Digital vs Film as it stands right now

[K Borowski]

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.

 

OK so your production company is 3 film 5 digital. That isn't indicative of the industry as a whole. That's just like saying that because the Sci-Fi Channel *mandated* that all their shows be shot digitally, and that the BBC mandated that no shows be shot on 16mm, that these trends are indicative of the industry as a whole, which clearly isn't the case.

[David Rakoczy]

:lol: :lol:

 

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:

 

 

My bad. Thank you for the correction.

 

David 'fallible' Rakoczy

[John Holland]

Karl i hate the company for making so many serious mistakes with their MP stocks and processing in the past when your working life is made harder by numb nut corporations who f--k up you tend to hold a grudge . Now there stocks are like video WHY . If i want that look i will shoot electronic , give me some bollocks to work with Mr Eastman.

[Paul Bruening]

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. . .

 

I was under the idea that Arriscan could do 6K. They scan at 6K and break it down to 4K, commonly. But, they could leave it at 6K. Although data heavy, it's a good practice to up-res and up-bit so you can apply digital filters and the like since the higher res versions alter more precisely, then down-res back to the origin size or lower for the sake of the post house doing the records and other related considerations. If you have the money (certainly, more money than a sense of practicality) you could keep the higher res work file sizes at 8K and output them to the 8K recorder. The big drop in res would then be from the CRT down to the 6K print stock.

 

This is all theoretical meandering, by the way.

[K Borowski]

I was under the idea that Arriscan could do 6K. They scan at 6K and break it down to 4K, commonly. But, they could leave it at 6K. Although data heavy, it's a good practice to up-res and up-bit so you can apply digital filters and the like since the higher res versions alter more precisely, then down-res back to the origin size or lower for the sake of the post house doing the records and other related considerations. If you have the money (certainly, more money than a sense of practicality) you could keep the higher res work file sizes at 8K and output them to the 8K recorder. The big drop in res would then be from the CRT down to the 6K print stock.

 

This is all theoretical meandering, by the way.

 

I don't see any point to going any higher than 8K on 35mm 4-perf.

 

Yeah, at this point it is a file-storage issue that they down-convert to 4K from a 6K scan.

 

Wasn't there a post somewhere on here that Dark Knight's 35mm was scanned at 5.6K and 8K? They're probably working with the ultimate in optimal workflow for 35mm with a digital stage.

[John Sprung]

OK so your production company is 3 film 5 digital. That isn't indicative of the industry as a whole.

OK, let's look at the industry as a whole:

 

ABC/Disney

CBS/Paramount

Fox

HBO

NBC/Universal

New Regency

Sony

TNT/TBS

Warner's

 

Post folks from all of the above get together twice a year at the Sandzimier dinners, and I'm one of them. We've all seen the transition, first thru the sitcoms, now in the dramas. If I remember next time, I'll ask in the general discussion if anybody has a new show starting up on film. I'm sure the answer will be very few if any.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

I don't see any point to going any higher than 8K on 35mm 4-perf.

 

Yeah, at this point it is a file-storage issue that they down-convert to 4K from a 6K scan.

 

Wasn't there a post somewhere on here that Dark Knight's 35mm was scanned at 5.6K and 8K? They're probably working with the ultimate in optimal workflow for 35mm with a digital stage.

 

Heretofore, the scan sizes exceeded the practical limits of the computers crunching those big file sizes. But, that is changing. Quad core CPUs, TB SATAII's at under $200, GB LAN networking (soon might be 10GB LAN) render farms of very economical MoBos'... it gets more and more reasonable and do-able to push working resolutions to 6K and even 8K. The persistent bottle neck is working, high-res monitors. I'm using dual 2K CRTs on all eight of my workstations with a 3840 wide on one of them and it was pricey, to say the least. I'd prefer if it could be one 4K monitor on three of the workstations and at under $600 per monitor.

 

The point to all my wandering is: As long as film can deliver the high quality images, digital scan can capture and use them better and better. Thus, staying well ahead of the digital acquisition technology like RED and certainly looking better than Dig-Acq (pronounced, "didj-aaaaaaack!" with a barf-like tone).

[Satsuki Murashige]

Satsuki,

 

I can't let this go. What do you think the capture res-equivalent rating of a fine print stock to be?

No idea! You'd have to ask Pfister himself.... I respect his opinion when he says the film needed to be scanned at 8K to retain all the information in the IMAX blow-up, but I and everyone else can only judge the results when the film is released in theaters. I suspect that without the IMAX blow-up, he would have preferred to print 100% photochemically. He was very big on the fact that a direct contact print from the o-neg gives the highest picture quality so I supposed in the future if an 8K scan can replicate that look for all the release prints, then he'd happily do it.

[Max Jacoby]

"Saving Private Ryan " got it that year Max .

