Interstellar and the future of film projection

[Tyler Purcell]

Whoops! HAHAHA Auto spelling doesn't work well. Damn Digital nonsense! LOL :)

[GregBest]

They wanted a seriously grainy look and it worked very well.

 

I thing I don't understand... how does "Extra Grainy" or ANY grain for that matter,help tell the story better? I feel motion pictures are "Motion" "Pitcures" of real life things: people, locations, sky etc, and that is part of connecting us too it. And I don't see grain in real life. Seeing through a layer of grain used to be the only option for motion pictures, but now it is not. How does dirtier looking help it be better? Serious question about respect for grain.

[David Mullen ASC]

That's a very limited view for an art form, and a somewhat arbitrary view -- no different than saying that you shouldn't see brush strokes in a painting. Let alone eliminates the possibility of shooting in black & white, since most of us don't see in black & white. And most of us don't only see in two dimensions only, so I guess all movies should not only be grainless, but in 3D, in order to meet this requirement of matching human vision. And most of us don't see unicorns in real life so I guess those can't be in movies either...

 

There's more than one way to make a movie.

 

Stylistic elements like grain can evoke a feeling in the viewer, and that's a legitimate reason when making a movie.

 

Who said that the point of a movie is to replicate human vision? Who made that rule?

[John E Clark]

 

I thing I don't understand... how does "Extra Grainy" or ANY grain for that matter,help tell the story better? I feel motion pictures are "Motion" "Pitcures" of real life things: people, locations, sky etc, and that is part of connecting us too it. And I don't see grain in real life. Seeing through a layer of grain used to be the only option for motion pictures, but now it is not. How does dirtier looking help it be better? Serious question about respect for grain.

 

Personally I'd like to see a 'Sound of Music' adaption in the Film Noir style... with perhaps a modern Kurt Weill composing the score...

 

Grain is a technique for setting an the emotional content of a scene... Then there's 'smoke'... now of course, I can see dust in rooms with bright streaming light... but the amount of 'dust' that is usually present in 'real life' scenes, is enhanced... sometimes big time... for Movie Picture Making. (On the other hand, I've never really liked David Hamilton's 'grainy' stills of nubile young females in various states of uncladness.)

 

I've also seen 'smoke' used to create 'haze depth in outdoor shots... which does exist... but often does not... so the effect is enhanced from whatever the outdoor location has to offer at the moment of filming.

Edited December 31, 2014 by John E Clark

[David Mullen ASC]

Non-realism, theatricality, distortion, surrealism, adding non-human-vision optical textures like lens flares, unnatural lighting cues, etc. are all valid tools of narrative filmmaking just as realism is.

 

Look at sculpting or painting, some works of art embrace the surface texture of wood grain, brush strokes, chisel marks, while others aim for a high degree of polish. Sometimes one material is even treated to fool the eye that it is another material.

 

Photography may be inherently more realistic as a reproduction of its subject than other art forms but that doesn't mean it has to always be that way. We don't see reality with our eyes like a super wide-angle or extreme telephoto lens might, but we use them in movies, sometimes to great effect.

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, saw Interstellar in IMAX tonight, on film of course.

 

The theater had a blown amp or speakers, so when the big hits came in the music, it got distorted a few times. Very disappointing because it ruined the experience for those who hadn't seen it. Goes to show how GOOD the sound system is over at the Cinerama Dome. Kinda pissed I didn't see it at the Chinese theater when I had the chance.

 

The IMAX presentation made no sense. They picked the most random shots to make 70/15, thus maybe an insight to what I already knew all along… the film was cut down substantially from the original cut. Towards the end, there were random single shots in 70/15 mixed in with long sequences of 35mm anamorphic stuff. I first thought they were doing exteriors in 70/15, but then they'd do ONE interior shot, then switch back to 35mm, then maybe another two shots in 70/15 and then back again. It went back and forward non-stop throughout the film. The black bars weren't the distracting part, it was the quality difference. The 70/15 stuff was amazing, looked like digital due to the excellent registration the projectors have.

