Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital vs. Film Cinema

This is topic Digital vs. Film Cinema in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000005

Posted by Frank Manrique on 05-30-1999, 01:07 AM:

We wholeheartedly agree with Mr Redifer' evaluation of the industry's attempt to
absolutely control everything that entails film cinema, this time by begining to
introduce digital imaging technologies into the film theater arena, and gleefully
cheered his shot at the DIVX evil empire!

Our questions regarding the alledged 35mm film resolution matching by
DLP-via-uncompressed digital means also parallel his comments regarding 70mm
film: if indeed they can do 35mm-like image quality, why not go ahead and do
70mm as well? The answer might be: because they can't...nor ever will. Film is
film and electronic-derived images-uncompressed or otherwise-are just that. Sure,
uncompressed digital "cinema" may look fine at first, but we won't be seeing that,
will we? No more than we get to see uncompressed D5 sources for the final
MPG-2 compressed images we then get to see in video [DVD]!

It is ironic that we, in our humble attempts to educate our members, are using film
(when we can obtain it) as our ABSOLUTE reference with which to judge images
proceeding from any video medium available extant (in order to hopefully cause
the electronic industry to produce electronics that could one day close resemble
film), while there are those who are trying just the opposite! Go figure...

By the way, our film setup include a Norelco AA2 35/70mm projector. We need
a manual for it. Any help here?

Posted by Brad Miller on 05-30-1999, 01:07 AM:

I can get you a photocopy of the AA manual. Please e-mail me directly.

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 01-24-2011, 04:49 AM:

It has been 4257 days since the last post.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-24-2011, 04:49 AM:

quote:
why not go ahead and do 70mm as well?

4257 days later, I don't think this is possible.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2011, 07:50 AM:

It's possible, just not yet (see what I did there?).

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-24-2011, 09:55 AM:

Face it -- We're not getting "film resolution" anyway - not even on film.

Film prints (today) are mostly struck from a 2K DI. So the 2K DCP will look better because it's an exact copy of the DI. Film is (at least) a generation away from that, and subject to mechanical artifacts of projection - which includes handling.

And, while I'm sure everyone on here strives to deliver perfect presentations, the vast majority of film presentations are flawed in one way or another. I suspect most of the "perfect" ones are probably flawed, too.

Then there's repertory to consider - if we can't get prints looking right on opening day, what do you suppose they look like a few weeks, months, years later? Don't bother arguing - you KNOW what I'm talking about.

A digital "print" will always look the same from the first day to the last -- provided the technology doesn't become obsolete.

That issue of the technology remaining stable (or at least backwards compatible) is my only real concern about D-Cinema right now. At least we can say that film has remained pretty-much consistent over time. I just showed two silent films yesterday. I changed out the lenses, aperture plates and adjusted the frame rate, but the film still fit into the projector and it still ran. I'll admit, there's something to be said for that.

That said, not all film technology has remained stable: We have seen the demise of Nitrate and certain color film stocks have let us down. Sadly, I'd have to add VistaVision, Cinerama and even 5/70 to the "obsolete" list.

Yes. Even 5/70.

Now, I know a fair number of us have a soft spot for 70mm. So, let me be clear: I'm not saying 5/70 is an inferior format. Just that it's gone.

It's true that prints have survived and it's also true that some theatres can still run them. But, then, it's also true of Nitrate. And, in the case of 5/70, the number of surviving prints is dwindling. The number of surviving prints that will portray the format in its best light is even lower than that.

Was 5/70 superior to 35mm? Yes. "Obsolete" doesn't mean "inferior."

Consider the following:

Many who have seen Nitrate support the claim that it provided a superior image over that rendered by Safety Film.

Similarly, the quality of light from carbon arc is regarded by many (who have seen it) to be superior to Xenon.

Even so...these technologies are obsolete.

And 35mm is going away, too.

I love handling film but I'm also a realist. It's (nearly) time to say goodbye. Goodbyes are sad things. It's okay to cry about it. But realize - that's what's happening here. We're saying goodbye to a loved one.

4257 days later:

...Some of us are (still) in denial...
...Some have moved on to anger...
...Some are trying to rationalize/bargain, and...
...Some have accepted the situation for what it is.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-24-2011, 10:16 AM:

Manny, the brand new theatre at IU....were film projectors installed in the booth?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2011, 10:32 AM:

With film on its way out of commercial movie theaters, the production end of the process is now threatened. A growing number of movies are being shot on video instead of film, regardless of the fact many end up with ass quality imagery. But, hey! It's "digital!"

