|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: A return of 35mm installs for Nolan's next project "Interstellar" ?
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-04-2013 05:52 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
However, those performance claims kind of depend on the camera's wide native RGB gamma range being left unaltered
Um, no. Those kind of performance claims depend on taking the camera's gamma curve and altering the living fuck out of it. You need to make it absolutely straight-line logarithmic to get that kind of dynamic response. This is not "native", a term that really has no meaning in many of these cameras, given their shooting options. We're not talking about REC.709 here, which is fine for the Evening News, the Game of the Week, and the Martha Stewart Hour of Truth, Sex and Violence. Not what any high-end digital feature production does, although you do find it in some episodic television. In log or RAW modes, gamma curve is entirely post-camera either in on-set LUTs or in digital intermediate, where, I assure you, there are plenty of bits to get the job done.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-05-2013 10:22 AM
quote: Mark Ogden
Those kind of performance claims depend on taking the camera's gamma curve and altering the living fuck out of it. You need to make it absolutely straight-line logarithmic to get that kind of dynamic response. This is not "native", a term that really has no meaning in many of these cameras, given their shooting options.
When I use the term "native" I'm talking about what the camera itself is actually recording (native resolution, color depth, etc.) not what some post-camera system is doing to manipulate the data after it is recorded. Digital post production tools can show off all kinds of strengths (as well as weaknesses) regardless if the material is film or video generated.
quote: Mark Ogden
In log or RAW modes, gamma curve is entirely post-camera either in on-set LUTs or in digital intermediate, where, I assure you, there are plenty of bits to get the job done.
Given the fact all the high end video camera systems have various recording quality modes there is no guarantee there will be plenty of bits to get the job done. There are opportunities to take the "good enough" path on the set and in post production. In a perfect world all feature productions shooting on video would be shooting in at least 4K resolution, 16-bits of depth per color channel and maintaining that all the way through the DI and to the DCP. But it takes more time and costs more money to do that. It has been nearly a decade since 4K digital intermediates were first used, but 2K is still pretty much the reigning standard.
quote: Manny Knowles
I do appreciate the film look. I think the "captured on film look" comes across just fine in digital presentation.
Given the fact almost every feature is produced via digital intermediate, and often rendered in 2K resolution, I don't see any benefit of watching such material recorded onto a 35mm film print. If the movie's finished product is a digital master it's best watching that kind of thing via a digital projection system with the same resolution as the master.
A 35mm film print might be able show deeper blacks, but that benefit is offset by loss of resolution via generational loss in the film printing process (or other issues the lab can cook into the high speed 35mm print). And of course you're at the mercy of how well the theater can or cannot show 35mm. Digital can be done wrong too though.
I don't know why at least some movie productions can't take advantage of d-cinema's ability to show features in either the appearance of film or video. I think some movies shot on video would have been better leaving the footage looking like video. I said that about Collateral. The video origins on that movie creep out pretty obviously despite the attempts to change it. I think the movie would have had a more immediate "you are there, live while it happens" effect if the video look had been left intact. I think the same thing applies to all these movies being made with the POV "found footage" angle, be it Cloverfield or whatever. No movie character's consumer level video camera is going to hold found video footage with all kinds of color grading applied to it. My Canon 5D Mark II shoots fairly decent looking HD video, but even stuff shot in 1080p/24 still looks a lot like video to me.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 09-05-2013 05:36 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
A 35mm film print might be able show deeper blacks, but that benefit is offset by loss of resolution via generational loss in the film printing process (or other issues the lab can cook into the high speed 35mm print).
Bobby, film still projects lower resolution material better than a digital projector at least from I have seen. From everything I have seen on an A,B, comparison, film still looks better. And that is with generation loss and high speed printing.
A good example would be "Perks of Being A Wallflower", in 35mm it had no trouble handling the poorly lit dark scenes and many of dusk scenes that looked like there were shot on 16mm. When we played the 2K digital file the next day in theater 2 after the 35mm run, it was astonishing how bad the same scenes looked.
Also, the low light scenes in Skyfall look well done in 35mm, the next day when we opened Skyfall in 2K, it started struggling with the dark scenes and interiors. Skyfall was nominated for an academy award for the photography and it struggled in 2K, that film was a very well shot movie.
quote: Jim Henk
Still... an awful lot of theatres and chains were awwwwwwwwfully quick to truck their stuff to the scrap yards to get their Certificates of Demolition for the IRS...
True, but I know two locations in the GTA that have a least 20 35mm film projectors all taken apart and stored. These two locations are movie theaters and are owned by the large chains.
quote:
I hope Nolan pulls off some film projecting nostalgia!
I think he will, my hunch is that it will be about 300 locations and Warner will use a lot of "Filmed in Anamorphic and IMAX" in the advertising.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-05-2013 10:30 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, film still projects lower resolution material better than a digital projector at least from I have seen. From everything I have seen on an A,B, comparison, film still looks better. And that is with generation loss and high speed printing.
You'll have to define what is meant by "better" as well as listing the variables between the theaters and equipment used in the projection setups being compared.
The closest I've been able to do in terms of a reasonably fair A/B comparison between 35mm film prints and 2K digital was two screenings of The Departed at our local Carmike 8 theater. One screening was on 35mm. Then I watched it again about a week later at the same theater after the digital cinema equipment was installed.
