The Dark Knight

[Nate Downes]

Well, Tom, you clearly are based on your posts, and that's the funny thing, as you are the only guy around who does so and doesn't mind it. Nothing wrong with that: I love relics! A dying species. ;)

 

See you in 10, then. Because - again funny - contrary to many people's experience in this industry over the past 3 decades, time hasn't been on your side, and won't be in the future... trust me: been there, done that. B)

 

Best wishes,

 

-Michael

*pst* I noticed how Tom could not comment about how filmstock *gasp* changes it's image quality as they make newer stocks....

[Tom Lowe]

*pst* I noticed how Tom could not comment about how filmstock *gasp* changes it's image quality as they make newer stocks....

 

Nate, film stock can improve. But it cannot double its resolution in a couple of years like digital sensors can.

 

Digital is the future, film is the past. No one can really deny that.

[David Mullen ASC]

Filmmakers should spend a little more time in the immediate present reality and less time pondering an unknown future.

 

But you guys seem to like wasting your time in pointless film vs. digital debates.

[Nate Downes]

Filmmakers should spend a little more time in the immediate present reality and less time pondering an unknown future.

 

But you guys seem to like wasting your time in pointless film vs. digital debates.

Killing time waiting for more work, for me anyways. FL film productions really slowed down as of late.

 

I also find a good lively discussion good for the spirit. But it can get out of hand, as this one has almost become, where nobody is actually discussing, and instead making blanket claims and sitting on them. (I include myself within this group)

[Michel Hafner]

A study from 2003 is what you cite as evidence? With how many generations of aquisition and printing technologies between then and now?

I'd love to get my hands on newer studies. Are there any? What is the consensus (or lack thereof) on the DCI stem tests?

[Michel Hafner]

One thing that is often forgotten is that what you actually see on the screen, even if projection were lossless, has very little to do with what happens on 35mm in the >= 3K and <= ?K range. That range is marginal for what you see. Much more relevant is what kind of modulation and noise you have in the range upto 3K, which defines how sharp and detailed the image looks you are seeing (on normal cinema screens, not IMAX). Film acts a bit like SACD with DSD recording, while digital cameras are PCM recorders. So whether 35mm is 4K or 6K or 8K is largely of academic interest. What you see in a cinema changes a lot once you see 4K with a MTF staying high till 4K is reached.

[Max Jacoby]

O Brother was HD, scanned on a Spirit, with the compression that entails.

 

There was an article on Pleasantville in the AC, but I don't recall whether they did the DI in 2K or HD

[georg lamshöft]

"Nate, film stock can improve. But it cannot double its resolution in a couple of years like digital sensors can"

 

Sadly, effective, real-world resolution and image-quality overall is compromised by many other factors, too.

 

To "record" 80lp/mm (~4k with 35mm-size, digital or film) is very hard, my Leica M8 is nearly a 4k-35mm (~4000Pixels @ 27mm width) with 2fps ;-), to achieve this resolution you need a tripod (shutter speed > 1/125s) and have to focus VERY carefully. I imagine that with cinematography it's even more difficult (moving camera/objects, focus...).

So other factors (dynamic range...) are very important but to achieve significant higher resolutions you have to increase film/sensor-size!?

Just look at the still photography world, the pixel-race is over, there are P&S-cameras with more megapixels than a DSLR and a 1ds MarkIII has as many megapixels as a MF-digital-back!

What I'm trying to say: 4k is as much you can get with 35mm (digital/analog) and bigger formats (65mm 5perf, Imax, 65mm sensors) aren't obsolete just beccause you can squetch more than 24MPixels (4k without bayer!) on a 35mm-sized sensor.

When the "Dark Knight" really looks as great on the big screen as some people say, it is time (since more and more people have descent beamers and blu-rays at home) to switch back to bigger formats for the big blockbuster-movies!

[georg lamshöft]

"Nate, film stock can improve. But it cannot double its resolution in a couple of years like digital sensors can"

 

Sadly, effective, real-world resolution and image-quality overall is compromised by many other factors, too.

