|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Digital vs. Film Cinema
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Garman
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1470
From: Toledo, OH USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 01-24-2011 10:51 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
Now, I'll say this: Production-wise, I totally would prefer to originate on film and do everything digital after that.
I mostly agree with that, given that film is some of the highest quality stuff one can shoot on. However, if some filmmaker really wants to make something look really video like out of intent (even though I find that stupid), it could be sensible to shoot with it.
Eventually, 4K, 8K, etc equipment and post will mature, and we may see a new age of epic filmmaking. Well, at least we can hope. Anything is better than this 2K production and post garbage we have now.
AJG
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-24-2011 10:58 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
When you go into post with an image that has great qualities of color, contrast and spatial detail it gives you more flexibility and choice in how to manipulate it...
It also future-proofs the original images for the higher resolutions yet to come.
The oft-cited case is that of "I Love Lucy" which was shot on film and then broadcast, instead of the other way around -- broadcast live and kinescoped to film from a video monitor. They can go on remastering those episodes at whatever resolution comes next.
I also like the "film look." But I'm talking about the *original* film look - not the bastardized version that comes from internegatives, high-speed printing and everything that follows it.
I've seen some great shows that were captured on film and then finished and projected digitally. That's my personal preference.
quote: Aaron Garman
Eventually, 4K, 8K, etc equipment and post will mature, and we may see a new age of epic filmmaking.
Cameras alone ain't gonna do it. Hollywood people need to get back to telling worthwhile stories. If they can just do that, it really won't matter WHAT they shoot on.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-25-2011 08:53 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
distributors have an obligation to make quality prints available of these titles.
I guess it depends on who you ask.
As a moviegoer and an exhibitor, I can see your point. We want quality for our money. We want to fully enjoy the movie and not see a compromised version.
Alas, for the studios, repertory doesn't provide the big payday, so they're not inclined to put money there. They'd probably regard that as a "waste." And, based on damage I've seen done to so many of these prints, I might sort-of see this point (a little).
But let's face it -- the film prints we're getting are, in fact, compromised versions. And, things being what they are, I'd be interested in seeing more DCP's of older movies, taken off the cut negative which, for classics, should be OCN.
At least, this way, the studio can have some assurance that the "print" won't get destroyed. And I can have some assurance that I'm not getting the "new" print that so-and-so just finished trashing a month ago.
The 4K of "Bridge on the River Kwai" looked great and what I have seen so far of the 2K of "The Last Picture Show" looks great too.
SCOTT -- Have you honestly NEVER gotten a print that was so thrashed that you didn't want to show it?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-25-2011 09:30 AM
There needs to be an archival certification program for running of the classic prints. That is, a venue should need to be certified to handle these prints so they DON'T get trashed. Not only should the venue be certified but also the operator(s) that might potentially run the prints.
Part of the problem with prints today (aside from how they are made), is that exhibitors seem to drink the Kool-aide that projection is not a skilled profession and that little to no attention is needed on booth quality and skill-set. As such, if the equipment does not damage the print, the people do. As such, newly struck film prints of classic titles should be kept from such venues. At this point, many archives merely put a "changeover" requirement in. This does tend to ensure that, at least, someone is in the booth but it does not go to the quality of said person nor the level to which the equipment is kept.
When archives are strict about who gets their prints...their aging process slows to a crawl.
That said, it is a rare bird where I would prefer to see a good video version over a bad film version. Yes, there is a point where the film print does become so distracting as to make it unwatchable.
Unlike Manny, I find the 2K image to be such a distraction as to be on par, though certainly different, to reductions in image quality from dirt, focus and such.
Often, the new prints of classic titles do not go through the same process that modern release prints go through. There is no mass production there. They tend to be much higher quality prints.
I think, though I can't certain, yet, that I would not mind the DCPs so much once they hit 4K. 2K is a nice start and a significant improvement over the 1.3K past, but it is NOT a suitable replacement for 35mm and a far cry from 70mm.
DCP definitely has the most promise for the ultimate in movie experience since its resolution can certainly surpass anything we have on film today. However, at 2K, it just isn't there yet. DCP can deliver "EK" print like quality to the masses once it hits 4K...I'm hoping for that. 8K is going to get things closer to 70mm. I'm wondering...when 4K becomes the norm and the occasional 2K DCP shows up or a "classic" that was mastered in 2K is played...will people scoff at its primitive image quality? It wasn't too long ago when the DCP proponents thought the 1.3K stuff was "just as good, if not better" than film. Look at Star Wars some of their stuff is locked in a bygone digital technology...yet Episodes 4-6...shot on film have a brighter future as far as their look goes.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-25-2011 10:37 AM
quote: Tom Petrov
I saw Social Network tonight on 35mm film. Looked incredible.
The Social Network isn't all that bad for a movie shot on video, but it doesn't look all great either. The only positive things I can say about the cinematography is the shot compositions are good and the post production people did a better than average job on trying to hide the video look.
Seven had a lot of the same green-brown muted color schemes, but it looked far better in terms of contrast and detail -and that's a movie shot in Super35, not anamorphic. The Social Network would have looked a lot better if Fincher had shot it on film.
quote: Manny Knowles
3/4 of these issues would've gone away if this was a digital presentation.
I watched The Social Network with the movie projected digitally. Even with digital it's still a really dark, kind of urine colored show.
quote: Tom Petrov
Well, you obviously aren't going to help set us straight, bring on Mark.
Joe knows a hell of a lot about shooting video, including its limitations. He also has a Canon EOS 7D camera (the same model used to tape parts of Black Swan). I have a 5D Mark II. We both can get into specifics about the serious drawbacks to shooting video with those cameras, like issues with moiré, the rolling shutter's effect on panning shots, etc. Those are issues you don't have to worry about with shooting film.
quote: Manny Knowles
But let's face it -- the film prints we're getting are, in fact, compromised versions. And, things being what they are, I'd be interested in seeing more DCP's of older movies, taken off the cut negative which, for classics, should be OCN.
This is why I really don't go out of my way to see movies projected on film anymore. If the end product in post production is a near HDTV resolution 2K digital file there's no advantage at all in seeing it projected via film. If anything the print production processs is going to kill some of the already limited detail through generational loss and make matters even worse.
In those rare cases where a movie is truly 4K all the way through post production, or it is produced in the old school film in-film out method (like what Christopher Nolan has been doing) then its worth it to seek out a film presentation, but it's a crap shoot finding presentations featuring film done right.
As far as exhibition goes, digital is here to stay. Film certainly has the capability of hanging around for many years to come on the production side.
Widespread use of 4K projection is the key to getting 100% 4K work flows set as the standard in post production. And that would actually do more to encourage film-based production. You get more detail and contrast (not to mention the native film look) by shooting in 35mm and scanning 4K or even 6K>4K than you do in videotaping 4K with something like the Red camera.
Some recent productions have been using 65mm photography for certain shots where the director wanted to capture as much detail as possible. The International is a good example. Inception is another. If 8K projection arrived in theaters some movie crews might dust off some 65mm camera systems and put them to use. Video cameras are having a hard enough time as it is just trying to match 35mm. I don't see them matching 65mm specs anytime soon.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
exhibition of current films, but I do feel strongly that older films (which were originally photographed and intended to be exhibited on film) should be exhibited on film whenever possible, and that distributors have an obligation to make quality prints available of these titles.
Printer-friendly view of this topic