AMC Lincoln Square 13

Nope, Red did tests and found 35mm film to be approximately equivalent to 3.2/3.5k, but that gets down to around 2k when you get to mass produced release prints, which is what I said.

Here it is from cinematographer David Mullen (who has shot major features and television): “It’s easier to just talk about the resolution on the original negative and avoid bringing in the resolution of various printing and projection methods, etc. Red has tested Super-35 and generally found it to be, I forgot, 3.2K or 3.5K, something like that.

You could therefore say that if a 24mm wide piece of film negative resolves 3.2K, for example, a 36mm wide piece of film (VistaVision) would resolve 4.8K, and a 52mm wide piece of film (5-perf 65mm Super Panavision / Todd-AO) would resolve 6.9K, and a 70mm wide piece of film (15-perf 65mm IMAX) would resolve 9.3K. However, this ignores some real-world issues like the fact that older medium-format lenses used on large format movie cameras have a lower MTF compared to modern 35mm cine optics (because the larger negatives don’t need lenses with high MTF’s because if you have more millimeters overall, you don’t need to resolve as many lines per millimeter…)

If you really want to be crude, you could say that you lose maybe half the resolution of the negative once it is printed through dupe elements and thrown onto a theater screen, which is why 2K projection seems on par with the best 35mm print projection, and 4K projection would be similar to 70mm projection, but it therefore also means that IMAX digital projection should be at least 6K…"

Don’t confuse comfort with mathematical certainty. And unless you’ve seen Hateful 8 under optimal 4K digital projection, how do you know the 70mm was better?

And also: “It is well known that digital projectors go out of date way quicker than any 35mm film projectors ever did!”

That’s because digital is constantly evolving where film has remained stagnant for decades. You’re basically confirming that film now is as good as it’ll ever get but digital is constantly and rapidly evolving and getting better and better. That’s not really the strongest argument in favor of film. Take the emotional love for film out and look at this from a purely logical/technical standpoint… would you rather have a tech that has hit it’s ceiling or one that is being made better every year? REGARDLESS of where you think each sits today…

I have not yet heard that any movie theater is receiving the actual movie -not ads or previews, via satellite! Hard drives are more complex than a DVD or blu ray. Digital they all are, yes.

I have movie theater operator friends but I am guessing you don’t. I will reply to one aspect- yes, DVDs & SD cards don’t pose the kind of problems that often are present when a movie theater finds it can’t open or project a digital film. We are talking about a 2k or 4k “hard drive” and computerized projector.

To further explain, how often do you replace your computer? your digital camera? probably every few years in both instances, out of date. Not so 35mm film projectors which last many years. But digital film projectors…….

How are digital files less reliable than giant film prints? Also, where is your evidence that digital projectors last less than film projectors? I

What do you mean by 2k film? You mean digital files with 2k resolution?

Honestly, looking back at the blockbusters I saw with 35mm, digital just looks so much clearer and better. I don’t know if praising 35mm, which is a pretty old format BTW, is the right thing to do right now.

It is not my imagination that 2k film does NOT have the resolution of 35mm film. That’s fact. Digital cameras are more convenient for people. digital projection is more convenient for movie theaters. Convenience doesn’t mean better. And, digital projectors are far LESS reliable & last far less time than film projectors. Of course, everybody IS switching to digital projection. Maybe eventually some, including laser, will be better than film.

35mm is more like 4k film not 2k in terms of resolution and 6k doesn’t approach 70mm. (That’s why some 70mm classics were scanned at 8k) The 70mm print that I saw of The Hateful Eight at AFI Silver had no dirt, focus or stability issues and greater resolution of detail than anything I’ve seen in 2k or 4k film. Film is also easier on the eyes. I’ve not experienced laser projection & don’t know much about it but I’d take real film over 2k or 4k anytime!

It’s because of people like you that they’re trying to get rid of film once and for all, to replace it with digital garbage just because it’s cheaper. Good thing we still have those directors who prefer film, unlike you.

Film projection might have a higher resolution than laser BUT as many filmmakers have said too, contrast and brightness can matter much more than resolution AND 70mm gets worse with each screening (scratches and stuff) AND film takes more hours to set up AND film is basically obsolete with modern cameras and projectors AND 70mm prints are extremely expensive and messy.

So I’m kinda glad we get the laser which will finally fill up the screen again for EVERY movie.

Spire is right. IMAX Laser can do 1.43:1 just like IMAX 70mm. I think Laser will take over film in the future. IMAX 70mm still has a higher resolution than Laser. This Laser stuff is an excuse to get rid of film projection once and for all.

@celboy The IMAX Laser projectors are indeed capable of projecting at 1.43:1, using vertical anamorphic lenses. Reports I have read suggest that for IMAX Laser shows of SW7, the Jakku sequence is presented in 1.43:1.

And some of them are shot in IMAX, like Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, and Intersteller, and his upcoming movie Dunkirk. He is a huge fan of filming stuff in that format. Quentin Tarantino also shoots stuff in 2d too and prefers film to digital. Hence that his latest work was shot in 65mm for 70mm release before a nationwide rollout in a shorter digital version.