thats a film recorder ....
when things are filmed, directly to film there are no pixels ...
Im not up to snuff on what is currently being used at the cinemas, but about 8 years ago I worked at one in high school, and most were pure film transfers ....at least we were told .... Things may have changed drastically since ....
However, again .... a 1024x768 is a good enough resolution, especially since our DVD movies are a 480 line source (I know FFDShow can increase this), but its nothing compared to native sources.
Its all relative to where you sit .... where I sit at my house I can barely make out the screen door effect on a pure white screen. When watching a movie its completly unnoticeable ...
and even if you the cinemas use a 4000x3000 resolution that factor that they blow the screen size up to, is a bigger factor than what we blow our 1024x768 up to.
when things are filmed, directly to film there are no pixels ...
Im not up to snuff on what is currently being used at the cinemas, but about 8 years ago I worked at one in high school, and most were pure film transfers ....at least we were told .... Things may have changed drastically since ....
However, again .... a 1024x768 is a good enough resolution, especially since our DVD movies are a 480 line source (I know FFDShow can increase this), but its nothing compared to native sources.
Its all relative to where you sit .... where I sit at my house I can barely make out the screen door effect on a pure white screen. When watching a movie its completly unnoticeable ...
and even if you the cinemas use a 4000x3000 resolution that factor that they blow the screen size up to, is a bigger factor than what we blow our 1024x768 up to.
There are digital cinemas now. There is a 3 chip version of DLP used in cinemas. Some movies are done all digital.
I normally keep the focus so that the bands fuzz a bit. Looks like fine graph paper over the image. Yes from the sofa its not noticable. The movie experience is great.
Do you remember the computer games a few years ago at 640x480 max? Remember the graphics displayed on the box - legit screen shots - were great. That was 2" square. People tend to think the fineness will be the same on their screen but the image will also be bigger. It isnt. there is no further resolution in the shots. Similarly some great shots have been taken here and people seeing it imagine it must be incredibly detailed if you are there. No, its still 1024x768.
I noticed some people itching to go to 1000w and crazy sizes and figured it was time for a reality check. Bigger will mean bigger flaws too.
true, but the eye does have amazing resolving power over distance.
I normally keep the focus so that the bands fuzz a bit. Looks like fine graph paper over the image. Yes from the sofa its not noticable. The movie experience is great.
Do you remember the computer games a few years ago at 640x480 max? Remember the graphics displayed on the box - legit screen shots - were great. That was 2" square. People tend to think the fineness will be the same on their screen but the image will also be bigger. It isnt. there is no further resolution in the shots. Similarly some great shots have been taken here and people seeing it imagine it must be incredibly detailed if you are there. No, its still 1024x768.
I noticed some people itching to go to 1000w and crazy sizes and figured it was time for a reality check. Bigger will mean bigger flaws too.
There is a major psychological consideration in having a big screen, as well as being much easier for most people's eyes to focus on.
If you have screendoor problems, it's very fixable by simply adjusting the focus to blurr the image slightly.
No, resolution doesn't magically appear when you upsize things, but I don't think anyone ever claimed it did. The upgrade to 1024x768, given a decent scaler, is much better regarding pixellation than an equivalent size RP SDTV at 480i native.
Panels are getting bigger and more detailed as well - 17" 1280x1024 screens are now common, and the laptop HD screens are perfect for DIY at 1280x800 and 1920x1200.
Projection panels are where people get the short end of the stick, but if you're using a limited size OHP, you most likely (with some exceptions, the 575 MH lamp OHPs) have bad enough brightness that you're not making the image giant anyway.
If you have screendoor problems, it's very fixable by simply adjusting the focus to blurr the image slightly.
No, resolution doesn't magically appear when you upsize things, but I don't think anyone ever claimed it did. The upgrade to 1024x768, given a decent scaler, is much better regarding pixellation than an equivalent size RP SDTV at 480i native.
Panels are getting bigger and more detailed as well - 17" 1280x1024 screens are now common, and the laptop HD screens are perfect for DIY at 1280x800 and 1920x1200.
Projection panels are where people get the short end of the stick, but if you're using a limited size OHP, you most likely (with some exceptions, the 575 MH lamp OHPs) have bad enough brightness that you're not making the image giant anyway.
Ah, you have a point there. Easier to focus on [for a group]. Hertblaster kindly took a closer shot in his thread. Looking at the pic id say 4ft equivalent due to the jpg dither. I think he said in his thread he doesnt like to be too close either.
I watched T2 extreme edition at 720p with a critical eye. 720p @ 1024x768 is barely better than the regular version @1024x768. I think the screen limit overcomes any advantage to the higher res movie.
Sorry if my thread sounds killjoy, I'm not knocking the results, im chaffing at the rez limit.
I watched T2 extreme edition at 720p with a critical eye. 720p @ 1024x768 is barely better than the regular version @1024x768. I think the screen limit overcomes any advantage to the higher res movie.
Sorry if my thread sounds killjoy, I'm not knocking the results, im chaffing at the rez limit.
It's generally accepted that any moving image should ideally be viewed from 5 screen diagonals away, as that's the minimum distance which requires no eye movement to take in the whole picture. Unless you have a very large room, a large screen is simply not optimal.
Cinema screens are large simply because (some of) the audience sits some distance away. Sitting near the front of the auditorium, pixellation is often clearly visible in computer generated scenes, and grain is always visible.
BTW, my local (large chain) multiplex has projectors with less than top quality optics - I find the falloff in resolution near the edges quite distracting.
Cinema screens are large simply because (some of) the audience sits some distance away. Sitting near the front of the auditorium, pixellation is often clearly visible in computer generated scenes, and grain is always visible.