The theater's 35mm gear wasn't the greatest money could buy, but it was adequate and reasonably well maintained & operated (Simplex 35 projectors with Schneider Super Cinelux lenses running on Strong X90 consoles). The new d-cinema gear consisted of Christie CP2000-S projectors fitted with Konica-Minolta lenses. There's probably other variables that could come into play affecting the comparison.
Overall I thought The Departed looked a little better projected in 2K digital. The 35mm print had better black levels, but the d-cinema image was a little sharper. The 35mm image was pretty steady, but not as absolute steady as d-cinema.
If The Departed had been filmed in anamorphic 35mm format (instead of Super35) and either used a 4K digital intermediate or an anamorphic film-in/film-out old school process the 35mm shows could have beaten the quality of the 2K digital presentation.
There's a lot of variables that affect both 35mm and d-cinema presentation for good or bad. Our local 12-plex at Central Mall converted all its screens from film to d-cinema last year. Despite the upgrade the movies still look like crap on the screen. I don't know the source of the problem (3 different owners in the past few years?), but the images (even in 2D) look dim with noticeably muted colors. My girlfriend has dragged me to this theater a few times over the past year, usually because of other friends seeing the same movie who didn't want to drive out to the better theater on the west end of town.
If you have one movie theater showing film reasonably well and a different theater goofing up its d-cinema presentations it would be easy to jump to the conclusion 35mm prints must be better than 2K d-cinema even when the source image is 2K digital.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think he will, my hunch is that it will be about 300 locations and Warner will use a lot of "Filmed in Anamorphic and IMAX" in the advertising.
While I would like to see the term "Filmed in Panavision & IMAX" on the Interstellar posters I strongly doubt such a thing will be published. The executives at IMAX don't like to draw attention to the differences between the 15/70mm IMAX film format and the HDTV resolution IMAX digital system. They'll just use the "See it in IMAX" thing used on so many other movie posters whether the movie was truthfully filmed in IMAX or not.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-06-2013 01:23 AM
The CP2000-S may have lacked contrast...but in the reliability department...it is WAY up there...the SB is better and also has been our least troublesome projector, next the Barco DP50 (which ran 10.5 years, 7-days a week).
But back on topic....
Anyone that thinks that this or any other title coming out will be exclusively film, at this point, is an idiot. The ONLY way that could happen is if the film zealot footed the entire cost of the movie...and I mean the ENITRE cost of the movie from beginning to end...including release prints, advertising...the whole shebang. Because if anyone else's money is in it, they are not going to shun the other 95% of the theatres and 99% of the revenue stream. It just does not make any business sense. Sure, I could see a staged release where the film prints get the first day, or maybe a week...as an advertising stunt...but that is about it. And they would be REALLY stupid if they didn't do a TAP type thing where you'd only get a print if you actually PASSED the requirements. What is the point of having something special only for it to look like crap?
When I read of people that saw the Master in 70mm and didn't see what was the big deal...it tells me that there are venues with 70mm that are not up to snuff. It takes more than a machine that will pass the film through to getting the most out of 70mm (or any film format). At the AFI/Silver, the comments were much different...that is, it looked stunning.
As for film versus digital. We all seem to harp on different things. Manny can't see past the dirt and scratches of film, I dislike the lack of detail and depth of digital. I have zero problem seen through the dirt and blemishes in film but I certainly don't desire them.
To my eyes, a good film print beats a DCP most every time. But the film print has to be shown properly and it should have been sourced from a film original, not a 2K DI...the stupid 2K DI really is a bottleneck for film. And, as Brad notes, a crappy lab can ruin the print before it ever gets to the theatre. Fortunately, I do get to see vault copies and have seen MANY an EK print.
The fact remains, for joe-blow...even 2K DCP is going to give them a better show than a "typical" release print. And joe-blow doesn't know or care about 95% of the nuances we discuss here. They just want to see the movie.
One thing that DCinema has brought is that everyone is now running top-flight equipment. There are no clapped out beaten to death projectors with nasty lamps behind them with cokebottle lenses. There were too many ways for exhibitors to cheap out on the film shows in ways that it really reveled itself. We are starting to get there with the new S2K projectors. Not that the projectors are bad but they are being specified for screens too large or gains are being raised at the detriment of the image.
I applaud those that are sticking with film because it is better, not because it just makes one feel warm and fuzzy. But one has to truly make it better for it to be worth it...it isn't enough to merely shoot, process, print on film...it has to show the medium at its finest, not its worst.
Film can be quite amazing stuff. Digital has its moment too but it is NOT the greatness that some seem to think it is. Appreciate it for what it brings to the table but it definitely has flaws. Heck, it can't even do a good credit scroll. Ever seen a bunch of hay on screen all of the sudden it Mories? It can be very distracting.
I'll leave you with this...I just came from a 4K test of Lawrence of Arabia and oh what a piece of crap transfer that is. Anyone that sees this thing in DCP is getting really ripped off. Not only is not not 70mm in appearance...it isn't even 35mm or 2K. There is some sort of grided noise in the background of the whole image. The sound is horrible...just crap. Someone should hang their head in shame on this transfer. Unfortunately, I keep hearing similar horror stories of other classic titles that get the DCP treatment. Cleopatra...only a 2K release and in the wrong ratio.
DCPs aren't perfect either. The industry can make either medium look good or bad. I've yet to see any DCP give me the look of 70mm.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
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
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I hope Nolan pulls off some film projecting nostalgia!
Printer-friendly view of this topic