More Fuel For The Film vs HD Fire

[Guest dpforum1968]

Ok so I was talking to my good friend at ILM who is an animator on the current Star Wars film and he also worked on Attack Of The Clones. He is credited as an animator on both films.

 

I asked him how people feel at ILM about working on the two Star Wars films shot in HD, instead of 35mm film.

 

First, he wanted all to know that ILM heavily processess every shot that comes out of the HD camera. What goes to print bares little resemblance to what actually came in raw on the HD tape. Of course I know this is the same process for effects heavy films shot on film as well.

 

He did say that he would talk to the top ILM effects guy regarding which is better film or HD. So according the top effects guy at ILM, 35mm film is vastly superior to HD. The reason he cited is that there is 100 times the information in a 35mm frame of film, compared to an HD "frame."

 

Therefore the lattitude of what you can do with film is far greater.

 

This isn't coming from me, this comes from two ILM staffers who actually work on big movies shot on film, and now in the case of Star Wars HD.

 

Take it ot leave it.

 

DC

[David Mullen ASC]

That 35mm color negative holds more information, has more resolution, has more latitude, than HD is hardly disputed even by most HD shooters. The basic specs tell you that. So you're sort of stating the obvious. It isn't really even debatable. It's like you just found one more authoritative person to back you up in your firm but controversial assertion that the sky is blue.

 

But "100 times" is an exaggeration and the fact that ILM does most of their efx work at 2K, even for 35mm productions, means that they don't use that "100 times more information" anyway!

 

The HD frame is basically a 1.9K (2MP) image, and 35mm is considered 4K (12MP) by most and if you want to be generous, 6K (27MP) -- so "100 times" is nowhere close to being accurate. 6 to 10 times is more like it. Even if you toss in the fact that they can shoot elements in 8-perf VistaVision, because they certainly aren't scanning those shots much higher than at 4K and then they downrez to 2K.

 

But yes, I can see why some ILM efx people are complaining about dealing with HD instead of 35mm. You would think that one advantage would be shooting miniatures because of the extra depth of field of HD, but even that isn't true because on "Attack of the Clones" they had to shoot most of their miniatures at 24 fps in HD while in 35mm, they could undercrank for longer exposures and small apertures. And "Attack of the Clones" didn't have the cleanest edges for their chroma keys either. Some of these problems are being solved by shooting 4:4:4 HD on the new Star Wars film.

[Max Jacoby]

No one will dispute that 35mm gives you better quality than HD.

 

Why beat a dead horse?

Edited December 1, 2004 by audiris

[Guest dpforum1968]

The horse is still kicking.

 

Here are just a few quotes from the last thread and you'll see what I mean.

 

"I'd genuinly rather work with grainless HD than film for post work"

 

"HD looks good. 35mm film looks better. HD will absolutely look better than 35mm film eventually. Modern technology always gets better. "

 

"there is now little reason to do a sitcom on film, and a number of reasons not to"

 

"4K digital capture is frankly better than 35; far lower noise and of comparable or higher resolution"

 

Oh and my personal favorite:

 

"35mm film is the crappiest format ever invented in the history of the world! Even VHS looks better!"

 

Ok I made that last one up :-) But the rest are all from the other thread.

 

DC

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see anything in those old posts that says that current HD is technically better than 35mm, only that it is less grainy (which is true -- it's not film so it doesn't have grain, only noise).

 

As for the statement that there's no reason to shoot sitcoms on 35mm, I'm not sure why you think that's the same thing as saying that HD is better than 35mm. If I said that there's no reason to shoot the nightly news on 35mm, would that mean I was suggesting that HD was better than 35mm?

 

As for "4K HD" that's more of an abstract statement since no one is really shooting and posting with such a thing. When it finally happens, we can talk again.

 

It sounds like it's not enough for you for people to say that 35mm is better than HD, they have to say that HD is total crap for you to be satisfied. Anything other than absolute condemnation of HD is the same thing as saying that HD is better than 35mm!

 

This is why we get into these pointless arguments when people are unwilling to just see things for what they are but have to take sides. It's back to the "either you are with us or against us" mentality. Why can't we use both HD and 35mm? (And Super-16 and DV and IMAX, etc.?) We can't we simply discuss relative strengths and weakness without it turning into a "film vs. video" war?

