Movie Film's Last Gasp - Page 3 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 79Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 221 Old 08-02-2014, 11:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fierce_gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,354
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1245 Post(s)
Liked: 1247
I'm totally fine with film dieing. just because I'm used to something doesn't make it better, and in all honesty I'm not sure how anybody could say film looks more life-like, it just looks more 'movie-like'.


there's a lot more pros to digital, especially with regards to advancements. it's a MAJOR re-engineering to improve film, it's pretty evolutionary to see improvements in digital. higher resolution, higher frame rate, higher bit depth, etc just seems natural. at this point, hanging on too tightly to film could just delay advancements in digital.

Displays: Samsung PN64F8500/JVC X35
AVR: Pioneer VSX-1018AH, 5.1 audio
Sources: HTPC(Mediabrowser), PS3, XBOX360, Wii, Sony DVP-CX995V
Control: Harmony One
fierce_gt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 221 Old 08-02-2014, 11:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLXXX View Post
If you watch the Sound of Music (1965), even its latest restoration, you can see that it has a unique colour that differs substantially from reality. It is very difficult now to simulate the colour of a 1960s production accurately, to match with the spectral response of the cones of human eyes; in the absence of the type of film stock used in that era and the chemical developing and printing processes.
I was one of three colorists who worked on the home video transfer of Sound of Music in the 1990s. We were surprised when director Robert Wise came in and insisted that the film be a lot more blue (and less warm) than our natural inclination would have been.

His explanation was: "I never intended for this to be a warm movie. It takes place in the Austrian alps right before WWII, and it's cold, therefore I don't want it happy and warm and upbeat." I make it a point never to argue with directors who have more Oscars than I have.

I agree that the colorimetry of vintage prints doesn't look like digital, but also take into account that the prints age over time. If you pull one out and screen it, chances are it's not going to hold up accurately. Real Technicolor IB prints will hold up to a point, but don't forget that they're intended for 5400-degree projection vs. a 6500-degree video monitor, along with radically different brightness. We still use the prints as a reference, but that reference can only go so far.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #63 of 221 Old 08-02-2014, 11:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
It just kills me to see a film scanned, then shown on a monitor of CRT/LED/LCD picture. Whatever. It kills the whole point of film.
Then why are you here?

I think there's a way to have a film sensibility when color-timing digital material, whether it's shot on digital cameras, film cameras, or (as so often happens nowadays) a combination of both. Having a film esthetic as a starting point is a good thing.

One can make a good point that we're getting further away from a natural film image, particularly in the last 10 years with those intense "Orange/Teal" stylized blockbuster looks and other extremes. For me, a little of that goes a long way, but it's the director's creative choice.

The character of the image does change depending on whether it's from a direct-view display (LCD, plasma, CRT) or a reflected display (DLP projection, film, etc.). I have been in a position where we directly compared a "butterfly" display with film on one side and digital on the other, both on state-of-the-art projectors at Kodak, and the digital actually held up surprisingly well. One eye-opening discovery for me is that the blacks in a normal print (Kodak Vision) were kind of milky and crappy; we could actually get blacker in the digital projection. A Vision Premiere print -- which very few studios were willing to pay for -- could get much closer to the deep blacks of a digital display, but not quite.

Just as a quick wrap-up: the whole point of film, to me, is what Roger Ebert said... "a machine that generates empathy." Movies are about emotion and story and character, and they're about taking you away from your life for a couple of hours and transporting you somewhere you've never been before. I think as long as the movies are done well, it no longer matters what they're shot on. It just takes skill, time, money, and planning to shoot them... as it always has.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #64 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 03:08 AM
Member
 
assm0de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicalfox View Post
Comparing 35mm film to a digital file is like comparing an oil painting to a piece of graphic art. The texture of film has a timeless, atmospheric, almost dream-like quality, which I have yet to see replicated in any digital medium.
They seem to be using LUTs in post processing that try to replicate the film response curve, but they fail.

What they need to do is sample film stock under a wide variety of lighting conditions in order to model its response curves better.