BTW, my local (large chain) multiplex has projectors with less than top quality optics - I find the falloff in resolution near the edges quite distracting.
Regarding 1920x1200 - the group buy has 8 days left. The panels are just rather expensive, as they were custom manufactured for Dell, and we had to get a custom controller made for them.
http://members.cox.net/minoten/
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49437&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
http://members.cox.net/minoten/
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49437&perpage=10&pagenumber=1
2 cents on film "pixels"
I've enjoyed reading this thread...
Films actually do have a pixel structure of sorts, in the "grain" of the crystals in the emulsion. the density of the crystals is proportional to it's sophistication (cost!) and speed. The figures quoted were good ballpark numbers.
The big difference (as I understand it) is this: the film grain is not in any way geometrically regular. As such, we do not percieve a grid or pattern of any sort; there is none. Big advantage for film. I read that Sony is getting ready to market a cinema PJ of 4096 x 2048 res, based on their reflective lcd technology. Might be tough to see a screendoor on that, eh?
I know that most of the panels used in DIY's are 1024 x 768, but how many of then use the full panel to display a 2.35:1 cinemasope image? Or 16:9 for that matter? None that I've seen--been waiting/looking to find some stout-hearted soul who has built an anamorphic lens (fade up diabolical laughter)...
p.s. Has anyone looked into a 17" 16:9 lcd tv (1280 x 768)? Been thinking of going this route.
I've enjoyed reading this thread...
Films actually do have a pixel structure of sorts, in the "grain" of the crystals in the emulsion. the density of the crystals is proportional to it's sophistication (cost!) and speed. The figures quoted were good ballpark numbers.
The big difference (as I understand it) is this: the film grain is not in any way geometrically regular. As such, we do not percieve a grid or pattern of any sort; there is none. Big advantage for film. I read that Sony is getting ready to market a cinema PJ of 4096 x 2048 res, based on their reflective lcd technology. Might be tough to see a screendoor on that, eh?
I know that most of the panels used in DIY's are 1024 x 768, but how many of then use the full panel to display a 2.35:1 cinemasope image? Or 16:9 for that matter? None that I've seen--been waiting/looking to find some stout-hearted soul who has built an anamorphic lens (fade up diabolical laughter)...
p.s. Has anyone looked into a 17" 16:9 lcd tv (1280 x 768)? Been thinking of going this route.
I didn't go with the lcd tv model. I just went with an ACER AL1715 similiar to this one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824009039
only mine has a 12ms response time.
I figured I'd just buy a Happauge WinTV350 card for all my other video inputs and run the monitor through DVI.
I haven't torn it apart yet to check the FCC cable, but with lumenlabs offering the more common extensions I wasn't too worried about it.
Been playing around with it beforehand though, (waiting on my finals to finish up (NEXT WEEK!)) and it's been performing great. Color tones are fantastic and it has a rather wide viewing angle before you start recieving distortions. Can't wait to see 1280x1024 :]
And with an ATI Radeon X800XT Plat, HL2, VTM:Bloodlines, and Farcry don't skip a beat at that resolution with everything on.
only mine has a 12ms response time.
I figured I'd just buy a Happauge WinTV350 card for all my other video inputs and run the monitor through DVI.
I haven't torn it apart yet to check the FCC cable, but with lumenlabs offering the more common extensions I wasn't too worried about it.
Been playing around with it beforehand though, (waiting on my finals to finish up (NEXT WEEK!)) and it's been performing great. Color tones are fantastic and it has a rather wide viewing angle before you start recieving distortions. Can't wait to see 1280x1024 :]
And with an ATI Radeon X800XT Plat, HL2, VTM:Bloodlines, and Farcry don't skip a beat at that resolution with everything on.
What's the point?
If this is true, why bother? I have not tried this but am fairly certain that a 60" diagonal image from 25' away would be similar to watching a 5" image from across an average size room. The image could be seen but not very well and certainly not well enough to watch a movie or play a game.
Have we gotten so lazy that moving our eyes is considered an exertion? I did watch an IMAX film a few years ago and was visually confused and overwhelmed but think it was because as a nature documentary it did not have a predetermined focus as most mainstream movies do.
Is anyone with a 60" TV watching it from 25' away?
dnsey said:
If this is true, why bother? I have not tried this but am fairly certain that a 60" diagonal image from 25' away would be similar to watching a 5" image from across an average size room. The image could be seen but not very well and certainly not well enough to watch a movie or play a game.
Have we gotten so lazy that moving our eyes is considered an exertion? I did watch an IMAX film a few years ago and was visually confused and overwhelmed but think it was because as a nature documentary it did not have a predetermined focus as most mainstream movies do.
Is anyone with a 60" TV watching it from 25' away?
25' is sounds too far to me. I thought 2:1 was optimal. 12ft to 6ft screen. Any architects in the house?
My eyes don't get tired.
My eyes don't get tired.
Yep that seems more like it, unless you're a small child, then you have to invert it.
I am using an old pj untill I get some ffc issues straightened out (and have more energy). At 72" (largest bare wall) and about 8' away it's a very good compromise. I had another beat up old pj and at about the same size but only 800x600 the screen door was slightly distracting. A glass of wine usually took care of that. I suppose a bottle would have made it perfect.
I am using an old pj untill I get some ffc issues straightened out (and have more energy). At 72" (largest bare wall) and about 8' away it's a very good compromise. I had another beat up old pj and at about the same size but only 800x600 the screen door was slightly distracting. A glass of wine usually took care of that. I suppose a bottle would have made it perfect.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.