How big would digital resolution go, before it outsizes 35mm film?

[ironpony]

A lot of movies shot on 35mm film originally, are now being transferred to 4K. However, I am wondering if resolution will eventually get so high, that the picture quality will degrade, cause the resolution quality is much bigger than that of the film it was shot on.

For example, in say 10-15 years from now, when movies shot on 35mm are going to be transferred to 8K, and everyone has 8K TVs, will the movies still look good on 8K? What about 16k? Or how high would you have to go to actually out-resolve the resolution of 35mm film, if that makes sense?

[The Rodent]

Technologically it already has... but, in terms of actual usability it's pointless... I've said this before, but the human eye can only see a maximum resolution.
It's like making a TV that shows infrared and ultraviolet.


All these super-duper 8K TVs and stuff, is wasted technology.
Sure it looks a bit smoother than regular TV, but there's a cut-off point as to what the human eye can actually pick up.
The human eye simply doesn't process such information.

[ironpony]

Oh okay. So what digital resolution would be closest to 35mm film resolution then?

[The Rodent]

35mm film is about 90 megapixels... which equates to around "6K" in modern terms.

[ironpony]

But there is a million pixels in a megapixel so wouldn't the number be in the tens of millions somewhere, rather than only 6000 pixels?

[ynwtf]

But there is a million pixels in a megapixel so wouldn't the number be in the tens of millions somewhere, rather than only 6000 pixels?


Here ya go, buddy. All your math is under the section titled the digital resolution of film.

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

[The Rodent]

But there is a million pixels in a megapixel so wouldn't the number be in the tens of millions somewhere, rather than only 6000 pixels?



Yeah 6K isn't 6000 pixels.
6K is 9 megapixels. 9 million pixels on the entire screen with the screen being 6000 pixels in width.


8K is 33mp.

[Citizen Rules]

I have a question: why would someone want to watch a movie as such high definition that it's much sharper than real life?

[The Rodent]

^ That's my argument for it all.
Repeating myself again, but the human eye can't see 95% of the detail that the screen supposedly has on it.

[Joel]

Im fine with 1080. If the film is good, all that matters.

[ironpony]

Yeah 6K isn't 6000 pixels.
6K is 9 megapixels. 9 million pixels on the entire screen with the screen being 6000 pixels in width.


8K is 33mp.

Oh okay I see. So 8k is 7680 × 4320. Which means that when 8K TVs come out and all of our favorite movies are released on 8K, then they will be going beyond the resolution of 35mm then?

[The Rodent]

8000 pixels in width.

[The Rodent]

It's actually 7680 pixels but they round up and call it "8K".

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Resolution_of_SD%2C_Full_HD%2C_4K_Ultra_HD_%26_8K_Ultra_HD.svg/360px-Resolution_of_SD%2C_Full_HD%2C_4K_Ultra_HD_%26_8K_Ultra_HD.svg.png (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj707WmvMPgAhWIzoUKHSS2DZEQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F8K_resolution&psig=AOvVaw1czWRiQVrf8KxKO16tVVZm&ust=1550517057557456)

[Swan]

Im fine with 1080. If the film is good, all that matters.

Bro. :up:

[The Rodent]

Another problem with all these massive images... is the resolution of the TV, and player, and the disc (Blu Ray or DVD etc.)


If your movie is presented in 8K... and your TV is, say, Full HD rather than 4K or 8K... then at least 88% of the information contained on the disc isn't being shown on the lower resolution screen.


Same the other way around... if you have a movie presented in Full HD, and your 8K TV is upscaling the image to 8K... then basically 1 pixel of information on the disc is being stretched to the size of 4 pixels, and the movie will look nasty on the 8K screen.

[ironpony]

Oh okay. Well if you have a movie like Skyfall, which I read was shot in 2.8K, if that's correct, then it's going to look bad blown up to an 8k release then, while being played through an 8K TV, right?

[The Rodent]

Yup.