If they can do this and make digital truly look like film, then there is no need for film.
assm0de is offline  
post #65 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 03:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by assm0de View Post
They seem to be using LUTs in post processing that try to replicate the film response curve, but they fail. What they need to do is sample film stock under a wide variety of lighting conditions in order to model its response curves better. If they can do this and make digital truly look like film, then there is no need for film.
LUTs can't do all that. There are inherent characteristics of how CMOS chips overload that don't imitate the silver halide particles in film. LUTs can get you in the right color space (to a point), but even those aren't the automatic problem-solver many assume they are.

LUTs typically just get you in a good starting point to start color correction, or they change one kind of color space (like a Rec709 project) to another kind of color space (like P3 for D-Cinema), mathematically remapping it in 3-dimensional space. The previous reference I posted on color management and color space goes into LUTs in great detail.

If LUTs were that magical, you could take a $5000 camera and use a LUT to make it look like a $75,000 camera. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Think of it as an equalizer: you can't make a $99 speaker sound like a $9,995 speaker with an equalizer, either. Same kind of deal.
Glimmie likes this.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #66 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 05:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
kluken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,053
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22 Post(s)
Liked: 110
I still enjoy watching some of the classics shot in technicolor on film stock, they just have such a great vivid color that I have yet to see on any modern digital movie. That said I think film is dead, this is just a delay of the inevitable. As stated virtually all new film makers are learning only digital and in a few years no one will even know what to do with film.
kluken is offline  
post #67 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 06:55 AM
Advanced Member
 
JediFonger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 662
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 15
do a double blind (pun intended) test footage shot w/35mm and digital cap unprocessed unfiltered uncompressed and have all those directors pickout which is which
JediFonger is offline  
post #68 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 09:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jsmiddleton4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 3,510
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 41
" but the people at the top running the companies were shortsighted and very foolish. "

Isn't that a required skill and a mandatory ability to be considered for the head positions in industry in general?


IMHO what directors, "artist" want, what even we want is not going to make the decision. The decision will be made from the "business" side of "The Movie Business" equation.

We may not like digital, can come up with all kinds of reasons to keep film in play. In the same was as noted regarding the transition from analog to digital in the music industry. And I still have a turntable and vinyl.

But the industry will adopt whichever technology impacts seeing the greatest chance for profitability.

Digital does, film does not.

It is no more complicated than that.

E.B. White said, "I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day."
jsmiddleton4 is offline  
post #69 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 10:55 AM
Member
 
DDailey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Like a very well known wine maker once said "there are really only two types of wine - yummy or yucky" to that end "garbage in - garbage out" or as Little Johnny says "look mommy it taste just like the real thing" YMMV
DDailey is offline  
post #70 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 11:29 AM
Senior Member
 
They_call_me_Roto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Detroit Rock City
Posts: 205
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 64
I like film and I hold the opinion that movies should be shot on film and then digitized for the digital distribution.

Here is my simplistic take on it. Motion pictures were shot on film exclusively until the emergence of digital cameras in the late 1990's. Movies that have been shot using film can be digitized to any available pixel count and look good. But there are a large number of films that were created in the past ~15 years that were shot using 2K digital cameras. Now that home viewing equipment is transitioning to 4K, all of those films shot with 2K cameras will look disappointing in 4K resolution. I liken it to watching old TV shows on a 1080 television, the picture is grainy. Until the day comes when the pixel count on motion picture cameras and household displays exceeds the grain size per equivalent area on analog film, then film can be retired and digital can replace it.

Your mileage may vary...

JR

Packing a lot of sound into a small room.
266 square feet/2128 cubic feet
7.2, 9 speakers + 2 subwoofers
They_call_me_Roto is offline  
post #71 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 12:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 488 Post(s)
Liked: 92
While I know next to nothing about duplicating the look of film and maybe perhaps am an intermediate level recording engineer... I can say digital can emulate tape pretty well, by that I mean converters that can add a tape like characteristic to the sound. I record to 2" tape, and lately my machine has been having some wow and flutter issues. The last recording I did was both with tape and digital through Burl audio converters... I've got to say I A/B'd the two and would say that I'd almost prefer just to use the digital takes because the difference was negligible. I'm sure film isn't as subtle compared to digital as tape is to audio... so there might be a lot that I can't take into consideration... though I think digital will be able to emulate film precisely.