 

To "record" 80lp/mm (~4k with 35mm-size, digital or film) is very hard, my Leica M8 is nearly a 4k-35mm (~4000Pixels @ 27mm width) with 2fps ;-), to achieve this resolution you need a tripod (shutter speed > 1/125s) and have to focus VERY carefully. I imagine that with cinematography it's even more difficult (moving camera/objects, focus...).

So other factors (dynamic range...) are very important but to achieve significant higher resolutions you have to increase film/sensor-size!?

Just look at the still photography world, the pixel-race is over, there are P&S-cameras with more megapixels than a DSLR and a 1ds MarkIII has as many megapixels as a MF-digital-back!

What I'm trying to say: 4k is as much you can get with 35mm (digital/analog) and bigger formats (65mm 5perf, Imax, 65mm sensors) aren't obsolete just beccause you can squetch more than 24MPixels (4k without bayer!) on a 35mm-sized sensor.

When the "Dark Knight" really looks as great on the big screen as some people say, it is time (since more and more people have descent beamers and blu-rays at home) to switch back to bigger formats for the big blockbuster-movies!

 

I just don't get it, there is such wonderful technology available but people discuss about cost-benefits of using HD with 100.000.000$-projects...

Edited July 5, 2008 by georg lamshöft

[David Mullen ASC]

O Brother was HD, scanned on a Spirit, with the compression that entails.

 

There was an article on Pleasantville in the AC, but I don't recall whether they did the DI in 2K or HD

 

It was done using the original Spirit, so HD resolution upconverted and output to 2K RGB data just as "O Brother" was. But there was no compression step in recording. But I don't think the original Spirit was full resolution actually for all three color channels.

 

Most of the "compression" artifacts you saw in Spirit-transferred 2K D.I.'s was due to the noise reduction step.

[Nate Downes]

It was done using the original Spirit, so HD resolution upconverted and output to 2K RGB data just as "O Brother" was. But there was no compression step in recording. But I don't think the original Spirit was full resolution actually for all three color channels.

 

Most of the "compression" artifacts you saw in Spirit-transferred 2K D.I.'s was due to the noise reduction step.

You know David, this made me think a bit. We sit here and look like a bunch of old gearheads arguing weither a fuel injection system is truer than a carbeurator. In short, dull, boring shop talk that, in the end, means nothing. So what if O'Brother was HD, 2k, 4k or chiseled by aliens with big elbows, the movie was downright hilarious.

 

My wife interjected at this point of my typing:

"It is not about what it looks like, it is about what it makes you feel... I use punctuation when I talk."

 

And she's right. The nitty specs about how it was done mean little, what you feel about it means everything.

 

And seeing what I have of The Dark Knight, if Nolan is half as good as he was in Memento and Batman Begins... we will feel something absolutely incredible.

 

I, for one, am seeing it on IMAX, nothing else will do. 8)

[K Borowski]

Hey, sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but you can not get more than about 18 MP of resolution using a 35mm still-sized lens. So a 24MP chip the size of a 35mm 8-perf./Vistavision frame is actually useless. The lens won't pass that much information through! This is why a lot of MF backs actually produce better-looking results than higher resolution 35mm-chip-size DSLRs.

 

This is an argument made for primes. I can count on one hand the number of photographers I know who use primes outside of the studio environment (including myself). Granted, in the controlled world of cinematography, primes are used much more often, but there is still the same trend towards zooms, bigger F-stops, more convenience in all aspects of imaging.

 

Howabout F/- and T-stops? If you aren't shooting your lens 2-2 1/2 stops down from wide-open, you're not getting the optimal amount of sharpness out of that lens. T-2.8 or T16? Forget it.

 

Also, forget getting optimum sharpness if you aren't using a camera mounted on a tripod. Again, I can count on one hand, including myself, the number of stills guys using a tripod when they should.

