Originally Posted by DavidHir
Agreed, it's become an aesthetic thing. A number of directors add grain to digitally filmed movies.
I still prefer the "look" of analog/35mm film over anything digital today, but there are very few theaters in my area that offer it anymore except for some art house theaters. I would love to see some of the epic movies that were filmed on 65mm.
Originally Posted by EvLee
I think grain is actually one of those things that can be nice to have in a picture. This may not sound intuitive, but grain with the right size increases the perceived sharpness of fine details (acutance) even though it introduces noise into the image.
I agree with both of you, though I don't like analogue film projection anymore. I think the best of both worlds is capturing on film and then immediately moving to a digital workflow from that point on right through to digital projection. That in my mind is the most visually pleasing image I have seen. Forget digital sensors, your MTF stats, 4K, 5K & 6K for a minute and just concentrate on the image you see on the screen. I cant tell you how damned excited I was to hear that the latest Star Wars movie was being shot on film, I literally called up some of my friends who appreciate such things and we nerded out on how awesome of a decision that was... The LOOK of film and traditional cinema cant be denied. Modern digital post techniques have brought film into a new world of clarity, we no longer have to worry about the prints being mishandled and degrading over time but we get all the aesthetic benefits of it. You wont see directors like Nolan, Spielberg, Tarantino or Paul Thomas Anderson using digital capture unless they are absolutely forced to for those reasons.
Originally Posted by mark haflich
I don't understand how you think I am sugar coating anything. Besides, I am an insulin shooting diabetic. I don't sugar coat anything.
I recognize that with higher frame rates we would be giving up some desirable attributes of film at 24 fps. The cinematic effect which almost all would agree with and others which would be pluses or minuses depending on the perspective of the particular viewer. To me the positives of variable frame rates outweigh the loses.
The problem is your analogies are for things which are not comparable to the subjective nature of film frame rates. Its actually very difficult to come up with an analogy for film frame rates and what 'defines' classic cinema. I sat here for 5 minutes tying to come up with one that really puts it in perspective but I realized its an intangible subjective feeling I have which many people subconsciously share without really being able to put a finger on what it is that makes cinema cinema... Look at how many scathing reviews came out when Jackson showed 10 minutes of The Hobbit at HFR... and from people who are not even technically minded but knew inherently that 'something was off' 'it doesn't look like a movie anymore' 'it looks like a cheap tv soap opera' 'the sets and costumes looked ****'.. There are real issues, for me, and a great deal of others get totally pulled out of the suspension of disbelief you need to have to invest in the story on screen and instead cant focus on the story...
Variable presentation frame rate as opposed to variable capture frame rate (Which they already do)? I don't think they will ever do that... Your screen will flicker every time the frame rate changes so it can sync with the display properly... It will either be a certain frame rate for the whole film or it wont. Purely from a post production and content encoding point of view that would be an utter nightmare and to put it finely a 'dirty' way to do it.
In the last 10 years of digital capture formats we have been chasing the tail of celluloid trying to replicate its stronger dynamic range and resolving power and have mostly failed... Only now I think we have a camera which can replicate the incredible look of film and it is the Super 35 Arri Alexa. The Arri Alexa is the only camera to date which could possibly look better than film and still retains that classic aesthetic while at the same time having a very clean sensor with very good low light capabilities. The Arri Alexa 65 is a very exciting camera, 3 times larger than the sensor in the Super 35 Arri Alexa and hopefully will be used to shoot some films soon... Forget all about the Red Dragon 6K.
Don't even get me started on HDR... In Photography it is one of the most widely used techniques which is CONTINUOUSLY used to the wrong effect and completely wrong. Do you guys know the human eye can only see about 14 max stops of dynamic range? That's even worse than HFR, once we start capturing images with 20+ stops of Dynamic range is just going to be a joke, nothing will look real anymore, we will be beyond the realm of human realistic vision and that's going to make films look even worse. Film (Celluloid) is 14 stops of dynamic capture range... perfect, notice how thats almost exactly what the eye can see? Any more and we cant see it in real life so its useless in my opinion.
Can current displays accurately display 14 stops of DR? I don't know, maybe, I am sure the Dolby HDR will take whats there and widen it so it looks more spectacular to us, it will POP more, but there will be a point where this is all moot, when it becomes beyond what the human eye would realistically see in said scene or situation so I for one don't think that's necessarily better. I think 2020 colour is a far more exciting prospect than HDR.