dvd compared to film

juanicus

Member
May 4, 2001
55
0
0
hello all,

I just had a long conversation with my neighbor about dvd film and actual true film. He says that it is impossible for a dvd to have the same quality as film (he added that terrabytes would be necessary to reproduce film quality on a dvd). He says it has nothing to do with framerate and that hdtv still looks like complete crap even with the best dvd player. I have a hard time believing this (that analog film quality is inherently better than digital film quality, regardless of processing). I would like some clarification, and please be as technical as is needed, I have a degree in EE (mainly writing firmware), just not practicing, so I will appreciate the technical data. But i would definitey rather watch a good movie in the theater than in my living room.

juanicus
 

monzie

Senior member
Oct 28, 2003
247
0
0
He's telling you the truth. Normal camera film is coated with a light sensitive emulsion. The emulsion reacts to light at a MOLECULAR level, FAR FAR more sensitive than any digital CCD and as such has NO upper resolution...its just light passing through molecules (not resolution based at all). But (there's always a but) there are a few problems with traditional film based movies.

1) The 'process' of playing back the movie is opto/mechanical...any problems with the optics/mechanics or /dirt/dust/etc and not only is the playback spoilt, but it will also probably ruin the film itself.

2) Capturing the film is open to the same problems as playing the film..............


I must add this though, where do you think all those DVD's come from originally?

As for HDTV I cant comment on them (we dont have it in the UK), but, unless your playing DVD's encoded at a HDTV's upper resolution (do they make HD DVD's?)......whats the point?
 

tart666

Golden Member
May 18, 2002
1,289
0
0
i've talked to a few students that do rendering, and when they say "film quality", they typically mean 4k x 3k resolution. That's 12MP.

HDTV, OTOH, is still less than 1MP at best. While still cameras are beginning to approach "film quality" now, the video stuff is still a few years away.
 

Juice Box

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 2003
9,615
1
0
Originally posted by: tart666
i've talked to a few students that do rendering, and when they say "film quality", they typically mean 4k x 3k resolution. That's 12MP.

HDTV, OTOH, is still less than 1MP at best. While still cameras are beginning to approach "film quality" now, the video stuff is still a few years away.

yeah, I do 3d max stuff, and film quality is insane
 

Schmeh

Member
Jun 25, 2004
29
0
0
Originally posted by: tart666
i've talked to a few students that do rendering, and when they say "film quality", they typically mean 4k x 3k resolution. That's 12MP.

HDTV, OTOH, is still less than 1MP at best. While still cameras are beginning to approach "film quality" now, the video stuff is still a few years away.

Actually the two major HDTV resolutions are 720p and 1080i. 720p is 921,600 pixels, 1280*720. 1080i is 2,073,600 pixels, 1920*1080. So HDTV can handle just over 2MP.
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
You can't actually use HDTV with ordinary DVD, you need Bluray or something similar (blue laser) because there is not enough space for a whole movie on a DVD.
I have seen demonstrations of HDTV and I would say it comes very close to "real" film. I think there are 3 reasons for this:

1) Our eyes will always limit the "resolution" and I think HDTV comes close.
2) You would typically use HDTV with plasma or a hone-cinema projector so the screen is much smaller than in a theater
3) The optics in cameras etc will always limit the resolution even for "real" film, so you can not encode information at the molecular level.
 

itachi

Senior member
Aug 17, 2004
390
0
0
don't really know much, if anything, about the technical details about this kinda stuff.. but it seems like what he's arguing is related more to mpeg-2 than anything else. mpeg-2 isn't lossless, so there'll always be some visual information that gets removed.. but not a significant amount.
 

tart666

Golden Member
May 18, 2002
1,289
0
0
Originally posted by: Schmeh
Originally posted by: tart666
i've talked to a few students that do rendering, and when they say "film quality", they typically mean 4k x 3k resolution. That's 12MP.

