|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-30-2011 02:20 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
the invention of colour does not mean that film directors won’t use black and white anymore.
Umm...for the most part, it does. For every major contemporary release that uses black-and-white, there are over a thousand that don't.
Sure. Spielberg can make "Schindler's List" in B/W. But that's a rare case. Go read that article in the industry news forum that talks about how film studios are deliberately pursuing younger/untried directors because they believe they will be easier to control. Directors of today and tomorrow are gonna make whatever the suits tell 'em to make. And that's actually nothing new. It's a shame I have to point out the obvious but I'd say color is going to remain a given.
Here's my current opinion of the situation: Digitally-restored and digitally-presented film does not "look digital." Assuming that it's "digital done right" then it will simply look like "film done right" to me. In fact, I would argue it will look better -- especially since the restoration print will have come from a DI and, thus, will be (at least) one generation removed from the restoration original. I honestly believe that level of excellence only offends some of us because we feel threatened by it. That is to say, we could never put on THAT GOOD of a show (with film) and so, in a sense, we are becoming irrelevant (or less relevant). Either that or it's just pure nostalgic "film hugging." Either way, it is an emotional response and not an intellectual one.
There I said it.
Let the flames begin! ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 04-30-2011 04:36 PM
quote: Manny Knowles
Umm...for the most part, it does. For every major contemporary release that uses black-and-white, there are over a thousand that don't.
True, but in many cases this is because the producers do not want to risk their investment, it is not an artistic but a financial decision.
quote: Manny Knowles
Here's my current opinion of the situation: Digitally-restored and digitally-presented film does not "look digital."
To me it looks like film projected digitally and frankly I prefer film projected on film. I know, nearly all is subjective in this world.
quote: Manny Knowles
In fact, I would argue it will look better -- especially since the restoration print will have come from a DI and, thus, will be (at least) one generation removed from the restoration original
Hopefully there are still films that do not need restoration or that can have a photochemical restoration only. In any case since the majority of digital projectors are 2K and restorations are usually done at 4K or even greater a 35mm print will keep more resolution of the restoration than the 2K screening and will keep some of the charm of film projected.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"
Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-30-2011 08:28 PM
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
True, but in many cases this is because the producers do not want to risk their investment, it is not an artistic but a financial decision.
You don't seem to "get" that this is so often the case -- more often than not -- dating back to the dawn of cinema. But you're also ignoring the rather large hints that they always wanted color -- look at their painstaking efforts to hand tint their prints. They always anticipated sound, etc. I don't think the filmmakers of yesterday would be offended by digital restorations/screenings. They might wonder why we're watching the originals at all, instead of remaking them with the newer technology. I say this because they often remade their films when new technologies came along.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
To me it looks like film projected digitally
C'mon. Be honest. You can tell because it looks "too good" doesn't it? ![[Wink]](wink.gif) You want to see the jump and the weave and you want to bask in the glow of splices and scratches. I get it. You love film - even if it's "film done wrong." There's really no point arguing with you. I totally get it.
quote: Ramon Lamarca Marques
In any case since the majority of digital projectors are 2K and restorations are usually done at 4K or even greater a 35mm print will keep more resolution of the restoration than the 2K screening and will keep some of the charm of film projected.
Fear not, my friend -- Those projectors can and will be upgraded to 4K and then they'll outmatch the film print generated off a 4K DI. Especially since, the prints are going to be beaten all to hell in a matter of....oh, hell...they're trashed already.
Here, look:
A previous user obviously cared enough to try and clean the print. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This is the sort of thing that really lets you know you're watching FILM !!!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ramon Lamarca Marques
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 186
From: Edgware, England, UK
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-01-2011 07:25 AM
quote: Manny Knowles
You don't seem to "get" that this is so often the case -- more often than not -- dating back to the dawn of cinema. But you're also ignoring the rather large hints that they always wanted color -- look at their painstaking efforts to hand tint their prints. They always anticipated sound, etc. I don't think the filmmakers of yesterday would be offended by digital restorations/screenings. They might wonder why we're watching the originals at all, instead of remaking them with the newer technology. I say this because they often remade their films when new technologies came along.
