Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: A return of 35mm installs for Nolan's next project "Interstellar" ?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » A return of 35mm installs for Nolan's next project "Interstellar" ? (Page 6)

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" ?

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-12-2013 11:18 PM

Not at all...if you pan fast...yes, film will strobe...video seems to smear on most anything. Again, nobody is saying film is perfect...nobody is saying it will ever be the primary distribution medium again.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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

posted 09-13-2013 10:02 AM

quote: Manny Knowles
You guys are acting like film never had strobing issues on lateral camera movements.

Video should have the same issue with strobing in zip-pan camera moves if it was fully capable of mimicking the film look, particularly if the camera is shooting the scene at 24 frames per second. However, particularly in scenes with a lot of dark areas, a whole lot of visual blur and slur or "motion-flow" style interpolation seems to creep into the picture. Sometimes I wonder if that look is intentional. After all, I can walk into just about any electronics store and see the HDTV sets on display with "motion flow" enabled. A lot of people seem to prefer that look as opposed to the obvious judder present in 24fps film.

I never said film was perfect either. Every film format has its strengths and limitations. With regard to strobing, there are certain practices camera people should avoid.

Maybe the worst example of film strobing I've ever seen was in Geronimo: An American Legend. There was one scene in the movie where the camera looked upward and panned along a group of Apache warriors standing above on a cliff. They were back-lit, nearly silhouetted by the sunlight. The shot looked terrible for the strobing effect. I watched this movie in 70mm at UA Plaza Theater in Dallas.

My Canon 5D Mark II can shoot some great looking video, but only if certain precautions are made. It's highly prone to baking moire into the footage if the aperture is stopped down (a big reason why so much HDSLR footage is shot with low depth of field). Even worse: camera pans. The rolling shutter makes anything but a slow pan a very big problem for all the wacky skewing distortion it creates. Those issues can be fixed, to a certain degree, with tools like the warp stabilizer in Adobe After Effects. But it comes at a cost of cropping into the shot and outputting a finished image with lower resolution. Canon's fix for this: you can buy an EOS C-series camera for a shit-ton more money.

Fundamentally, I think a lot more movies shot electronically should be embracing the digital look. I think HD video looks a hell of a lot better with the full RGB gamma left intact. We seem to be creeping toward the video look anyway with movies like The Hobbit or Avatar 2 embracing higher frame rates. A lot of average people can't even tell the difference between something shot on film or video, even if it's comparing the look of a feature movie to the look of the six o'clock news.

For all the "film is dead" talk coming from fans of "digital," I don't even understand why those fans want to even imitate the look of film if film is so awful and "digital" is so superior. I think it's pretentious for video to imitate film. I makes me think of some mountain man trying to pretend he's a wolf by wearing the head and hide of a wolf when the simple fact is he's just some crazy man.

| IP: Logged

Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008

posted 09-13-2013 12:09 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Not to disrespect anyone's film threading skills (or skillz, mad skills, etc.) doesn't a projection kind of need to be doing that sort of thing on a regular basis to keep from getting a little "rusty?"

If a theater running some special film-based engagement brings in a veteran projectionist who threaded film for many years, but hadn't touched the stuff in years either, isn't there still some risk of trashing a print. Running a projector isn't as complicated as rocket science, but it isn't as simple as riding a bicycle either.

I can only speak for myself, someone who was never a true projectionist, but I didn't touch a projector once between January 1998 and September 2009, but found myself at a theatre where I needed to be in the booth regularly. Everything came back to me as if the past eleven and a half years never happened, and the only reason any prints got damaged during my watch was because the people who operated that booth in the years before I got there let it go to shit. But we cleaned that place up, got some abused parts replaced, got some new people in that booth and soon thereafter saw those problems in the booth dissipate.

quote: Scott Norwood
From what I have seen, the people who really know film are generally either working at places that need someone with that knowledge (art houses, etc.) or have moved on to other things. They are not working at AMC, Regal, Showcase, and the like.

Except for, you know, those of us who still are working for AMC, Regal, Showcase and the like.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-14-2013 03:38 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
For all the "film is dead" talk coming from fans of "digital," I don't even understand why those fans want to even imitate the look of film if film is so awful and "digital" is so superior. I think it's pretentious for video to imitate film. I makes me think of some mountain man trying to pretend he's a wolf by wearing the head and hide of a wolf when the simple fact is he's just some crazy man.

Not sure if this was directed specifically at me, but I'll reiterate my position on this -- I like the look of film. I think capturing on film is a great idea. But too many bad things can (and do) happen to film after it leaves the camera.

1. The DI is a big deal-breaker for me, as far as printing to film after that bottleneck. Might as well go with the DCP since it will be a few generations closer to that than a film print would be.

2. General release prints haven't looked great in a long, long time. For example, one of my prints this week has a lab splice in reel one and two lab splices in reel two. Another one had excessive jump and weave in two of the reels.

3. The decline of quality film projection. Regardless of who's to blame, or the reasons, or whatever -- the fact remains, film projection became a very hit-or-miss proposition.