I was channel surfing a bit Saturday and saw Public Enemies playing on HBO. This movie would have looked so much better if Michael Mann had shot it on film (particularly anamorphic 35mm) rather than shoot video. A lot of this movie was shot in dark settings, areas where even the most advanced video cameras have very serious performance limitations. The end result just doesn't look very good at all. The same is true for Mann's previous couple of all-digital movies.

Black Swan was nominated for the ASC's annual feature film award. I suppose it's more important for the ASC to award cheap run and gun movie-making with 16mm and Canon DSLR cameras rather than open their eyes actually look at the image quality and judge that. If the award is more about the nuts and bolts of the movie making process rather than judging the end result then where the hell is the nuts and bolts process with this movie? There's hardly any lighting design. Significant parts of the movie were shot with available light and with DSLR gain cranked up to 1600 ISO or higher (which kills a lot of resolution). The work that did seem present with lighting was pretty harsh looking. I just don't see this as being award winning cinematography. Any amateur can crank video camera gain and shoot in available light. It's one thing to honor Black Swan for its acting performances, directing, etc. The cinematography is a completely different matter.

Roger Corman used to make movies in the run and gun manner. He'd have crew members park their cars in certain areas and use the headlights to light a scene. How come none of his movies ever won any awards for cinematography? Oh, that's right. They were shot on film instead of "digital."
[Roll Eyes]

The ultimate goal for a movie production's cinematography should be acquiring the best possible, most professional looking image quality. Film still does the job best even when digital tools are used in post. Better image quality is gained through precision film scanning rather than merely capturing the scene using a video camera. Nevertheless so many people are bowled over by that "digital" buzzword and apparently have little to no ability to open their eyes and look at the image quality honestly. If they did look at the image quality honestly fewer movies would be shot on video and the electronics manufacturers would have to work harder on overcoming the limitations to video.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-24-2011, 11:10 AM:

I think the "digital"-as-buzzword theory is starting to wear out. I think the biggest reasons for production's big move to digital are:

- Easier
- Faster
- Cheaper
- Looks just as good as film does on an iPhone

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-24-2011, 11:25 AM:

Mike - Looks just as good as film does on an iPhone. [Mad]

So sad, but so true. Ever striving to reach for mediocrity!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-24-2011, 12:00 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Face it -- We're not getting "film resolution" anyway - not even on film.

Welcome to reality. Film prints are pretty bad these days.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-24-2011, 02:35 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The ultimate goal for a movie production's cinematography should be acquiring the best possible, most professional looking image quality.

I disagree. The ultimate goal of the cinematographer is to tell the story of what is being directed by using the camera. Being dark and grainy with 16mm and digital or super sharp and grande with 70mm.

At the end of the day, it really does not matter to me how, what or the way the movie was filmed. What matters most is if the movie is good. The look of the film is important but the acting/directing and script are more important.

Matthew Libatique sure does know what he is doing. Black Swan was filmed the way it was intentionally.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-24-2011, 02:37 PM:

Manny Knowles not what he saids...

Face it DIs are going to progress to 4K sooner or later...witness some movies like True Grit. A film theatre need spend nothing to get a 4-fold improvement in picture...the 2D DCinema theatre will get nothing as digital just throws that extra data away. Why condemn a format just due to some current but temporary set backs?

As for digital presentations...do you want to tour DCinema theatres and start to count all of the various imperfections in their presentations...but since they are presumed perfect, nothing will be done about them...ever.

Hold your horses in 5/70 being obsolete. I liked the person that said that 70mm isn't dead...it is just starting to smell a bit funny. You can't call the format obsolete when there are new prints being struck, new projectors being made and even new films being made ("The Tree of Life" I believe is using some 65mm equipment). 70mm remains too well supported to declare it obsolete just yet.

Whereas your other items listed like Nitrate (no longer made) and carbon arc...which is still made in small quantities...I know of no new carbon arc equipment and no films being timed for carbon arc light...puts them in a different category than 70mm.

As to 35mm...it will only be obsolete when film can no longer be obtained or processed. Is it heading there? I have one word for that... Kodachrome.

