The way these talks work is that you have 5 minutes to present using 20 slides, not video, each slide moving forward every 15 seconds. They're actually kind of fun, and the point was just to raise the question, not to go any deeper.
But the point is that these days you often can't tell the difference between film and digital with DI and color grading and LUTs and added grain and whatnot. So it wouldn't really be helpful
***** It's a camera that can shoot in 5k raw or 5 times normal HD. Movies like the hobbit and all of David Fincher's newer movies are all shot on Red cameras. If you want to learn more about it you can simply go to www.red.com
You are so right, and I apologize. I must have gotten my notes scrambled, as it is clearly listed as being shot on the RED. Nothing I can do now. Thanks for watching!
It's not that hard to tell the difference. By looking at the top or bottom edges of the projected image film still bounces around, less than it use to but still does, the result of the mechanical intermittent process. With digital what's meant to be still is rock still as it would be in a still photograph. I am a film person from way back but I find the new digital projection to be much sharper, sharper even than the old VistaVision if anyone remembers that. But at the end of the day it's all about telling a story and that's the important bit.
Lots of movies that were shot on film were ruined by trendy color grading. Digital projection doesn't help either. About image stability: cameras such as the Arriflex 435 yield rock solid images which can easily be stabilized in post to match digital. Just check some uploaded 16mm film (not even 35mm!), scanned with the latest technology and on the amazing current Kodak Vision 3 film stocks. It's a different ball game! It looks just stunning. Yes: you can tell the difference. It makes you feel something. Film looks like a timeless story being told in gorgeous looking images - right out of the camera. Digital looks like TV news, no matter how much you fiddle around in DaVinci Resolve or the likes. Digital might be the future. But not the digital we have now: trying to emulate film. BTW: 35mm prints were discontinued because they were too expensive, not because it's more advance technology. 2K resolution for 35mm film? Are you joking?
Yep, but that's mostly due to the poor print negatives, poorly maintained contact printers and fast, hot processing used during many years - to cut corners, to say nothing about the 35mm projectors which were worn out museum pieces by 2011. Still: give me 2K on a 35mm print any day of the week. Just my personal opinion.
+truefilm same here. 2K or not, a print has random grain, and that means no aliasing from the exhibition end. I recently discovered the movie Children of Men, and was thrilled that it was a 35mm print and not just a DCP. Score!
Yep, the problem is that nobody cared anymore towards the end. A good film print and good projection will always look better then a normal digital cinema projector in contrast and color reproduction. The problem is, good projection was hard to come by and the film prints were all made from 2k digital sources anyway, so the point of printing back to film was well... silly. I go out of my way to watch photochemically finished 35mm and 70mm prints when I can find them, but I could care less about watching digital scan out's unless they are special for some reason. Living in Los Angeles, gives me the opportunity to see high quality film projection, something very hard to find.
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
Whether a film is shot in film or digital is unimportant. Far more important, and something that everyone would be able to tell the difference, is the technology used to project the movie. Both digital and film projection have their strengths and weaknesses. Personally, on the whole, I think film is a much better medium for projection. Digital tends to convey darker scenes much better though, so it will always be a compromise. Of course it will be hard to tell the difference between a film shot digitally and a film shot on film viewing them both on a digital projector. A movie shot on film will lose many of the properties associated with film due to the conversion to digital.
A better comparison would be to compare digital with films shot way back in the 70s. Modern film stocks have caught up with digital in the look, maybe because they are also edited digitally. But modern movies shot on digital do not compare to the look of films from the 70s/80s when film was king.
Unfortunately, that's factually incorrect - at least when it comes to 35mm film. The finest grained 35mm film stock has a measured resolution of between 2.8k and 3.2k. Not 4k. Sure, you can scan it at a higher resolution than that, but at that point you're essentially scanning grain structure, not image detail, so there's not much to be gained from it. That said, film grain does offer something digital does not, which is temporal resolution. What I mean by that is that since the grain structure of each frame is different, light refracts through the film slightly differently for that frame, which means the frame is capturing slightly different details in each frame - and when played back at 24fps, your brain interpolates the differences, making the image seem to have more detail than it really does. Now, with that in mind, let's assume film has maybe 10-20% more detail due to this temporal resolution phenomenon than it does in its inherent detail, which means if we assume the most generous 3.2k resolution, it would be resolving a theoretical 3.5k-3.8k. Even if you assume a higher percentage increase than that, it's still 4k or less. Therefore, saying a "4k projection has much less detail than 35mm film" simply cannot be backed up with evidence. And remember, anecdotes are not evidence. 70mm film obviously has a lot more information than 4k - and more still if it's a horizontal frame (like IMAX). Digital is getting there, especially now with the 8K sensors in the new VistaVision (and S35) sensors from RED, and the 6.5k 65mm sensor from ARRI. I'd love to see ARRI or RED (or even Sony, even though I don't like their color science) create an IMAX sized sensor with 12-18K resolution - but of course the amount of data required for that would be insane. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. I believe it's inevitable. The bottom line is this - if you can look at a 4k projection and a 35mm projection today and think you can tell the difference in terms of detail, then you've most likely fallen victim to confirmation bias, because it's easy to identify film projection by other means. Seeing as 99.9% of your audience will not be able to tell the difference anyway, why would you spend thousands of dollars more per print just to satisfy some cranky curmudgeon who insists on film projection (I'm looking at you QT)?
