|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: "Lawrence of Arabia" 70mm from 4K DI
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-07-2018 08:26 PM
quote: Bill Brandenstein
Maybe I'm foolish to argue with someone who's seen far more 70 than I have, but Steve, the issue isn't image size of the format but resolving power. I just don't think there's as much in the photochemical molecules as you think there is - not that I can prove it! Unfortunately we all know that real-world resolving power is often far inferior to what's possible under perfect conditions.
As someone who HAS measured it (numerous times), you are quite wrong in your assessments. What 70mm projected image can get off the film (if it is there) is quite a bit. There are many factors at play, certainly (just like in digital). The lamphouse, projector and lens all come into play from the projection standpoint. How the title was handled from negative to release print is not a projection issue but it does affect the final result. The quality there does indeed vary all over the place.
There is more detail there than you give the photochemical system credit for. Perhaps you are confusing detail with sharpness. They are two very different things. To exaggerate things, I can put up a digital image with say 4 (very large) pixels to represent an image. While the pixels will be VERY sharp, there is no detail. As pixel count is increased, detail improves though sharpness remains the same (presuming proper lensing to deal with the MTF of the larger resolution). And we're just discussing resolution here, nothing about color or contrast or luminance. There is a lot that goes into the image.
quote: Bill Brandenstein
Perhaps indeed some trailing-off fine detail is lost in such a 4K scan as this, but it's very significant that the efficiency and clarity of what's preserved within the image "bandwidth" has made Mr. Harris believer. I mean, obviously he's seen a lot more of Lawrence than any of us.
There is a LOT more lost at 4K than just trailing-off detail. You've thrown away over half the detail that was in the image. Now that doesn't mean the image goes blurry, digital does sharp pretty well (sharp pixels) but sharp != detail. Sharp fools a lot of people into thinking that they have detail that they don't have. Why else do they accept 2K images on a big screen? There is very little detail there and under magnification it is very apparent and without magnification it, to me at least, gives the image that "South Park" look of no depth. There is nothing there to make the depth, it is all gone. It is just a hyper-flat image to me.
As to Mr. Harris being a "believer," I'm sure he has is reasons and I don't doubt his sincerity or his expertise. It doesn't mean we agree on everything though. While he has certainly seen the individual frames of LOA more than probably anyone, I don't know if he has seen the film on the big screen as much as some (possibly me...I have run it a LOT on big screens, particularly the beginning and ending of reels, I've seen it a lot!). Again, I'm not going to pre-judged this latest effort, because I haven't seen it. However, saying 4K is the preferred way to see a 70mm classic sure sounds like someone is drinking the Kool-Aide and when 8K is available they will think THAT is the way to to see it (for the first time). Christ, I had to live through 1.3K DCinema being touted as good or better than 35mm...until it wasn't.
What (I'm searching for words here but scares seems to be the best) scares me a bit is how 4K is being ponied off as somehow as good/better than 70mm. And if that is the case, it is as if people are trying to rewrite history. Like when those that think nitrate films didn't look better than their acetate/polyester counterparts. They'll tell you about the silver content and all yet anyone that has seen nitrate comes away with the same awe in how that stuff looks. In 2018, 4K DCP projection does not equal 70mm in most measurable metrics. It will win in steadiness and less flicker.
quote: Bill Brandenstein
And over the decades, I've been amazed recurringly at how much more grainy and soft 70mm has tended to look against my expectations. For example, "Far and Away" should've been cleaner, as just one example of many.
Far and Away is a much maligned 70mm release. It didn't "showcase" 70mm like some perverted 3D movie that shoot things out at you. It was not shot like the "Epics" of yesteryear, for sure. It wasn Ben-Hur or LOA or even Sound of Music. I love Ron Howard movies (I really do, ever since Night Shift) but he doesn't tend to shoot with that epic look of David Lean, Stanley Kubrick, Cecil B DeMille or even Robert Wise. The movie had detail, the presentation was sharp and steady. There was some variation on the grain (sometimes shot to shot)...I ran that one a bunch too. I guarantee you that if they had shot it 4K (if available at the time), it wouldn't have looked better.
