Ive always wanted to know what resolution movies are recorded in because in 2001 there was no HD, and yet Lord Of The Rings franchise is in blu-ray? My guess is that in the early 2000s the cameras would record in 1080P but what resolution do they record in now, its gotta be much higher than 4K right?
What Resolution are blockbuster films recorded in?
TheGRig
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Joined
·
282 Posts
Ive always wanted to know what resolution movies are recorded in because in 2001 there was no HD, and yet Lord Of The Rings franchise is in blu-ray? My guess is that in the early 2000s the cameras would record in 1080P but what resolution do they record in now, its gotta be much higher than 4K right?
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
films back in the day were not captured on digital formats. digital cinema is a very very new thing.
LOTR was shot on film and then scanned to a digital format for DVD/Bluray release. Film has the capability of capturing incredible amounts of detail so they scan it at either 2K (1080p or bluray) or 4K (theatrical projection). 35mm is the standard but film also exists in a crazy expensive imax format normally just called 70mm.
right now a lot of cinema is shot on 35mm or on higher resolution S35mm sensors like the red dragon that can shoot at 6K, sony offers their newish cinealta F65 that offers 8K recording. these cameras as a complete package end up totaling in the $200k range. the Red dragon is a budget friendly cinema camera comes in with a complete package probably just shy of $100k.
cinema is a tricky beast because how they capture isnt always how it is handled. a lot of movies shot digitally exist on analogue intermediates and a lot of movies shot on film are processed in a digital intermediate and then transferred back to film for theatrical release but more commonly are now kept on a digital intermediate with the rise of digital cinema projection.
as simple of an explanation as you can get while still leaving out a TON of info. there are college degrees on just film theory that have classes on just this topic alone
to wrap it up all movies in the past were shot on celluloid, an analogue format. they are archived on a special archival film format and get scanned for release on "digitally enhanced" blurays or other distribution methods. this is why really old movies exist on bluray today
LOTR was shot on film and then scanned to a digital format for DVD/Bluray release. Film has the capability of capturing incredible amounts of detail so they scan it at either 2K (1080p or bluray) or 4K (theatrical projection). 35mm is the standard but film also exists in a crazy expensive imax format normally just called 70mm.
right now a lot of cinema is shot on 35mm or on higher resolution S35mm sensors like the red dragon that can shoot at 6K, sony offers their newish cinealta F65 that offers 8K recording. these cameras as a complete package end up totaling in the $200k range. the Red dragon is a budget friendly cinema camera comes in with a complete package probably just shy of $100k.
cinema is a tricky beast because how they capture isnt always how it is handled. a lot of movies shot digitally exist on analogue intermediates and a lot of movies shot on film are processed in a digital intermediate and then transferred back to film for theatrical release but more commonly are now kept on a digital intermediate with the rise of digital cinema projection.
as simple of an explanation as you can get while still leaving out a TON of info. there are college degrees on just film theory that have classes on just this topic alone
to wrap it up all movies in the past were shot on celluloid, an analogue format. they are archived on a special archival film format and get scanned for release on "digitally enhanced" blurays or other distribution methods. this is why really old movies exist on bluray today
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
Film is still a popular choice, though some movies have certainly been shot in more recent times with digital video cameras instead. For decades, the standard was the baseline Panavision system. This is still the case with productions that continue to select film for their media. Panavision is a 35mm format. Some films have been shot on Super Panavision, a 70mm format, but the increased size has limited the format's popularity.
As a rule, 16mm offers enough fidelity to where a FHD scan yields about as much detail as is available in the frame. As such, 35mm is good for double that (QFHD/UHD) and 70mm is good for about double that again (QUHD).
FHD = 1920x1080
QFHD = UHD = 3840x2160
QUHD = 7680x4320
As a rule, 16mm offers enough fidelity to where a FHD scan yields about as much detail as is available in the frame. As such, 35mm is good for double that (QFHD/UHD) and 70mm is good for about double that again (QUHD).
FHD = 1920x1080
QFHD = UHD = 3840x2160
QUHD = 7680x4320
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
panavision isnt a format. they make cameras and lenses. film or digital is a format. for film (celluloid) its primarily but not limited to stocks made by kodak or fuji. currently kodak vision3 is the most popular for color negative film since fuji halted production of motion picture film stock. fuji still makes very popular archival film but no longer motion picture film.
