Digital vs Film as it stands right now

[Max Jacoby]

To each his own though, I guess. Seriously though, who can say this film isn't stunning visually???

I still wonder why it didn't get the Oscar for best cinematography that year.

[Stephen Williams]

It also says that Mark Pederson bought two of the first Red's and has since bought several more. I worked with Mark on a commercial last month and it was the first job they'd ever done with the Red because they had just gotten it days before our shoot. I guess there could be another Mark Pederson that owns a Red camera, but that seems unlikely at best.

 

Hi Brad,

 

There are 2 Mark Pederson's one from Offhollywood who owns camera 6 & 7, the lowest 2 serial no's sold.

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

I still wonder why it didn't get the Oscar for best cinematography that year.

"Saving Private Ryan " got it that year Max . Must have been strange in the Toll house that year , Lois Burwell ,Chief Make on Ryan and [ sorry to name drop ] but a friend of mine and John Tolls wife was i think also up for a statue for Ryan . wonder if they had a bet on it .?

[K Borowski]

"Saving Private Ryan " got it that year Max . Must have been strange in the Toll house that year , Lois Burwell ,Chief Make on Ryan and [ sorry to name drop ] but a friend of mine and John Tolls wife was i think also up for a statue for Ryan . wonder if they had a bet on it .?

 

John, don't apollogize! Name-dropping, like film-making, is an artform ;)

[David Rakoczy]

I nominate this poster for the Emmanuel A Gueddes Incomprehensibility Award for June '08 :lol:

Does anybody want to second this, (or explain exactly what he was getting at?).

 

 

I'll second that. I encountered Mr. Lehnert in the DOF Over-Rated thread where he stated "in 16mm, you just have to learn to live [without] shallow DOF". Tell that to my 1st AC's...

 

You can take it from there.....

Edited June 23, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Paul Bruening]

Satsuki,

 

I can't let this go. What do you think the capture res-equivalent rating of a fine print stock to be? 5K? 6K? I know it's all ball park estimates since the two systems can't really be quantified in the face of aesthetic observations. But, generally, let's say, 8K from recorder CRT to 6K print stock in scope IP. Then CP to IN at about 5K. Then, release prints in the 3K to 3.5K res equivalent. The projector desqueezes the image to a screen equivalent of 1.75K compared to a normal optical path desqueeze of .75K.

 

If that's a reasonable assessment, then wouldn't the 8K origination show up significantly better on screen even with mass distribution printing? I'm just slopping around the numbers. It just seems that it might be a way to drag VV origin, screen resolutions out of a 35mm anamorphic frame.

[K Borowski]

Satsuki,

 

I can't let this go. What do you think the capture res-equivalent rating of a fine print stock to be? 5K? 6K? I know it's all ball park estimates since the two systems can't really be quantified in the face of aesthetic observations. But, generally, let's say, 8K from recorder CRT to 6K print stock in scope IP. Then CP to IN at about 5K. Then, release prints in the 3K to 3.5K res equivalent. The projector desqueezes the image to a screen equivalent of 1.75K compared to a normal optical path desqueeze of .75K.

 

If that's a reasonable assessment, then wouldn't the 8K origination show up significantly better on screen even with mass distribution printing? I'm just slopping around the numbers. It just seems that it might be a way to drag VV origin, screen resolutions out of a 35mm anamorphic frame.

 

Paul, it's safe to say that you could get between 4- and 5K onto print stock, assuming you're contact printing. However, film recorders generally use a lens and a high-res CRT monitor, so your 8K might not even be resolving 5K of actual data on the film.

 

Also, how do you intend to load more than 5 ft. of film into a film recorder, and how do you intend to get proper registration and 4-perf recording as opposed to the normal 8 perf.'s you'd expect from a still film recorder?

 

One final thought: film recorders are designed for slide film characteristics. Can you even modify one to image onto print stock without running into color fringing and color spectral sensitivity incompatibility issues?

Edited June 23, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[John Holland]

Paul i suggested that 35mm anamorphic was 8K a couple of months ago on here cant remember which section but was laughed of the site !!

[Robert Houllahan]

sorry about the Ak folks... I am working on a picture with a Bosnian war scene...

 

I hardly think "Jumper" or "Cloverfield" are good arguments for anything other than hoping these pictures are soon relegated to the circular file of movie history. They keep running spots for "Jumper" on comedy central and every time I see one it makes me want to watch that less and less, same goes for that new Angelina Jolie "Wanted" POS just so uninteresting like watching a McDonalds hamburger for 100 min. This only proves that a bad film can be made using just about any format, or combo of formats.

 

 

I saw the trailer for "Benjamin button" when I went to see "Dr.Jones&the acrylic alien" thought it looked great, obviously allot of care went into shooting it and the story seems interesting. There is a thread going on down in the On Screen section and the Cinematographer himself is there contributing and sharing interesting technical knowledge about the process he went through to make the picture. I for one will go see it in the theater.

 

 

I am also, like may people, very interested in going to see the new Batman picture and there is a great Imax cinema near to where I live. The thought of much of a high line action picture being shot partly in 15-perf is just great. In olden days some films were made on 35mm 4 perf and then some were made on Scope and then some were made in Vista-vision or 2.20 Todd-Ao and now we can mix 15-perf Imax with scope and Super-8 if need be, or Scope with Dalsa or Red...

 

 

The endless circular argument about which is "best" is tired. last post on this one..

 

-Rob-

[Paul Bruening]

I don't always agree with Michael. But, I'm not going to chime-in with a bash fest on him just because he is intelligent and articulate. If you don't get what he says, don't show your ass by attacking him for being intelligent. My pop always said, "Keep your mouth shut and people will suspect you're wise. Open it and prove them wrong."

[K Borowski]

Paul i suggested that 35mm anamorphic was 8K a couple of months ago on here cant remember which section but was laughed of the site !!

 

Well, he is talking about print stock, and you're talking about OCN. You're basically suggesting that 4-perf. 35mm film is resolving 48 megapixels of information, which would make a 35mm still frame almost 100 megapixels. Even with 5201, that wouldn't be the case. Of course, if you're talking about the higher color BIT DEPTH of film, that is another story. Most scans are only 8- or 12 bit, whereas film is probably over 16, maybe 20 bits of color data.

 

Also, you aren't going to get 4K of data with a 4K scan, so there definitely is cause to do a 6- or 8K to get as much of that 4K off the negative or IP as you can. Even at 8K, you technically wouldn't be getting all 4Ks of data off the film, although there's rapidly diminishing returns at higher scanner resolutions.

 

There is a very good website on all of this stuff out there (albeit geared towards still photography moreso than filmmaking) that does a comparison between the highest-resolution scan cropped in and a digital photograph taken of a piece of film through a microscope, and the microscope photo showed that scanners still can be improved markedly. I'll try to find a link to post. . .

[K Borowski]

I am also, like may people, very interested in going to see the new Batman picture and there is a great Imax cinema near to where I live. The thought of much of a high line action picture being shot partly in 15-perf is just great. In olden days some films were made on 35mm 4 perf and then some were made on Scope and then some were made in Vista-vision or 2.20 Todd-Ao and now we can mix 15-perf Imax with scope and Super-8 if need be, or Scope with Dalsa or Red...

 

Hey Rob, do you know if Dark Knight is going to be shown on Omnimax screens, or just true IMAX?

[Matthew W. Phillips]

:lol: :lol:

I'll second that. I encountered Mr. Lehnert in the DOF Over-Rated thread where he stated "in 16mm, you just have to learn to live [without] shallow DOF". Tell that to my 1st AC's...

 

You can take it from there.....

 

David, be more of a professional than that! It wasn't Michael that said that...it was me. Maybe it's time for you to get over it too. I said I was wrong after seeing your commercial shots and I rephrased. I think you are trying hard to beat out Keith and Phil as the most condescending person on this forum. However, you lack the sheer arrogance that only British people can have toward Americans. :lol:

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I nominate this poster for the Emmanuel A Gueddes Incomprehensibility Award for June '08 :lol:

Does anybody want to second this, (or explain exactly what he was getting at?).

 

Michael is NOTHING like Mr. Guedes. Michael actually makes sense and is not some RED shill.

[Giovanni Speranza]

I'm sad.

Don't you go to cinemas?

Don't you watch trailers?

Don't you see the IMMENSE difference between Kodak Vision and digital?

