watching 1920 x 1080 on the BIG SCREEN?

[Casey Danielson]

Really good shots look really good on any screen, right? Not so fast...

As a film nerd (but filmmaking newb) I go to one of DC's artsy theaters at least once a week to catch films. Last year I went to a Persian film and it looked horrible. Really, it looked that way a bad MP3 sounds. I complained to the manager, who told me that the theater had to send the reels (maybe not real reels?) to another theater, and that for the final day they were screening a DVD (!!!) "Why would you do that and charge money? The picture sucks." He said, "I know, I'm sorry," and gave me a refund. But it got me thinking.

A DVD looked like total crud at 720 x 480 on a medium-sized cinema screen.
At the stadium, 4K is like 4096 × 2160 (or 3840 × 2160 sometimes?)

I wonder what would a 1920 x 1080 from my cam's HDMI look like on the big (but not cine-plex big) screen.
I'm talking about really nice-looking shots, on my 7D or a sequence of XHA1 shots on Blu-Ray, post-post.

Thanks for sharing your wisdom with a not-yet-wise man.

[Roger Pinto]

A lot many factors decide how your output from an HD camera would look on a sisver screen :

1. Type of camera
2. Type of lens
3. Quality of lighting

[Rainer Listing]

Just noting Panavision Genesis has been a standard digital big screen Hollywood film production camera for the past five years. It has the same size chip as your 7D and a final output 1920X1080.

[Brian Drysdale]

The Genesis may be 1920X1080, but not all 1920X1080 are equal, it uses a 12.4 mega pixel, true RGB sensor (not Bayer pattern) and records onto HDCAM SR with the option of dual link 4:4:4 HDSDI outputs.

[Nate Haustein]

Properly shot, with a proper workflow and properly projected, 1080p can look delicious. Just watch out for the "little things" like moire, aliasing and compression artifacts - they're not quite as subtle projected 80 feet wide :)

[David W. Jones]

Many top movies were acquired at 1920x1080.

[Warren Kawamoto]

Actually, one of the most important factors that was not mentioned here was the quality of the projector.

[Michael Wisniewski]

Properly processed 1920x1080 looks good projected onto a large theatre screen. I just previewed my friends movie shot on 5DMkIIs and 7Ds in a local theatre with a digital projector, and it looked great. But then he had a semi-professional camera crew (with a lot of techie nerds) helping him shoot, so the resulting video looked great. Nothing special about the lenses just your normal Canon L lenses.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Even with all the technology in the world, greed from studios and theater owners destroys the viewing experience.

I just saw Man of Steel in a newly opened IMAX screen, which was the size of a small movie theater, and I could see pixels at 20 feet.

The projection was a digital system, and the shots were out of focus, due to incorrect calibration. The audio level was above legal limits.

Look at the chain: IMAX let its brand slip, they don't care anymore. DCI does not have stringent controls. Theater owners are not forced to comply with minimum specifications like THX, and it's getting worse and worse.

You could show people SD resolution and they wouldn't know the difference. I'm pretty sure there are some theaters in the world where the owners take these things seriously, but I'm beginning to feel these are too few and far between.

[Douglas Call]

Originally Posted by Warren Kawamoto

Actually, one of the most important factors that was not mentioned here was the quality of the projector.

Your 100% correct. I project a 21.5' diagonal image on the Level 5 wall in my great room all the time with no screen just against the light colored wall. But since it's a DPI Titan 1080p Quad 3D with 16,000 lumens and a super good lens it's awesome picture. the image is projected from about 33' feet away from the image wall.

[Warren Kawamoto]

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran

Look at the chain: IMAX let its brand slip, they don't care anymore.

Very true! In the 90's, I used to be in awe when going to IMAX. The projected image was 6 stories high, and the seats were set on a very steep angle so that nobody in front of you got in the way. Today's IMAX is a large screen in a strip mall. The only difference seems to be that they play the soundtrack louder. I call it "fake IMAX."

[Warren Kawamoto]

Originally Posted by Douglas Call

I project a 21.5' diagonal image on the Level 5 wall in my great room all the time with no screen just against the light colored wall. But since it's a DPI Titan 1080p Quad 3D with 16,000 lumens and a super good lens it's awesome picture. the image is projected from about 33' feet away from the image wall.

Holy cow, you have a Quad?? You have a projector at home thats better than many digital cinemas around the country!

[Douglas Call]

Yep I don't have to tell you that tomorrow night is a Heat vs Spur sports bar night! Actually it's great when you have the medium shots but when they do the closeups of the players or whatever it gets a little bit intense. However Blu-Rays are incredible. The only downside is that you have to unplug (240V) the projector from the wall to get the cooling fan to turn off. We're not quite sure why that is because we have the projector lights and shutter turned off or closed.

[Bruce Watson]

Originally Posted by Warren Kawamoto

I call it "fake IMAX."

The correct term I think is "fauxMAX". Not my term, don't remember where I read it, but it's been several years.