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
as a rule we usually dont compare digital resolutions to film formats because it doesnt actually translate the same because you cant measure the pixel density of an organic medium. all comes down to how its scanned so its by no means an actual rule more of a casual comparison. different stocks within the 35mm and 70mm formats capture detail differently so you cant just slap a resolution on them and say its comparable to this or that. dont compare digital formats shot on a RED camera or like a cineAlta to film... its just not the same
![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
most television that is shot on film is either 16mm or 35mm. 16mm can be scanned to DVD quality and broadcast quality extremely easily. 35mm can easily be scanned to 4K for silver screen projection or scanned at 2K for blurays which is why we see a ton of old movies on bluray
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
as a rule we usually dont compare digital resolutions to film formats because it doesnt actually translate the same because you cant measure the pixel density of an organic medium. all comes down to how its scanned so its by no means an actual rule more of a casual comparison. different stocks within the 35mm and 70mm formats capture detail differently so you cant just slap a resolution on them and say its comparable to this or that. dont compare digital formats shot on a RED camera or like a cineAlta to film... its just not the same
most television that is shot on film is either 16mm or 35mm. 16mm can be scanned to DVD quality and broadcast quality extremely easily. 35mm can easily be scanned to 4K for silver screen projection or scanned at 2K for blurays which is why we see a ton of old movies on bluray
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
lol ok if you say so. if you say it on the internet then it must be true
![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
for reference though when people talk about film they dont call it 35mm panavision. they call it 35mm . panavision is know for top of the line quality when it comes to cameras that shoot in the 35mm or 70mm format and their lenses that are simple gorgeous. panavision did not invent the 35mm format nor 16mm nor Super 16mm or 70mm. the first motion picture film stocks produced were created by George Eastman who co-founded Eastman Kodak now called Kodak. panavision as a company was founded in 1953, much much later after the birth of cinema which started in the late 1800's. sooooooooooo tell me more about how panavision is the name of film formats. also the first 70mm film was captured in the late 1800's as well.... WAY before panavision was started as a company and name. panavision is responsible for the creation of anamorphic lenses but those are called anamorphics, not panavisions
![wink.gif]( "wink.gif")
just an fyi as you clearly have been misinformed about the history of cinema. not even going to start on your reference of using TV marketing formats compared to the resolutions that cine cameras capture. apples and oranges as they are not the same since not every film is captured in the exact same aspect ratio
for reference though when people talk about film they dont call it 35mm panavision. they call it 35mm . panavision is know for top of the line quality when it comes to cameras that shoot in the 35mm or 70mm format and their lenses that are simple gorgeous. panavision did not invent the 35mm format nor 16mm nor Super 16mm or 70mm. the first motion picture film stocks produced were created by George Eastman who co-founded Eastman Kodak now called Kodak. panavision as a company was founded in 1953, much much later after the birth of cinema which started in the late 1800's. sooooooooooo tell me more about how panavision is the name of film formats. also the first 70mm film was captured in the late 1800's as well.... WAY before panavision was started as a company and name. panavision is responsible for the creation of anamorphic lenses but those are called anamorphics, not panavisions
just an fyi as you clearly have been misinformed about the history of cinema. not even going to start on your reference of using TV marketing formats compared to the resolutions that cine cameras capture. apples and oranges as they are not the same since not every film is captured in the exact same aspect ratio
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
cool bro. thanks for your approval on my "opinion" that is actual facts from history. i needed it
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
Joined
·
2,166 Posts
You say facts, I say delusional opinion inconsistent with reality. Being realistic, I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise. That's fine. I just don't want the original poster or future readers to inadvertently accept your distortions as factual.
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
haha
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
would love to learn about this reality you live in but you never seem to back up how i am wrong other than saying i am delusional
![lachen.gif]( "lachen.gif")
would love to learn about this reality you live in but you never seem to back up how i am wrong other than saying i am delusional
Joined
·
608 Posts
Guys/Guys or Gals/Gals no need to debate post some facts.... check this out seems there is some truth to Panavision being a format.. it was Super Panavision 70..:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavision
there is some info that is informative.. I preferred CinemaScope..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavision
there is some info that is informative.. I preferred CinemaScope..
Joined
·
4,725 Posts
Particle could be basing his (or her) statement on info gleaned from the webs or from watching old westerns, I remember it was a big deal that a movie was shot in Panavision, this statement would roll right after the main title, it was what all AAA titles where shot in back then so it has become the name used for the 35mm format; chalk it up to marketing, same as "Nvidia, the way it was meant to be played"
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
Quote:
![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
Super Panavision 70 while sounding like its a film stock is not film. its the brand name they used for a line of lenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Panavision_70
history of panavision as a optics and camera company http://www.panavision.com/history
here is their new Primo 70 that shall replace the Super Panavision 70 line as the industry moves more to digital http://www.panavision.com/products/primo-70-series
there is a difference between format and aspect ratio that appears to be completely lost. the terms are not interchangeable despite what Particle has been posting
Slickwilly nailed it. Particle is confused because of marketing and misinformation from reading stuff online. panavision is a BIG deal and still is. people take pride in using their products but noone has ever shot on panavision film because there is no such thing. shot on panavision means that panavision cameras and optics were used
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
read it closerOriginally Posted by The_Nephilim
Guys/Guys or Gals/Gals no need to debate post some facts.... check this out seems there is some truth to Panavision being a format.. it was Super Panavision 70..:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panavision
there is some info that is informative.. I preferred CinemaScope..
Super Panavision 70 while sounding like its a film stock is not film. its the brand name they used for a line of lenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Panavision_70
history of panavision as a optics and camera company http://www.panavision.com/history
here is their new Primo 70 that shall replace the Super Panavision 70 line as the industry moves more to digital http://www.panavision.com/products/primo-70-series
there is a difference between format and aspect ratio that appears to be completely lost. the terms are not interchangeable despite what Particle has been posting
Slickwilly nailed it. Particle is confused because of marketing and misinformation from reading stuff online. panavision is a BIG deal and still is. people take pride in using their products but noone has ever shot on panavision film because there is no such thing. shot on panavision means that panavision cameras and optics were used
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
Quote:
the term medium can also be used if you want to be specific between analogue and digital. Disc is a medium, the types of discs (encoding method to distinguish between the HD varieties) are the formats. if you are trying to vaguely reference one of my posts
![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
you just listed a bunch of completely different things. thank you for trying to troll. move along. i did not define format and you are taking the term out of context from an analogue medium and applying it to physical and digital distribution methods.Originally Posted by Zepher
So, by your definition of format, DVD, Bluray, HD-DVD, AVCHD, etc... are all the same format?
the term medium can also be used if you want to be specific between analogue and digital. Disc is a medium, the types of discs (encoding method to distinguish between the HD varieties) are the formats. if you are trying to vaguely reference one of my posts
Joined
·
63 Posts
Quote:
by that definition, Panavision is a format shot on film which is the medium.Originally Posted by Conspiracy
you just listed a bunch of completely different things. thank you for trying to troll. move along. i did not define format and you are taking the term out of context from an analogue medium and applying it to physical and digital distribution methods.
the term medium can also be used if you want to be specific between analogue and digital. Disc is a medium, the types of discs (encoding method to distinguish between the HD varieties) are the formats. if you are trying to vaguely reference one of my posts![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
Joined
·
7,424 Posts
Quote:
![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
i am amazed by your advanced trolling skills
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
sure thingOriginally Posted by Zepher
Quote:
by that definition, Panavision is a format shot on film which is the medium.Originally Posted by Conspiracy
you just listed a bunch of completely different things. thank you for trying to troll. move along. i did not define format and you are taking the term out of context from an analogue medium and applying it to physical and digital distribution methods.
the term medium can also be used if you want to be specific between analogue and digital. Disc is a medium, the types of discs (encoding method to distinguish between the HD varieties) are the formats. if you are trying to vaguely reference one of my posts![rolleyes.gif]( "rolleyes.gif")
Joined
·
1 Posts
Yes, panavision is a format, this conspiracy guy clearly doesn’t know what he is talking about. You can’t project a movie shot in a panavision format if the projector doesn’t support that format...what parts of the frame end up on what parts of the film is the format...that’s what is meant by format in this context, it’s the optics that map the frame onto the film. What format is used obviously effects detail and resolution of the frame so this is obviously a correct use of “format” for this discussion. If you are going to be arrogant and an ass at least be right. ( yeah this is necroing something years ago but it had to be said)
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