Not only I get it but also I fully know it and I have known it for a long time. Yet you use an ambiguous term when you refer to filmmakers. Who are the makers, the directors or the producers? Billy Wilder disliked very much the Technicolor hues and preferred black and white, Woody Allen would have used more black and white had it not been because of the producers, Fritz Lang was forced to use Cinemascope which he thought only good to film snakes and Hitchcock never used anamorphic even when outside Paramount production values and did not like stereophonic sound because it meant different versions of his sound mix. And how about Chaplin’s dislike of sound? You do not get much more filmmaker than him. We all know about the different essays written about how dramatically cinema as an art changed because of sound. And, as to remakes, well Billy Wilder (again) wasn’t very happy with the remake of Sabrina, who can blame him? And the remake of Psycho, just because new generations are ignorant about the beauty of black and white. There are remakes that can even better the original, A Star is Born, Mason/Garland’s version, but there are many, many, that are just exercises in lack of imagination from both the producers and the audiences. You were recommending in a previous post not to presume and now you are presuming that the filmmaker would be wondering why we are still watching those old films. So you probably do not understand what all the fuss is about finding missing footage for Metropolis, why just not reshoot the whole thing with CGI and 3-D and, of course, colour?
quote: Manny Knowles
C'mon. Be honest. You can tell because it looks "too good" doesn't it? You want to see the jump and the weave and you want to bask in the glow of splices and scratches. I get it. You love film - even if it's "film done wrong." There's really no point arguing with you. I totally get it.
2K looking too good? Not to me. I can see pixelation sometimes, I do not like how shadow and light look on black and white films and the general flat look of digital I do not like it either. Some minor jump and weave on film done right doesn’t disturb me and I would accept that this is because I have always seen films with a bit of jump and weave and therefore it feels natural to me. Actually the extreme stillness of digital can distract me, for instance when there are long static shots of things that do not move it makes me think that someone is doing a powerpoint presentation in the middle of the film or that the projector has got stuck, again this is probably because I have grown up watching film. So, you have concluded that I love film even if it is “film done wrong”, well it is your prerogative to believe this as it is your prerogative to believe that a DCP is better than a good 35mm print.
quote: Manny Knowles
Fear not, my friend -- Those projectors can and will be upgraded to 4K and then they'll outmatch the film print generated off a 4K DI. Especially since, the prints are going to be beaten all to hell in a matter of....oh, hell...they're trashed already.
Scanning resolution is already greater than 4K and whilst it may not be used for new releases is already used for restorations, those that are beyond photochemical repair, and then film will be better. Moreover, those prints are usually only handled by proper projectionists and are not damaged.
I recently saw Ben Wales’s 70mm print of Dersu Uzala, which is an original print from the 70s (Russian colour does not fade) and I was amazed, the quality was outstanding. After seeing these beautiful images (with technology from several decades ago) to go back to the true feel and look of a Playstation on a 2K Super Digital Cinema? Frankly not, not in a lifetime.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 05-01-2011 09:04 AM
Manny also seems to miss that when things were done as technology came out...the technology almost always improved the image/sound and was often HARDER than what came before it. Digital has not been about better, it has been about cheaper/easier on the production side. It is what happened to the recording industry all over again. It isn't like the music has gotten any better with the new technology...in fact, with MP3, it has gotten much worse.
It is likely that the film makers of yore would scoff at the distribution prints coming from such a poor duplication system to make them look so bad. Once upon a time, what we call an EK print was what standard release prints look like. Why not make a digital protection copy and a film protection copy and then make better release prints? Is the line of thinking...lets put out an inferior product for today's audiences so that we might have a better version for tomorrow's when the movie will be of less value to the masses?
As has been pointed out...the transition to sound was not a completely happy one though I agree, mostly desired. First sound movies are marked by very limited camera movements. Then the issue of looped audio, which never looks really in sync. There are definite areas where the movie industry has steadily improved the overall experience. The argument that digital also does this is predicated on the fact that the film work-flow has been deliberately worsened and, in fact, uses digital as the bottleneck to lower the quality. If digital was being used properly, they should be scanning the OCN at a higher resolution than the film can represent, work on it at that resolution and then print the INs directly from said High-resoltuion. At that point, you have almost the same as the OCN doing the printing and you also improve the high-speed printing process.
As for film motion...I don't consider that a good or acceptable trait of film and prefer digital, in that respect. However, the point made is valid. That is when digital gets a freeze frame, it looks "stuck" not merely a suspended frame. Also, the way digital deals with near black is very annoying (either the noise in the dark levels or the odd pixelations). Digital also can not seem to deal with credit scrolls and is subject to Moiré, depending on content...where film is impervious.
-Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16
|
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