I noticed one thing a couple years back... I still had my old Super Nintendo up until only a short while back... and I decided to dig the thing out and play it on my big TV.
It looked awful. Super Mario Kart looked like Pong :laugh:


Same thing with this new tech... you either lose up to 90% of the info if the screen is too low a resolution... or, a small amount of info gets stretched to fill a huge resolution and it looks poo.

[ironpony]

So if this is the case, are then even going to bother to make 8K TVs and media for movies then, if most movies and shows are shot on 35mm and therefore cannot support 8K properly? Is 4K going to be the last one for TV?

[Joel]

If I can but in and throw my two cents - and it's only a guess. I'd say 8k cinema is going to be a major component of 8k display and vice versa. I'm sure Peter Jackson will be humping its leg if he isn't already. Get ready for the new frame rate - 240fps! Blazing fast drama slowburners! YES!

Actually, that framerate is older news. Hope it went away like a summer rash

[ironpony]

When did this new framerate come up?

[The Rodent]

The new framerate thing has been around for ages.
It's one of the reasons The Hobbit got screwed up. Jackson's cameras were using a high frame rate, and it messed up the aesthetic of the movies.

[ironpony]

Oh okay, but no one else besides Jackson is actually taking this new framerate seriously though, and it won't become a thing, will it?

I mean if wanted to shoot slow motion on 240fps, you would have to shoot at around 720 fps, or if you wanted it really slow, you would have to shoot at around 1200 fps. You would need so much more light for that, it will be ridiculous and hard for the cast and crew to see.

So would they really take 240fps seriously therefore?

[Swan]

Doesn't Cameron have some interest in higher fps? I could be wrong.

[MovieMeditation]

Doesn't Cameron have some interest in higher fps? I could be wrong.
Next Avatars are shot in 60 fps the last I heard.

[ironpony]

I'm surprised since The Hobbit movies got such negative responses to the high shutter speed, everyone saying it looks like a soap opera, and comments like that. You think other filmmakers would be turned off by comments like that.

[MovieMeditation]

Anyways, I love my 4K Blu-rays, but the resolution plays a smaller part. It’s more the HDR that’s amazing. For every film lover out there should really experience properly calibrated 4K content of older films. Movies have never come closer to looking and feeling like actual film prints being shown on your tv screen. So cinematic and so beautiful.

[ironpony]

Well it seems that if we move to 8K TVs later, that filmmakers who still want to shoot on film will have to move up to shooting on 70mm film, more than 35mm to keep up.

[MovieMeditation]

Well it seems that if we move to 8K TVs later, that filmmakers who still want to shoot on film will have to move up to shooting on 70mm film, more than 35mm to keep up.
Well yes and no.

Most big films today are 2K digital intermediates and those can still look beautiful on a 4K screen even the source is half the size. That would be the same of 4K content to 8K screen. And if it ever gets possible, a 6K scan of 35mm and then shown on an 8K screen would be even better.

But I wouldn’t worry to much yet. 4K is still not widely supported or integrated yet. I mean, Samsung’s first 8K screen didn’t even have the needed hardware to even support the 8K content available :laugh:

[MoreOrLess]

35mm film is about 90 megapixels... which equates to around "6K" in modern terms.

Working in photography really its not that simple, you can scan 35mm film to that degree but your well into the realms of diminishing returns.

Film generally behaves in a rather different fashion to digital, flaws are visable earlier but the dropoff in quality as you increase display resolution is also more gradual and pleasing.

So its less a case of 35mm suddenly hitting a wall and more a case of diminishing returns as you increase resolution. I'd say 4K is likely to show improvement for most films with decent source material but perhaps not quite as much as you'd expect purely from the figures, 8K will probably be more of a letdown, more suited eo either modern films or films with a larger format film, no coincidence that 2001 was chosen for an 8K demo.

[ironpony]

Oh okay. At how much resolution does film start to diminish though?