 

Don't you realize that your kind of agressiveness against HD causes people who like digital just fine to take a defensive posture? Then they start talking against film in the same way you talk against video -- and then you get to claim that the forces of video are arrayed against you, and on and on... It keeps escalating to the point where no one is being reasonable, only taking sides. I don't see the point.

[Mike Welle]

"Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect, and the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die"...only connect the film and the video and...

Edited December 1, 2004 by Mike Welle

[John Pytlak RIP]

Kodak is a leader in providing state-of-the art technology for every phase of production: film, digital, hybrid post production, and display:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressRelea...011017-02.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressRelea...011017-01.shtml

 

http://www.laserpacific.com/high_definition.html

 

http://www.cinesite.com

 

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/...v2/sehlin.shtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/dcinema

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/vision2

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/sensorsMain.jhtml

 

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jht...pq-locale=en_US

 

Kodak worked with ILM to provide some of the first high resolution film scanners they used:

 

http://www.ilmfan.com/main/index.php?modul...gy%20at%20ILM14

 

Did ILM do the first ever film scanner?

As far as 1978 Richard Edlund worked on film scanning using CRT based technology but it was unsuccessful. The Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Group took on the project again a few years later. The group led by David DiFrancesco eventually developed a laser scanner and recorder in one unit by 1980, and in 1983 the unit was incorporated into the Pixar Image Computer. The first project to use this combo was Young Sherlock Holmes. Later on ILM teamed with Kodak to produce a next generation that used CCDs instead. Around this time (early to mid 1980s) several other facilities started researching and build CCD scanners including Triple-I, CFC, PDI and RFX. All the facilities were recognized on the 1994 Academy Awards for their pioneer work in film scanning.

 

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Bungalo.../1980nofrm.html

 

1987- The production of Willow introduces the morphing technique to feature film effects, allowing one image to be "progressively altered to transform into another image" (Vaz, p. 114). Around this time, Eastman Kodak and ILM develop the Trilinear Multispectral High Resolution CCD (Charged Couple Device) Digital Input Scanner, dramatically increasing the speed at which film could be scanned into a computer. The device would win a Technical Achievement Academy Award in 1994 (Vaz, pp. 115, 111).

 

"Different horses for different courses", but it's all "InfoImaging" to Kodak. B)

Edited December 1, 2004 by John_P_Pytlak

[Keith Mottram]

i've got this feeling....is it deja vu? I think you may well have quoted me and the quote came from a thread in which you stated exactly the same thing. is there a point to this thread dpforum and what's your real name?.

 

John's bang on the money when he said "Different horses for different courses"

 

Keith

[Guest dpforum1968]

Uh Oh, looks like a George W. Bush dissenter.....

 

"It's back to the "either you are with us or against us" mentality."

 

Ah....Secret Service over here please :-)

 

RDCB

[John Sprung]

As for the statement that there's no reason to shoot sitcoms on 35mm, ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, a brief history of sitcoms:

 

In the beginning there was Lucy. And Lucy was shot on film in Hollywood, and posted like a movie. She aired off film chains in the different time zones. Gleason shot on TV cameras and aired live on the east coast. Here in LA, that feed was recorded on film on kinescope cameras, developed, and aired three hours later off a film chain.

 

Then in 1956 there came 2" quad tape. The wild, one-chance world of live TV disappeared. Sitcoms stayed on analog tape, 2" and later 1" C, until in the 1980's, when the early rumblings of HDTV led producers and production companies to worry about the future value of their shows. But looking back at Lucy, they saw the added cost of film over tape as a real bargain on insurance.

 

Now that HD is here, new sitcoms are going back to tape. Those that linger from the pre-transitional film as insurance era, especially if they have a lot of seasons in the can, are tending to stick with film for consistency and convenience.