On the other hand, being an analog guy, I've also got to say it feels pretty bad ass knowing that your tracks are going through a giant washing machine sized recorder, and that the pressure it puts on you to get a good take might not be something that can be duplicated in a digital session... I'd imagine filming works the same way. There is just something inspiring about using old technologies, much in the same way that painters use traditional materials... I don't think that feeling can be duplicated. The process by which an artist creates their work is something that needs consideration... I hope film production sticks around for a while and can't wait to see how Star Wars will look!

I do have one question though... I know JJ is filming in IMAX and 35mm film... I've read that using both formats in the same film is distracting when it changes from one to the other... but I didn't notice in previous films where those changes between formats took place... does anyone know of an example I can see on the net somewhere?
Aras_Volodka is offline  
post #72 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 12:57 PM
Member
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 42 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmiddleton4 View Post
" but the people at the top running the companies were shortsighted and very foolish. "

Isn't that a required skill and a mandatory ability to be considered for the head positions in industry in general?


IMHO what directors, "artist" want, what even we want is not going to make the decision. The decision will be made from the "business" side of "The Movie Business" equation.

We may not like digital, can come up with all kinds of reasons to keep film in play. In the same was as noted regarding the transition from analog to digital in the music industry. And I still have a turntable and vinyl.

But the industry will adopt whichever technology impacts seeing the greatest chance for profitability.

Digital does, film does not.

It is no more complicated than that.


This is the brutal but honest reality. It's cheaper to do digital, they'll do digital. We can say whatever want, but the money is the final decider . I guess it's just the inevitable price of progress.
hanshotfirst1138 is offline  
post #73 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 02:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ovation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. Hubert, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 3,329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aras_Volodka View Post
While I know next to nothing about duplicating the look of film and maybe perhaps am an intermediate level recording engineer... I can say digital can emulate tape pretty well, by that I mean converters that can add a tape like characteristic to the sound. I record to 2" tape, and lately my machine has been having some wow and flutter issues. The last recording I did was both with tape and digital through Burl audio converters... I've got to say I A/B'd the two and would say that I'd almost prefer just to use the digital takes because the difference was negligible. I'm sure film isn't as subtle compared to digital as tape is to audio... so there might be a lot that I can't take into consideration... though I think digital will be able to emulate film precisely.

On the other hand, being an analog guy, I've also got to say it feels pretty bad ass knowing that your tracks are going through a giant washing machine sized recorder, and that the pressure it puts on you to get a good take might not be something that can be duplicated in a digital session... I'd imagine filming works the same way. There is just something inspiring about using old technologies, much in the same way that painters use traditional materials... I don't think that feeling can be duplicated. The process by which an artist creates their work is something that needs consideration... I hope film production sticks around for a while and can't wait to see how Star Wars will look!

I do have one question though... I know JJ is filming in IMAX and 35mm film... I've read that using both formats in the same film is distracting when it changes from one to the other... but I didn't notice in previous films where those changes between formats took place... does anyone know of an example I can see on the net somewhere?
Can you get your hands on a copy of one of the latter two Nolan Batman films on Blu-ray? You won't get the full effect (IMAX is 1.44:1 and the BD expansion is confined to 1.78:1) but it'll give you an idea.
Ovation is offline  
post #74 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 02:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,825
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 309 Post(s)
Liked: 599
Quote:
Originally Posted by umeng2002 View Post
You can blame the Digital Hate...
..and there lays the problem: the assumption that there's "digital hate" when in reality, based on the comments here, it's quite the opposite.

On the film side, we have comments that indicate caution and the ability to choose between the two. There's also the case made that digital isn't ready to fully replace film at this point.

On the digital side, we have comments like "film needs to die" and "get with the times".

We get this same thing with music and home video. Those that support the new seem to always wish for the old to die instead of just supporting the progress and evolution toward the new. Those that support the new tech often lead off their comments with "I can't understand why anyone..." instead of "I personally prefer...".