You like 4K, that is fine. I'm not going to try and tell you what you should like or not. But I do think you are settling for technology of the day rather than the technology that hasn't come to the surface yet, much the same way that George Lucas settled for HD of the day rather than waiting until DCinema was mature enough to handle a product like Star Wars. What George showed was how far digital had to go, not so much of how far it had come. I'm not saying he shouldn't have pursued digital production, just not with a property like Star Wars when the technology just wasn't there yet.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Harris
Film Handler
Posts: 95
From: Bedford Hills, NY, USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 01-08-2018 09:36 AM
Steve,
I've always been of a mind to separate "projectionists," those old grizzled dudes, protected by their guilds (nothing against unions), who ran films out of frame, focus, tension slightly off, whilst reading a two year-old copy of Playboy...
From what I consider "projection engineers," who take their work uber-seriously, striving to get that last bit of visible grain on screen, with proper illumination, stability, and the flattest field possible.
I've had the pleasure of working with some of the best around the world, and place you in that trusted group.
Which is preface to saying that I take your comments seriously.
Viewing a film or data on screen comes down to a visceral, as opposed to measured experience, although measuring is an absolute necessity.
In working with data in 4k, we strive to put every possible pixel of real estate within the projected image.
Going by memory here, so please don't hold me to exact numbers, but starting with a 4k file derived from 8, ie. 4096 x 1792, is the starting point, from which there are several possible areas of final attack.
One can go anamorphic, or possibly do a slightly less than 4% field enlargement, which corrupts pixels, or go with an image, predicated on an RP91 at 3840 x 1744 inside 3996 x 2160.
I prefer to keep my pixels 1:1.
One of the questions, and your input will be helpful here, is the difference between the stability of a 4k image, vs the movement of an analogue image, with a projection purring along to perfection on all 12 cylinders.
How much is gained by a totally stable, albeit smaller image, and how does that affect the visceral takeaway by the audience?
Another question.
Have you run an RP91, (or other) test on film, vs one scanned from an RP91 negative at 8k and down-rezzed to 4k for projection? Anything that would give us an absolute in terms of lines?
When I'm comparing images, as projected, I generally look at grain structure, which is quite evident on 5248/50/51-based productions, even is running via a dupe, which simply has a slightly more velvety texture.
Screening MFL or LoA via properly projected 4k, I'm seeing those aspects of film, and the final image on screen, appears as film, but steady.
Interesting discussion. Look forward to your comments.
As I said at the outset, your voice is one of the most trustworthy out there.
RAH
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 01-08-2018 10:25 AM
quote: Robert Harris
I've always been of a mind to separate "projectionists," those old grizzled dudes, protected by their guilds (nothing against unions), who ran films out of frame, focus, tension slightly off, whilst reading a two year-old copy of Playboy...
If their local's business agent can't negotiate a good enough hourly rate for his members to be able to afford the latest edition, no wonder they're not the best in the business!
Sorry, couldn't resist...
quote: Robert Harris
Viewing a film or data on screen comes down to a visceral, as opposed to measured experience, although measuring is an absolute necessity.
Exactly, and this is behind most of the opinions expressed here and everywhere else the "film vs. digital" debate has taken place. Those opinions tend to be informed by one of two things: in theory specifications causing someone to believe that either/or is "better," or liking or not liking a viewing or listening experience.
I'm as guilty of both as anyone else, though when technology loyalty starts to verge on the religious - whether that's George Lucas railing against "ancient, Victorian" film (by the same token, you could point out that the wheel is a Stone Age technology, but we still use it), or Tarantino trying to convince us that a scratchy, shrunk and pink print from the 1970s is preferable to the end result of a $2m restoration - it starts to become a bit trying.
Maybe my eyesight is not as good as it was, but as long as I'm sitting a reasonable distance from the screen, and the screen itself is not larger than around 35-40ft across, I feel that I can recognize film grain from a transfer even in 2K, let alone 4. Contrast and black levels are the only reason I'd really prefer to see a 70mm print (of content originated on large format film) over a 4K DCP; and even then only if the print is of the highest photographic quality the medium can deliver, and projected by a professional on properly installed and maintained equipment.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 01-08-2018 02:27 PM
quote: Leo Enticknap
Exactly, and this is behind most of the opinions expressed here and everywhere else the "film vs. digital" debate has taken place. Those opinions tend to be informed by one of two things: in theory specifications causing someone to believe that either/or is "better," or liking or not liking a viewing or listening experience.
Choices and actions made during a movie's production, post production and distribution create a lot of variables which affect the quality of image & sound on the film print (or DCP). The quality of how the image and audio track is presented in a commercial theater is also affected by variables ranging from how the theater building was designed and equipped down to actions by the staff running the show.
All of those variables accumulate. If every variable is well executed then it should add up to a stellar movie-going experience (provided we're watching a movie with a great story and acting performances). If too many compromises, short cuts and other "good enough" nonsense takes place in the chain then the viewing experience is watered down to something unremarkable or just plain bad. Far too often most movie-going customers are experiencing levels of presentation quality well below that elusive "stellar" level.
I know I did not see 70mm presentation at its best when I watched The Hateful Eight. I still drove up to Oklahoma City and paid a hefty ticket price premium to watch it (70mm didn't cost extra to see back in the 1980's). I wanted to support a 70mm movie with my dollars. It still irked me that the show was presented on a modest-sized, common width screen with the projected image being unmasked and seriously letter-boxed.
quote: Steve Guttag
Far and Away is a much maligned 70mm release. It didn't "showcase" 70mm like some perverted 3D movie that shoot things out at you. It was not shot like the "Epics" of yesteryear, for sure.
Considering the way Far and Away was marketed (with all the big "Panavison Super 70" banners in the newspaper ads) viewers might have been expecting something along those lines, -or at least something that looked very clearly better than a 1.85:1 movie blown up to 5/70mm. Far and Away wasn't filmed in ways meant to show off just how much intricate detail 70mm can display. The movie had a lot of dim, dark scenes and low depth of field shots. Those were Ron Howard's choices. Baraka was released the same year, and was deliberately filmed to get as much detail into the frame as possible.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-13-2018 01:28 PM
quote: Robert Harris
One of the questions, and your input will be helpful here, is the difference between the stability of a 4k image, vs the movement of an analogue image, with a projection purring along to perfection on all 12 cylinders.
How much is gained by a totally stable, albeit smaller image, and how does that affect the visceral takeaway by the audience?
I don't subscribe to the romantics that somehow think of image movement in film projection as somehow more natural "alive" or in any way better. It is a negative artifact of film projection, for which 70mm inherently minimizes compared to 35mm. In fact, I was most disturbed by the The Hateful Eight print I saw in 70mm because it had movement. It wasn't the 70mm experience I was used to. That said, image movement caused by MOST 35mm and 70mm projectors isn't noticeable (there are DEFINITELY exceptions) and 70mm machines effectively eliminate image motion from the projection end. What motion that is left was put there in the printing process or in the origination. There are some directions that seem to specialize in seizure cam. Unless the camera is locked down, there is image motion. Whereas I've routinely achieved 120 lines/mm in 35mm projectors (NTAV's target film had 100 and 120 ln/mm targets in addition to the normal 35-PA targets), what motion they have isn't pulling away from image resolution.
What I find more distracting is when digital artifacts jump out at you. A picket fence that happens to line up with the pixel grid (or other straight line type objects). Morie interaction on perforated screens in solid colors, aliasing on diagonal lines (they tend to not be visible in 4K, however). They HYPER-Flat appearance to the image. Yeah, I get used to it but it is a shock each time. Kind of like scratches/dirt.
