 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just watched DUNKIRK on HBO. It had the most impressive picture quality I have ever seen. It literally took my breath away!
I first saw the film in the theaters projected in 70mm (4 perf) 2 :35 aspect ratio.
The image was what you would expect, nothing sensational.
However, the video quality was that of an IMAX film (12 perf) 2:00 aspect ratio.
SO, can someone explain, in simple terms, why an IMAX film on streaming video looks better than a 70mm projected image in a first rate theater ?
Thanks!
brm
p.s. DUNKIRK is a flat out cinematic masterpiece. It will go down in history as a one-of-a kind motion picture! You can catch it on HBO On Demand.
p.s.s. IF you hate the film ; PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT HERE. You had your chance to criticize on the other threads>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two reasons -
Despite Christopher Nolan's protestations to the contrary, projected film can - and usually does - look like crap. The problem isn't so much the film itself, the problem is the actual act of passing it through the projector's film gate. The fact that there is judder and jitter introduced by the projector itself can pretty dramatically reduce perceived picture resolution in the theater. There was a study years back testing the actual resolution of projected film - even the best prints in the best theaters topped out at around the equivalent of 800 lines of resolution:
http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_resolution_english.pdf
Digital projection and playback, on the other hand, does not have these physical film gate problems.
I saw Interstellar in 70MM IMAX up in Denver, and it looked like crap. Not only that, the film broke three times, and the last time it broke - just before McConaughey went into the black hole - it was down for good. The theater let us watch the rest of the film in a digital theater down the hole and it looked MUCH better than the film presentation.
The other reason it looks better to you is because you are watching on a MUCH smaller screen. The smaller the screen, the crisper it looks. Blow up your digital stream to movie theater sized proportions and I would bet you'd start seeing all kinds of artifacts and imperfections. However, you still wouldn't have to deal with film gate judder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen IMAX films projected at the Los Angeles site near UCLA (possibly the first IMAX screen)..The kind of reality those films produced is astonishing. Watching DUNKIRK on a sixty inch screen equals that experience. No bluray of any film has matched the HBO stream...
Thanks!
Brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fyi
One of the great aspects of digital projection is you can show a film in a small room on a wide/large screen.
This is especially relevant because many rooms in multiplexes are under 200 seats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think part of the issue too is that so many of the currently installed IMAX projectors are in bad shape, so we get even more mechanical problems during projection.
Blu-ray should definitely look better than HBO, which is considerably more compressed. To me, the true test would be to compare the Blu and the HBO stream sequentially on a really large screen. I imagine the Blu-ray would reveal more film grain, which tends to get lost in compression artifacts on a cable or satellite stream.
Of course, the original IMAX film format of DUNKIRK is inherently extremely high resolution, so any well done video transfer derived from that is going to look extraordinary. I have the UHD Blu-ray and play it through JVC's RS4500 projector onto a 9 foot wide screen here at home. If I want to watch the Scope version I play the Kaleidescape file and my screen opens up to 11 foot wide. DUNKIRK is a reference quality transfer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure that's true. I've seen IMAX presentations at the Denver Museum of Natural History that took my breath away.
I think I'm just pushing back a bit on the whole Chris Nolan love affair with projected film. In my work with some of the studios and looking at the actual scientific studies that have been done, it seems that in most cases digital has it all over projected film. Of course, initially that wasn't true with the initial low contrast, low resolution digital projectors.
Ever see this? An industry shootout involving cinematographers comparing IMAX projection vs. 4K digital - again digital was preferred by most attending:
http://www.lfexaminer.com/20110518shootout-in-galveston-1570-vs-digital.htm
And that was back in 2011 - digital projection has evolved considerably more since then. Just got back from CEDIA and saw some amazing 4K pieces from JVC, Barco and Sony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I watched BLADE RUNNER sequentially on HBO and bluray and the latter was far superior..I don't see how br could improve on the HBO stream for DUNKIRK however.
What is the downgrade in pictorial quality when making 70mm prints from a 12 perf IMAX negative?
Seems to me that an hd version looks better than 70mm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce you lost me at "i just watched Dunkirk..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting! The first film I saw projected digitally was ATTACK OF THE CLONES. Like you say, very poor blacks and contrast - that was the biggest negative aspect I noticed. That's always been a weak spot for DLP, even up to today. It does other things amazingly well, though - color, motion resolution, and high brightness output to name a few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce you lost me at "i just watched Dunkirk..."
Cuz you don't like the film?
Or you don't understand the tech talk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting! The first film I saw projected digitally was ATTACK OF THE CLONES. Like you say, very poor blacks and contrast - that was the biggest negative aspect I noticed. That's always been a weak spot for DLP, even up to today. It does other things amazingly well, though - color, motion resolution, and high brightness output to name a few.
Yeah. Someone Tell Chris that projection quality of 35mm
often sucks and is done by amateurs.
Viva dlp!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce you lost me at "i just watched Dunkirk..."
Cuz you don't like the film?
Or you don't understand the tech talk?
Film was ok.
Score was utterly awful (and i dont mind tonal scores).
And something someone said about the characters being shallow, or not expanded on, so they arent engaging enough and that Nolan could learn how from other directors. Might even have been you that said it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just o.k.?
Watch again ...in hd of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I asked nicely that the haters not use this post to vent since there are threads devoted SOLELY TO THE FILM!
and THE SCORE!
I should have expected to be ignored.
BRM
P.s. idi...idi... idiot!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said the film was ok. To expand on that, it was decent, watchable, well-made, and i find the whole little ships thing - the bravery of those involved - very moving anyway. I noted 2 points that i consider weaknesses - some of the characters needed more life in them, something, and the score was just about adequate in places but in others it grated like the siren in the dirty dozen.
As for tech talk - i thought blue ray technology blew anything projected out of the water?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