HDTV, OTOH, is still less than 1MP at best. While still cameras are beginning to approach "film quality" now, the video stuff is still a few years away.

Actually the two major HDTV resolutions are 720p and 1080i. 720p is 921,600 pixels, 1280*720. 1080i is 2,073,600 pixels, 1920*1080. So HDTV can handle just over 2MP.

don't forget 1080i is an interlaced mode, and actually has lower information content than 720p.

Our eyes can definitely tell between HDTV and film resolution. HDTV does look better than DVD, but don't let that fool you into thinking that "it can't possibly get any better" (I keep thinking that with every generation of game consoles, and man am I wrong)
 

f95toli

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2002
1,547
0
0
Agreed, but my point was that it would probably be difficult to tell the difference between HDTV and real film on a 32" screen.
Personally I can't even see much difference between "ordinary" digital broadcasting and DVD when sitting in my soffa, but that is in part due to known imperfections in my optics (my eyes :()
 

epsilon9090

Member
Sep 4, 2004
144
0
0
regular tv and dvds in progresssive dont look that much different, the real test is when you se some 1080i or 720p content, that is real hdtv and it looks amazing.
 

DrCool

Senior member
Aug 3, 2001
871
0
76
juanicus

to answer your orignial question: HELL NO!

DVD's are not even close to the quality of analog film.

DVD's are made from the orginal source material, which is usually 35mm film stock.

The analog film is "digitized", this process alone looses some quality, but not the bulk of it.

The "digitized" movie is then COMPRESSED and ENCODED into a MPEG2 DVD format, which is used to make a master dvd.

Unlike a CD where there is no COMPRESSION, DVD Video is played back by UnEncoding and UnCompressing the data, to play on your Screen. The reason CD's have become so beloved is thanks to the fact they they store many times more then a Tape, but they also keep a tape's uncompressed quality intact.

The nature of DVD, makes it impossible to maintain the original source quality. The data is being compressed for gods sake.

That is why if you watch a DVD on your computer monitor, you'll see lots of "artifacts", these are evident on a high resolution screen, thanks to compression.

It's like trying to compare CD Quality Audio with an MP3. The nature of MP3 makes it impossible to be as high a quality as 'uncompressed' CD Audio.

The technology is not in place for a medium to hold 'UNCOMPRESSED' digitial video.

also, for reference.. video on an SVHS is actually higher quality then any DVD movie.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: monzie
He's telling you the truth. Normal camera film is coated with a light sensitive emulsion. The emulsion reacts to light at a MOLECULAR level, FAR FAR more sensitive than any digital CCD and as such has NO upper resolution...its just light passing through molecules (not resolution based at all). But (there's always a but) there are a few problems with traditional film based movies.

1) The 'process' of playing back the movie is opto/mechanical...any problems with the optics/mechanics or /dirt/dust/etc and not only is the playback spoilt, but it will also probably ruin the film itself.

2) Capturing the film is open to the same problems as playing the film..............


I must add this though, where do you think all those DVD's come from originally?

As for HDTV I cant comment on them (we dont have it in the UK), but, unless your playing DVD's encoded at a HDTV's upper resolution (do they make HD DVD's?)......whats the point?

This is complete bullsh!t. No upper resolution limit on film is bullsh!t. CCDs are far more sensitive than photographic emulsion (QE of 70% typical vs 2% for photo emulsion). The resolution of CCDs (and the soon to be CMOS sensors) is limited right now, but it will improve to the point of making film completely obsolete in that respect too.

Granted, if you had a high quality camera, film, projector, and screen, you could get a better picture with film right now than a standard DVD, but the soon digital cameras will far outstrip analog film cameras in quality, and digital projection will do better than a film projector.
 

andyman7

Member
Jan 22, 2003
39
0
0
Originally posted by: DrCool
juanicus

to answer your orignial question: HELL NO!

DVD's are not even close to the quality of analog film.

DVD's are made from the orginal source material, which is usually 35mm film stock.