 

I was disappointed in the experience for many reasons, not just the sound system. Most of my disappointment came from Nolan's very vision of shooting mixed format. Now that I've seen it mixed format, I realize it was a complete waste of time. Shoot the whole thing in 70 or don't bother projecting it on Imax screens. What he should have done is shoot the bulk of the film in 70/5 perf 2.20:1. Then when they hit space, switch to 70/15. This way the final aspect ratio for normal theatrical distribution would be 2.20:1 which means less cutting of the top and the bottoms, plus the aspect ratio change in the theaters in IMAX would be a lot less. Heck IMAX digital screens with their 1.9:1 aspect ratio, you may not even see the difference in the crop. 2.35:1 and then 1.47:1 is a huge difference. Being coherent in the aspect ratio change, using it to broaden "space" should have been what he used it for.

 

Honestly, the best experience has been the Cinerama Dome in 70/5, what an experience that was. If it was playing tomorrow at the dome, I would see it again, just to get that experience one more time. The concept of pulling that format out of mothballs for this film was genius by Nolan and I truly think more filmmakers should contemplate using it for acquisition. The cost isn't much more then 35mm on a big budget film, so why not?

[GregBest]

What sort of feeling or emotion should I be getting from "Grain"? I don't want to be close minded, I just don't understand it.

[David Mullen ASC]

If you don't get jazz, then why should someone force you to like it? If grain provokes or invokes nothing in you, then how is an intellectual argument going to produce a feeling in you that is missing? I mean, what sort of feeling does holding a rough piece of driftwood found on the beach provoke in you, compared to a highly-polished piece of wood?

[Kenny N Suleimanagich]

Also worth noting that in another era grainy black and white 16mm images were as "real" as realism got. One of my professors once banned the word realism because it has so many interpretations and uses. I am now beginning to understand why.

[John E Clark]

Also worth noting that in another era grainy black and white 16mm images were as "real" as realism got. One of my professors once banned the word realism because it has so many interpretations and uses. I am now beginning to understand why.

 

Yes 'real', 'realism', and even 'reality shows' all have philosophical problems... Even in the world of painting and drawing... realism is problematic.

 

These days surveillance cams are probably as 'real' as it gets... I don't know that making an entire feature film with such cameras would be successful... but heck there's a project for an artist to explore... probably could get the work in some gallery somewhere...

Edited December 31, 2014 by John E Clark

[David Mullen ASC]

At the most superficial level, grain evokes films and photographs of the past -- note how "Schindler's List" at times evokes the roughness of old newsreels, or "Saving Private Ryan" evokes combat photography of past wars. But grain also makes the medium of film more obvious, just like lens flares make the use of optics more obvious. Sometimes in art, you want the mechanics to disappear but other times, the textures of the materials used are part of the aesthetic experience.

[Leon Liang]

I think grain acreates a very ambiguous emotional effect that I can't really put my finger on. Mr Mullen mentioned "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan", and I find that Spielberg and Kaminski's use of film grain in all of their collaborations so far is very interesting.

[GregBest]

Grain reminds me that it is on "film" and subject to the flaws inherent with that, but I've never had a reaction to it - other than: "ok, this one is made to look aged on purpose". I do understand "one person's art..." etc, but I'm kinda watching the evolution of all the visuals that are happening... hearing from various camps: don't like change (indie film forums), and all the amazing options that are coming out. It's been difficult for me to wrap about directors wanting the grain, verses: "that is simply what film does and there are no other options" pre digital. I've read of directors cleaning up grain on some blu-rays... to the viewers contempt... but doesn't that mean the director wished, wanted, and preferred a non-grainy film initially? And that it was simply not in the cards at the time?

 

Now that I am attempting to make films (digial video really) myself, I've gotten super sensitive to coloring, lighting, contrast, judder, and grain.

 

I apologize guys, I am just a new film guy and I realize many of you are industry professionals, so thanks for putting up with my awkward perspectives and questions. I'm soaking it all in!!!!

[John E Clark]

Grain reminds me that it is on "film" and subject to the flaws inherent with that, but I've never had a reaction to it - other than: "ok, this one is made to look aged on purpose".