The old ways can co-exist as long as people have an understanding that there's a place for everything. For example, despite the fact that CGI is almost always used to create space ships and other objects that can't be built full size, there are still plenty of times physical models have been used in newer movies, even by newer directors like Chris Nolan and Peter Jackson.
NetworkTV is offline  
post #75 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 03:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 735
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 488 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ovation View Post
Can you get your hands on a copy of one of the latter two Nolan Batman films on Blu-ray? You won't get the full effect (IMAX is 1.44:1 and the BD expansion is confined to 1.78:1) but it'll give you an idea.
I have the Dark Knight on Bluray. I watched it a few months ago but before I was aware of the format changes... I'm wondering if there are cited spots so that I know what to look for? I have read people found the format changes jarring, but as a casual viewer I didn't notice. I know things are different when you know what to look for, and then it will be irritating to me I'm sure... perhaps ignorance is bliss?
Aras_Volodka is offline  
post #76 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 03:24 PM
Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
By the time James Cameron's Avatar hit theaters, IMAX was already using digital projectors at most of it's locations. IMAX also has it's own standard for image quality. Despite there being much hype of Avatar being digital, thousands of 35MM and IMAX 70MM prints were made and distributed. Some IMAX screen's used film for there 3D Avatar showings.

On 35MM stock, the entire frame is used. The half area you speak of, is when the 2.39:1(or other format) gate is in place. That way things like, boom mic's, feet, directors dog, etc, are removed. You can see with the picture i'm adding, it's a film, copied off a negative with the gate in place on the negative, so it looks like only half the 35MM frame was used. Of course there is all the 2, 3, 4 perforations that is just a way to save film, some take that approach and some don't.
Not sure what to make about your comment on IMAX and Avatar. My point was that 2MP that was used to project Avatar in IMAX was pretty much equivalent to other movies shot on IMAX film.
BTW, the film size is about 22x16mm for Academy format and 22x18 for CinemaScope. In photography the frame is 36x24, or more than twice the size ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film ).

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s6200, WDTV LIVE, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is online now  
post #77 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 03:27 PM
Member
 
assm0de's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
LUTs can't do all that. There are inherent characteristics of how CMOS chips overload that don't imitate the silver halide particles in film.
You could still in theory make a dynamic LUT that imitates perfectly the silver halide particles in film. The film camera captures a colour, the digital camera captures a different colour. There's no reason why you cannot transform one colour to the other, as long as the digital camera doesn't have a smaller gamut or smaller dynamic range, which it doesn't if the final output is 709.

I'm not saying its easy or trivial to do, but in theory it's possible.

With speakers it's not possible because frequency response doesn't correct for time domain characteristics.

Last edited by assm0de; 08-03-2014 at 03:35 PM.
assm0de is offline  
post #78 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 03:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
DavidHir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,990
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 456 Post(s)
Liked: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post

I think it all comes down to what you want to capture and what you want the final content to be, if it is best to use film or digital. If you wanted green clouds and blue grass, this can be done with film, but requires many filters and other insider tricks, for digital it's a simple process. Digital, also makes it possible to go in and easily lighten or darken certain areas, without loosing the effect of the entire frame. For more natural appearing image, you can't beat film. You can do a still photo in both digital and film and holding them side by side, the clarity and image is as different as night and day. To me film captures a more natural appearance that mimics what your eye's see, digital captures a more unnatural image to me. So i prefer film over digital and i can tell the difference, no matter how much DMR the film has been through. Film has the look.
Agreed.

DavidHir is online now  
post #79 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 03:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Wielage View Post
Then why are you here?.
Why am i here? Learning how to fix Samsung Digital devices. Why are you here?


My biggest compliant is that after, what 70 or so years of color film, major changes were under way to the whole film chemical capture process, and all the R&D was thrown in the trash for digital. Kodak was lagging, Polaroid and Fuji Film had some really incredible technology out there. Just mind blowing 4,6,8 color negatives, that's like comparing a 3 color wheel DLP to a 7 color wheel DLP. I remember seeing the Kodak butterfly with side by side Christie projectors, one digital, one film. The problem was, Kodak was promoting it's digital business. That would not have made much business sense to have the film look better.

The one that got me was presented by Fuji film, were your looking into a turning kaleidoscope and it's a 50/50 film/digital image on a 60 foot screen. It was amazing. The Fuji color rendering was amazing and far superior to the digital image, so much so when Christie changed to Christie Digital,inc they stopped showing it.

It's not just motion pictures, it's still captures as well. For special events i always show up with my Nikon F6, rolls of Fuji film, to the jokes and jabs of others. I always get the last laugh in two ways, three or four years later i'm asked if i can provide some photos since there hard drive, memory stick or whatever crashed, or, i get Christopher asking to use my camera to take photos of people taking photos of him. Priceless. I will stick with my "thumb, thumb, click" instead of "click, click, click" any day of the week.

You can't compare blacks on any thing, other than a photo on paper. It is hard to get true black on any form of surface that takes light to display. Won't happen. That is why DLP has become such a favorite. When the mirror is closed, no light, black. But, there is no black on the color wheel, so it still becomes a dark gray or dark fluid looking color simply from color saturation from the other color's being displayed. On film processing, you made the blacks really black for projection, sometimes three or four layers to stop light from the lamp from getting through, so it would be black and not dark gray or navy colored. And black levels on film or digital capture, is a debate as old as, the what was here first? Egg or the chicken?

Capture is a incorrect term for digital. Digital captures nothing. It simply recreates what it thinks, it sees, in a "dot, dot, dot" matrix. Film captures what you see, it grabs that moment in time. That will always be the biggest difference between the two. The other one is scanning and displaying film in a digital environment, you distorting the image in favor of pixels. There is no "dot,dot,dot" to film capture. With film, light is exposed to the chemical, the chemical captures the light, and a correct image is created.

The only great all digital motion picture, to me, is Need for Speed. They did a lot with a variety of cameras, placed in previously objectionable locations. And post production color changes were kept to a minimum as the cameras captured the look and feel that they wanted. However, the cinematographer, made comments that he would have loved to use film for the sequences of the cars racing along the PCH, light house scene and the helicopter flying the car over the Salt Flats in Utah. And they were not able to do that, from Disney's stand on no film. To me it is wrong to remove any tool off the table a film maker can use. I also think it is wrong to offer "film" but force digital projection. Either way, your removing tools of the table that can and do affect the finished product.

One of the most biggest misconceptions was the so called "Digital incentive" the studios used to strong arm theater owner's, the studios bread and butter, into purchasing costly, cumbersome, digital projectors, or risk loosing the ability to present future, feature films, but, at the same time, keeping film cans going to Europe and China. Again, a content creators tools were removed from the table within a certain market, the North American market.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	21mp digital Kodak Film Fuji Film.jpg
Views:	52
Size:	282.5 KB
ID:	195217  
TeflonSoul likes this.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #80 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 04:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post
..and there lays the problem: the assumption that there's "digital hate" when in reality, based on the comments here, it's quite the opposite.

On the film side, we have comments that indicate caution and the ability to choose between the two. There's also the case made that digital isn't ready to fully replace film at this point.

On the digital side, we have comments like "film needs to die" and "get with the times".

We get this same thing with music and home video. Those that support the new seem to always wish for the old to die instead of just supporting the progress and evolution toward the new. Those that support the new tech often lead off their comments with "I can't understand why anyone..." instead of "I personally prefer...".

The old ways can co-exist as long as people have an understanding that there's a place for everything. For example, despite the fact that CGI is almost always used to create space ships and other objects that can't be built full size, there are still plenty of times physical models have been used in newer movies, even by newer directors like Chris Nolan and Peter Jackson.
Look at the behind the scenes of the first movie of Chris's version of Batman, it used more sets and models than the other two movies and Peter's LOTR trilogy. The same model makers that made ILM, but pushed aside in the digital hype, ironic isn't it.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #81 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 04:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 350 Post(s)
Liked: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurid001 View Post
BTW, the film size is about 22x16mm for Academy format and 22x18 for CinemaScope. In photography the frame is 36x24, or more than twice the size ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film ).
The working negative is 36x24. 22x16 or 22x18 is done with a aperture plate in the gate added in copying from the working negative to the copy print designated for distribution.

And the payoff is never certain: Some observers contend that a generation has already been trained to be content with the small screen.

Last edited by CinemaAndy; 08-03-2014 at 04:23 PM.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #82 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 04:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 259 Post(s)
Liked: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierce_gt View Post
I'm totally fine with film dieing. just because I'm used to something doesn't make it better, and in all honesty I'm not sure how anybody could say film looks more life-like, it just looks more 'movie-like'.


there's a lot more pros to digital, especially with regards to advancements. it's a MAJOR re-engineering to improve film, it's pretty evolutionary to see improvements in digital. higher resolution, higher frame rate, higher bit depth, etc just seems natural. at this point, hanging on too tightly to film could just delay advancements in digital.

