CompuServe Messages

That depends on the aspect ratio the film is shot in, and the level of detail needed for the particular shot. And as Martin said, due to new (guassian or fractal-based) pixel averaging schemes, some shots are rendered at what is considered lower than film (700-1000 line range) resolution and transformed up to much higher resolutions before being "burnt" to film, without losing too much detail. This certainly helps to open up the desktop arena to more full-screen CG/FX opportunities. Major motion pictures are typically shot and projected these days anywhere from 1.66:1 ("flat") to 2.5:1 ("anamorphic/'scope") aspect ratios. These are usually shot, printed and projected on 35mm film so a reasonable resolution could be anywhere from 2500 to 7500 lines, depending on a number of variables. Also, one must keep in mind that the anamorphic/'scope format is shot through an aperture that is *much wider* than it is high, and a lens that distorts (squeezes) the image as it is exposed on film to fit it on a 35mm frame. This same film is projected through a lens that spreads the image out again to the original aspect ratio, reducing the overall resolution of the film to screen size. So this has to be taken into account when doing full-screen CG for a film shot in Cinemascope. 70mm film, on the other hand, had the resolution to shoot wide-screen apertures without anamorphic-based distortion, but is extremely expensive and not widely used these days. It's often used for shots that are to be composited using optical printing, or the IMAX-type formats. So it really depends on what's going on with the film itself, and what the director/producer is looking for in terms of final quality. If the pixel interpetation schemes improve and become more and more accepted, we'll be looking at lower resolutions for full-screen film work which translates to less hurdles for the desktop animator who wants to work in films. And I *like* that! <g> -Alan