3 ms·
The analogy of seeing an original painting in a gallery vs. looking at a print is appealing, however, I can't help think that we're comparing apples and oranges
by dcwca 8y ago
The analogy of seeing an original painting in a gallery vs. looking at a print is appealing, however, I can't help think that we're comparing apples and oranges here: paintings are 3d objects and prints are 2d reproductions. All image projections are reproductions, and the colour and textural properties inherent in photochemical film processing are subtle and trivial to reproduce digitally.
I'm fairly certain Nolan himself could be fooled in a double blind test between 4k digital and a 70mm (assuming he didn't oversee the transfers haha).
This is more about _knowing_ how the picture was produced, and that it was reproduced faithfully, and the excitement that comes from that for those who care. The placebo effect is real :)
- frostburg 8y agoNo, it's pretty easy to tell on a big enough screen. What's impossible to distinguish in a double blind test is FLAC vs good lossy compression or high end reel-to-reel against high end digital.
- dcwca 8y agoSo then does the argument come down to a question of bitrate? Can we push digital projections beyond the point of human visual discernment, like we have with audio?
- frostburg 8y agoYes, but I don't see many 16K projectors around.
- Demiurge 8y agoThat is not how high the cinema ever gets. The focus plane never completely aligns, the backgrounds shift, the projector vibrates and its lenses have edge artifacts. The scanable 16k film would look way better in Oculus VR than reprojected.
- frostburg 8y agoI wouldn't use the optics of commercial VR headsets as any kind of quality benchmark.
- jacobush 8y agoThat argument would perhaps be valid, if someone went to through the trouble of creating a super-hi-rez simulation of the film theatre experience. To my knowledge, no one has done that.