I gotta wonder about people who make statements like that just what kind of flicks they like and what kind they do not watch also from what eras.

What movies is the film format 'delaying'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JediFonger View Post
do a double blind (pun intended) test footage shot w/35mm and digital cap unprocessed unfiltered uncompressed and have all those directors pickout which is which
Not sure what you are assuming but unless they have eye impairments the unaltered digital ones will have no film grain which makes it easy to spot. The digital may have some noise but it will not look like film grain.

Last edited by wuther; 08-03-2014 at 04:43 PM.
wuther is offline  
post #83 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 04:33 PM
Newbie
 
glasseye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I'm a "Cinematographer". That means that I got paid to shoot for Hollywood feature films.

Retired now, I listened to a lot of film go through the gate over my career. Speaking both as a photographer and an audience member, I see no reason for any producer to ever shoot film again. Digital has too many advantages and too few disadvantages. It's over. Move on.

Besides, to my eye, digital just looks better.

I do see film's usefulness as an archiving medium. A hundred years from now, you'll still be able to access (and maybe re-purpose) the image and sound data on a reel of film. That may not be true with today's digital files. Try viewing a 3/4 inch videotape, for example, or stuff stored on a Bernoulli disk.
Marc Wielage and dargo like this.
glasseye is offline  
post #84 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 04:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
Orbitron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 711
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 295 Post(s)
Liked: 200
While i have several Blu-rays with an equal mix of titles shot on film and digital, the one title i always run on my 92" StudioTek in 2.35:1 is Flight of the Phoenix.

From 2004 and shot in Panavision, i feel like i'm at the movies!
Orbitron is offline  
post #85 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 05:09 PM
Member
 
jurid001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 166
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
The working negative is 36x24. 22x16 or 22x18 is done with a aperture plate in the gate added in copying from the working negative to the copy print designated for distribution.
In picture acquisition the movie frame is usually exactly half the size of the still frame (4 perforations vs. 8). Not sure what you mean.

A2, A35, 150, 62fd, s6200, WDTV LIVE, HTPC w/ HD-DVD/BD
jurid001 is online now  
post #86 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 05:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
dargo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 733
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 26 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Saving film while a noble task maybe pointless in the end. 92% of the time we see the movie projected digitally if you go to a theater. On a HDTV at home or gasp on a iPad. Most big budget films if they are shot on film get converted to digital for effects work. So what makes film warm and fuzzy is lost very fast. On the other hand people like George Lucas who jump the gun with say Star Wars Revenge of The Sith shot at 2K is stuck there for ever, even the Hobbit films at 5K are stuck at that resolution while film can be captured at 8K. In the end as much as I love film having been a manager/projectionist from the 80's the photo-chemical era is pretty much gone.
I agree with others the glass the DP and Cinematographer is what makes the film come alive, plus a good story of course.
dargo is offline  
post #87 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 05:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediFonger View Post
do a double blind (pun intended) test footage shot w/35mm and digital cap unprocessed unfiltered uncompressed and have all those directors pickout which is which
They did that at the ASC in Hollywood about 7-8 years ago with the digital StEM tests, and the results indicated that it was so close, everybody was stunned by how similar the images looked. Film was still better, but not "that" much better.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #88 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 05:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by They_call_me_Roto View Post
Motion pictures were shot on film exclusively until the emergence of digital cameras in the late 1990's. Movies that have been shot using film can be digitized to any available pixel count and look good. But there are a large number of films that were created in the past ~15 years that were shot using 2K digital cameras. Now that home viewing equipment is transitioning to 4K, all of those films shot with 2K cameras will look disappointing in 4K resolution.
The differences are not as great as you might think. The 2K copies of Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, all the Harry Potter films, all the Transformers movies, all the Iron Man & Avengers films... those were (mostly) done just in 2K. The reason why is that it's incredibly time-consuming to do 4K VFX right now; it's not so much a question of money but of time.