There seems to be a VAST disparity of what people's threshold is to seeing film artifacts like scratches and dirt. I'm not saying that they are required for film but that in all likelihood they will accompany film presentations (with greater likelihood as the print gets more use). Like image movement, they don't enhance the film experience and I don't care what some "nuts" say. That said, perhaps from having seen it so much in my life, I'm not as bothered by it as some. My threshold of seeing film type artifacts interfere with my enjoyment of a movie is pretty high compared to some others and maybe is a reason a often prefer the film presentation to the digital one (it all depends on who is showing both too). Dirt is annoying but not very distracting to me. Scratches depend on the many factors. Color fade again, I get used to but don't prefer it. A BIG edge to digital is in the color stability. While I prefer a well made film print, those are tough to come by and even "good ones" will have different color balance from reel-to-reel but that is but one metric to judge the whole presentation by.
quote: Robert Harris
One can go anamorphic, or possibly do a slightly less than 4% field enlargement, which corrupts pixels, or go with an image, predicated on an RP91 at 3840 x 1744 inside 3996 x 2160.
I prefer to keep my pixels 1:1.
I can certainly appreciate that though if one were to perform the anamorphic part during the image capture and go to 4096x2160, then you have no pixel corruption, yet. If the theatre has a suitable anamorphic lens, they still have no pixel corruption. But I appreciate that MOST do not have an anamorphic lens so the vast majority will see the image with a scaling artifact. Okay. Those sites, by and large, aren't going to notice the difference and it isn't 70mm anyway. It is 35mm 1.85 resolution so it is but a facsimile of the original to begin with.
quote: Robert Harris
Have you run an RP91, (or other) test on film, vs one scanned from an RP91 negative at 8k and down-rezzed to 4k for projection? Anything that would give us an absolute in terms of lines?
I have not seen a PA-70 target digitized for DCP. That is captured off of an OCN film. I've seen a DCP of 35PA and it was HIDEOUS! I don't know its origins though so I will discount that as a non-scientific origin. I wonder if BL&S ever had their target scanned to DCP (they had one made for Hateful 8 and it is a GOOD target, very high quality). the PA70 target was a bit erratic, based on batch. the 80 lines/mm didn't always have a clean look to them (not that the projector/lens had a problem but that the image almost looked retouched but definitely not as well defined as 35PA (or NTAV's NT-PT)
quote: Robert Harris
Screening MFL or LoA via properly projected 4k, I'm seeing those aspects of film, and the final image on screen, appears as film, but steady.
I'm curious, when you compare the grain structure, you are merely noting that grain is there or that the digital representation has captured the grain without the grain's detail. What I see in most digital images is sharpness without detail, which I believe gives its hyper-flat appearance. This is reinforced in that as one moves up in digital resolution, the flatness of the image subsides and gets more of the film-look.
Of course, as one moves up in resolution with current xenon based 4K projectors, one gives up contrast a bit and the lenses seem to, by and large, be pushing the resolving power a bit. Some projectors that have better contrast seem to have difficulty with color reproduction (greens, for instance) and lasers, they have speckle and I'm not quite sure their colors are right either (or is it that I'm comparing it to a xenon based image?).
What I do know is, I've yet to see any digital image that I'll take over a 70mm image (presuming both are well made). HFR film projection seems to enhance the image (both Todd AO at 30fps and ShowScan at 60fps...which also typically had a very high contrast image too) yet digital HFR looks just wrong with strange speed artifacts (sped up soap opera look).
I stand by the statement that I've YET to see a DCP of a classic 70mm title that compared favorably to the 70mm version and what I've personally seen of an LOA DCP in distribution was just awful.
I think 70mm presentations was summed up pretty well by a young person seeing 70mm for the first time after seeing nothing but DCPs in 2K and 4K...with 70mm, "...it looked so real you could reach out and touch it." When you get that sort of response, you know you did your job well and so did all of the players that lead up to that experience.