 

Convenience isn't just something that the digital camp has turned towards, people using film have gotten just as lazy.

 

Now, I am not saying that cameras should always be equipped with primes, mounted on tripods or dollies, shooting 2 stops down from wide open with no filters in front of the lens. Hell, some of the things we do, like shooting through stockings, fog filters *intentionally* degrades the image quality of the lens, and there isn't anything wrong with this.

 

I agree that this resolution thing has gotten out of hand, as it has migrated across at least a half a dozen threads; I will no longer take part in in and I ask that those also involved on both sides do the same. We are polluting perfectly good threads with a lot of irrelevant noise. . .

[K Borowski]

When the "Dark Knight" really looks as great on the big screen as some people say, it is time (since more and more people have descent beamers and blu-rays at home) to switch back to bigger formats for the big blockbuster-movies!

 

I think you're right Georg. I hope that "Dark Knight" is to HD TV what "How The West Was Won" was to the early B&W, square aspect TVs.

 

I hope we'll see not just a migration back to 65mm and anamorphic movies, but the development of something truly better. I've heard that they're working on the next generation of imaging, not digital, not film, but something better.

 

If anyone has read the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan, he talks about holography taking over photography. For those of you understand the principles of making a hologram, there is no lens. Rather a series of lasers are used to form an interference pattern which images a three dimensional image of the subject onto a piece of film.

 

Imagine going to the theatre and actually being placed inside of the action, having a three dimensional movie going on all around you, being a part of it. But we will move beyond lenses, lights to be able to take this next step. This is not the same as simulated being inside the action you get with 3D movies using polarizer lenses and exagerated perspective by filming with the two cameras twice the distance apart as the human eye.

 

I hope we can move beyond the gimmickry and really innovate again to stay a step beyond the home entertainment experience, and that entails providing a product that is truly impossible to experience at home. . .

[Max Jacoby]

But I don't think the original Spirit was full resolution actually for all three color channels.

Not sure of the specs either, but wasn't the chroma subsampled? The resolution only 1440x1080?

[Dirk DeJonghe]

On the original Spirit,the luminance CCD is 1920 pixels wide, the chroma CCD's are only 960 pixels wide. Effectively half resolution in chroma. It is the original HDCAM format that is only 1440 pixels wide on tape, compressed from 1920 to 1440 during recording and uprezzed back to 1920 during playback.

[John Hoffler]

So what if O'Brother was HD, 2k, 4k or chiseled by aliens with big elbows, the movie was downright hilarious.

 

 

if that is an Eddie Izzard reference then you are my new hero!!!!!

 

I've got my IMAX tickets as well. They've already sold out almost all of their midnight showings and are having to open up 3am showings to accommodate the demands.

[Nate Downes]

if that is an Eddie Izzard reference then you are my new hero!!!!!

 

I've got my IMAX tickets as well. They've already sold out almost all of their midnight showings and are having to open up 3am showings to accommodate the demands.

Two points for getting the reference!!!!

[Guest Glen Alexander]

What's the average cost of shooting IMAX?

[Robert Houllahan]

Not sure of the specs either, but wasn't the chroma subsampled? The resolution only 1440x1080?

 

 

As Dirk said the Spirit-1 is 1920 luminance and 960 for color, the Shadow has the same imager but only uses 1440 pixels of the luminance line. New Spirit Hd, 2K and 4K machines are all the same imager with 2K and 4K full bandwidth for each (2048 or 4096) luminance and color so Spirit-1 is sort of 4:2:2 at the imager and the new ones are all 4:4:4 at the imager..... resolution is limited by software license ;)

 

Now back to the Weed vs. Whiskey debate that is so popular.....

 

 

-Rob-

[K Borowski]

What's the average cost of shooting IMAX?

