 and 800 lines of resolution when you get to the release print. We get that easily(using 1080*1920 digital capture and projection).

http://mixonline.com/sound4picture/f...ars_episode_2/

You show me official data that indicates that 4th generation 35 mm release prints exceed 1K-2K and I will offer a retraction.

Good luck---"You are gonna need it!"