The analog film is "digitized", this process alone looses some quality, but not the bulk of it.

The "digitized" movie is then COMPRESSED and ENCODED into a MPEG2 DVD format, which is used to make a master dvd.

Unlike a CD where there is no COMPRESSION, DVD Video is played back by UnEncoding and UnCompressing the data, to play on your Screen. The reason CD's have become so beloved is thanks to the fact they they store many times more then a Tape, but they also keep a tape's uncompressed quality intact.

The nature of DVD, makes it impossible to maintain the original source quality. The data is being compressed for gods sake.

That is why if you watch a DVD on your computer monitor, you'll see lots of "artifacts", these are evident on a high resolution screen, thanks to compression.

It's like trying to compare CD Quality Audio with an MP3. The nature of MP3 makes it impossible to be as high a quality as 'uncompressed' CD Audio.

The technology is not in place for a medium to hold 'UNCOMPRESSED' digitial video.

also, for reference.. video on an SVHS is actually higher quality then any DVD movie.

while there may be no "compression" (like mp3 or mp4), in the music on CDs, digital media cannot capture all of the data of an analog source
sure you can increase the sampling rate to some insane quality that is so good that we cant tell the difference but it will NEVER be 100% accurate
 

Runamile

Member
Nov 25, 2001
82
0
0
Originally posted by: tart666
i've talked to a few students that do rendering, and when they say "film quality", they typically mean 4k x 3k resolution. That's 12MP.

HDTV, OTOH, is still less than 1MP at best. While still cameras are beginning to approach "film quality" now, the video stuff is still a few years away.

It has to be. Think about projecting a 1024i image on a 30 foot screen? It would look like crap. DVD quality is NOT film quality. As far as lower quality then analog, I am divided. The picture is much more sharp looking, but the colors on DVD look awful. If you ever look at an object with a mostly solid coloring with a light, smooth gradient across it, all you will see are big ugly blocks of artifacts. DVDs cant get close the the smooth color gradients that, say, VHS has.
 

tart666

Golden Member
May 18, 2002
1,289
0
0
Originally posted by: andyman7
...

while there may be no "compression" (like mp3 or mp4), in the music on CDs, digital media cannot capture all of the data of an analog source
sure you can increase the sampling rate to some insane quality that is so good that we cant tell the difference but it will NEVER be 100% accurate

that is a complete distortion of the truth. Any analog system has a finite bandwidth. While not immediately obvious, the bw limit is present. That bandwidth (use Nyquist, figure it out) translates into 12MP of information content for 35mm film. (edit:) 12MP is enough to COMPLETELY represent the analog signal. EXACTLY. PERFECTLY.

As soon as digital video equipnent hits that, it will be better than analog. End of story
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: andyman7
Originally posted by: DrCool
juanicus

to answer your orignial question: HELL NO!

DVD's are not even close to the quality of analog film.

DVD's are made from the orginal source material, which is usually 35mm film stock.

The analog film is "digitized", this process alone looses some quality, but not the bulk of it.

The "digitized" movie is then COMPRESSED and ENCODED into a MPEG2 DVD format, which is used to make a master dvd.

Unlike a CD where there is no COMPRESSION, DVD Video is played back by UnEncoding and UnCompressing the data, to play on your Screen. The reason CD's have become so beloved is thanks to the fact they they store many times more then a Tape, but they also keep a tape's uncompressed quality intact.

The nature of DVD, makes it impossible to maintain the original source quality. The data is being compressed for gods sake.

That is why if you watch a DVD on your computer monitor, you'll see lots of "artifacts", these are evident on a high resolution screen, thanks to compression.

It's like trying to compare CD Quality Audio with an MP3. The nature of MP3 makes it impossible to be as high a quality as 'uncompressed' CD Audio.

