Plus, the projector optics will always limit the sharpness of the picture. No lense is ideal, and even ideal lenses would have fundamental limitations due to diffraction.

[–] hungry_freaks_daddy@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Something like that.

As far as lens optics, we’re really splitting hairs here. 70mm through a quality lens in an imax theater is going to look absolutely fantastic and stunning. Digital is just more convenient and at some point it will catch up and surpass film.

[–] Shurimal@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point was more like that even IMAX film doesn't quite get to 18k equivalent, more like 12 to 16k. Honestly, anything above 4k (for normal widescreen content) even on big screens is barely noticeable if noticeable at all. THX recommends that the screen should cover 40° of your FOV; IMAX is what, 70°, so 8k for it is already good enough. Extra resolution is not useful if human eye can't tell the difference; it just gets to the meaningless bragging rights territory like 192 kHz audio and DAC-s with 140 dB+ S/N ratio. Contrast, black levels, shadow details, color accuracy are IMO more important than raw resolution at which modern 8k cameras are good enough and 16k digital cameras will be more than plenty.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The extra resolution isn’t completely useless from an editing standpoint.

If you’re working with 16k footage and a 4K deliverable and the shot isn’t quite right you can crop up to 75% of the image with no loss in quality.

This kind of thing would be mostly useful for documentaries, especially nature, or sports where you can’t control the action.

[–] variants@possumpat.io 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yup that's why people can go back and rescan old film movies to make them into 4k now that we have better cameras, but you can't do that with movies that were recorded with digital

[–] Shurimal@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, we'll have this brief digital gap from the era when film was going out of fashion and 4k and higher resolution digital cameras weren't a thing yet. But now that even average youtubers are shooting 4k with cheap(ish) DSRL-s, we generally don't have to worry about the content having "not good enough quality for the future".

The bigger problem IMO is the ephemeral and profit-driven nature of modern content distribution. Once the studio decides a film/series is not making enough money and pulls it from streaming, it's gone. IIRC, DRM of DCP is also remotely managed so even if a cinema physically has the drive with the movie, they can't play it when the studio pulls the plug--this was not the case with film.

[–] variants@possumpat.io 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah all that is a huge problem, I remember Microsoft pulled the game Scott pilgrim from the Xbox 360 so if you didn't buy it beforehand you couldn't get it anymore until they did some legal stuff to get the game back in the store.

I still think film today is a great tool for getting high resolution photography at a cheap entry cost, a full sized digital sensor camera can be pretty pricey where as a 35mm film camera can be had pretty easy, then once you go to medium format it's gets more expensive and then I'm not even sure there is large format digital cameras

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Speaking of projectors, don't they max at something like 100 nits?

[–] Shurimal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

The JVC DLA-NX5 I have the pleasure to have set up for demos at work is 1800 lm, or 525 nits. Plenty bright, HDR looks amazing on it.