Thor Melsted Wrong, during the projection process, detail is lost, but when scanned 35 mm film(especially low asa film) has more detail than 8k video let alone 4k video.
4 perf super 35mm frame resolves close to 6k. 3 perf super 35mm is around 5k. Super 16 resolves around 2.5k. So the original camera negative resolves far greater resolution then most digital cameras.
If you're not watching movies passively and have some basic knowledge regarding cinema you can easily tell the difference. But to raise film to its full potential you have to project on film in the first place, because a movie that is shot on film and projected digitally is very different than a movie projected on film. You can always tell the difference between projections, and it's not that hard to tell the difference of how a movie was shot either. People are growing indifferent to cinema.
The process of "Telecine" is still being used, but in fewer productions. The act of "color correction" will always be needed. When image information is recorded and processed digitally, without he use of a film base, a film chain, Telecine is not required. But before final release, color correction, and comp. efx must be addressed. Simply stated, the Art of Film is quickly being lost and forgotten.
Mediums make a hell of a difference, force awakens, the hateful eight. The digital crowd want you to forget what the illusion of motion being film is. It is in danger of being lost and the majority of those movies look absolutely digital and horrible. Pretty much anyone with half a brain and heartbeat will err to the properly shot graded and where possible projected on film (though laser projection looks promising). People like this presenter would have Da Vinci paint in water colours. MEDIUMS MATTER.
+Scott Herford Da Vinici actually did many paintings in watercolour (The Battle of Anghiar for example), charcoal, chalk, egg tempura many different mediums. The true artist uses what ever he wishes to convey his story in words or visuals this does not present a problem the artist will master it no matter what it is. Embrace ALL formats embrace ALL mediums.
I would never go back to shooting and editing on film the whole process from start to finish is too expensive and really a pain in the rear. So I will leave use of film to you. Please continue to shoot and edit on film keep the nostalgia alive and enjoy it.
+derryk1 you are endorsing the death of a medium. Film is a discipline. I don't care if you cut on it but when an entire cast and crew "turns on" when you use it there is no equal.
***** i couldn't agree more. Of course, the further film becomes a fringe medium then the higher the price and lower the value proposition for the format will be.
From a technical point of view, I believe that digital is now very close to what's possible with 35mm film. And since imaging sensors are improving rapidly, it's very likely it will exceed the quality potential of film, including 70mm film. From a creative / stylistic point of view it gets really complex. Because even when a movie is shot on film, most post-production (color grading for example) is done digitally and the end result is then printed on film to be viewed in the cinema. So you are then watching the result of several conversions from film to digital and back to film. So if you somehow don't like the end result then what's the cause ? That's hard to tell. Also, directors and DPs deliberately make use of color grading and lowered/increased contrast to evoke the intended viewers response. Saving Private Ryan looks dark, muddy, grainy and color saturation is very low, to make you feel the gritty reality of war. While a romantic comedy often uses very saturated colors and nice contrast and a very clean looking image. You may or may not like this "look" but be aware that this is a creative choice of the film maker and not caused by the decision to shoot on video or film.
I think you should do your own side by side comparison. Working with film is a magical experience because you can do a one light print and project it, without doing any color grading and it looks great. With digital, a substantial amount of your post budget goes towards making the digital image look "presentable" . A single frame of 4 perf super 35mm, yields close to 6k worth of resolution. This means, if you throw a chart up and shoot 50 ISO stock you will get around 3000 lines worth of detail on the vertical and horizontal chart. Do the same test with an 3.2k Alexa... you're getting around 2200 lines. Shoot with a 5k Red, you're getting around 2800 lines. Remember, CMOS imagers in modern digital cinema cameras have a bayer pattern baked into them, that means the blue and red channels have half the resolution of the imager and green channel. With film, all of the channels have equal resolution. With digital cinema projection, you are dealing with a mirror that rotates from 0 - 45 degree's and that mirror is suppose to give you every level of brightness from 0 to lamp max output. It's impossible to do this because there just isn't variance, this is why digital cinema looks super flat and projected film has a more contrasty and glassy look to it. So quality wise, we're not quite there with digital vs film and presentation wise, we're lightyears away. Sure, the IMAX laser projection solution looks great, but it's still lacking compared to 15/70 film.
You sure know your stuff, thanks for your reply! Your suggestion to do my own side by side comparison is a good one, only problem is that this becomes more difficult as most cinema's are already converted to digital. Over the years I've seen much 35mm and also 70mm IMAX in different cinema's, but (unfortunately) not in the last 5 years or so. Yes, most CMOS imagers use the Bayer pattern and this indeed results in less color information for red & blue. Fuji has developed a sensor ditching the Bayer pattern and while I've only seen still images from a consumer-grade camera it looks to be quite detailed without any smudging or artificial look to it (at least to my eyes). So sensors are still in development and seem to keep improving the dynamic range and accurate color. I was unaware that IMAX laser is still not up to the level of 70mm. Perhaps I should indeed go and look once more for a true 70mm presentation somewhere to get a fresh frame of reference.
Most cinemas still have 35mm projectors and with the Hateful Eight roll out, they also have 70mm projectors, unless you live in the middle of the boonies somewhere. Here in California, there are only a hand-full of theaters that only have digital, everyone has kept their 35mm projectors in tact. I just watched a movie called "The Love Witch" which was a 35mm photochemical finish and it was so great to see. Movie was shot 4 perf specifically for a photochemical finish and it looked great. When you see a good 35mm print of something, you realize what you're missing. I watch prints all the time of classic movies, some are good, some are destroyed. Even the bad prints, still look better then digital in a lot of ways. I also know a few projectionists, so I get to hang out in the booth and see things most people don't get to see. In terms of "quality" here are some stats that may make you sick. As projected in theaters, 4 perf 35mm prints struck from an IN are around 2k worth of resolution. 5 perf 70mm prints struck from an IN are around 5k worth of resolution. 15 perf 70mm prints struck from an IN are around 12k worth of resolution. Currently there is no greater DLP resolution then 4k. They can't make a chip with more mirrors for some reason, there is a technical problem. So even the absolute best IMAX laser projection system is still 4k. So they went from 12k on film to 4k digital... Worst off, because they're blowing up the image onto such a big screen, they have to use two projectors. One projector is in focus the other is slightly out of focus, overlaying an image on top of the first projector. This helps to mask the black lines between the mirrors of the DLP chip. Such a horrible way to do things, but that's why it's a double projection system. It's the reason why IMAX laser is so "pleasing" to watch, it's just softer. The Dolby system doesn't do that and as a consequence it doesn't look as good. So far nothing exists to replace good ol 5 perf 70mm film or 15/70. When you see a movie well projected on 70mm, you realize how powerful the format is. Hateful Eight was a bad example because it was mostly shot indoors and the anamorphic lens thing really destroyed the crispness of the format. This year Nolan's new movie "dunkirk" is being entirely shot on 70mm, both 5 perf and 15 perf, so you will get a chance to see good photochemically finished 70mm in your local theater soon. Nolan is pushing IMAX to roll out 15/70 projectors into theaters to project his movie as well, so we'll see some screens converting back over to film, which is pretty cool. Also, there are two other 5/70 movies coming out in 2017 and 2018, Murder on the Orient Express and VoX lux. Both will be finished on film and projected on 5/70 as well. So film is making a pretty huge comeback, it's just taking its sweet-ass time! :)
I live in The Netherlands where most cinema's are already converted to digital. The only place I can see 70mm is the Museum of film (about a 100 mile journey from where I live). So I guess I am indeed in the middle of the boonies :-) I will be travelling to California (LA and San Fransisco) in a couple of months, perhaps I've got a bit of time on my trip to visit a top notch cinema that runs a 70mm projector (Cinerama Dome is high on my list). The stats you mention do indeed put things into perspective! IMAX laser is indeed 'only' 4K, so all this glorious detail of 70mm (especially 15/70) far exceeds current digital projection capabilities. I can imagine that tricks must be used to mask the pixel gap of DLP projection. Wouldn't laser projection be able to overcome this obstacle in the future if they find ways to skip the mirror altogether ? Any info or thoughts about this ? Yeah, I read somewhere that Tarantino would be better of (in terms of picture quality) if he didn't used the anamorphic lenses from the late 60's. Great to hear/read from you that film is not dead yet and is even making a comeback ! :-) Although I'm pretty sure that digital will eventually win the battle, because of the (much) lower costs involved and because there's only a limited audience that's willing to pay extra to see 70mm. Really hope to get a chance to see Dunkirk in 15/70.
I'd for sure come out during the Dunkirk screenings because here in LA they will have it in several theaters in 70mm like they did with Interstellar. Supposedly there are many places that show 70mm in the Netherlands, I'm a writer for a web-based 70mm magazine based there and they tell me all sorts of cool screenings that happen: www.in70mm.com/ Here in LA we have ONE full-time 35mm theater left. It's not very good, but you can see first-run movies in 35mm at it. We also have ONE revival 35mm theater that ONLY shows film. We have 2 more revival theaters that are mixed, half 35 half digital. ON any given day, there are at least 2 35mm screenings in town. 70mm is harder to find, usually once a month there will be something at one of the revival theaters, but generally it won't be a newer movie due to the licensing costs. They're showing LA LA Land in 35mm at one of those theaters this weekend... which is sweet! In 2016, there were two major 70mm releases, and they made Warner Brothers quite a bit of money because people went to those instead of the 3D and digital screenings. SO yes, people here understand what 70mm is, which is pretty cool.
Yes and not one modern film shot with a digital camera has been referred to as a classic film. Other than Blade Runner 2049 I have not read anyone boasting about how great the cinematography looked on any other modern film. All the great memorable films and still photography were all shot on film. God bless George Eastman.
@@mysticalcobra7380 Most people I know have never seen it. When I say classic I mean some people know films just from the soundtrack. I think tv series have better writers than films these days. That is because in the old days studios were run or owned by directors, not bean counters.