I agree, it is a fascinating discussion. I'd be interested in getting some 35PA and 70PA digitized by the same sort of process that one would digitize a 65mm movie and see how it looks. I suspect that you'd be shocked at the detail that is digitally removed...but it would be rock steady.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-13-2018 03:41 PM
quote:
There seems to be a VAST disparity of what people's threshold is to seeing film artifacts like scratches and dirt . . . Like image movement, they don't enhance the film experience
Oh, I don't know. Really, it's come to the point with audiences, especially revival audiences, that scratches and dirt are actually things that authenticate film projection, artifacts that are expected and even, in a perverse way, looked forward to as part of the film experience.
And I had this notion at no less than the AFI Silver awhile back, when I went to see a 35mm print of Superman The Movie (I might add that the kid who tore my ticket looked EXACTLY like a younger version of your profile picture. Your son? Very polite young man). Not to break the Silver's chops but the print, in all honestly, was filthy. I have heard that Warner repertory prints are usually disgusting, but geezus, what a mess. But of perhaps a half-filled house, I was likely the only one who was put off to the point of walking. I wound up sneaking into another screen to see something first run in digital, where I was greatly amused to see that the Silver's policy dater has shots of the projection room with dirt and scratches digitally overlaid on it. When that ended I snuck back into the big house in time to see the last twenty minutes or so of Superman, in time to hear some gal in the back crying when Margot Kidder got smooshed by the rockslide. The print was still absolutely filthy and it seemed to bother no-one. For a moment I had the thought that if the film jumped the gate there would be a standing ovation.
Since the show had been advertised as in 35mm as more-or-less a selling point I began to wonder what the reaction would have been, if it would have registered the same way with the audience, if the print had been perfectly fresh-outta-the-lab clean. To the average film fan, who is certainly not going to pick up on minor image differences, how much have dirt/scratches/gate weave/fading become nostalgia touchpoints? Because if they are NOT, what is the point of booking in as badly messed up print as that and advertising it as in 35mm (unless "in 35mm" is meant as a warning to lower one's expectations)? What was gained by this over a DCP of the same title? I mean, I'm sure that as far as repertory prints go that to some extent you have to deal with what you are sent. But still.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 01-13-2018 04:36 PM
quote: Mark Ogden
Oh, I don't know. Really, it's come to the point with audiences, especially revival audiences, that scratches and dirt are actually things that authenticate film projection, artifacts that are expected and even, in a perverse way, looked forward to as part of the film experience.
It seems that the horror-movie crowd is really into this sort of thing. I don't get it, personally, but I don't really see anything wrong with it, as long as they are buying tickets and enjoying the experience. I suppose that I do fear that someone might attend this type of screening and then come to the conclusion that film always has dirt and scratches and damange and therefore always looks bad.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 01-13-2018 05:05 PM
Mark,
Definitely not my son...who recently turned 12.
I believe I termed the people that want dirt/scratches/motion in their film image as "nuts."
As to the Silver running a filthy print, they are going to run what they are given. Depending on what the source is, they may or may not be precluded from cleaning it by any degree. Depending on the number of shows, even if they did clean it (and they may have on your show), if it is as bad as you say, nothing short of an Ultrasonic/solvent cleaning is going to get heavy dirt out (something like a Lipsner-Smith type cleaner).
The AFI/Silver has run prints in all conditions, including fresh from the lab on cores all of the way out to "really shouldn't be run because it won't make it." As you have observed by the audiences lack of concern, the threshold for what deems a print to not run is a judgement call by the powers that be and based on what their alternatives are. They may not have a DCP of the title and the alternative could have been a DVD (or possibly a Blu-ray, depending on when you witnessed it). A DVD, standard Def 480 is going to look rough too and definitely non-film. A Blu-ray probably would have been quite passable since many here have run them without customer complaint too.
I believe the AFI/Silver is more selective on film shows now since they don't maintain a staff of projectionists anymore. They are running The Phantom Thread in 70mm, however. The print is new, the light is at 16fL so come on down!
| 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic