![]() No, standard definition wasn't the limiting factor, because films weren't scanned only for the DVD release. But it was also 1933, so no, it is not a sharp picture at all. The scanning & reproduction technology was already capable of higher resolutions (because it had been adapted from scanning & reproducing still photos) but the medium of 35mm film was just not sharp enough to warrant scanning above 2K.Īs for King Kong, it's black & white, and in theory, black & white was sharper than colour film. The boring truth is that back when 35mm film was at its most relevant, the most detail the film industry could extract from 35mm was about 2K's worth, and that's why 2K stuck as the standard for digital intermediates. And nobody ever wonders about the resolving power of 20th century lenses. And nobody ever stops to figure out how much detail could actually have made it through the all-analog post production process. And yes, I worked for years with scans of 35mm negatives (not just other generations) that still weren't as sharp or detailed as today's digital cinema cameras.īut figures like 150 lines per millimetre come up all the time, and it seems like nobody ever checks to see if it's true, or sometimes true, or 'best case scenario', or if it's even applicable to motion picture film stock, or if it only applies to slide film under laboratory conditions. Haha, my background is film & television post-production, and yes, I was working in post-production back when everything was shot exclusively on film. Sorry `bout that.ĭon't know what your background is but 35mm is way higher resolution than 4k: ![]() Certainly not many of the historically significant ones. ![]() It's only somewhat correct in specific circumstances (like slide film for still photography) and that just doesn't apply to most finished feature films. So the whole idea that 35mm is equivalent to 4K is. To get a good 4K version of most 35mm films now, you'd have to find the original negatives - because the release prints are copies of copies of copies of the original negatives - but the negatives usually no longer exist, because they weren't made of long-lasting stuff, or they were just discarded because nobody cared. Sometimes photographs of photographs of photographs of photographs of photographs. They didn't always use the best stuff money could buy because they didn't always have enough money for that.īut then the post production methods necessary for film meant that you were making photographs of photographs of photographs, too, for every frame of the film, getting a little blurrier every time. There's a lot of variety in the quality of old film stocks, for one thing. Usually between 1K and 2K in terms of meaningful detail. 35mm is also equivalent to 2K and 1K in terms of grain resolution.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |