This is topic A return of 35mm installs for Nolan's next project "Interstellar" ? in forum Ground Level 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=5;t=002708
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 12:34 PM:
I was reading on another forum that the next Christopher Nolan project called "Interstellar" will be filmd in IMAX and 35mm scope.
The studio press release used the words 35mm Anamorphic and IMAX film photography in that order. Also in the press release, it states that the film will be released in IMAX and 35mm theaters on Nov 7th 2014.
With the demise of 35mm reported at the end of 2013. Are we going to see the major chains add 35mm capability for this film in the same fashion as "The Master" which added 70mm? http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2013/08/13/christopher-nolan-interstellar-begins-filming/
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 09-02-2013, 01:04 PM:
A guarantee you this is just a poorly written press release. There is no way in hell the people putting $200m+ in to this project will forgo the many theatres built in the past 5-10 years that have never had a 35mm projection system, just because of some hard-on Mr. Nolan has for celluloid.
I remember, a couple years ago, how Mr. Nolan actually thought it would be possible for IMAX digital houses to install 15/70 systems side-by-side in order to run TDKR as he wished. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 01:24 PM:
Edward, the side by side digital/film IMAX theaters did exist and did happen. Cineplex has a few that can do both and world's biggest screen in Australia can do both currently. These were 15/70 that were able to do digital as well.
I don't think the studio will ignore digital houses, but installing 35mm in some chain theaters is not out of the question. 70mm was done for the Master, why not a big budget movie?
Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 09-02-2013, 01:52 PM:
Well perhaps we should have all kept a 35mm machine, like I did. So excited to be giving it a run for a public (paying) show next week (and again two weeks later)
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 02:33 PM:
Steve, I am sure there will be some 35mm somewhere for a handful of 35mm installations if this were in fact true.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-02-2013, 02:44 PM:
Assuming that the above is true, it sounds great in principle, even if it just means that the 35mm prints will be released in advance of the ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif)
version.
Somehow, though, I fear that this will result in lots of trashed prints. I am willing to bet that most of the places that have installed no longer employ anyone who is competent in 35mm projection, even if they kept some 35mm equipment around.
But, still, for the venues that support 35mm, have good equipment, and have competent people to run it, this is good news.
Regarding The Master: did anyone actually do a new 70mm installation for this? My understanding is that most or all of these engagements were done in venues that already had 70mm capability, but maybe needed DTS or new 1.85 70mm aperture plates and lenses or some other relatively minor upgrades.
Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 09-02-2013, 02:44 PM:
My theater has one of the reinstalled 15/70mm IMAX projectors, and we had to run TDKR on it. That just sucked. It was nothing but a pain, and very very not worth it. I'm now a little horrified at the thought that he'd want everyone to run his next project in 35mm. This is Christopher Nolan we're talking about. If anyone had the will and ability to make that happen, it's him. Granted, that's not as insane or annoying as running IMAX film, but it's still another hassle that I'd really like to not go through again.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 02:47 PM:
John, would you rather just have sucky 2K IMAX digital then?
quote: Scott Norwood
Regarding The Master: did anyone actually do a new 70mm installation for this? My understanding is that most or all of these engagements were done in venues that already had 70mm capability, but maybe needed DTS or new 1.85 70mm aperture plates and lenses or some other relatively minor upgrades.
In Toronto Ontario, the Varsity added everything to a former 35mm theater that had been running digital. It was all used second hand equipment of course. There was no 35mm at the facility when 70mm was added.
Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 09-02-2013, 02:56 PM:
I hold that our IMAX digital system is unusually good. I was actually quite surprised at how crisp it looked when we first had it installed, especially since we do have a decent sized IMAX screen (none of that IMAX lite crap). Besides, most of the movies coming out in IMAX these days were shot and distributed in 2K anyway. Only a handful of the releases I saw when we had IMAX film were actually sharp enough to take advantage of it, and it doesn't look like that's improved over the years. It's kinda sad, actually. :/
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-02-2013, 03:07 PM:
True 15-perf 70mm film projection of 15/65mm originated material isn't worth it? As opposed to HDTV resolution video blown up to a size way past acceptable scale? Puh-leeze!
If booth operator convenience is the top priority, I'll go one better: I won't visit the theater. That will be one less ticket to justify even pressing a "start" button.
With Interstellar I strongly doubt Nolan would be able to get away with a film-only release. Theaters built in the last few years were built only. Quite a few theaters that have converted to have left 35mm intact side by side on at least one or two screens. The Carmike theater in my town has 35mm capability on 2 screens. But I don't know what's going to happen with that theater when a new 13 screen complex opens a few blocks away next year. I agree with the concerns quite a few 35mm prints could be trashed.
Personally, I don't really care all that much about 35mm showings of Interstellar. But if Nolan is going to film significant parts of the movie in 15/65mm then real IMAX film based projection damned sure does make a giant difference.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-02-2013, 03:10 PM:
I run both film and digital, and I'm aware of the benefits of each.
However, regardless of shooting format, if those film prints come from a DI, then the digital "prints" will be closer to the original source material, and the final screening will look just as good as the first.
In that case, I'd prefer to show (and see) the digital print. But that's just me.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 03:13 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I strongly doubt Nolan would be able to get away with a film-only release
I think we can assume that Nolan is not going for a 35mm only release. But a few hundred screens out of a 3000 release feature is possible. Nolan was able to convince the chains to keep 15/70 as IMAX Digital was being installed.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-02-2013, 03:15 PM:
At this point, it all just seems like ego mania to me -- a few film makers testing out how much power they can wield. Enough already!
The studios effectively forced cinemas to junk their film equipment and go to great expense to transition to digital...and now they're giving special treatment to cinemas that have film equipment?
In terms of Hollywood releases, if film makes any sort of comeback -- especially in relation to the so-called "tent pole" releases -- I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were lawsuits.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 03:27 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were lawsuits
I highly doubt the big chains are going to have any problem installing a dozen or so 35mm projectors in major cities for a huge movie. The mom and pops can get the digital copy.
Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 09-02-2013, 03:35 PM:
Referring back to Scott's question about 70mm setups for "The Master": I can confirm that BOTH of the 70mm showcases for that movie in L.A. were done with "rented" equipment. It ran at the Arclight Hollywood, and at the Landmark, in West L.A. The same guy provided a full setup of Norelco DP70s and platters for each venue. The projectors remained for the duration of the initial commercial run screenings, and the installation at the Arclight actually had a brief re-engagement of "The Master" somewhere around Oscar time early this year. But the last I heard, from someone who's been in there recently, is that all that 70mm equipment is once again "gone with the wind".
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 03:41 PM:
Paul, I believe the Varsity in Toronto and kept them for the re-release of The Master as well.
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 09-02-2013, 04:03 PM:
quote: John Roddy
I was actually quite surprised at how crisp it looked when we first had it installed.
From where? The booth?
How does it look from the front third of the auditorium?
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-02-2013, 04:33 PM:
Come on Geoff, we all know that 15/70 is superior to Lie-Max. Don't pay attention to John.
Bobby already said it well in the below quote,
quote:
As opposed to HDTV resolution video blown up to a size way past acceptable scale? Puh-leeze!
Most people on here would appreciate any 35mm screening over a digital show, Manny K included. We don't even need to mention 70mm.
Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 09-02-2013, 04:34 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I highly doubt the big chains are going to have any problem installing a dozen or so 35mm projectors in major cities for a huge movie.
From my experience with one of the UK's large chains all the projection equipment was destroyed at the switch to digital.
They would also have difficulties staffing film projection as the majority of projection staff (not that many of them were trained projectionists) received P45 (pink slip) when their site went digital.
It would be a nice boost to the more specialist cinemas (with film still in operation) to get a few weeks exclusivity on a main release although not all of them would be able to fully staff themselves for full time film showing.
I suspect the two largest screens in Edinburgh capable of (easily) showing 35mm have projectors built in the 1950s.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-02-2013, 07:32 PM:
quote:
Most people on here would appreciate any 35mm screening over a digital show, Manny K included.
BULL. SHIT.
Anybody who knows me knows that I would not prefer "ANY" 35mm screening. Indeed, I wouldn't condone most 35mm screenings. No offense to the medium, but I've seen too many bad things happen on-screen. And I've seen it too often.
And, as I've said repeatedly here on F-T, a new 35mm print derived from a DI is inferior to the DCP. I'd rather show the DCP and be "that much closer" to the original source.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-02-2013, 09:40 PM:
A digital intermediate or lack thereof is really the big variable on whether showing a 35mm print is worth it. Nolan has done old school style film-in/film-out post production work on previous films.
The biggest negative aspect of DI is the thing being rendered at 1080p HD or 2K resolution. Some DI's are rendered in 1080p and blown up slightly to 2K. I don't think that is acceptable even though the majority of d-cinema installations are 2K resolution including all the IMAX digital installations.
A 2K DI output to 35mm will have less than 1080p HD resolution thanks to generational loss that does occur in the high speed film printing process. Add to that the declining quality of 35mm release prints in recent years. If a movie had its post production "color timing" work finished as a 2K digital intermediate then the movie is only good watching in a modest 2K resolution d-cinema theater.
If the DI is rendered in 4K resolution or higher that might help a 35mm release print look better than the same show projected in 2K , but that's only if the lab did a really good job making the 35mm prints and if the theater does a good job showing that print.
With IMAX 15/70mm film there's just such a huge difference between that giant film format and what one can see in mere HD resolution that it is worth it to make the 15/70 prints if a lot or all of the movie was shot on 15/65mm negatives.
I see no point at all in taking a movie shot with 2K video cameras or rendered in a 2K DI and blown up to 15/70 IMAX film prints. I think that's an absolute waste of time.
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-02-2013, 11:29 PM:
Note: The Dark Knight Rises did not use a DI.
I don't think Inception did either.
I'd imagine Interstellar will be the same.
If this has an exclusive film (35 or 70) engagement, and by 2014 all the chains have converted, does this leave art houses, mostly staffed by competent people, to run this film? I'd actually be ok with that!
AJG
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-03-2013, 12:45 AM:
Only the purest of live-action scenes would truly be an "all film workflow."
Any VFX that were not created photochemically -- i.e. any CGI -- would be "filmed out" from a DI, versus a true "optical" negative.
Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 09-03-2013, 02:30 AM:
What an interesting topic. I've been wondering the same thing recently.
I mean, SURELY they wouldn't do a 35mm only run. I really doubt they'd even release it to film houses a week early.
But there is that part of me that actually wants it to happen because I happen to work at a location that would fall under the film umbrella and what a sight that'd be to have it open that flick first........ Not that I'm saying it'd be done 'right' because the sound hasn't been so much as touched in a decade but still.......
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 09-03-2013, 08:33 AM:
No studio in its right mind would release a major budget film to ONLY 35mm and IMAX screens this far into the digital exhibition age, and I'm guessing that no director, including Nolan, has the clout to demand it. In addition to an immediate loss of industry credibility at the exhibitor level, there would be a revolt among shareholders, who will expect maximum return on investment. Look at what is happening over at Sony, where a minority hedge-fund owner is causing an uproar over under-performance of the studio division. Possibly, possibly, the film might get a film-exclusive window, a week or so. But I'm betting against it. In fact, I'm hoping against it because frankly, all these guys like Nolan, Pfister, Spielberg and their holier-than-thou "I still use film" chest-pounding is getting awfully goddamned tedious.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-03-2013, 08:39 AM:
Buck, it is great to see that you are excited. And you are right, there is no chance at all that the studio would do an all film run for the movie. I believe some of the former 15/70 theaters have kept their 15/70 equipment for a special run like this. If the studios and theater chains would do the unprecedented thing of added 70mm for a very small run of The Master, then adding some 35mm to a few theaters in each major city is something that can be done.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-03-2013, 10:03 AM:
quote: Mark Ogden
I'm hoping against it because frankly, all these guys like Nolan, Pfister, Spielberg and their holier-than-thou "I still use film" chest-pounding is getting awfully goddamned tedious.