THAT WAS SO BAD!! FIRST, HE JUST STOLE HIS OPENING TEXT FROM A DOCUMENTARY THAT KEANU REEVES MADE ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC SOME YEARS AGO. SECOND, HOW IN THE HELL WOULD WE BE ABLE TO COMPARE BOTH WITHOUT SHOWING SOME FUCKIN' EXAMPLES? AT SOME POINT I THOUGHT HE WOULD SHOW US SOMETHING. AND THIS GUY HAS JUST NO CHARISMA!! Sorry for my english and have a good life!!
Dear Mr. Ferreira, The way these Ignite Talks work is that you must present 20 slides - slides, not video - over the course of 5 minutes, each slide moving forward every 15 seconds. This precludes the showing of examples, sadly. Also, the sound of the audience reaction is not audible in the video, but it was far more interactive than it seems here. I can't do anything about your reaction to my charisma - or, rather, anti-charisma, as you put it - and that's fine: there are plenty of people out there to whom I have the same reaction as you did to me. So be it. As far as the movie "Side by Side" goes, I briefly mention a radio show in my presentation, and above, in the explanatory text about this piece, you will see more details about that show and about "Side by Side," where I give it full credit.
Right, but you could have explained how film when done photochemically produces an entirely different "experience" then digital. You could have also explained that film sitting on a shelf lasts 100's of years without doing anything, but digital files require expensive and time consuming archiving. You could have also explained that CMOS digital camera's bayer pattern, reduces the blue and red channels, which in tern means those color channels aren't as vibrant as film. So a lot of people choose to shoot on film for it's future proof longevity, for it's color accuracy, for it's beautiful skin tones, for the ability to shoot and finish without a bunch of manipulation in post just to make a presentable image. Most people won't be able to tell the difference between film and video without a side by side comparison. Once you see the two next to one another, you can see the difference immediately, even if the digital file has been heavily manipulated to "mimic" the look of film.
You are right, of course, and I could have done that. That wasn't really the point of my talk, which was more to simply raise the issue - in the short time allotted - of how times are changing and how what we think is shot one way may not be shot that way. One is free to disagree with my approach, but with only 5 minutes, that's the route I chose. So be it.
He poo-poos the look of Attack of the Clones. Apart from the hasty cgi, what is he talking about? When I saw in the theater, I couldn't believe it was shot on video tape. It looked like a movie to me.
Heh, film has been used to make some of the greatest movies ever. Does 2001: a space odyssey look like crap? What about Lawrence of Arabia? All of Terry Gilliam's projects were shot on film, and they're renowned for their aesthetics. Not all film looks like 8mm. 70mm and 35mm are both quite a bit more detailed than 4k digital. In the right hands, 16mm can look extremely sexy. Another important point is that film handles lighting quite a bit better. Digital cameras, on the other hand, have finite lighting stops. Also, some grain can enhance the image, if it doesn't go too overboard.
liam walters Film was all that was available at the time those movies made. It's a shame that's the case, as film does make those movies look a bit crusty on HD. Very few films are scanned at higher than 4K and most are scanned at 2K, so unless you want to edit the old fashioned way, you'll never see that detail. Perhaps digital cameras weren't able to capture as many stops in 2008, but now they're pretty close to the same DR. Grain is an artifact of film, it's the reason they use so many lights, it's something you try to avoid . Also, the time and costs associated with film and ridiculous, you have to buy the film stock, get it processed, then get it scanned and then edit digitally, then print it back to film again. And what you see in the viewfinder isn't what you get.
"Film was all that was available at the time those movies made. It's a shame that's the case, as film does make those movies look a bit crusty on HD." I beg to differ. More recently, PTA's "The Master" was shot on 70mm film, and it looks incredible. "Very few films are scanned at higher than 4K and most are scanned at 2K, so unless you want to edit the old fashioned way, you'll never see that detail." When projected in a theater that owns the proper equipment, film does not have a finite resolution. It's also not very hard to find services that scan film to 4k resolution. Major productions usually distribute a 4k scan to theaters that only have digital projectors. " Perhaps digital cameras weren't able to capture as many stops in 2008, but now they're pretty close to the same DR." Usually, I can instantly tell what a film was shot on by the lighting. "Grain is an artifact of film, it's the reason they use so many lights, it's something you try to avoid ." Grain is important to the aesthetic of film. Too much grain is annoying, but just enough is wonderful. Some (not all) films shot on digital look flat because of the lack of grain. Finally, I'm not arguing that film is better than digital. Both have a place in cinema. Digital has done a lot to bring filmmaking to the masses. Both have an aesthetic that works well on certain pictures.
This is a horrible way to compare the formats. At least show us a clip from the film so we can guess.
The way these talks work is that you have 5 minutes to present using 20 slides, not video, each slide moving forward every 15 seconds. They're actually kind of fun, and the point was just to raise the question, not to go any deeper.
But the point is that these days you often can't tell the difference between film and digital with DI and color grading and LUTs and added grain and whatnot. So it wouldn't really be helpful
Flight was actually shot on the Red Epic
Exactly! Dude needs to check his sources
*****
It's a camera that can shoot in 5k raw or 5 times normal HD. Movies like the hobbit and all of David Fincher's newer movies are all shot on Red cameras. If you want to learn more about it you can simply go to www.red.com
You are so right, and I apologize. I must have gotten my notes scrambled, as it is clearly listed as being shot on the RED. Nothing I can do now. Thanks for watching!