The technology is not in place for a medium to hold 'UNCOMPRESSED' digitial video.

also, for reference.. video on an SVHS is actually higher quality then any DVD movie.

while there may be no "compression" (like mp3 or mp4), in the music on CDs, digital media cannot capture all of the data of an analog source
sure you can increase the sampling rate to some insane quality that is so good that we cant tell the difference but it will NEVER be 100% accurate

Neither will the analog though. Your source is the guitar's strings, or the singer's voice. That's analog. You can record it with a digital device or an analog device, but that recording right there has errors, distortions, etc. Your analog recorder isn't getting the source well either. Talk into a pillow. Record the sound via a mic to an analog tape, and via a mic to your pc digitally. Both will sound like ass.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Runamile
Originally posted by: tart666
i've talked to a few students that do rendering, and when they say "film quality", they typically mean 4k x 3k resolution. That's 12MP.

HDTV, OTOH, is still less than 1MP at best. While still cameras are beginning to approach "film quality" now, the video stuff is still a few years away.

It has to be. Think about projecting a 1024i image on a 30 foot screen? It would look like crap. DVD quality is NOT film quality. As far as lower quality then analog, I am divided. The picture is much more sharp looking, but the colors on DVD look awful. If you ever look at an object with a mostly solid coloring with a light, smooth gradient across it, all you will see are big ugly blocks of artifacts. DVDs cant get close the the smooth color gradients that, say, VHS has.

Blow up a film image enough and you can see the grains quite easily. Actually you can very easily see the difference between ASA 100 and ASA 1600 film for your camera if you enlarge the image enough.
 

tart666

Golden Member
May 18, 2002
1,289
0
0
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: andyman7
Originally posted by: DrCool
juanicus

to answer your orignial question: HELL NO!

DVD's are not even close to the quality of analog film.

DVD's are made from the orginal source material, which is usually 35mm film stock.

The analog film is "digitized", this process alone looses some quality, but not the bulk of it.

The "digitized" movie is then COMPRESSED and ENCODED into a MPEG2 DVD format, which is used to make a master dvd.

Unlike a CD where there is no COMPRESSION, DVD Video is played back by UnEncoding and UnCompressing the data, to play on your Screen. The reason CD's have become so beloved is thanks to the fact they they store many times more then a Tape, but they also keep a tape's uncompressed quality intact.

The nature of DVD, makes it impossible to maintain the original source quality. The data is being compressed for gods sake.

That is why if you watch a DVD on your computer monitor, you'll see lots of "artifacts", these are evident on a high resolution screen, thanks to compression.

It's like trying to compare CD Quality Audio with an MP3. The nature of MP3 makes it impossible to be as high a quality as 'uncompressed' CD Audio.

The technology is not in place for a medium to hold 'UNCOMPRESSED' digitial video.

also, for reference.. video on an SVHS is actually higher quality then any DVD movie.

while there may be no "compression" (like mp3 or mp4), in the music on CDs, digital media cannot capture all of the data of an analog source
sure you can increase the sampling rate to some insane quality that is so good that we cant tell the difference but it will NEVER be 100% accurate

Neither will the analog though. Your source is the guitar's strings, or the singer's voice. That's analog. You can record it with a digital device or an analog device, but that recording right there has errors, distortions, etc. Your analog recorder isn't getting the source well either. Talk into a pillow. Record the sound via a mic to an analog tape, and via a mic to your pc digitally. Both will sound like ass.

we are not talking about the whole system here. Were are talking about film vs digital for playback. All I am saying, is that the MTF of film has a bw limit. As long as digital signal we use has same bw, or higher, it will be BETTER than analog. (damn spelling)
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: tart666
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: andyman7
Originally posted by: DrCool
juanicus

to answer your orignial question: HELL NO!

DVD's are not even close to the quality of analog film.

DVD's are made from the orginal source material, which is usually 35mm film stock.

The analog film is "digitized", this process alone looses some quality, but not the bulk of it.

The "digitized" movie is then COMPRESSED and ENCODED into a MPEG2 DVD format, which is used to make a master dvd.