If and when that problem is solved, I don't think all the great movies made in 2K will suddenly be relegated to the trash heap overnight. Besides, several of them were uprezzed to 4K prior to release (for various reasons), so I don't think any gigantic improvement would be gained by going back and redoing the movie in 4K from the beginning -- at least for those acquired in 4K.

This article titled "Why You Should Not Shoot in 4K if You're an Indie Filmmaker" goes over some interesting reasons as to why 4K is a huge bottleneck at the moment:

http://www.mentorless.com/2014/04/14...die-filmmaker/

I think a lot of the issues apply to Hollywood films as well. What I can say from my perspective is that it's nice when people do shoot in 4K because we can reframe the shots easier without any loss, even when there's just a 2K delivery.
John Schuermann likes this.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #89 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 05:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post
While i have several Blu-rays with an equal mix of titles shot on film and digital, the one title i always run on my 92" StudioTek in 2.35:1 is Flight of the Phoenix. From 2004 and shot in Panavision, i feel like i'm at the movies!
Watch the 1965 original with Jimmy Stewart and tell us what you think.
Marc Wielage is offline  
post #90 of 221 Old 08-03-2014, 06:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Marc Wielage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hollywood, USA
Posts: 458
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 234 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by CinemaAndy View Post
My biggest compliant is that after, what 70 or so years of color film, major changes were under way to the whole film chemical capture process, and all the R&D was thrown in the trash for digital.
Based on what evidence? The color negatives of the 1990s and early 2000s were the finest-quality films Kodak had ever made. They were able to change the size and shape of the halide particles, finally going with the Vision 3 stocks, and actually work very competitively on price. The only thing that killed Kodak from a "change" point of view was money, politics, the economy, and the 2007 WGA strike, which forced all the new TV pilots to shoot with AFTRA talent (which was authorized for TV only, not film). So the collapse really began when the TV business swung almost entirely towards digital in a 90-day period.

Quote:
You can't compare blacks on any thing, other than a photo on paper. It is hard to get true black on any form of surface that takes light to display. Won't happen. That is why DLP has become such a favorite. When the mirror is closed, no light, black. But, there is no black on the color wheel, so it still becomes a dark gray or dark fluid looking color simply from color saturation from the other color's being displayed.
No color wheels on 3-chip projectors. Use one of those, and make sure it's calibrated correctly, and you'll see terrific pictures.

Quote:
On film processing, you made the blacks really black for projection, sometimes three or four layers to stop light from the lamp from getting through, so it would be black and not dark gray or navy colored. And black levels on film or digital capture, is a debate as old as, the what was here first? Egg or the chicken?
You may have missed my comment earlier where I said I was in a position to display a digital image side-by-side with a film image and play them in real time. One thing that shocked us was how "murky" the blacks were in the film print, at least using regular Kodak Vision stock. If we used the much-more-costly Vision Premiere print stock, then the blacks were a little closer, but still not the same.

Quote:
Capture is a incorrect term for digital. Digital captures nothing. It simply recreates what it thinks, it sees, in a "dot, dot, dot" matrix. Film captures what you see, it grabs that moment in time. That will always be the biggest difference between the two. The other one is scanning and displaying film in a digital environment, you distorting the image in favor of pixels. There is no "dot,dot,dot" to film capture. With film, light is exposed to the chemical, the chemical captures the light, and a correct image is created.
I can recall ads for still photography going back to the 1930s where they do refer to a camera as being capable of "capturing a moment in time." I think that's all they're saying.

Quote:
The only great all digital motion picture, to me, is Need for Speed. They did a lot with a variety of cameras, placed in previously objectionable locations.
You must not get out much. I don't think this was a terrible movie, but it certainly wasn't a very good one. There's been hundreds of better-shot films made entirely or mostly on digital, several of which won Oscars for cinematography. I wouldn't call Hugo, Gravity, or Life of Pi trash, and even the Roger Deakins movie shot on Alexa, Skyfall, I thought looked very good. The Artist looked extremely film-like -- even more amazing when you consider they were trying to imitate the look of B&W nitrate film, not just regular film -- and I think Avatar and Benjamin Button also digital cameras to recreate a world we couldn't possibly see otherwise. All of these movies looked terrific to me, but maybe I'm just focusing on the wrong thing.
Marc Wielage is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off