It's not that hard to tell the difference. By looking at the top or bottom edges of the projected image film still bounces around, less than it use to but still does, the result of the mechanical intermittent process. With digital what's meant to be still is rock still as it would be in a still photograph. I am a film person from way back but I find the new digital projection to be much sharper, sharper even than the old VistaVision if anyone remembers that. But at the end of the day it's all about telling a story and that's the important bit.
Lots of movies that were shot on film were ruined by trendy color grading. Digital projection doesn't help either. About image stability: cameras such as the Arriflex 435 yield rock solid images which can easily be stabilized in post to match digital.
Just check some uploaded 16mm film (not even 35mm!), scanned with the latest technology and on the amazing current Kodak Vision 3 film stocks. It's a different ball game! It looks just stunning. Yes: you can tell the difference. It makes you feel something.
Film looks like a timeless story being told in gorgeous looking images - right out of the camera. Digital looks like TV news, no matter how much you fiddle around in DaVinci Resolve or the likes.
Digital might be the future. But not the digital we have now: trying to emulate film.
BTW: 35mm prints were discontinued because they were too expensive, not because it's more advance technology. 2K resolution for 35mm film? Are you joking?
35mm release print isn't going to show more than 2K.
Yep, but that's mostly due to the poor print negatives, poorly maintained contact printers and fast, hot processing used during many years - to cut corners, to say nothing about the 35mm projectors which were worn out museum pieces by 2011. Still: give me 2K on a 35mm print any day of the week. Just my personal opinion.
+truefilm same here. 2K or not, a print has random grain, and that means no aliasing from the exhibition end. I recently discovered the movie Children of Men, and was thrilled that it was a 35mm print and not just a DCP. Score!
Yep, the problem is that nobody cared anymore towards the end. A good film print and good projection will always look better then a normal digital cinema projector in contrast and color reproduction. The problem is, good projection was hard to come by and the film prints were all made from 2k digital sources anyway, so the point of printing back to film was well... silly. I go out of my way to watch photochemically finished 35mm and 70mm prints when I can find them, but I could care less about watching digital scan out's unless they are special for some reason. Living in Los Angeles, gives me the opportunity to see high quality film projection, something very hard to find.
Celluloid is our history but digital is the future I like both formats
Both film and digital are the future.
digital is a video,35mm is a real cinema
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
Whether a film is shot in film or digital is unimportant. Far more important, and something that everyone would be able to tell the difference, is the technology used to project the movie. Both digital and film projection have their strengths and weaknesses. Personally, on the whole, I think film is a much better medium for projection. Digital tends to convey darker scenes much better though, so it will always be a compromise. Of course it will be hard to tell the difference between a film shot digitally and a film shot on film viewing them both on a digital projector. A movie shot on film will lose many of the properties associated with film due to the conversion to digital.
A better comparison would be to compare digital with films shot way back in the 70s. Modern film stocks have caught up with digital in the look, maybe because they are also edited digitally. But modern movies shot on digital do not compare to the look of films from the 70s/80s when film was king.
4k projction has much less detail than 35 mm film let alone 70 mm film.
Unfortunately, that's factually incorrect - at least when it comes to 35mm film.
The finest grained 35mm film stock has a measured resolution of between 2.8k and 3.2k. Not 4k.
Sure, you can scan it at a higher resolution than that, but at that point you're essentially scanning grain structure, not image detail, so there's not much to be gained from it.
That said, film grain does offer something digital does not, which is temporal resolution. What I mean by that is that since the grain structure of each frame is different, light refracts through the film slightly differently for that frame, which means the frame is capturing slightly different details in each frame - and when played back at 24fps, your brain interpolates the differences, making the image seem to have more detail than it really does.
Now, with that in mind, let's assume film has maybe 10-20% more detail due to this temporal resolution phenomenon than it does in its inherent detail, which means if we assume the most generous 3.2k resolution, it would be resolving a theoretical 3.5k-3.8k. Even if you assume a higher percentage increase than that, it's still 4k or less.
Therefore, saying a "4k projection has much less detail than 35mm film" simply cannot be backed up with evidence. And remember, anecdotes are not evidence.
70mm film obviously has a lot more information than 4k - and more still if it's a horizontal frame (like IMAX). Digital is getting there, especially now with the 8K sensors in the new VistaVision (and S35) sensors from RED, and the 6.5k 65mm sensor from ARRI. I'd love to see ARRI or RED (or even Sony, even though I don't like their color science) create an IMAX sized sensor with 12-18K resolution - but of course the amount of data required for that would be insane. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. I believe it's inevitable.
The bottom line is this - if you can look at a 4k projection and a 35mm projection today and think you can tell the difference in terms of detail, then you've most likely fallen victim to confirmation bias, because it's easy to identify film projection by other means.
Seeing as 99.9% of your audience will not be able to tell the difference anyway, why would you spend thousands of dollars more per print just to satisfy some cranky curmudgeon who insists on film projection (I'm looking at you QT)?
Negative has 4K or more, but a release print? Forget about it. You're lucky to resolve 2k with an actual print.
Thor Melsted Wrong, during the projection process, detail is lost, but when scanned 35 mm film(especially low asa film) has more detail than 8k video let alone 4k video.
