Bon, oui, j'ai résumé (et toi aussi Pio2001, ton calcul est...drôle). Petite mise au point :
http://www.filmschooldirect.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_HD_vs_35mm.htmHowever, based on converted measures, a 35mm frame has 3 to 12 million pixels, depending on the stock, lens, and shooting conditions. An HD frame has 2 million pixels, measured using 1920 x 1080 scan lines. With this difference, 35mm appears vastly superior to HD. This is the argument most film purists use.
Mais
The truth is, pixels are not the way to compare resolution. The human eye cannot see individual pixels beyond a short distance. What we can see are lines. Consequently, manufacturers measure the sharpness of photographic images and components using a parameter called Modulation Transfer Function (MTF). This process uses lines (not pixels) as a basis for comparison.
The prints were projected in six movie theaters in various countries, and a panel of experts made the assessments of the projected images using a well defined formula. The results are as follows:
Measurements :
Theater Highest Assessment 875
Theater Average Assessment 750
Conclusion :
As the study indicates, perceived differences between HD and 35mm film are quickly disappearing. At this point, the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm. Even professionals have a hard time telling them apart. Again, the study was based on standard HD with 1080 lines of horizontal resolution. We now have ultra HD with 4,520 lines.
Based on this, the debate is moot. 16mm, 35mm, DV, and HD are all tools of the filmmaker. The question is not which format is best, but rather, which format is best for your project?
Pour les non anglophones : 1/ Beaucoup plus de pixels dans l'image 35mm mais
2/ L'oeil humain perçoit principalement les lignes et
3/ le 35mm a moins de lignes vues (750 contre 1080 pour la HD), donc
4/ HD et 35mm sont au final très proches et très difficilement différenciables, c'est donc
5/ Un débat stupide, et n'oublions pas que le plus important c'est l'usage qu'en a le réalisateur et ce qui sert le mieux son projet, mais
6/ Maintenant, la ultra-HD en 4K ça troue le cul et c'est quand même plus sexy que le 35mm.
Donc, pour répondre à la sempiternelle remarque "Pouah, c'est un vieux film donc vachement moins bien que la HD numérique et en blu-ray c'est naze", la réponse adaptée est "va te pendre, en 35mm c'est aussi bon".
Et aux remarques de certains du style "Pouah, la HD c'est tout plat, le 35mm c'est trop mieux", la réponse adaptée est "va te pendre, la HD c'est au moins aussi beau que le 35mm".
Des questions ?