I recall. I think 'The Thin Red Line' was much better though. Not just the cinematography, but the film as a whole. But hey, a film about bringing the last son home to his mother, that must have gotten the Academy's hearts all warm and fuzzy.

[Max Jacoby]

This was because he generally lights to a T2/2.8 for scope but the IMAX lenses were T2.8.

Does anyone here have any tech specs on IMAX lenses? Because I'd be very surprised if they all opened up to T2.8. The stops on Arris 65mm lenses (adapted Hasselblads) vary between T2.1 and T4.2. Because these lenses have to cover a larger area they are not as fast as 35mm lenses.

[Brad Grimmett]

Well....

 

"They actually had to add in noise and grain so it would blend more seamlessly with the scenes shot on film," a spokesman for Red Digital Cinema, Jon Sagud, said.

Apparently they didn't add anything to the Red footage since they didn't actually use any of it in the movie. It must have been too good to use.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I'd be very surprised if they all opened up to T2.8.

I think you're right Max. I guess you could call IMAX and find out what lenses were used on the show (they only rent their cameras and lenses, don't they?). I'm sure AC will have an article on the film at some point.

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi Brad,

 

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

 

Stephen

OK, weird co-incidence. So I guess the article is correct in that respect. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Michael Lehnert]

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?).

 

Oh my god, oh my god I can't believe it! *breather*

First of all, I would like to thank the Keith Academy for Motion Picture Knowledge for bestowing me with such a prestigious award. *pause* I can't believe that I am standing up here *tears* I would like to thank my parents and all my family *sob* I would like to thank Kodak for inventing film so that I can be here in the first place *tears* and the Lumière brothers for being so inventive *sob* My heart goes to Christiane, and my gratitude to Stanley Kubrick for an incredble experience that I will never foget until I die *sob*, I would also like to thank my landlady in St. Albans for the kind support in letting me that flat in Ridgmont House without references and deposit, thanks, it changed my life *more tears* I would like to thank Tim and David and Max and John and Santo who attracted me to this forum a while ago through their quality posting *sob* I would like to thank everyone at LSE, and at London Underground for not killing me by accident every other day *sob sob* I would like to say hello to Paul Dresel for the great work as a tech guy, and to my accountant for financing him *sob* Thanks to anyone at Aaton, and Eclair who helped to make my docu-work technically possible *smiles-awkwardly* and thanks to you, Jean Rouch, merci pour des moments inoubliables parlant de vos experiences en filmant le monde *sob* I also just have to say hello to my lawyer, too, and the people of the BCFI for the years of hard working getting all those initiatives done *sobsobsob* thanks to Gwyneth for teaching me rhetorics, and sharing a yoga mat with my partner - it mattered the most because if I had to fetch her own mat for her that day, I would have never found the time to do the postings in this thread that clearly inspired Keith to award me this ... award *veryteary* I also would like to thank...

 

- commercial break fades in-

 

 

enough trolling now from my side.

[Satsuki Murashige]

BTW, just came across this article about future plans for IMAX. Not good...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080620/media_nm/imax_dc

[Michael Lehnert]

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.....

 

:huh:

 

Dear David Rakoczy, I believe you must suffer from rather bad memory.

 

Not only have I never encountered you in this entire forum, nor have I posted in the "DOF Over-Rated" thread (I don't have the luxury to post in every misguided topic that gets started here!) and the quote you seem to associate with my persona has never been uttered by me, nor would I say something intellectually defeatist like that. As far as your 1st ACs (it's ACs, not AC's, but English grammar is challenging, I agree ? I like you have English as one's third language, I presume...) are concerned, well, what would you tell them? Does anyone care what you would tell them offsite your set? I guess those lads and lasses are just happy that you remember their names correctly.

 

Cheers,

 

-your unknown friend.

[Michael Lehnert]

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 !!

 

I read that post then and did my own reseach with the kind help of Todd-AO here in London and Arri in München. I really cannot see how anyone could object to this premise given how scanning technology and film-out works and how the economic (and not technological) basis of the entire xK reference operates today - and will in the future. As I got the same reaction like yo in this thread just... uh... 5 pages earlier when I suggested 35@8K, I think we should consider founding the "8K FutureWatch Club". Eventually, people will get it... and also understand that choosing acquisition media will increasingly relate to the required presentation channel which will diversify more widely into LowDef spheres rather than HD as many believe now. That is where the major changes in technology will be driven from - and not that RED will sooner rather than later replace 35 or 65 origination for cinemas... B)

[John Sprung]

The persistent bottle neck is working, high-res monitors. I'm using dual 2K CRTs on all eight of my workstations with a 3840 wide on one of them and it was pricey, to say the least.

With the need for higher resolution and CRT production being discontinued, I'm thinking we may do better to go to chip based front projection for monitoring.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Jason Anderson]

BTW, just came across this article about future plans for IMAX. Not good...