4 perf super 35mm frame resolves close to 6k. 3 perf super 35mm is around 5k. Super 16 resolves around 2.5k. So the original camera negative resolves far greater resolution then most digital cameras.
One day this debate will be seen a really silly.
If you're not watching movies passively and have some basic knowledge regarding cinema you can easily tell the difference. But to raise film to its full potential you have to project on film in the first place, because a movie that is shot on film and projected digitally is very different than a movie projected on film. You can always tell the difference between projections, and it's not that hard to tell the difference of how a movie was shot either. People are growing indifferent to cinema.
Film is cinematic, digital looks erm...crap
Lame... I was a Telecine Colorist for 22 years, I can always tell the difference.
Do you know is there any movie used telecine for color last years?
The process of "Telecine" is still being used, but in fewer productions. The act of "color correction" will always be needed. When image information is recorded and processed digitally, without he use of a film base, a film chain, Telecine is not required. But before final release, color correction, and comp. efx must be addressed. Simply stated, the Art of Film is quickly being lost and forgotten.
amen
The companies should invest in research to produce cheaper film.
Mediums make a hell of a difference, force awakens, the hateful eight. The digital crowd want you to forget what the illusion of motion being film is. It is in danger of being lost and the majority of those movies look absolutely digital and horrible. Pretty much anyone with half a brain and heartbeat will err to the properly shot graded and where possible projected on film (though laser projection looks promising). People like this presenter would have Da Vinci paint in water colours. MEDIUMS MATTER.
+Scott Herford Da Vinici actually did many paintings in watercolour (The Battle of Anghiar for example), charcoal, chalk, egg tempura many different mediums. The true artist uses what ever he wishes to convey his story in words or visuals this does not present a problem the artist will master it no matter what it is. Embrace ALL formats embrace ALL mediums.
+derryk1 if you do not support film by shooting on it etc an entire medium will disappear.
I would never go back to shooting and editing on film the whole process from start to finish is too expensive and really a pain in the rear. So I will leave use of film to you. Please continue to shoot and edit on film keep the nostalgia alive and enjoy it.
+derryk1 you are endorsing the death of a medium. Film is a discipline. I don't care if you cut on it but when an entire cast and crew "turns on" when you use it there is no equal.
***** i couldn't agree more. Of course, the further film becomes a fringe medium then the higher the price and lower the value proposition for the format will be.
From a technical point of view, I believe that digital is now very close to what's possible with 35mm film. And since imaging sensors are improving rapidly, it's very likely it will exceed the quality potential of film, including 70mm film.
From a creative / stylistic point of view it gets really complex. Because even when a movie is shot on film, most post-production (color grading for example) is done digitally and the end result is then printed on film to be viewed in the cinema. So you are then watching the result of several conversions from film to digital and back to film. So if you somehow don't like the end result then what's the cause ? That's hard to tell.
Also, directors and DPs deliberately make use of color grading and lowered/increased contrast to evoke the intended viewers response. Saving Private Ryan looks dark, muddy, grainy and color saturation is very low, to make you feel the gritty reality of war. While a romantic comedy often uses very saturated colors and nice contrast and a very clean looking image.
You may or may not like this "look" but be aware that this is a creative choice of the film maker and not caused by the decision to shoot on video or film.
I think you should do your own side by side comparison. Working with film is a magical experience because you can do a one light print and project it, without doing any color grading and it looks great. With digital, a substantial amount of your post budget goes towards making the digital image look "presentable" . A single frame of 4 perf super 35mm, yields close to 6k worth of resolution. This means, if you throw a chart up and shoot 50 ISO stock you will get around 3000 lines worth of detail on the vertical and horizontal chart. Do the same test with an 3.2k Alexa... you're getting around 2200 lines. Shoot with a 5k Red, you're getting around 2800 lines. Remember, CMOS imagers in modern digital cinema cameras have a bayer pattern baked into them, that means the blue and red channels have half the resolution of the imager and green channel. With film, all of the channels have equal resolution. With digital cinema projection, you are dealing with a mirror that rotates from 0 - 45 degree's and that mirror is suppose to give you every level of brightness from 0 to lamp max output. It's impossible to do this because there just isn't variance, this is why digital cinema looks super flat and projected film has a more contrasty and glassy look to it. So quality wise, we're not quite there with digital vs film and presentation wise, we're lightyears away. Sure, the IMAX laser projection solution looks great, but it's still lacking compared to 15/70 film.
You sure know your stuff, thanks for your reply!
Your suggestion to do my own side by side comparison is a good one, only problem is that this becomes more difficult as most cinema's are already converted to digital.
Over the years I've seen much 35mm and also 70mm IMAX in different cinema's, but (unfortunately) not in the last 5 years or so.
Yes, most CMOS imagers use the Bayer pattern and this indeed results in less color information for red & blue. Fuji has developed a sensor ditching the Bayer pattern and while I've only seen still images from a consumer-grade camera it looks to be quite detailed without any smudging or artificial look to it (at least to my eyes). So sensors are still in development and seem to keep improving the dynamic range and accurate color.
I was unaware that IMAX laser is still not up to the level of 70mm. Perhaps I should indeed go and look once more for a true 70mm presentation somewhere to get a fresh frame of reference.