-Steve

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-24-2011, 02:58 PM:

steve said " I liked the person that said that 70mm isn't dead...it is just starting to smell a bit funny"
I love the smell of mag oxide in the morning it is the smell of victory oh sorry wasn't that napalm

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-24-2011, 03:30 PM:

quote: Frank Angel
Manny, the brand new theatre at IU....were film projectors installed in the booth?

Yes.

And we have digital, too. And, lest you think we're playing something contemporary like HARRY POTTER on the Barco - think again. This Wednesday evening we are playing a *repertory* title via a DCP provided by the filmmaker. And this isn't our first rep title via D-Cinema.

I've already had to reject a film print due to its poor condition. Sad to say, the Blu-ray looked better.

I'm looking forward to more repertory via DCP.

quote: Steve Guttag
Hold your horses in 5/70 being obsolete. I liked the person that said that 70mm isn't dead...it is just starting to smell a bit funny. You can't call the format obsolete when there are new prints being struck, new projectors being made and even new films being made ("The Tree of Life" I believe is using some 65mm equipment). 70mm remains too well supported to declare it obsolete just yet.

I think it's time to invent a new term: Film-hugger! [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2011, 07:13 PM:

I wish Mark Gulbrandsen were here to set us straight. He'd tell us about the superior digital cameras as well.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-24-2011, 09:46 PM:

Now, I'll say this: Production-wise, I totally would prefer to originate on film and do everything digital after that.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2011, 10:38 PM:

With the kinds of post production tools that are available there is no need to shoot a scene with inferior equipment and have degraded quality cooked into all aspects of the original image. Mind you, I'm talking about Hollywood studio productions with budgets that can afford shooting on film. It just like the old rule in print graphics publishing: garbage in = garbage out.

When you go into post with an image that has great qualities of color, contrast and spatial detail it gives you more flexibility and choice in how to manipulate it, even to very ugly extremes. Lots of movies are filmed in that very manner. The final "color timed" look is applied in post, not to the original negative. An image that is already degraded due to a camera's built in limitations doesn't provide anywhere near the same level of artistic opportunities.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-24-2011, 10:51 PM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Now, I'll say this: Production-wise, I totally would prefer to originate on film and do everything digital after that.

I mostly agree with that, given that film is some of the highest quality stuff one can shoot on. However, if some filmmaker really wants to make something look really video like out of intent (even though I find that stupid), it could be sensible to shoot with it.

Eventually, 4K, 8K, etc equipment and post will mature, and we may see a new age of epic filmmaking. Well, at least we can hope. Anything is better than this 2K production and post garbage we have now.

AJG

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-24-2011, 10:58 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
When you go into post with an image that has great qualities of color, contrast and spatial detail it gives you more flexibility and choice in how to manipulate it...

It also future-proofs the original images for the higher resolutions yet to come.

The oft-cited case is that of "I Love Lucy" which was shot on film and then broadcast, instead of the other way around -- broadcast live and kinescoped to film from a video monitor. They can go on remastering those episodes at whatever resolution comes next.

I also like the "film look." But I'm talking about the *original* film look - not the bastardized version that comes from internegatives, high-speed printing and everything that follows it.

I've seen some great shows that were captured on film and then finished and projected digitally. That's my personal preference.

quote: Aaron Garman
Eventually, 4K, 8K, etc equipment and post will mature, and we may see a new age of epic filmmaking.

Cameras alone ain't gonna do it. Hollywood people need to get back to telling worthwhile stories. If they can just do that, it really won't matter WHAT they shoot on.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2011, 11:46 PM:

While 4K, 6K and 8K post production standards are worthwhile goals, they're farther out of reach than many realize. Most movies are still posted at 2K. Some movies have their o-negs scanned at 4K but then down-sampled to 2K for other parts of the process (effects compositing, color grading, etc.). It's better than going 2K all the way, but isn't 4K either. Not many movies maintain 4K or better resolution all the way through the production pipeline.

Any hopes of 4K, 6K or 8K presentation rests in the survival of commercial movie theaters. The venues must be there to showcase such technology if it is developed. Without movie theaters we could expect 1080p HDTV resolution as the standard for the foreseeable future.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-25-2011, 01:46 AM:

quote: Manny Knowles
Production-wise, I totally would prefer to originate on film and do everything digital after that.

I saw Social Network tonight on 35mm film. Looked incredible. I also saw "Fair Game" on film and I no idea that it was a digital source.

quote: Manny Knowles
Hollywood people need to get back to telling worthwhile stories

You are right, and that's why Black Swan was such a good movie. Filmed on 16mm, I can't see how 35mm would make it that much better. Same thing with the movie "Enter The Void"..so many intentional out-of-focus shots, it enhanced the movie.

quote: Joe Redifer
wish Mark Gulbrandsen were here to set us straight.

Well, you obviously aren't going to help set us straight, bring on Mark.

quote: Gordon McLeod was the last to post
.it is just starting to smell a bit funny"

I disagree. 70mm is stored nicely in the freezer for future use.

quote: Brad Miller
Film prints are pretty bad these days.

The 35mm print of The Social Network was impressive.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-25-2011, 08:20 AM:

One of the reasons I didn't enjoy "The Social Network" was due to the poor quality of the 35mm film print and the presentation at one of the local AMC's.

Lots of dirt on the print
Excessive jump/weave
Soft focus throughout
Analog sound in need of A-chain alignment

3/4 of these issues would've gone away if this was a digital presentation. The issue of focus would probably have gone away too.

(The other six reasons I didn't like the movie are listed in the Film Handlers Review forum.)

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-25-2011, 08:25 AM:

I have seen several Social Network prints and they all look soft to me. Then again, most (not all) current 35mm prints look soft.

An argument can certainly be made in favor of [dlp]

exhibition of current films, but I do feel strongly that older films (which were originally photographed and intended to be exhibited on film) should be exhibited on film whenever possible, and that distributors have an obligation to make quality prints available of these titles.

Posted by Tom Petrov (Member # 1534) on 01-25-2011, 08:43 AM:

Scott- I agree that films shot on film should be shown on 35, but the distributors could care less. Back to the Future was shown in digital at a local AMC while a few weeks later, it was shown in 35mm at an out of town local

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-25-2011, 08:53 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
distributors have an obligation to make quality prints available of these titles.

I guess it depends on who you ask.

As a moviegoer and an exhibitor, I can see your point. We want quality for our money. We want to fully enjoy the movie and not see a compromised version.

Alas, for the studios, repertory doesn't provide the big payday, so they're not inclined to put money there. They'd probably regard that as a "waste." And, based on damage I've seen done to so many of these prints, I might sort-of see this point (a little).

But let's face it -- the film prints we're getting are, in fact, compromised versions. And, things being what they are, I'd be interested in seeing more DCP's of older movies, taken off the cut negative which, for classics, should be OCN.

At least, this way, the studio can have some assurance that the "print" won't get destroyed. And I can have some assurance that I'm not getting the "new" print that so-and-so just finished trashing a month ago.

The 4K of "Bridge on the River Kwai" looked great and what I have seen so far of the 2K of "The Last Picture Show" looks great too.

SCOTT -- Have you honestly NEVER gotten a print that was so thrashed that you didn't want to show it?

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-25-2011, 09:30 AM:

There needs to be an archival certification program for running of the classic prints. That is, a venue should need to be certified to handle these prints so they DON'T get trashed. Not only should the venue be certified but also the operator(s) that might potentially run the prints.

Part of the problem with prints today (aside from how they are made), is that exhibitors seem to drink the Kool-aide that projection is not a skilled profession and that little to no attention is needed on booth quality and skill-set. As such, if the equipment does not damage the print, the people do. As such, newly struck film prints of classic titles should be kept from such venues. At this point, many archives merely put a "changeover" requirement in. This does tend to ensure that, at least, someone is in the booth but it does not go to the quality of said person nor the level to which the equipment is kept.

When archives are strict about who gets their prints...their aging process slows to a crawl.

That said, it is a rare bird where I would prefer to see a good video version over a bad film version. Yes, there is a point where the film print does become so distracting as to make it unwatchable.

Unlike Manny, I find the 2K image to be such a distraction as to be on par, though certainly different, to reductions in image quality from dirt, focus and such.

Often, the new prints of classic titles do not go through the same process that modern release prints go through. There is no mass production there. They tend to be much higher quality prints.

I think, though I can't certain, yet, that I would not mind the DCPs so much once they hit 4K. 2K is a nice start and a significant improvement over the 1.3K past, but it is NOT a suitable replacement for 35mm and a far cry from 70mm.

DCP definitely has the most promise for the ultimate in movie experience since its resolution can certainly surpass anything we have on film today. However, at 2K, it just isn't there yet. DCP can deliver "EK" print like quality to the masses once it hits 4K...I'm hoping for that. 8K is going to get things closer to 70mm. I'm wondering...when 4K becomes the norm and the occasional 2K DCP shows up or a "classic" that was mastered in 2K is played...will people scoff at its primitive image quality? It wasn't too long ago when the DCP proponents thought the 1.3K stuff was "just as good, if not better" than film. Look at Star Wars some of their stuff is locked in a bygone digital technology...yet Episodes 4-6...shot on film have a brighter future as far as their look goes.

-Steve

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-25-2011, 10:37 AM:

quote: Tom Petrov
I saw Social Network tonight on 35mm film. Looked incredible.

The Social Network isn't all that bad for a movie shot on video, but it doesn't look all great either. The only positive things I can say about the cinematography is the shot compositions are good and the post production people did a better than average job on trying to hide the video look.

Seven had a lot of the same green-brown muted color schemes, but it looked far better in terms of contrast and detail -and that's a movie shot in Super35, not anamorphic. The Social Network would have looked a lot better if Fincher had shot it on film.

quote: Manny Knowles
3/4 of these issues would've gone away if this was a digital presentation.

I watched The Social Network with the movie projected digitally. Even with digital it's still a really dark, kind of urine colored show.

quote: Tom Petrov
Well, you obviously aren't going to help set us straight, bring on Mark.

Joe knows a hell of a lot about shooting video, including its limitations. He also has a Canon EOS 7D camera (the same model used to tape parts of Black Swan). I have a 5D Mark II. We both can get into specifics about the serious drawbacks to shooting video with those cameras, like issues with moiré, the rolling shutter's effect on panning shots, etc. Those are issues you don't have to worry about with shooting film.

quote: Manny Knowles
But let's face it -- the film prints we're getting are, in fact, compromised versions. And, things being what they are, I'd be interested in seeing more DCP's of older movies, taken off the cut negative which, for classics, should be OCN.

This is why I really don't go out of my way to see movies projected on film anymore. If the end product in post production is a near HDTV resolution 2K digital file there's no advantage at all in seeing it projected via film. If anything the print production processs is going to kill some of the already limited detail through generational loss and make matters even worse.

In those rare cases where a movie is truly 4K all the way through post production, or it is produced in the old school film in-film out method (like what Christopher Nolan has been doing) then its worth it to seek out a film presentation, but it's a crap shoot finding presentations featuring film done right.

As far as exhibition goes, digital is here to stay. Film certainly has the capability of hanging around for many years to come on the production side.

Widespread use of 4K projection is the key to getting 100% 4K work flows set as the standard in post production. And that would actually do more to encourage film-based production. You get more detail and contrast (not to mention the native film look) by shooting in 35mm and scanning 4K or even 6K>4K than you do in videotaping 4K with something like the Red camera.

Some recent productions have been using 65mm photography for certain shots where the director wanted to capture as much detail as possible. The International is a good example. Inception is another. If 8K projection arrived in theaters some movie crews might dust off some 65mm camera systems and put them to use. Video cameras are having a hard enough time as it is just trying to match 35mm. I don't see them matching 65mm specs anytime soon.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-25-2011, 10:43 AM:

quote: Steve Guttag
Often, the new prints of classic titles do not go through the same process that modern release prints go through. There is no mass production there. They tend to be much higher quality prints.

Some of them are indeed great.

Our print of "Grapes of Wrath" was stunningly beautiful (Criterion). Crisp focus, deep blacks, clean whites.

And the print of "My Darling Clementine" (UCLA) is in fantastic condition. Can't wait to see that up on screen.

About 2 years ago I handled a rare 35mm print of Steven Spielberg's "Duel." It was perfect. That color looked like fresh, wet paint! I daresay, it looked like Kodachrome.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 01-25-2011, 11:24 AM:

The print of My Darling Clementine...was that the version that was originally tested to audiences but not released? Has a different ending and music which was scored differently than the version that has been available? This may have been the one that AMC (the cable channel) aired during one of it's film preservation festivals in the 90s. I recall UCLA restored that one...

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-26-2011, 12:40 AM:

Was not able to project any of it today - too busy - but UCLA added text at the beginning to provide info about the source of the print, and I believe the description matches what you describe. I'll confirm after projecting.