 

The way to make these technology decisions is to trace backwards from the audience. When the audience was unlikely ever to see anything better than analog SDTV, it made sense to work on analog tape. When shows had a reasonable expectation of future markets in an unknown better system, film was cheap insurance. Now that new shows are unlikely to outlast HD, it makes sense to use HD.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[John Pytlak RIP]

OK, a brief history of sitcoms:

 

...When shows had a reasonable expectation of future markets in an unknown better system, film was cheap insurance.  Now that new shows are unlikely to outlast HD, it makes sense to use HD.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If "new shows" are unlikely to outlast HD, that's saying they won't have same audience "I Love Lucy" has enjoyed for over 50 years. ;)

 

Desilu never envisioned DVDs or HD, but those old films still shine in these new formats and add money to the bottom line. :)

 

I would argue that film is still good "insurance" for future display formats and repurposing content. B)

[Guest dpforum1968]

My industry contact would also like to add:

 

"The issues inherent in HD production are quickly being resolved and what

may have been a problem in the past are simply not true anymore with current

cameras."

 

Ok we love HD, we embrace HD.

 

DC

[John Sprung]

I would argue that film is still good "insurance" for future display formats and repurposing content.  B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, Lucy looks great, and Gleason looks like s--t. But the important thing is, they're both funny. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Michael Most]

I would argue that film is still good "insurance" for future display formats and repurposing content. 

 

 

And I would argue that you gain a lot of production convenience by going to tape on a sitcom, some of which can be very valuable - in particular the time savings for turnaround of edited material for audience playback, for example. I would further argue that the notion that film is the only sensible archival element is today something of an anachronism in the sense that every major studio is now shooting the vast bulk of sitcoms on 24p HD video. For displays less than 60 inches, I would further contend that the current HD 1080/24p format comes very close to the limits of human perception and, therefore, will not significantly suffer in the future, regardless of what format changes are decided upon. Personally, I really don't see sitcoms being projected in theaters in the future, nor do I see homes of the future having theater size displays as the norm. Not to criticize your point of view, but when you sell insurance it is your job to convince everyone that they need insurance, regardless of the reality of that notion.

 

Having said all that, I've worked in film practically my entire career and am very much a film proponent. But everything has its place, there are new alternatives, and in certain venues, those alternatives make an awful lot of sense, even beyond whatever immediate financial advantages those alternatives might or might not currently provide.

[Elhanan Matos]

they had to shoot most of their miniatures at 24 fps in HD while in 35mm, they could undercrank for longer exposures and small apertures.

 

They (ILM and Sony) have modified the F950's for episode 3 so that they can achieve longer exposures. It's a really neat modification. Sony has also released new boards for the HDW-700 that will let you do longer exposures. I don't think they will release them for the 900 though.

 

Oh and about ILM hating HD... DC just because you know two people at ILM (two out of a couple hundred by the way) does not mean that they all hate it. I know people at ILM that LOVE HD.

[John Sprung]

I would further contend that the current HD 1080/24p format comes very close to the limits of human perception ....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an exceptionally important point, that there are limits to what we really need to do. Listen to some Dave Brubeck recordings from the mid 1950's. Are there many people who can hear well enough to need better technology than they had then?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Mike Brennan]

They (ILM and Sony) have modified the F950's for episode 3 so that they can achieve longer exposures.  It's a really neat modification.  Sony has also released new boards for the HDW-700 that will let you do longer exposures.  I don't think they will release them for the 900 though.

 

Oh and about ILM hating HD... DC just because you know two people at ILM (two out of a couple hundred by the way) does not mean that they all hate it.  I know people at ILM that LOVE HD.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

As far as i ma aware all f950s are/will be capable of long exposures.

You mean sony have released boards for the HDW750p and HDW730S, not the HDW700...

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

Ok so I was talking to my good friend at ILM who is an animator on the current Star Wars film and he also worked on Attack Of The Clones.  He is credited as an animator on both films.

 

Take it ot leave it.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All the effects guys I know in Soho say that they prefer working on HD.

Lord of the Rings Compositors in a HD vs Film test, prefered HD, no intraframe movement makes cgi easier, random grain is replaced by fixed noise which is easier to deal with they said, pity for them the DP wanted to stay with film.

 

 

By the way swaotc had keying problems caused by soft focus and the industry figuring out how to key HDCAM.

 

"Sky Captain" is a more relevant and recent example of industry standard HDCAM bluescreen, shot with cameras that were not still under development, with a crew who learnt how to backfocus a lens before the shoot started and compositors who could draw on experience of others. Had it been recorded on 422 or 444 it would look a little better.