Most cinemas still have 35mm projectors and with the Hateful Eight roll out, they also have 70mm projectors, unless you live in the middle of the boonies somewhere. Here in California, there are only a hand-full of theaters that only have digital, everyone has kept their 35mm projectors in tact. I just watched a movie called "The Love Witch" which was a 35mm photochemical finish and it was so great to see. Movie was shot 4 perf specifically for a photochemical finish and it looked great. When you see a good 35mm print of something, you realize what you're missing. I watch prints all the time of classic movies, some are good, some are destroyed. Even the bad prints, still look better then digital in a lot of ways. I also know a few projectionists, so I get to hang out in the booth and see things most people don't get to see.
In terms of "quality" here are some stats that may make you sick. As projected in theaters, 4 perf 35mm prints struck from an IN are around 2k worth of resolution. 5 perf 70mm prints struck from an IN are around 5k worth of resolution. 15 perf 70mm prints struck from an IN are around 12k worth of resolution. Currently there is no greater DLP resolution then 4k. They can't make a chip with more mirrors for some reason, there is a technical problem. So even the absolute best IMAX laser projection system is still 4k. So they went from 12k on film to 4k digital... Worst off, because they're blowing up the image onto such a big screen, they have to use two projectors. One projector is in focus the other is slightly out of focus, overlaying an image on top of the first projector. This helps to mask the black lines between the mirrors of the DLP chip. Such a horrible way to do things, but that's why it's a double projection system. It's the reason why IMAX laser is so "pleasing" to watch, it's just softer. The Dolby system doesn't do that and as a consequence it doesn't look as good.
So far nothing exists to replace good ol 5 perf 70mm film or 15/70. When you see a movie well projected on 70mm, you realize how powerful the format is. Hateful Eight was a bad example because it was mostly shot indoors and the anamorphic lens thing really destroyed the crispness of the format. This year Nolan's new movie "dunkirk" is being entirely shot on 70mm, both 5 perf and 15 perf, so you will get a chance to see good photochemically finished 70mm in your local theater soon. Nolan is pushing IMAX to roll out 15/70 projectors into theaters to project his movie as well, so we'll see some screens converting back over to film, which is pretty cool.
Also, there are two other 5/70 movies coming out in 2017 and 2018, Murder on the Orient Express and VoX lux. Both will be finished on film and projected on 5/70 as well. So film is making a pretty huge comeback, it's just taking its sweet-ass time! :)
I live in The Netherlands where most cinema's are already converted to digital. The only place I can see 70mm is the Museum of film (about a 100 mile journey from where I live). So I guess I am indeed in the middle of the boonies :-) I will be travelling to California (LA and San Fransisco) in a couple of months, perhaps I've got a bit of time on my trip to visit a top notch cinema that runs a 70mm projector (Cinerama Dome is high on my list).
The stats you mention do indeed put things into perspective! IMAX laser is indeed 'only' 4K, so all this glorious detail of 70mm (especially 15/70) far exceeds current digital projection capabilities. I can imagine that tricks must be used to mask the pixel gap of DLP projection. Wouldn't laser projection be able to overcome this obstacle in the future if they find ways to skip the mirror altogether ?
Any info or thoughts about this ?
Yeah, I read somewhere that Tarantino would be better of (in terms of picture quality) if he didn't used the anamorphic lenses from the late 60's.
Great to hear/read from you that film is not dead yet and is even making a comeback ! :-)
Although I'm pretty sure that digital will eventually win the battle, because of the (much) lower costs involved and because there's only a limited audience that's willing to pay extra to see 70mm.
Really hope to get a chance to see Dunkirk in 15/70.
I'd for sure come out during the Dunkirk screenings because here in LA they will have it in several theaters in 70mm like they did with Interstellar. Supposedly there are many places that show 70mm in the Netherlands, I'm a writer for a web-based 70mm magazine based there and they tell me all sorts of cool screenings that happen: www.in70mm.com/
Here in LA we have ONE full-time 35mm theater left. It's not very good, but you can see first-run movies in 35mm at it. We also have ONE revival 35mm theater that ONLY shows film. We have 2 more revival theaters that are mixed, half 35 half digital. ON any given day, there are at least 2 35mm screenings in town. 70mm is harder to find, usually once a month there will be something at one of the revival theaters, but generally it won't be a newer movie due to the licensing costs. They're showing LA LA Land in 35mm at one of those theaters this weekend... which is sweet!
In 2016, there were two major 70mm releases, and they made Warner Brothers quite a bit of money because people went to those instead of the 3D and digital screenings. SO yes, people here understand what 70mm is, which is pretty cool.
Yes and not one modern film shot with a digital camera has been referred to as a classic film. Other than Blade Runner 2049 I have not read anyone boasting about how great the cinematography looked on any other modern film. All the great memorable films and still photography were all shot on film. God bless George Eastman.
David Fincher's films from Zodiac onwards look stunning and were shot on digital
The revenant
@@mysticalcobra7380 Most people I know have never seen it. When I say classic I mean some people know films just from the soundtrack. I think tv series have better writers than films these days. That is because in the old days studios were run or owned by directors, not bean counters.
I was right on most of these films. And Argo looked like it's almost 100% film. You can see the difference!