If you don't see the difference, you don't deserve to be called a D.P. or cinematographer.

 

Maybe you will do great films with digital, maybe you MUST work with digital. But SO FAR no digital camera can compare with Kodak Vision.

Just download some trailers at Apple.com, whatch them and then go to imdb to see how they did it.

And if you have any visual taste you can't say that digital is up to Kodak Vision

[John Sprung]

Well, my response to that is that the vast majority of dramatic television in the US continues to be shot on film.

No longer true, new shows starting up are mostly going digital. We had eight dramatic shows for '07-08, 3 on film, 5 digital. The film shows were in their 4th thru 6th seasons.

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

Paul, it's safe to say that you could get between 4- and 5K onto print stock, assuming you're contact printing. However, film recorders generally use a lens and a high-res CRT monitor, so your 8K might not even be resolving 5K of actual data on the film.

 

I'm guessing 5K for sure since Dominic Case once told me 5K to 6K range for fine grain print stock. His principle concern was the low ASA of print stock. I was thinking of double or triple exposing each frame for getting the exposure up. Of course, a rock solid mounting would be critical.

 

Also, how do you intend to load more than 5 ft. of film into a film recorder, and how do you intend to get proper registration and 4-perf recording as opposed to the normal 8 perf.'s you'd expect from a still film recorder?

 

I use an NC with single frame motor. Do you read my threads? I already said this. The NC has 4-perf pull down and 2-pin registration. The lens would have to be a high quality macro or bellows'ed lens of some kind.

 

One final thought: film recorders are designed for slide film characteristics. Can you even modify one to image onto print stock without running into color fringing and color spectral sensitivity incompatibility issues?

 

Sure. Alter the data files and test until the exposure is right. The LFR Mk V is just a SCSI CRT with color wheel. What kind of files you cram through it are up to the user. You can put neg or pos images through it. You can alter the values digitally to meet whatever stock or aesthetic requirements needed. How good it might look remains unknown. I'm just speculating at this point since I can't even get Win 2K to co-habit with my other OS's.

 

Another problem with it was that it was rated at 2 min. 40 secs. 8K exposure time in the 486 days of processing. I'm hoping that dual CPUs will push that up faster. It would be a drag to wait 6 months on the recorder rolls to expose.

 

The Mark V is supposed to be the model that Lasergraphics solved the halation problem. I'll have to run tests and see. It may just suck with nothing to be done to fix it. Time will tell.

[John Holland]

I second that Paul , Michael is a good person to be on here .

[Robert Houllahan]

Hey Rob, do you know if Dark Knight is going to be shown on Omnimax screens, or just true IMAX?

 

 

I do not know, I would assume Imax only but you never know..

 

-Rob-

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Maybe you will do great films with digital, maybe you MUST work with digital. But SO FAR no digital camera can compare with Kodak Vision.

 

Don't tell Stephen Williams this...he's a Kodak Hater! :lol:

I'm sure when it comes down to it, Stephen is a film guy at heart...even if he does hate Kodak.

[K Borowski]

No longer true, new shows starting up are mostly going digital. We had eight dramatic shows for '07-08, 3 on film, 5 digital. The film shows were in their 4th thru 6th seasons.

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Sorry, but that is hardly conclusive on a total of eight shows. We did have a writer's strike that sort of wiped out dramatic television. If this happens next year then I'll consider it a trend.

 

Are you counting Breaking Bad among those three film shows?

[John Holland]

You could be wrong about Stephen , i am King Kodak hater .

[John Sprung]

Viper is not really used (only by Mann and Fincher it seems), same for the Red and the Dalsa.

We've used Viper quite a bit for TV, but expect the F-23 to give it a run for its money. Don't count Dalsa out. The first few Evolutions arrived just in time for CineGear last weekend. They'll be a player in the high end.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

I think it is funny that some people actually hate Kodak film. I like Kodak more than Fuji, as Kodak tends to render caucasian flesh more accurately than Fuji IMO, but I certainly consider Fuji better than digital. Some people here seem to rank things Fuji first, digital second, Kodak third.

[John Sprung]

Are you counting Breaking Bad among those three film shows?

Nope, that's not our show. Company policy requires that I not speak for the company on any public forum, so I can't say which shows....

 

 

 

-- J.S.