The "chest pounding" going on there is primarily about the production format, not the exhibition format. While video cameras have been getting better, they still have a lot of improvements to make before anyone can make truly honest claims of them beating 4-perf 35mm on every quality level. Right now that isn't happening. Some video-originated movies, like Ted for instance, look really terrible.
So if guys like Spielberg, Tarantino or Nolan want to continue to shoot movies on film I say more power to them.
If someone like Christopher Nolan is going to go farther and shoot a movie in 5/70mm or even 15/70mm then there ought to be some way to show that content on a 5/70mm or 15/70mm film print. There is no video camera system or d-cinema projection system in existence that compares favorably to 70mm.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-03-2013, 10:24 AM:
Spielberg says he likes the smell of film and it's essentially an emotional attachment. He admitted this during a talk at USC. I was there.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 09-03-2013, 10:50 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
While video cameras have been getting better, they still have a lot of improvements to make before anyone can make truly honest claims of them beating 4-perf 35mm on every quality level.
Yeah? Right now, high-end digital cameras, the Red Epic, the Arriflex Alexea, the Sony F65, EXCEED 35mm resolution, EXCEED 35mm spectral response, EXCEED 35mm in low light response by a large margin, and, in log mode come within a stop of full 35mm dynamic range (and if you operate the Red in HDX mode, it EXCEEDS 35mm dynamic range by two stops).
So where exactly is it that digital falls off on 35mm? In the magical, dancing film grains?
quote: Manny Knowles
Spielberg says he likes the smell of film and it's essentially an emotional attachment
And that's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you admit that it is just that, and you don't try to criticize or become high-handed to your fellow film-makers who have moved on.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-03-2013, 11:24 AM:
quote: Mark Ogden
Yeah? Right now, high-end digital cameras, the Red Epic, the Arriflex Alexea, the Sony F65, EXCEED 35mm resolution, EXCEED 35mm spectral response, EXCEED 35mm in low light response by a large margin, and, in log mode come within a stop of full 35mm dynamic range (and if you operate the Red in HDX mode, it EXCEEDS 35mm dynamic range by two stops).
Based on whose claims? Those of fanboys employed by the companies making the equipment?
The Arri Alexa has a native resolution of 2880 X 1620, but that's only if you use ARRIRAW. It down-samples to 1080p if you output to HD-SDI or ProRes. That isn't exactly the 4K level many are using as a loose guide of sorts for what passes as 35mm film resolution. Sony and Red have native 4K cameras. The Red Epic Dragon can shoot 6K material.
The way the footage is recorded and manipulated is another issue. Just how many movie productions originating on video are shooting in native 4K resolution? How many are shooting everything in deep color depths, like 16-bits per RGB channel or even higher than that? How many productions maintain that color depth all the way through the work flow and output it to the DCP? I'm willing to be not many bother. Bandwidth and storage requirements are already challenging for uncompressed 4K material at basic 8-bit depths. If the movie is only going to be in theaters for just a month and be on Blu-ray only a season later the bean counters are going to be asking "why bother?"
Anyone can plainly see what's happening in the finished results. Modern video cameras do well in brightly lit scenes, but low light performance is still an especially nagging issue. Even the very best video camera systems can fall all over themselves, creating a muddy, smeary mess that is pure hell for any post production worker trying to color grade away that pasty video look. It's pretty hard to do if the footage looks like something from a surveillance camera system.
I suspect the engineers designing these camera sensors have been doing the same thing that has been going on with DSLR sensors for many years: they record a lot more levels of detail and color on the right, highlight end of the histogram and a lot less to the left, shadow side. DSLR chips aren't linear in the steps they record from absolute dark to light.
Too many movie productions shooting on video are lighting night time location shoots as if they're still shooting on film. I don't think the cameras are designed to handle that.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-03-2013, 11:27 AM:
If George Lucas was unable to get a film company to a digital-only release of a Star Wars film, there's no way on this or any other planet that Christopher Nolan would be able to order a 35mm-only release on an unproven sci-fi title, especially when so many expensive sci-fi movies have bombed recently.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 09-03-2013, 11:41 AM:
Terry, the IMAX houses that played TDKR in 15/70 were either houses that were pre-existing 15/70 houses that had yet to go digital or 15/70 houses that had IMAX digital projectors installed in their booth sometime before TDKR but kept their 15/70 system intact for something like TDKR.
You can bet your bottom dollar theatre owners of IMAX digital booths not specifically built for 15/70 did not spend an additional $5-7m to convert their booths for 15/70 play capabilities for one movie that was only going to play for 12 weeks maximum with no guarantee they'd ever be provided another 15/70 print of any other movie, and not come within 20% of grossing what it cost to do the retrofit (neither the Metreon nor Lincoln Square, the two largest IMAX 15/70 houses in the two largest markets to play TDKR in 15/70, grossed more than $1.5m on their 15/70 presentations), especially considering they would have to give up ~50% of the gross.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 09-03-2013, 02:43 PM:
We held on to our 35 mm machines when we went digital almost a year ago. I miss film about as much as I would miss getting hit on the head with a hammer.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-03-2013, 04:01 PM:
There is no justification in adding 15/70mm projection equipment to a theater built originally for IMAX Digital. The screens in IMAX-D theaters aren't in the correct aspect ratio for 15/70 projection; they're too wide (more like HDTV aspect ratio). IMAX-D screens are also relatively small compared to the screen sizes in IMAX theaters made for film projection.
Inversely, it's far better to watch an IMAX Digital show in a theater built only for IMAX Digital. With the screen being more modestly sized that limited 2K resolution image isn't being blown up quite so big, soft and fuzzy.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-04-2013, 12:12 AM:
Edward, I never said the digital only IMAX mulitplex theaters installed 15/70. There were a number of 15/70 theaters in my area that converted to digital, then they purposely kept the film projectors for the release of TDKR. I would assume that these theaters could still use the projectors if needed.
quote: Mark Ogden
So where exactly is it that digital falls off on 35mm? In the magical, dancing film grains?
That is funny ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-04-2013, 09:23 AM:
Those magical dancing film grains are still beating digital video in the various areas I've already explained numerous times. Mark believes digital video has been better than film-based photography for many years, despite the fact the cameras, data pipe lines, storage systems and software all still have improvements to make.
The fact remains movies shot on film typically look better than movies shot on video.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-04-2013, 09:55 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The fact remains movies shot on film typically look better than movies shot on video.
The low level/dark night scenes of Skyfall looked better than the lower level/dark night scenes of the The Dark Knight Rises.
Bobby, there are trade-offs of using both film and digital. Most of the interviews that I have seen with the leading professionals in the industry usually highlight the fact that with digital, they are usually able to take more risks and chances because they are getting to see the what they are recording right then and there.
Roger Deakins, who is arguable one of the most respected cinematographers currently working is a big fan of digital. He loves the look of and he was the one who was able to convince the director of Skyfall to shoot it with a digital camera. Skyfall was a digitally shot feature that went on to get a nomination for cinematography, it had a good number of dark scenes. I strongly urge you to watch Skyfall, the Shanghai building scene is outstanding and the climax is all filmed in low light, it looked very good in digital, 35mm and 15/70 which I was lucky enough to sample all three of.
Back to Nolan, he is a really big fan of shooting on film, he thinks it is very reliable and film is a classic way of making movies. In today's day and age, it is really nice to see a film maker appreciate what film has to offer.
From what I have seen from a 35mm and digital projector working at the same complex is that 35mm projects low quality night/dark scenes much better than a 2K digital projector.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-04-2013, 12:25 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The low level/dark night scenes of Skyfall looked better than the lower level/dark night scenes of the The Dark Knight Rises.
I absolutely disagree with that. While Skyfall did look better than a lot of video-originated movies, its weakest looking parts were the darker scenes. That especially goes for the sequences near the end of the movie. The shots of the burning building looked terrible.
The only "bad" thing, and that is bad as in subjective, about the lower light scenes in The Dark Knight Rises was the low depth of field of the IMAX footage. However, a lot of people happen to like that low DOF look, which is a huge reason why shooting video with DSLR camera bodies is so popular.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Most of the interviews that I have seen with the leading professionals in the industry usually highlight the fact that with digital, they are usually able to take more risks and chances because they are getting to see the what they are recording right then and there.
That is absolutely placing convenience ahead of image quality.
I can accept a comedy production shooting footage electronically to allow actors to improv on and on without having to worry about the capacity of a film magazine. However, hard drive space isn't limited either, especially if the production is recording the video in any sort of raw, uncompressed or lossless compressed format.
Convenience has caused big parts of the camera industry to fall backwards. The really shitty cameras in smart phones are now, by far, the most used cameras in the world for both still and video imagery. That's all because of convenience. Their use far exceeds that of point and shoot cameras, mirrorless interchangable lens cameras and DSLRs. Does that make smart phones better? Absolutely hell no.
Smart phones are squeezing the sales of traditional camera companies bad enough that they're doing all kinds of things I find illogical, such as Sony launching a "lens type" camera that mounts to a smart phone. I don't expect smart phone users to attach some lens looking gizmo to their phone to take pictures even if the pictures look a hell of a lot better and the lens thingie offers real optical zoom. Smart phone users are happy enough with fake digital zoom. Why bother attaching a real zoom lens?
I see Acer announcing a 6-inch smart phone with 4K resolution video recording. The optical effects of diffraction are a bitch when a tiny lens and tiny image sensor are involved. Add limited data storage capacity on the phone to that equation and the "4K" video is going to be compressed to new standards of severity. But customers might not care about any of those details. Hell, they might not even care about the 4K for that matter. Sony's new Xperia Z1 smart phone boasts a 20.7 megapixel camera. Not only is diffraction going to play a role in watering down the actual amount of detail recorded, the microscopic size of each pixel on the imager will make it very difficult to record good color fidelity and contrast. HTC went the opposite direction with the HTC One, going with a 5 megapixel camera with larger pixels on the sensor compared to the 8 megapixel camera on previous models.
But who cares about any of that? Snap the photo and share it to Instagram in a couple clicks.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-04-2013, 12:26 PM:
The low light scenes (blacks) are really my only digital complaint. Other than that I'm with Bill Enos's post above.
On the subject of real cameras vs. smartphones.....the people who really want to take good pictures will probably still buy good cameras. The fall-off is in the snapshot market. Those people mostly don't care about huge prints or amazing amounts of detail. They just want to remember the good time they had. I've found the iPhone is pretty good in low light -- but it completely falls down on concert photos, because the onstage performers who are brightly lit get washed out. iPhone is also not good for sunsets.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 09-04-2013, 01:12 PM:
quote:
Mark believes digital video has been better than film-based photography for many years,
Let’s be very very clear about what Mark believes and doesn’t believe, shall we there, Sparky?
I saw Fruitvale Station a few weeks back. Very intense, urban drama. The 16mm cinematography suited the picture very well. A low end digital camera probably would have worked just as well. What would NOT have worked is shooting in 6K on a Red, or in 70mm SuperUltraOrgazmoScope. It would have been utterly inappropriate for the subject matter.
Few days ago I saw Europa Report, a small independently produced science fiction film shot on Sony PMW series CineAltas (since this is a so-called “found footage” picture, the cameras are supposedly part of a space-ship’s equipment). Really a well done shoot, absolutely pristine images and crystal clear lowlights. You know what would have ruined it? Your magical, dancing film grain. It wouldn’t have worked for the story, or for the mood of the picture.
See where I am going with this?
Whether you want to believe it or not, what I said above is true: digital cameras now typically exceed 35mm in resolution, low light handling and chromatic response, and are very close in dynamic range, and a sharply increasing number of cinematographers and digital imaging professionals are behind me on this . I don’t have the energy, time or patience to write a lengthy technical argument, but from your posts you clearly do not understand the difference between linear, logarithmic and RAW sampling and the reasons for using either vis-à-vis digital workflows (actually, I have a feeling that you DO understand, but are deliberately withholding in front of the rest of the forum because it would mean conceding a point). The rest of your arguments come from a position far behind the current cutting edge of digital pipeline and storage, which never seems to be an issue among digital professionals.
So here is what Mark really believes: digital capture is perfectly acceptable for shooting motion pictures. But is it BETTER than film?
I dunno. What movie are we talking about? Will a picture be better served aesthetically by the appearance of grain, or any other attribute that can be described as “film-like”? It will? I guess, for that project, film is better. For others, it’s a wash. For others, digital works just fine.
****
But since I believe in leaving 'em with a smile, here is a piece of our shared cinema history, Bobby.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-04-2013, 01:45 PM:
quote: Mark Ogden
So here is what Mark really believes: digital capture is perfectly acceptable for shooting motion pictures. But is it BETTER than film?
I dunno. What movie are we talking about?
I totally agree with this.
And, did you notice? He claimed to know my thoughts as well:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Most people on here would appreciate any 35mm screening over a digital show, Manny K included.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-04-2013, 01:57 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
On the subject of real cameras vs. smartphones.....the people who really want to take good pictures will probably still buy good cameras. The fall-off is in the snapshot market. Those people mostly don't care about huge prints or amazing amounts of detail. They just want to remember the good time they had. I've found the iPhone is pretty good in low light -- but it completely falls down on concert photos, because the onstage performers who are brightly lit get washed out. iPhone is also not good for sunsets.
The cameras in the iPhone and most other smart phones suck for multiple reasons. Most lack any real manual controls, which is critical if you're wanting to take a good sunset photo. The sensors are very slow, particularly in any low light setting. That makes them unacceptable for action photography or just about anything else with movement. AFAIK none of the smart phones on the market have a true optical zoom lens. It's just fake, digital zoom that crops into the sensor and artificially up-rezzes it.
People who do care enough about image quality will buy a better quality camera, be it a point and shoot model or an even better model using interchangeable lenses. Unfortunately I believe those customers are a small minority. There's not enough of them to sustain certain affordable to mid-range segments of the camera market. Relatively speaking there's probably big concerns about DSLRs eating into the high end market normally dominated by companies like Hasselblad, PhaseOne & Mamiya.
Too many think a smart phone is good enough. They'll even be bowled over by the huge megapixel counts of some phones (Nokia's Lumina 1020 has a 41 megapixel camera) and foolishly think the devices are equal to a DSLR. Deep down they know a compromise in quality is being made, but they live with it out of convenience.
The same thing is happening in movie production. Studios are spending more money than ever on productions. But they're rushing through projects faster and faster rather than raising the quality bar any higher. Many of us have complained about bad looking CGI, fuzzy 2D/3D conversions, bad sound mixes and other stuff that smacks of rushing through something with "good enough" standards instead of taking the time to do it right/great. Let's also not forget all the damned scripts churned out according to the Save The Cat beat sheet template.
Shooting movies on video adds to that whole push for immediate convenience over pursuing best image quality. That mindset doesn't make much sense to me on a major studio project, especially if it is a big budget production that put a fortune into the sets, costumes, stunts, practical effects, etc. But it's nothing new either. I haven't been a particularly big fan of the Super35 film format (as opposed to anamorphic full frame 4/35 or 5/65), but look how much that was used in the last 25 years.
Christopher Nolan is one of very few filmmakers in Hollywood pushing things in the other direction, putting quality ahead of convenience.
Posted by Bajsic Bojan (Member # 4928) on 09-04-2013, 02:02 PM:
Maybe this is going hand in hand ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Speculation on what it all means?
quote:
Kodak Emerges From Bankruptcy Vowing To Continue Supplying Film To Hollywood
By DAVID LIEBERMAN, Financial Editor | Tuesday September 3, 2013 @ 5:59pm
Entertainment is a small part of the overall company as it sheds the Chapter 11 protection for which it filed in January 2012: Kodak CEO Antonio Perez characterizes the photography pioneer as “a technology company serving imaging for business markets” including product goods packaging and electronic touchscreens. Still, Kodak has the lion’s share of the film market as the number of movie and TV show creators who prefer to work with film instead of digital images diminishes and rivals including Fujifilm abandon the movie film business. In June, Kodak struck an agreement to provide motion picture film to Fox’s movie and TV studios. That gave it contracts with six major studios including Disney, Warner Bros, NBCUniversal, Paramount Pictures, and Sony Pictures. Kodak Entertainment and Commercial Films President Andrew Evenski calls his operation “a stable and profitable division of the company,” adding that he remains confident in “our ongoing ability to provide value to the motion picture and television industries”. Kodak emerges from bankruptcy with more than $800M in cash, $500M in equity, and $695M in debt. That should make it “a formidable competitor” with “a strong capital structure, a healthy balance sheet, and the industry’s best technology,” Evenski says. Kodak turned its Personalized Imaging and Document Imaging business over to the pension plan that covers its UK subsidiary.
Kodak back
Posted by Dan Kessler (Member # 6607) on 09-04-2013, 03:28 PM:
quote: Manny Knowles
Only the purest of live-action scenes would truly be an "all film workflow."
Any VFX that were not created photochemically -- i.e. any CGI -- would be "filmed out" from a DI, versus a true "optical" negative.
This is a little bit misleading. One is not automatically constrained to go with a DI just to accommodate CGI or scanned live-action. While many will opt for that typical 2K route because it's "good enough" or "costs less (maybe)" and for most movies it doesn't matter anyway, fx elements can be scanned and filmed out at whatever rez one chooses, e.g., 4k, 8k, etc. Those sections can be intercut with the original neg like any other piece of film.