"Argo" was 16mm/Super8mm/Super35 3 perf/Scope/2-perf 35mm. I scanned it.
I thought this was going to show different clips. Disappointed.
That's one of the many things that ruin the Star Wars prequels, they look like digital soap operas.
I wish they have a pop-filter or something...
THAT WAS SO BAD!! FIRST, HE JUST STOLE HIS OPENING TEXT FROM A DOCUMENTARY THAT KEANU REEVES MADE ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC SOME YEARS AGO. SECOND, HOW IN THE HELL WOULD WE BE ABLE TO COMPARE BOTH WITHOUT SHOWING SOME FUCKIN' EXAMPLES? AT SOME POINT I THOUGHT HE WOULD SHOW US SOMETHING. AND THIS GUY HAS JUST NO CHARISMA!! Sorry for my english and have a good life!!
Dear Mr. Ferreira,
The way these Ignite Talks work is that you must present 20 slides - slides, not video - over the course of 5 minutes, each slide moving forward every 15 seconds. This precludes the showing of examples, sadly. Also, the sound of the audience reaction is not audible in the video, but it was far more interactive than it seems here. I can't do anything about your reaction to my charisma - or, rather, anti-charisma, as you put it - and that's fine: there are plenty of people out there to whom I have the same reaction as you did to me. So be it. As far as the movie "Side by Side" goes, I briefly mention a radio show in my presentation, and above, in the explanatory text about this piece, you will see more details about that show and about "Side by Side," where I give it full credit.
Right, but you could have explained how film when done photochemically produces an entirely different "experience" then digital. You could have also explained that film sitting on a shelf lasts 100's of years without doing anything, but digital files require expensive and time consuming archiving. You could have also explained that CMOS digital camera's bayer pattern, reduces the blue and red channels, which in tern means those color channels aren't as vibrant as film. So a lot of people choose to shoot on film for it's future proof longevity, for it's color accuracy, for it's beautiful skin tones, for the ability to shoot and finish without a bunch of manipulation in post just to make a presentable image. Most people won't be able to tell the difference between film and video without a side by side comparison. Once you see the two next to one another, you can see the difference immediately, even if the digital file has been heavily manipulated to "mimic" the look of film.
You are right, of course, and I could have done that. That wasn't really the point of my talk, which was more to simply raise the issue - in the short time allotted - of how times are changing and how what we think is shot one way may not be shot that way. One is free to disagree with my approach, but with only 5 minutes, that's the route I chose. So be it.
Yea I hear ya! :)
He poo-poos the look of Attack of the Clones. Apart from the hasty cgi, what is he talking about? When I saw in the theater, I couldn't believe it was shot on video tape. It looked like a movie to me.
film is for real flimmakers,digital is for loosers.
Film is grainy and looks like crap.There are ton's of digital cameras out there, pick one and use it.
Heh, film has been used to make some of the greatest movies ever. Does 2001: a space odyssey look like crap? What about Lawrence of Arabia? All of Terry Gilliam's projects were shot on film, and they're renowned for their aesthetics.
Not all film looks like 8mm. 70mm and 35mm are both quite a bit more detailed than 4k digital. In the right hands, 16mm can look extremely sexy.
Another important point is that film handles lighting quite a bit better. Digital cameras, on the other hand, have finite lighting stops.
Also, some grain can enhance the image, if it doesn't go too overboard.
liam walters Film was all that was available at the time those movies made. It's a shame that's the case, as film does make those movies look a bit crusty on HD.
Very few films are scanned at higher than 4K and most are scanned at 2K, so unless you want to edit the old fashioned way, you'll never see that detail.
Perhaps digital cameras weren't able to capture as many stops in 2008, but now they're pretty close to the same DR.
Grain is an artifact of film, it's the reason they use so many lights, it's something you try to avoid .
Also, the time and costs associated with film and ridiculous, you have to buy the film stock, get it processed, then get it scanned and then edit digitally, then print it back to film again. And what you see in the viewfinder isn't what you get.
"Film was all that was available at the time those movies made. It's a shame that's the case, as film does make those movies look a bit crusty on HD."
I beg to differ. More recently, PTA's "The Master" was shot on 70mm film, and it looks incredible.
"Very few films are scanned at higher than 4K and most are scanned at 2K, so unless you want to edit the old fashioned way, you'll never see that detail."
When projected in a theater that owns the proper equipment, film does not have a finite resolution. It's also not very hard to find services that scan film to 4k resolution. Major productions usually distribute a 4k scan to theaters that only have digital projectors.
" Perhaps digital cameras weren't able to capture as many stops in 2008, but now they're pretty close to the same DR."
Usually, I can instantly tell what a film was shot on by the lighting.
"Grain is an artifact of film, it's the reason they use so many lights, it's something you try to avoid ."
Grain is important to the aesthetic of film. Too much grain is annoying, but just enough is wonderful. Some (not all) films shot on digital look flat because of the lack of grain.
Finally, I'm not arguing that film is better than digital. Both have a place in cinema. Digital has done a lot to bring filmmaking to the masses. Both have an aesthetic that works well on certain pictures.
Watch a 70mm film, then come back to me.
nope film looks a lot fucking better. digital is for beginners
🗣clickbait title !!!