Quality difference between HD video and 35mm film
I have noticed lately some of the older movies like Titanic being sold on Blu-rays in high definition (HD). As I understand, high definition implies high level of detail, yet I do not understand what is the true difference in terms of quality. If I remember correctly, 35mm film already has a higher resolution than HD so 35mm frame has at least 3 million pixels, depending on the lens, and shooting conditions, while an HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. Which, kind of steers me towards believing that original film should have better visual quality.
So what is the real quality-wise difference between digital HD recording and a 35mm film recording?
Best Answer
I think that what you're missing is that you need to be comparing Blu-ray to DVDs, not to film... Of course film is better quality than Blu-ray but the average person isn't watching a movie at home using a film projector.
The older films would have been originally sold on DVDs (or even VHS tapes) that were geared for display on largely non-HD flat screen TVs and even CRTs. I'm often startled by how horrid the quality is when I view mass-marketed early DVDs (using my Blu-ray player) for the first time after watching HD content. Often times, the image can't even be blown up big enough for my HD TV without major quality issues.
This is because the quality of a DVD or Tape is generally extremely low (compared to film or Blu-ray), so when they market the Blu-ray as being "HD" they're implying that the source for the content was a high-quality print of the film rather than a low-def burn from a DVD print... but this is only possible if such a high-quality copy of the original film even exists. Due to film's limited life span, many older films aren't available to be duplicated to HD media without going through major reconstruction efforts.
Pictures about "Quality difference between HD video and 35mm film"
Is 35mm film better than 4K?
Since the pixel count increases with the square of the resolution, 4K is four times as computationally expensive as 2K (and 8K is 16 times), according to facility Dneg. It is estimated that 35mm film has a digital resolution equivalent to 4K: 35mm Imax film equates to 6K, while 70mm Imax is closer to 12K.What resolution is 35mm film equivalent to?
Thirty-five-millimeter film has a digital resolution equivalent of approximately 5.6 kilobytes of information. (This translates to an image size of about 5,600 \xd7 3,620 pixels.) The finite resolution of film will fluctuate, based on multiple variables (see list below). A film's image quality depends on its \u201cgrain\u201d.Why is 35mm film better for movies?
It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it's the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable.\u201d \u2013 Christopher Nolan, Director of Dunkirk. \u201cIt's just like the difference with vinyl and MP3.Which size of film gives you the most resolution?
In the case of large format, 4 x 5 inch films can record approximately 298.7 million pixels, and 1,200 million pixels in the case of 8 x 10 inch film. However, as with a digital system, poor optical quality of lenses will decrease the resolving potential of a film emulsion.What's the Resolution of 35mm Film?
Sources: Stack Exchange - This article follows the attribution requirements of Stack Exchange and is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Images: Kyle Loftus, Kyle Loftus, Markus Spiske, Markus Spiske