 

'grain' is used in painting/drawing as well... after it was clear that to get a 'real' image, one need only use photography, a large set of painters moved into 'impressionism', and used a variety of technqiues to invoke in the viewer an 'emotion' rather than document 'reality'... there's that word again...

 

In any case Pointillism, which closely corresponds to 'film grain', was one branch of the impressionistic movements.

 

A classic example: (This example is far more saturated in color than the original, and has compression artifacts, which unless things have changed, is at the Arti Institute in Chicago... but it brings out the pointillism technique.).

 

 

Since your 'location' indicates Des Moines... I suggest take a weekend trip to Chicago... perhaps in the Spring... and stay a couple of days in the museum... well hotel at night...

Edited December 31, 2014 by John E Clark

[David Mullen ASC]

You are becoming aware that everyone has different tastes, and that includes sensitivity to noise & grain. It's sometimes like cooking, some people like more seasoning than others.

 

Yes, transfers of old movies done with modern eyes create some conflict between creating an honest representation of what the movie originally looked like versus making it look closer to contemporary movies.

 

Plus sometimes a digital scan of a negative is so rock-solid and sharp that it makes more grain visible than would have been seen in a projected contact print off of the negative, because of projector misfocus and jitter and some printer slippage. And sometimes attempts to sharpen the image in post makes the grain pop out more. So when doing digital restoration, there is always a lot of discussion about the degree of noise reduction to apply, and there are no easy answers because some elements have aged (like duped shots) to the point where the grain is now worse than it looked decades ago, so showing all of that grain is not actually an accurate representation of what it probably looked like in the past.

 

Some directors like grain more than others, just like some people like more salt in their foods more than others.

 

There is no single proper look for an artistic movie. Not everything has to have some sort of clean, hyper-sharp, reference-quality photography that shows off what a 4K TV monitor can do -- we are making art here, not selling TV sets.

 

Grain is just one visual element in the tool box, like using old versus new lenses, or diffusion filters, or shallow versus deep focus. If you don't like it, don't use it, no one is forcing you to take on aesthetics that you don't want.

 

One factor to keep in mind is that some filmmakers want to fit into contemporary tastes while others want to challenge it. Some want to be more hip and trendy than others. Personally, I don't care one way or another as long as the work is interesting -- mediocrity is the only sin (as as Kubrick used to say, the only sin is being boring.)

 

Grain may be a fairly inevitable aspect of film (except in IMAX photography) but it is the basic building blocks of the film image, not a mistake, any more than the tiles in a mosaic are a mistake or the brushstrokes in a painting are a mistake. Sure, some directors like grain less than others, but most have the same attitude as the cinematographer, it all depends on the specific project. What is right for one story isn't necessarily right for another.

 

If you want a textural orgy, watch something like "JFK", shot by Robert Richardson on everything for super-clean 50 ASA film in 35mm anamorphic to grainy b&w and grainy color, on different film formats. Those grainier shots go far beyond merely intercutting with documentary footage, but create a distorted dreamlike world of memories and illusions, all reinforcing the basic theme of the movie, which is the search for truth. The use of hot lighting also suggests this, that things will be uncovered and brought into the light through investigation. But the softest, grainiest shots in the movie, some skip-printed from 6 fps, create visual abstraction to give the impression of fleeting moments that are difficult to decipher. Same could be said for "Blow-Up", the more the photograph in the park gets enlarged, the more the grain and softness abstract the image, making the truth (was there a killer there) harder to see, not easier.

[David Mullen ASC]

The thing to keep in mind that this isn't binary, an on/off, either/or scenario with textural elements. You can have a touch of grain, just like a mild diffusion or a slight desaturation, something that is very subtle.

[GregBest]

Thanks for all that feedback, David, I REALLY DO appreciate it! Read every bit of it, twice. :)

I absolutely agree EVERYTHING begins and ends with the story being told - or there is no point filming no matter what the medium or desired look may be. And that mantra will ALWAYS be my first reason for filming (don't count ANY of my current work since it is only camera tests). But, usually for me now that I have gotten picky, I prefer whatever visuals I am watching to be the absolute best looking visuals they possibly can.