 

At least here in the States, figure $1 or more a foot, and 15/4 of 90 feet per minute is 337' 6"/minute at 24 fps. Double that if you're shooting in 3D. Figure processing costs of at least 20¢/foot. So $1.30/foot x 337'6" = almost $440/min. just to shoot and process. I have no idea how much a daily would cost. Color timing costs should be comparable, but figure a little extra because the equipment is specialty, they have to use vacuum locsk to keep such big negatives flat, and they have to maintain machines that don't get nearly as much mileage as your average 35mm printer.

 

Pretty pricey stuff. $24,000 was what I saw quoted for a feature-length print, not including timing costs, 2D. So if you sell your car, you can make an Imax print; if you sell your house you can shoot your movie on Imax!

Edited July 8, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[K Borowski]

Max or someone else across the pond there, do they shoot and project Imax at 25/50 fps over there in Europe, or is it standardized worldwide at 24 fps?

[Robert Houllahan]

There was a "how it's made" episode on History channel or Science Channel or somewhere that had how a IMAX projector is made as one of the segments... too Fu**king cool! I was all droolie by the end, glass vacuum plate gate and huge circular spinning movement and all....

 

-Rob-

[Paul Bruening]

There was a "how it's made" episode on History channel or Science Channel or somewhere that had how a IMAX projector is made as one of the segments... too Fu**king cool! I was all droolie by the end, glass vacuum plate gate and huge circular spinning movement and all....

 

-Rob-

 

I've caught that episode twice. My wife and I went to the IMAX in Murmphicus (Memphis) this Monday. The projectionist (Bob) used to work at Motion Picture Labs in Memphis back before it died a natural death from video. He was great and let us scrutinize the projector. It was the old design that has to rewind on its platter.

 

We saw Sea Monsters. The Memphis IMAX theater is a below ground level facility. It's in a hole in the ground. The seating is stacked up steeply and the screen is jambed up into your face. I actually got a headache trying to take in all that detail up so close. The image is, of course, stunning. Immediately after, we went to Malco's Paradiso theater and caught Get Smart.

 

Now, here's the thing: The Paradiso is a new theater and is all digital projection. The projectors are Barco DLPs (according to the Asst. Manager). They looked really good. When I say they looked really good, what I actually mean is that they looked really good. Know what I'm saying? They were almost as sharp as the IMAX. The only thing that didn't look good on the Barcos was the shots in the movie that were digital acquisition. Those shots had that Domino- tinsel-y character. Funny, it's not the projection part of digital that I have beef with. It's the acquisition side of it.

 

Bob said they were waiting for IMAX digital 3D to replace their film IMAX projector.

[Robert Houllahan]

Now, here's the thing: The Paradiso is a new theater and is all digital projection. The projectors are Barco DLPs (according to the Asst. Manager). They looked really good. When I say they looked really good, what I actually mean is that they looked really good. Know what I'm saying? Funny, it's not the projection part of digital that I have beef with. It's the acquisition side of it.

 

Bob said they were waiting for IMAX digital 3D to replace their film IMAX projector.

 

 

While I generally agree that display is much better than acquisition with digital the 2K projection I have seen has been lacking some of the things I like in a print, they do make perceptually sharp pics though.

 

As to Imax digital projection I am very skeptical, most projectors do not scale well with resolution, 4K 3 device systems have severe registration issues and in comparison to 15perf 65mm to 70mm prints any scan/DI/Projector path seems compromised to me.

 

I understand some of the economic arguments for digital projection but it barely seems ok for some 35mm release much less the pinnacle of film projection, If I walk into a Imax theater and see something I can get at home I won't be going back.

 

-Rob-

[Antti Näyhä]

Max or someone else across the pond there, do they shoot and project Imax at 25/50 fps over there in Europe, or is it standardized worldwide at 24 fps?

It's 24 fps worldwide.

 

25 fps is pretty rare even in 35 mm projection in PAL countries. At festivals, we do get some prints of films that were primarily shot for the TV/video market, and these have sometimes been marked as "please project at 25 fps". But more often than not, even those prints are projected at standard speed, as most projectors are not equipped for any speed other than 24 fps.