Unlike a CD where there is no COMPRESSION, DVD Video is played back by UnEncoding and UnCompressing the data, to play on your Screen. The reason CD's have become so beloved is thanks to the fact they they store many times more then a Tape, but they also keep a tape's uncompressed quality intact.

The nature of DVD, makes it impossible to maintain the original source quality. The data is being compressed for gods sake.

That is why if you watch a DVD on your computer monitor, you'll see lots of "artifacts", these are evident on a high resolution screen, thanks to compression.

It's like trying to compare CD Quality Audio with an MP3. The nature of MP3 makes it impossible to be as high a quality as 'uncompressed' CD Audio.

The technology is not in place for a medium to hold 'UNCOMPRESSED' digitial video.

also, for reference.. video on an SVHS is actually higher quality then any DVD movie.

while there may be no "compression" (like mp3 or mp4), in the music on CDs, digital media cannot capture all of the data of an analog source
sure you can increase the sampling rate to some insane quality that is so good that we cant tell the difference but it will NEVER be 100% accurate

Neither will the analog though. Your source is the guitar's strings, or the singer's voice. That's analog. You can record it with a digital device or an analog device, but that recording right there has errors, distortions, etc. Your analog recorder isn't getting the source well either. Talk into a pillow. Record the sound via a mic to an analog tape, and via a mic to your pc digitally. Both will sound like ass.

we are not talking about the whole system here. Were are talking about film vs digital for playback. All I am saying, is that the MTF of film has a bw limit. As long as digital signal we use has same bw, or higher, it will be BETTER than analog. (damn spelling)

Look at what I replied to.

[Q}digital media cannot capture all of the data of an analog source[/quote]

I basically said that analog couldn't either...
 

TStep

Platinum Member
Feb 16, 2003
2,460
10
81
Here is a little diddy about analogue vs digital. States that ASA 100 speed slide film has a digital equivalent resoulution of about 77 megapixels.
 

juanicus

Member
May 4, 2001
55
0
0
i think i might be getting even more confused here, i was the originator. The original argument was that a film could not be put on dvd and still reproduce what is seen. I know that analog is linear and digital is discrete. So, it may be a dumb question, but, why do they "digitally remaster" and not use "analog remaster." if analog is crisper than dig why not transfer directly to digital and deal with the inherent loss (if transfer is done correctly than wouldnt the digital copy be as good as it can ever be?) I have done a lot of digital audio processing and know that processing and make a world of difference to both well recorded sources and poorly recorded sources (of course miracles are not possible).
 

gsellis

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2003
6,061
0
0
Don't forget color either. I don't think any of the DVD compression formats support 4:4:4 color. HDV is 4:2:0 at best IIRC. That translates to lossing color information when creating the DVD video file. I do remember that regular DV (not DVD, video) is only .9 million colors.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: TStep
Here is a little diddy about analogue vs digital. States that ASA 100 speed slide film has a digital equivalent resoulution of about 77 megapixels.

There's absolutely no way.

Link 1
Link 2
Just google for more.

The main problem with film is the high noise you get. CCDs have a very low signal to noise ratio and this really helps image quality.

S/N
 

tart666

Golden Member
May 18, 2002
1,289
0
0
Originally posted by: TStep
Here is a little diddy about analogue vs digital. States that ASA 100 speed slide film has a digital equivalent resoulution of about 77 megapixels.

they are wrong. It is actually more like 12MP. The MTF of the best films drops to about 0.1 at 100 lines per mm. This translates roughly into 8MP of content for 24mm x 36mm frame of a regular 35mm film.

Larger format film is a little better, but that resolution WILL be achieved in digital as well.
 

DainBrammage

Platinum Member
May 16, 2000
2,394
1
81
Anyone who thnks that the resolution will not be achieved in Digital is sadly mistaken.

Man will never fly

Man will never set foot on the moon.

No one wants an operating system they want the hardware.

The internet will never catch on.

need I continue?