 

Your good friends at ILM, after the statements about resolution ect, did they say which format they actually prefer to *work* on.....

 

Mike Brennan

[Elhanan Matos]

As far as i am aware all f950s are/will be capable of long exposures.

 

Yes. The F950's have longer exposure capabilities, but ILM's F950's have EXTRA long exposure capabilities.

 

You mean sony have released boards for the HDW750p and HDW730S, not the HDW700...

 

umm... yep, you're right.

[Max Jacoby]

Lord of the Rings Compositors in a HD vs Film test, prefered HD, no intraframe movement makes cgi easier, random grain is replaced by fixed noise which is easier to deal with they said, pity for them the DP wanted to stay with film.

Well quite frankly the choice of format should be left up to the Dop and Director, not the VFX people, as it has been known to happen (witness alll the special effects heavy films that shoot on Super35 and not anamorphic). Don Burgess for instance said the VFX people talked him into choosing spherical over anamorphic on 'Spiderman'. In his case I'd just have gone to another effects house. Their comments make about much sense as a focus-puller saying he wants to shoot spherical because it gives him more depth of field. If he can't do the job, get someone who can.

[David Mullen ASC]

EFX people tried to convince Tim Burton to shoot "Mars Attacks!" in Super-35 until Peter Suschitsky shot some comparison tests showing that anamorphic produced better, finer-grained release prints even after the IP/IN steps. But they were still going to use Super-35 anyway because ILM said that it would be too hard to do stop-motion miniature animation in anamorphic (don't know why they didn't just suggest spherical VistaVision for that). But then tests showed them that they could get a similar stop-motion look using CGI, so when that reason to shoot in Super-35 was gone, Suschitsky was allowed to shoot in anamorphic.

[Mike Brennan]

Yes.  The F950's have longer exposure capabilities, but ILM's F950's have EXTRA long exposure capabilities.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please be a little more explicit, how much longer than off the shelf f950s?

 

Based on your previous inaccurate info I'd take this with a pinch of salt:)

 

Where are you getting this info from?

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

Well quite frankly the choice of format should be left up to the Dop and Director, not the VFX people, ..... Their comments make about much sense as a focus-puller saying he wants to shoot spherical because it gives him more depth of field. If he can't do the job, get someone who can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No a focus puller wanting more depth of field and VFX prefering one format over the other are unrelated.

 

VFX have a budget and script to work to to create a movie within a movie, and from the producers perspective can ruin a film if they can't deliver. So a producer will definitly listen to a VFX team!

Sure some movies have enough money to please director, DP and VFX... most do not.

 

Depth of field is a creative decision determined by DP, tempered by budget.

 

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Guest fstop]

In the case of Spider-man the VFX were in-house by Sony's Imageworks facility and that's contractual obligation. And it's not like Burgess was a newbie to VFX DPing via Sony either, let's not forget his Zemeckis efforts from Contact onwards were all largely digitally doctored unrecognisable by Ken Ralston and the Sony crew, and those specific visuals have gotten Burgess the greatest praise of his career (and you can't honestly argue that Ralston/ILM's contributions didn't affect Burgess' Oscar nom for Forrest Gump either). Sony probably recommended Burgess to Raimi due to his track record on FX shows using Imageworks as the primary facility, shame they missed out on the integral link: Ken Ralston. Telling that the most ambitious Imageworks/Ralston/Burgess FX fest Polar Express is ALL computer generated...

 

The Spider-man photography wasn't very good anyway, thank God Bill Pope brought some integrity to the lensing of Spider-man 2.

 

BTW- FYI, in a time long gone, Guiseppe Roturnno was also going to shoot the 1987 version of Spider-man in 1.85:1, and was this due to political techno-ego concerns? No, the reason was because Rotturno felt that wall-scaling antics should be captured in the vertical. :)

[Max Jacoby]

Sure some movies have enough money to please director, DP and VFX... most do not.

So 'Spiderman' did not?

 

Of course VFX on anamorphic can be trickier, because the lenses are less uniform and create more artifacts, but like David says there is always Vistavision. It's not like it CAN'T be done. And to elaborate on Mike's first example, if a VFX company told me to shoot in HD instead of film, I'd tell them where to go...

 

And the choice of format is in my opinion an even bigger creative decision than depth of field.