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080620/media_nm/imax_dc

 

going to the IMAX used to be fun. The last film I watched at the IMAX was shot on HD, the IMAX experience was less than pleasing. The HD is partly to blame for my headache, but the film just didn't have the engaging footage that IMAX has been known for in the past.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297144/technical

 

Jason

[Michael Lehnert]

Does anyone here have any tech specs on IMAX lenses? Because I'd be very surprised if they all opened up to T2.8. The stops on Arris 65mm lenses (adapted Hasselblads) vary between T2.1 and T4.2. Because these lenses have to cover a larger area they are not as fast as 35mm lenses.

 

I was wondering about that as well recently while taking a break from digging for a spec sheet for a rare Angénieux vario and reading about IMAX in the ArriNews mag (I know, it's sad to spend lunchbreaks like that...)

I have limited knowledge of most Hasselblad lenses, but especially the Sonnars rarely opened up further than f/4, so I doubt that they can adapt them beyond a transmission stop of 3.3.

 

A friend of mine currently deals with IMAX. I email him a Q&A note, unless you wanted to give them a call yourself, to avoid second hand info from me ;) .

[K Borowski]

Apparently they didn't add anything to the Red footage since they didn't actually use any of it in the movie. It must have been too good to use.

 

God DAMN Brad :lol:

 

Double barrels!

[David Rakoczy]

:huh:

 

Dear David Rakoczy, I believe you must suffer from rather bad memory.

 

Not only have I never encountered you in this entire forum, nor have I posted in the "DOF Over-Rated" thread (I don't have the luxury to post in every misguided topic that gets started here!) and the quote you seem to associate with my persona has never been uttered by me, nor would I say something intellectually defeatist like that. As far as your 1st ACs (it's ACs, not AC's, but English grammar is challenging, I agree ? I like you have English as one's third language, I presume...) are concerned, well, what would you tell them? Does anyone care what you would tell them offsite your set? I guess those lads and lasses are just happy that you remember their names correctly.

 

Cheers,

 

-your unknown friend.

 

 

Michael, that was totally uncalled for... as you can read (on page 8 or 9) I stated that is was my error in confusing you with someone else. You must have missed that in your rush to post what you feel is a clever response. Well now that you have... feel any better about yourself? Mmmm probably not.

 

I believe Mathew (the person I confused your post for) described you perfectly. Well done Mathew!

[Michael Lehnert]

Based on the premise of your original post (as Keith and myself have our own stupid exchanges here and there, so no need to squeeze in-between us) and particularly in light of the basic forms of civic behaviour that mark this board as one of the best not only in this industy, but across all imaginable topics found in the "cloud", it's your original post that was quite uncalled for, too.

 

I acknowledge: I replied to that before wading through the 77 other replies (this most be one of the most frequented threads for years, outside of RED, i.e.). But actually, in hinsight, don't regret it as a little "Ouch, yeah, Matthew, you are right, it was you, sorry for that Michael, mistook you with that fella" from your side wouldn't have really been that difficult to type. Even I manage to do that when I am wrong. And there isn't really any show of "whoops, sorry" at the end of your last post, either. Or maybe I am just too up my own ass to read in-between your lines :ph34r: ...

 

Last post in this thread. Really sinking faster than the Titanic, and I guess I volunteer to be the first rat to leave that ship...

 

Ahoi,

 

-Michael

 

 

P.S.: I am sure someone will chime in shortly with the statement that really the Titanic sank rather slowly and hence the comparison sucks... I wonder who...

 

P.P.S.: Not sure that you got Matthew correctly, BTW...

[Paul Maher Jr]

There is more to it than latitude and resolution. For example, a well-exposed digital image is much "cleaner" than film - meaning it has no grain. Now, some people like grain, others prefer the super-clean look of digital. I'm not saying one is better than the other - just that there is a difference.

 

Right now chemical cinema film still wins if for no other reason than dynamic range, but the next generation of digital cinema cameras will begin to take a very serious chunk out of chemical film's grip on the motion picture industry, and within a few years we will begin to see a major groundshift, similar to what happened with SLR cameras. It will take a little more time, but it's gonna happen, no matter how many film lovers try to deny it. Top-end DSLRs still can't really match or beat chemical film for dynamic range, but that has not stopped digital from almost completely overrunning the 35mm still market.

 

Tom, did you know that the Extended Cut of The New World will be out on October 14?

[David Rakoczy]

Michael Lehnert,

 

You might want to check your spelling yourself... you are right.. the English grammar IS challenging.. even for the learned Lehnert.

 

With regard to 'when' I post.. you are out of your mind! What a pompous ass!

 

Now, I said it was "my bad and thanks for the correction".. what you don't like is that I did not kiss your ass in doing so.

 

Now that I have met you.. and [know] who you are... I especially appreciate my not doing so.

Edited June 23, 2008 by David Rakoczy