Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 'Anniversary Party' and 'Star Wars, Ep 2' (High-Def video origination)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » 'Anniversary Party' and 'Star Wars, Ep 2' (High-Def video origination) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: 'Anniversary Party' and 'Star Wars, Ep 2' (High-Def video origination)

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 10-30-2001 10:38 AM

Read what David Mullen, the gifted cinematographer who shot "Jackpot" using the Sony 24P HD digital camera has to say about film and digital on the Cinematographer.com Cinematography Discussions:
"Jackpot" Cinematographer David Mullen Discusses Film and 24P Digital Production

Or read a disappointed moviegoer's review of the French feature film "Vidocq" shot with the Sony 24P camera, on Perry Sun's DCinemaZone:
Review of "Vidocq" 24P Quality by Didier

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Michael Barry
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 584
From: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 10-31-2001 10:03 AM

John, thanks once again for those new links. Both were very interesting, and I agree with you about David Mullen - his work on 'Twin Falls Idaho' was superb.

Interesting to note the disappointing results reported from the 24P origination.

Regarding the digitally projected 'Crimson Rivers', it doesn't surprise me that it looked good, but then again, I showed a 35MM print of this, and I have to say that it was the sharpest, most detailed 35MM release print I have seen in some time (I'm willing to bet it looked a great deal better than the digital projection of the same movie). Thierry Arbogast's anamorphic photography was sheer perfection!

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-31-2001 11:12 PM

I've ranted and raved about the way I think many are being hoodwinked by the "digital" buzzword when it comes to "digital cinema" and all. Videotape is videotape, be it digitally sourced or put down in a classic analog form, such as BetacamSP. Even in relatively sharp 1080i terms (1080 X 1920 pixels) you still have an image that looks like a soap opera or the six o'clock news. It doesn't look like film.

The photochemical process is a very obvious difference, and I'm sure "Episode II" will go through a lot of filtering and color correction techniques to try to imitate the film look. The other chief difference is that videotape photography works in the additive RGB color model. Film works in the subtractive CMY color model with a more muted color gamut range. It is hard to take a wide-gamut RGB image and tone it down to match CMY. Just ask print makers about the headaches they deal with on handling RGB images for CMYK output.

35mm film photography is just plain better than this 24fps 1080i videotape system, even with the "digital" buzzword taken into account. What is George Lucas going to do with Ultra HiDef TV's and video playback equipment gets developed over the next decade or so? Embargo this series of "Star Wars" films from that format just as he has done with the original trilogy from DVD?

It would have been a lot more forward looking of George Lucas to film this new trilogy IN 70MM. Even with a HD video playback system 4 or 8 times sharper than 1080i, anything originated in 70mm is going to look GREAT on it. 35mm sourced material wouldn't look all that bad either, given it is an organic natural, and yes analog, medium. In some cases, like film photography, analog can often be better.

| IP: Logged

Aaron Haney
Master Film Handler

Posts: 265
From: Cupertino, CA, USA
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 11-02-2001 02:27 AM

By the way, if anyone still has a 35mm copy of the trailer for "Jackpot" laying around, try looking at this:

If you look at the area I circled, you will notice a case of the jaggies.

Note that I'm talking about how the trailer looks ON FILM. I'm NOT talking about how it looks in the Quicktime version that is available on the web (which is where I took this image from). Any jaggies you see in the QT version are simply due to the relatively low resolution. On film however, there is no such excuse.

The fact that images sourced from 24p HDTV still show jaggies, even after being transferred at full resolution to 35mm film, demonstrates that HDTV resolution is just not enough to replace film.

I realize this is merely one instance, but I was able to spot that on the first viewing of the 35mm trailer. Who knows what I would have seen if if I had sat down and watched all of "Jackpot" (I never actually saw the movie; just the trailer). And yet some people still maintain that 2K resolution is "indistinguishable" from film.

I'm looking forward to playing "spot the jaggies" when I see the new Star Wars trailer this weekend.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.