Those are my reasons. I'm not in love with "the digital look." I have stated all of this a few times in various threads for nearly a decade now.

And, speaking as a projectionist who handles a lot of repertory material, I'm relieved when I get a DCP because it means I'm not going to get stuck with a lousy film print. That said, I don't "play favorites" when it comes to format. Film or digital, every effort is made to put on the best show possible. The audience comes first.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-14-2013 07:06 AM

Except what I'm seeing on rep titles on DCP is that they can often suck. Sound is all over the place as is the transfer...sometimes nothing more than a dupe off of some home video master.

And wow three whole lab splices just ruins it for you? I'll agree that weave is not an added benefit but shouldn't be the deal breaker (not for me, at least).

Perhaps is the persistence of vision in humans and how the image is different between film projected and video of the same content. I'm a bit torn here...I don't like the video smear but I also don't like the film pulsation from the shutter. I find that I quickly adapt to the shutter flicker but the smear is like ever present scratches...I never quite get used to it. I do prefer "3-wing" shutters as that does negate the shutter flicker though it tends to highlight any lamp flicker (sometimes you can't win).

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-14-2013 11:20 AM

I have complained about some of the disappointing instances of rep titles on DCP, most notably "2001" (highly compressed) and "Ben Hur" (sync issues). However, most are quite good. Certainly better than the typical rep print.

And, yes, I'll complain about lab splices. Especially since they always seem to go through the middle of a frame.

Steve, I don't understand how you can be so intolerant of imperfections -- you're one of the most precise people I know of, and I admire your work and wealth of experience -- and, yet, you condone these kinds of imperfections. Somehow, I'd imagined your head would explode if so much as one lab splice showed up in one of your prints!

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 09-14-2013 05:06 PM

In my day darn near every print had a lab splice joining the A & B reel. In fact I don't recall any that didn't. Splices were a fact of life and if done properly (on the frame line) didn't affect the quality of projection.

Also we rarely saw new prints. Most were hand me downs from other houses; but then again, the guys handling them knew what the hell they were doing.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 09-14-2013 05:13 PM

All of these were mid-frame -- not on frame lines.

None of them appear to be A/B joins. I see those all the time with repertory prints. Those typically fall near the middle of the reel. I'm somewhat more forgiving of those because I understand there is a valid technical reason behind those, and they're always on the frame line.

But wait -- there's more -- Upon reviewing the inspection report, I find that I mis-spoke -- because reel three of the aforementioned movie also contained a lab splice.

| IP: Logged

Rick Raskin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1100
From: Manassas Virginia
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 09-15-2013 08:22 AM

There's no excuse for a mid-frame splice.

| IP: Logged

Paul Gordon
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 580
From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 09-15-2013 08:36 AM

Of note. Most "lab splices" are done in complete darkness on the fly while the film is being processed. There is not time or light to splice in frame.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-15-2013 09:02 AM

And if the splice is done before the film is exposed and printed, there is no frame.

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 09-15-2013 12:07 PM

I love film, but am completely with Manny on lab splices. I hate them and find them to be extremely distracting. In a multiplex environment with multiple prints of the same title, I liked to combine splice-free reels to make at least one 'good' print that would play on the largest screen and (usually) stay around much longer than the other print(s), which might only be on screen for a week or two.

The splices themselves are bad enough, but the fogging that often comes with them is even worse.

I can live with A/B mid-reel splices on prints of older films (as long there are sound pullups...which there sometimes are not!). Anything else is unnecessary and annoying.

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 09-15-2013 01:47 PM

Do I like lab splices? No, I don't like any splices. Does my head explode? No. That sort of distraction, while not welcomed (particularly in the analog days as the loud "crack" would follow" but it is over pretty quickly and doesn't ruin the movie for me.

The same is true for dust and the occasional scratch. I don't like them, they don't add "Charm" despite what some think...but they are not a deal-breaker for me. What does irk me if "we" caused said damage.

I find that occasional blemish is easily ignored (by me). Continual stuff, less so.

| IP: Logged

Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler

Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005

posted 09-15-2013 06:48 PM

I was sent this message from someone attending the GSCA conference in Ottawa: "At last night's Maximum Image awards, [David] Keighley [President of IMAX's post house, DKP, and IMAX's Chief Quality Officer] urged projectionists to stay in the business and theaters to keep them even if they convert to digital. He said digital is not automatic. And he added that another reason is that Nolan wants at least 50 [IMAX] film screens."

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 09-15-2013 07:12 PM

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
urged projectionists to stay in the business and theaters to keep them even if they convert to digital

quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
And he added that another reason is that Nolan wants at least 50 [IMAX] film screens."

There is nothing to say that 35mm or 70mm cannot have a post-digital life. For select screenings and the occasional run, it can be done.

Nobody could of predicted that the chains would of re-installed 70mm projectors for The Master this late in the game.

Can't wait to see "Anamorphic" on the marquee for Interstellar.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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.