Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: The Last Jedi

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » The Last Jedi (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: The Last Jedi

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-13-2017 02:13 PM

quote: Tyler Purcell
What pisses me off is that making 35mm prints is a piece of cake and not that costly. There are ZERO reasons why movies shot on 35mm, aren't doing a hand-full of laser-out prints, even if they come from 2k masters, so us "film buffs" can see the movie on the format it was shot on.

If the movie's final product is a 2K digital intermediate I have no desire to see a film-out of it. Might as well just watch it in ordinary 2K d-cinema or even at home on Blu-ray.

If the DI is 4K (or higher) then 35mm prints derived from it might be decent. Arri's 6.5K large sensor camera might be good for larger format prints, provided if the post production people bother to maintain that 6.5K resolution throughout the post production process (few if any do that now; it gets down-rezzed to 4K or 2K). Red just announced a new "Monstro" 8K camera that uses a full frame (VistaVision sized) 35mm sensor. All those extra pixels aren't of much use unless all that extra resolution is maintained throughout the production process and then output on some film prints (like 70mm). Otherwise the imagery will either be down-rezzed or cropped/re-composed.

From a purist perspective, the only way something shot on film can be properly experienced via a film print is if the analog, photo-chemical process is maintained from camera to movie theater screen. Once you scan those film negatives and turn the imagery into a digital file the film part of it is pretty much gone. It gets even more bastardized via all the color grading and other stuff in post. 2K resolution certainly isn't good enough to capture something shot on 4-perf 35mm film. One can make a good argument crews aren't doing enough on color bit depth with these scans.

| IP: Logged

Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015

posted 10-16-2017 02:38 PM

Ehh... 2k or not, I'd still rather see a well made print. It keeps the projectionists busy, keeps the projectors working and over-all is a better looking image than digital. So in my eyes, it's just a better experience, especially with anamorphic where at least they're using the full height of the imager for 2.40:1.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-16-2017 02:41 PM

I think everybody agrees that film looks better (if properly maintained and projected) but it's not making a comeback in mainstream theaters. As Archie Bunker once said, "That bus has sailed."

| IP: Logged

Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015

posted 10-16-2017 03:22 PM

Ohh fo-sho... but at least The Force Awakens had a print and I saw it. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-16-2017 03:37 PM

I wonder how many 35mm's of "Last Jedi" will be around, compared to TFA.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-17-2017 12:35 AM

quote: Tyler Purcell
Ehh... 2k or not, I'd still rather see a well made print. It keeps the projectionists busy, keeps the projectors working and over-all is a better looking image than digital.

Specifically, how is a film-out of a 2K digital source going to look better than that original 2K digital source? The film print isn't adding any extra resolution. In fact, you're going to get some level of generational loss -especially when you consider the laser recorded film-outs are not the release prints. You'll have one or more dupes between what actually gets shown in the theater. The film print isn't adding any extra color depth either. The only possible thing the print could provide is deeper blacks, but that's only going to happen if the digital source and laser recording is geared that way and those blacks are maintained through the dupe stage.

In the graphics industry we call it "garbage in = garbage out." If you start with a HDTV resolution image that's what I consider garbage for a film print.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-17-2017 06:24 PM

My current irritation regarding Last Jedi is, they debuted a new trailer during a football game on free TV, but they still haven't included it on a trailer drive.

They should have run a commercial for it during the game and said, "See the full new trailer at your local theater this weekend!"

| IP: Logged

Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015

posted 10-18-2017 02:54 AM

Ohh I agree Bobby, but honestly the post workflow for film out allows for far greater dynamic range then DCP which is regulated at DCI-P3 color space. Remember, from around 2002 till the end of film, almost all film out's were 2k, with the exception of a hand full of 4k titles very late in the game.

What you get with a filmout is better color space, MUCH greater dynamic range (less flat nastiness), the "flicker" of not only the projector, but also the silver in the film itself. A projected piece of film, with a decent source, will always look prettier than a standard ol' 3 chip DLP projector.

| IP: Logged

Sascha F. Roll
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 140
From: Berlin, Berlin / Germany
Registered: Sep 2015

posted 10-18-2017 08:49 AM

Keep in mind that talking about a D.I. process on 35mm film we're talking about 2048x15xx pixel resolution for Scope, which vertically is almost double the resolution of crappy "letterboxed" digital Scope (2048x858).

| IP: Logged

Jerry Axelsson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 107
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Registered: May 2005

posted 10-18-2017 02:00 PM

I agree with what Tyler says.
35mm film-out even from a 2K DI looks better than a 2K DCP.
Providing that you have an excellent 35mm projector, good lenses and proper light output etc.

| IP: Logged

Victor Liorentas
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 800
From: london ontario canada
Registered: May 2009

posted 10-18-2017 02:44 PM

I also agree that a 35mm print from a 2k DI and especially a 4k DI can look better if the 35mm projector and lenses are good.
In my case,very well aligned lamp and Isco Blue Star lenses for scope,Ultra Star HD Plus for flat! Can't beat it!

Oh and it feels better. [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 10-19-2017 12:59 PM

quote: Sascha F. Roll
Keep in mind that talking about a D.I. process on 35mm film we're talking about 2048x15xx pixel resolution for Scope, which vertically is almost double the resolution of crappy "letterboxed" digital Scope (2048x858).

2K digital intermediates are rendered at 2048x858. They're not made in any taller size. For that 2048x1536 4:3 ratio 2K image to work properly the digital 'scope ratio photography and post production work would need to render no less than a 3686x1536 resolution image before anamorphically squeezing it onto a 35mm 'scope print. At that resolution setting the production might as well do all its work in 4K.

I think for 2K work the post production folks should at least be rendering 2560x1080. That is a standard resolution setting; there's even a growing number of computer monitors available in that resolution. A 2560x1080 2.5K DCP would allow any theater that invested in a 1.25x anamorphic lens setup can get a full container 2048x1080 scope image in the DCP that can be un-squeezed via the projector lens. Image quality would be significantly better than 2048x858 low res scope.

| IP: Logged

Tyler Purcell
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 180
From: Van Nuys, CA
Registered: Dec 2015

posted 11-15-2017 04:34 AM

Any news about 35mm prints?

| 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.