We can keep it pure if we want to.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-04-2013, 03:58 PM:
Intercutting CGI elements with "old school" film-in/film-out 35mm was the norm in the 1990s. The downside to that approach is possible shifts in color, resolution and contrast between the segments of film footage and CGI. A digital intermedate as well as modern node-based effects compositing tools (that marry live action footage and CGI together) prevent those jump cuts in image quality. My favorite example of such a jump cut is in Jurassic Park where the T-Rex chases Iam Malcolm towards the outhouse. I don't know if they fixed it on the Blu-ray, but you can clearly see a big color shift on 35mm and DVD when the CGI T-Rex is cut into the sequence, replacing the full size animatronic T-Rex.
quote: Mark Ogden
Whether you want to believe it or not, what I said above is true: digital cameras now typically exceed 35mm in resolution, low light handling and chromatic response, and are very close in dynamic range, and a sharply increasing number of cinematographers and digital imaging professionals are behind me on this . I don’t have the energy, time or patience to write a lengthy technical argument, but from your posts you clearly do not understand the difference between linear, logarithmic and RAW sampling and the reasons for using either vis-à-vis digital workflows (actually, I have a feeling that you DO understand, but are deliberately withholding in front of the rest of the forum because it would mean conceding a point). The rest of your arguments come from a position far behind the current cutting edge of digital pipeline and storage, which never seems to be an issue among digital professionals.
I'm just going by what I am seeing in the finished product. If all the performance claims of video vs. film were true I shouldn't be seeing any faults in video-based cinematography at all.
I can go so far to say certain state of the art video cameras can beat a motion picture camera in low light handling, chromatic response and dynamic range. However, those performance claims kind of depend on the camera's wide native RGB gamma range being left unaltered. No movie productions are shooting video and leaving the footage looking like video. They all post process the footage to make it look more like film, along with doing other color grading chores. Those additional steps can introduce a lot of problems if the original footage doesn't have enough bits of color depth to withstand all the pushing and pulling that's going to happen to the tone curve. Unless the camera manufacturers and software engineers can do some better tricks with color look up tables, not to mention boosting the performance of the image sensors themselves, movie-makers are going to have to shoot in wider, disc-hogging color bandwidths.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 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.
Posted by Dan Kessler (Member # 6607) on 09-04-2013, 06:17 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Intercutting CGI elements with "old school" film-in/film-out 35mm was the norm in the 1990s. The downside to that approach is possible shifts in color, resolution and contrast between the segments of film footage and CGI. A digital intermedate as well as modern node-based effects compositing tools (that marry live action footage and CGI together) prevent those jump cuts in image quality. My favorite example of such a jump cut is in Jurassic Park where the T-Rex chases Iam Malcolm towards the outhouse. I don't know if they fixed it on the Blu-ray, but you can clearly see a big color shift on 35mm and DVD when the CGI T-Rex is cut into the sequence, replacing the full size animatronic T-Rex.
Yeah, I was going to mention it was standard procedure before DI's.
Node-based compositors were around then, too, by the way.
DI's were the offspring of that whole CG pipeline.
As to the problem of mismatches, avoiding them was always part of the job.
Sure wouldn't let that stop me from shooting on film.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-05-2013, 12:26 AM:
I have never been against shooting on film, if it's right for the project.
I do appreciate the film look. I think the "captured on film look" comes across just fine in digital presentation. Especially since the DCP is closer to the source material than a contemporary film print would be. And, of course, the lack of film damage which, unlike some people, I do not find "charming" at all.
Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 09-05-2013, 02:57 AM:
Wouldn't it be a hoot if some theatres or even chains started asking around if there were any collectors that they might borrow (rent) some 35mm projection equipment from?
Could you keep a straight face long enough to carry out the whole transaction?
I know. I know... never happen. Still, just the image in my mind makes me smile.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-05-2013, 08:49 AM:
Jim, I am certain most chains have some equipment stored somewhere, not a lot but there has got to be some units.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 09-05-2013, 12:24 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Jim, I am certain most chains have some equipment stored somewhere, not a lot but there has got to be some units.
Oh, I know. It's just the sitcom of my imagination.
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...
Weelllllllllllll...
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 09-05-2013, 04:20 PM:
Since I enjoy the current state of digital projection like a sludge hammer to the head sideways I hope Nolan pulls off some film projecting nostalgia!
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-05-2013, 06:26 PM:
I wonder which version was nominated--the film or the digital?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-06-2013, 01:11 AM:
The old Christie CP2000-S model was flat out lacking in contrast. Any other series 2 DLP projector (Barco, NEC, Christie) will produce a noticeably better image. As such, I wouldn't say that comparison was too great.
What I've seen is that the 35mm release prints over the last year are absolute fucking shit. (And yes I'm trying to censor myself for the kids here.) As long as that is the quality of 35mm printing being sent out...good riddance.
Your mileage may vary in other parts of the world, but for the US and Canada, we're stuck with the worst lab printing ALL of the films. Good ol Deluxe Toronto. Deluxe in LA used to do good work, but Toronto has always been lacking just like back when they were called "The Film House". They sucked then too.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-09-2013, 05:45 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
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.
quote: Steve Guttag
The fact remains, for joe-blow...even 2K DCP is going to give them a better show than a "typical" release print.
Steve, this is a vital part of my overall argument. I'm not only concerned about dirt and scratches. My point is film ain't what it used to be, and neither are projectionists. And this is why we can't have nice things.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2013, 08:41 PM:
Film, itself is as good as ever (except maybe nitrate). The labs are an issue but it isn't a requirement.
There is no REASON why film can't be presented well. I've seen enough "new" prints at the AFI/Silver of rep titles to know that the industry can indeed produce quality product.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-09-2013, 09:35 PM:
Steve, I think we are in basic agreement. (Is that really so awful?)
The two quotes I presented from your post are major aspects of my opinion on the subject.
I've never argued against what film is technically capable of. Instead, I have always framed my opinion in terms of what's actually going on, as well as what is likely/unlikely.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-09-2013, 10:05 PM:
I do think you seem to see film for all of its flaws and digital for all of its strengths. I see them both for both their strengths and weaknesses.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-09-2013, 10:18 PM:
I'm just a realist. Film is going/gone and it doesn't matter whether Nolan, Anderson or you or I or anybody else values its strengths.
Sure! I appreciate film's strengths, but defending film as the major mode of presentation is a waste of time. Ultimately, the industry will have its way.
I don't live in a hypothetical world. I live in the real world. The world where film was routinely showing major signs of wear (i.e. trashed) before the first screening on opening day.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-10-2013, 01:19 PM:
Manny; as bad as it seems, in a (short) period of time, there will be no one currently employeed by "local" cinemas who will even be able to thread.
Image the conversation: "What IS that thing?" "I don't know." "Someone said it had something to do with FILM!!!!!" "You mean like back in the OLD days??" Conversation held in 2015. Louis
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 09-10-2013, 01:26 PM:
Except for, you know, the tens of thousands of union projectionists, non-union projectionists, general managers, lead managers, assistant managers, supervisors and floor staff who were taught to thread 35mm projectors over the past fifty years who are still alive. Edward
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-11-2013, 06:34 AM:
Manny, you are a realest in you own mind.
I don't think anyone thinks film is making a come back any more than vinyl records are. Yes, people will show an up-tick in LP sales but as a percentage of the market...statistically insignificant. Even I noted that anyone that thinks that there would be a film only release is of Nolan's or any other movie an idiot.
But your comments go further than that. You hold up film's worst and kick it down on that. I continually see GOOD film presentations out here in the real world too. Are these in typical mall cinemas? No. They are, thankfully, digital now. You harp on what film is not strong on but never seem to notice where digital isn't so good. (Recently saw a picket fence go all Morie on screen...never saw that with film).
Another thing that is, progressively, ticking me off with Digital is the DCPs of "rep" titles getting such pathetic treatment...they are little more than BluRays or DVDs and are being passed off as good enough. Christ 70mm titles are getting this sort of crap. One of my fears is that someday, not to distant...this stuff will be considered what 70mm used to look like. And it REALLY doesn't...it is just plain embarrassing. Being able to see rep titles on film and then looking at their DCP counterparts there really isn't a close contest...the film prints are winning at the AFI/Silver...I'd think that you'd see the same thing a IU...if not...is it the prints you are getting or is it your "real world" perception?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-11-2013, 10:14 AM:
"Digital" is not immune to bad standards of practice. I see it all the time in the graphics industry -even from big ad agencies that, one would think, would have staffers who were fully competent to be doing their jobs. I see people goofing up all kinds of digital assets and layouts in ways that would not have been possible with old school analog methods. So many people are disillusioned with the state of the graphics industry that a trend is growing in regards to using "traditional" analog methods for creating artwork. People who actually have the talent and skills to paint, draw or do any other creative work that involves using one's hands can explore that route.
Anyone who thinks digital-based tools will eliminate bad standards of practice in the broadcast, video or movie industries isn't being realistic. The one common element that makes film or "digital" bad is people who use the tools or give orders on how those tools are to be used. A fallible person, prone to taking short cuts, doing things cheap/easy, or simply not really knowing what the hell he is doing can take the greatest digital cinema camera ever made and shoot shitty looking video with it. That person can certainly goof up things in post production too. An executive can deliver stupid orders, "I want all that grain & noise scrubbed out of there, even if it makes the actors' faces look like rubber!"
quote: Manny Knowles
I'm just a realist. Film is going/gone and it doesn't matter whether Nolan, Anderson or you or I or anybody else values its strengths.
I'm not concerned at all about film projection disappearing from the average multiplex theater, but it is unfortunate that so many of these theaters are stuck with the 2K standard, which is just about the same as HDTV resolution. Couple that with the questionable practices going into how some DCPs are being encoded and I'm left thinking I won't miss a thing in terms of image quality by merely waiting a short time to rent the Blu-ray. And that's if I even want to watch the movie in question at all.
I am concerned about the film medium disappearing entirely from the movie industry. Even though it is rapidly disappearing from the exhibition side, film still has a valid role to play in movie production, restoration and archival. Movies look still look better when they are shot on film. If companies who manufacture film go completely out of business studios will have one less safety net for backing up their assets. Major studio releases, even ones produced on video, are archived on 35mm prints as well as digital media. The life span of digital media isn't exactly great. Anyone who has used a computer long enough will have endured hard drive failures, corrupted optical discs and unique storage formats that go obsolete after only a few years.
quote: Edward Havens
Except for, you know, the tens of thousands of union projectionists, non-union projectionists, general managers, lead managers, assistant managers, supervisors and floor staff who were taught to thread 35mm projectors over the past fifty years who are still alive.
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.
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-11-2013, 10:30 AM:
Film will always have a place in art houses and museums for classics. The trouble is that so many are pushing for digital everything, the current print inventory could be wiped out.
I think it's vital to still preserve old movies on film for exhibition for the sake of the art form. It would pain me to know I could never see a film print of Casablanca or Citizen Kane again, or that my children would never be able to see it. To me, that'd be like saying that one could only ever see a high resolution digital image of the Mona Lisa only and not the original.
Going forward, digital has potential and some great strengths, but let us not dismiss film just because some terrible handlers have spoiled many a screening. If a movie was shot on film, edited on film, and mastered on film, I sure as hell would much rather see it on film. I'm hoping there are plenty of folks working at the big film archives that believe this too.
AJG
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-11-2013, 10:41 AM:
What competent operator is going to go back to a theatre that told him a year ago that his skills were useless?
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.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-11-2013, 07:40 PM:
With multiplexes out of the equation, we may indeed find a higher proportion of "film done right" at the art houses and such. That wouldn't surprise me.
Regarding the prints I've gotten over the years (not just here) -- I've gotten some great ones, and I've gotten some not-so-great ones. I dunno. Maybe the AFI/Silver gets preferential treatment. Maybe they're lucky. Or maybe it's possible to buff a turd. Lord knows I have tried.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-11-2013, 10:31 PM:
The AFI/Silver is an EXTREMELY RARE EXCEPTION to the rule, and really shouldn't be a part of discussions like this because it is so far from the norm, it just doesn't validate any argument referencing it.
Sorry Steve, but its true.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-12-2013, 10:19 AM:
If the AFI/Silver can get good prints, it shows that the industry can make them...it isn't intrinsic to film to have bad prints...there are just bad practices.
The more I see DCPs (even modern releases) the more I see its flaws too...the "smear" as the camera pans.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-12-2013, 12:00 PM:
The AFI/Silver is an exception and they do get preferential treatment. Yes, the industry can make the prints, but the next question is "Will they make the prints available?" The answer for many films is No.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-12-2013, 12:14 PM:
The smear effect in camera movement I see with movies these days has to do with movies shot using video cameras. The problem is far more obvious in low light settings and/or settings where the lighting is dramatically dark and light. An example of what I mean is all those night shoots where they park a Musco truck with a stadium light on it down the street to mimic a street light or the moon or whatever in the background. They use a couple other key lights. Basically you end up with many objects in the frame are partially lit with bright light (often around the edges) but with much of the composition still looking pretty dark. That sort of thing can look great when shot on film. It often looks like shit when shot using video cameras -especially if the camera is moving at all. Then that smeary looking crap comes into play or, at best, the movement merely takes on that "motion-flow" effect built into most HDTV sets. The video-DNA of the camera process becomes painfully obvious if it wasn't already.
BTW, I've seen this problem on 35mm film prints made from video originated movies. I don't think the issue has nearly as much to do with the projection format as it does the origination format.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-12-2013, 09:40 PM:
You guys are acting like film never had strobing issues on lateral camera movements.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 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.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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).
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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!
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 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.
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 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.
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 09-15-2013, 08:22 AM:
There's no excuse for a mid-frame splice.
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 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.
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 09-15-2013, 09:02 AM:
And if the splice is done before the film is exposed and printed, there is no frame.
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 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."
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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.
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 09-15-2013, 07:54 PM:
It's my understanding from talking with a number of people at the conference that he was referencing the fact that when IMAX theaters switched from 1570 to digital projection systems, quite a few of them laid off their projection staff and trained the IT or floor staff to operate the digital systems. Which is why having laid off all the trained projectionists is coming back to bite them in the ass, especially when Nolan wants his movie shown in 15p70mm and quite a few projectionists trained in that format have lost their jobs.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-15-2013, 08:58 PM:
Cutting staff, like laying off film projectionists, gets right back to the real point of why digital conversion has been happening so fast. It hasn't been about improving presentation quality for movie-going customers. It has been mostly about cutting costs. The movie studios love "digital" because a reusable external hard disc is a lot cheaper than a film print. The movie theater chains like it for the cuts that can be made in payroll.
quote: Manny Knowles
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.
Manny, I wasn't directing my comment at you when I referred to "fans of digital," it was directed at people who've been bashing film as an origination medium since the end of the 1990s. Some went as far extolling the virtues of consumer/prosumer formats like DV and MiniDV as a better choice than film and made sure to use the "digital" buzz word as much as possible.
A feature movie like 28 Days Later is kind of messed up in this age of 1080p HDTV sets, Blu-ray, etc. due to its standard definition video origins. At the same time I can watch episodes of Seinfeld re-produced in HD thanks to its film-based origins.
quote: Manny Knowles
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.
Agreed. If a movie is post produced via DI then I would prefer to see it via digital projection equipment. A 35mm print can only be a better choice if the movie was produced entirely at 4K or higher resolution, the only d-cinema systems in the area are 2K and the 35mm print was well manufactured and presented. That's a lot of variables.
Many variables can adversely affect a d-cinema show (the camera format/quality level, the DI quality level, CGI quality level). More theaters are installing 4K resolution systems. But if the 4K setup is fed something bottle-necked to 2K at any point the material being presented is only going to be 2K. Same thing goes for color depth.
An all-digital work flow doesn't guarantee all the tools in the process will be used at their best quality levels. I recently rented Oblivion. If the IMDB info is accurate that movie was shot with 5K Red Epic and 4K Sony F65 cameras. But the DI was output at only 2K. That seemed like a terrible bottleneck considering the material was blown up to some 15-perf 70mm IMAX prints. Those prints might have looked a lot better with the 4K/5K footage. In the end I don't feel like I missed anything at all merely renting that movie on Blu-ray.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Can't wait to see "Anamorphic" on the marquee for Interstellar.
Nobody is going to put that on the marquee. It has been decades since terms like CinemaScope have been put on marquees. At best "35mm film" might make it into some ads and onto some marquees. But as bad as theaters have been in terms of advertising sound and projection formats I wouldn't get up much more hope than being able to see such listings in an Internet-based theater directory. It sure isn't going on the building marquee or street sign. The theater manager will just be hoping the guy sliding in the Zip Change letters will spell the movie title correctly.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 09-15-2013, 09:49 PM:
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
It's my understanding from talking with a number of people at the conference that he was referencing the fact that when IMAX theaters switched from 1570 to digital projection systems, quite a few of them laid off their projection staff and trained the IT or floor staff to operate the digital systems. Which is why having laid off all the trained projectionists is coming back to bite them in the ass, especially when Nolan wants his movie shown in 15p70mm and quite a few projectionists trained in that format have lost their jobs.
When Dark Knight Rises was released, IMAX did a hiring to run the 15/70 in a number of cities that were re-installations. It was a panel interview over the phone, contract was for 6 weeks during the engagement. They will likely do the same thing for the next release.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2