 

Couple things here jumped out at me: IMAX seems to be the Epitome of quality, yet it has the least grain - which is fine, so I kinda of assumed most would want to get as close to IMAX quality as possible, be it 35 or digital whichever.

Another angle I just thought of, what if someone made a new OLD NOIR looking movie that was NOT grained up to look old? Like, if they had the modern clean gear back in 1938? Might be a weird off putting, sterile, looking black and white show but I think it is only weird because we are used to it being a certain way and expect it. Yet, there are other ways things can be, like clean, old, noir.

 

Back on topic (if possible!) of Interstellar, for me, I was pulled into the story much faster when I saw the versions with less grain. I know, that is just me. :)

 

(I've been adding grain to most of my videos anyway!)

Edited January 1, 2015 by GregBest

[Freya Black]

Thanks for all that feedback, David, I REALLY DO appreciate it! Read every bit of it, twice. :)

I absolutely agree EVERYTHING begins and ends with the story being told - or there is no point filming no matter what the medium or desired look may be. And that mantra will ALWAYS be my first reason for filming (don't count ANY of my current work since it is only camera tests). But, usually for me now that I have gotten picky, I prefer whatever visuals I am watching to be the absolute best looking visuals they possibly can.

 

You appear to be agreeing with something nobody said. There is non-narrative cinema and cinematgraphy and also there are narrative films where the story can take a back seat to other elements of the film. It depends on what you are trying to achieve.

 

If you want to make movies that are all about the story then that is great but it's worth remembering that not all movies are like that.

 

As for the best looking visuals, that is a personal thing and isn't something people can agree on.

 

Freya

[David Mullen ASC]

"Best" again is dependent on the needs of the story and the aesthetics chosen to create the desired mood. "Schindler's List" would not have been the same experience if shot in IMAX and color, and certainly an IMAX-style experience would be odd for many little movies, like "Once" for example.

 

If technical quality is your ONLY criteria for making any decisions, then in theory you'd shoot and present all of your movies at 60 fps or higher.

 

In terms of the narrative and non-narrative movie, some movies have elements of both, such as "2001".

[Freya Black]

"Best" again is dependent on the needs of the story and the aesthetics chosen to create the desired mood. "Schindler's List" would not have been the same experience if shot in IMAX and color, and certainly an IMAX-style experience would be odd for many little movies, like "Once" for example.

 

If technical quality is your ONLY criteria for making any decisions, then in theory you'd shoot and present all of your movies at 60 fps or higher.

 

In terms of the narrative and non-narrative movie, some movies have elements of both, such as "2001".

 

This is very true although again I wouldn't use the term "story" but that everything should work towards what the work is trying to achieve. This is the same in non narrative cinema and even in narrative cinema where story is not the most important component of the work.

 

Freya

[GregBest]

I was branching off David's mention of story and context. maybe my limb was too far :)

[David Mullen ASC]

"Best" is a pretty loaded word...

[Doug Palmer]

It's good they brought back Interstellar at BFI Imax, London. I'd thought I missed it like so many other screenings on film, and the cinema was certainly well attended this Tuesday. Like other commentators I wasn't too impressed with the masking top and bottom for 35mm, though it was very sharp considering the immense width of screen. Tended to take me out of the story (and my daughter agreed). On the other hand, the Imax 70mm footage was really shown off and looked stupendous. I was looking out for that Michael Caine soft focus 35, but must say it didn't trouble me. Nor the grain particularly, just the black borders. As most of these shots seemed to have plenty of dark shadow, perhaps intentionally, maybe a soft merging-in would have helped ?

[David Cunningham]

I still wish I could find an IMAX 70mm showing of that movie... sadly, I don't think it will ever come my way. :(

[Doug Palmer]

Just to say Tyler, the Imax 70mm performance we saw at BFI London did not have any registration issues. Absolutely rock steady similar to a digital showing. And also it was without any noticeable flicker. There was a little dirt in the gate which cleared after a few minutes. But generally a pristine print.