Posted by Ben on 10/11/05 17:42

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <434be8f9$0$29076$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net>,
> Ben <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>>>The film stock that studios posses certainly has very much higher
>>>>resolution than current HDTV standards, but the projected image that
>>>>you see in a typical cinema is probably about the same or even poorer
>>>>than HDTV resolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you talking about electronic projectors or film ones?
>
>
>>Sorry if it wasn't clear, I was talking about the 35mm stock that ends
>>up in your local cinema.
>
>
> Right.
>
>
>>>>Kodak did a study into this in the early days of digital projection
>>>>and found that some cinemas were equivalent to only 900 horizontal
>>>>pixels (approximately PAL quality) while the average was iirc in the
>>>>region 1500 or so.
>
>
> But you've mentioned 'digital projection'?

Yes, I wish I hadn't now ;-)
I mentioned it because I assume the object of Kodak's survey was to find
out what resolution digital projector would be required to provide the
same sort of picture quality people were already used to. I can't
remember now if the study actually said that.

>>>Wonder what source those projectors were using? In the early days it
>>>was U-Matic, which doesn't get close to broadcast PAL.
>
>
>>Ermm, 35mm film ;-)
>
>
> It would require an *incredibly* tatty 35mm film projector to give results
> in a cinema as soft as PAL at its best. And I doubt such a beast was ever
> used in UK mainstream cinemas. Of course if the lenses etc were filthy and
> it wasn't focused correctly...

I suspect what they discovered was that in a significant minority of
cases projectors were being manned by incompetent/indifferent minimum
wage teenagers who didn't know/care any better. Incorrect focus was
probably the main cause, although once you get down to the n-th
generation transfer that makes it to your local multiplex, the effective
resolution of the film is lower than people think (obviously I mean the
actual content, not what the film stock is capable of).

[Back to original message]