Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 30, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted January 30, 2016 He's referring to the fact that the last Mission Impossible movie only did a 2K D.I. Personally, I think 35mm negative film is closer to 3K in terms of detail recorded (which means it should go through a 4K D.I. if not starting with a 6K scan if you want to take Nyquist into account) but even if it is 4K, the print made from it is going to be less than that, and even more so if it is made from a dupe negative. So I think that 2K digital projection is similar to 35mm print projection in terms of visible detail. However, since film detail is contained in random grains rather than a rigid grid of pixels, some people find that being able to see the grain pattern is less annoying than being able to see the 2K grid pattern in a theater if you are sitting too close, which is a good argument for a 4K digital projection standard for cinema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 31, 2016 Author Premium Member Share Posted January 31, 2016 The difference is crispness. 2k digital on a big screen is soft and things like aliasing are ever present. That just doesn't exist in the film world. A proper 4 perf anamorphic print of that movie would look a lot better because it would still have crispness in the grain. So it would appear to be sharp even though it was soft. That is one of the nice things about prints, they kinda blur that line. One side note, 4 perf 35 frame @ 50asa resolves closer to 4k according to a multitude of tests. Prints are more like 2.5k when dealing with a square frame. So you do loose about half the resolution between camera negative and release print. With that said, prints made off the negative retain much of the resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Cunningham Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 And 35mm prints made from a 4K digital master will retain all that detail since they are a direct latter 4K print from the master. Well... The inter negative is anyhow. A 35mm print of a 4K master digital movie should look significantly "better" than a 2K digital projection, especially up close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 31, 2016 Author Premium Member Share Posted January 31, 2016 But digital prints never look anywhere near as good as photochemical ones. "crisper" for sure, but doesn't look nearly as good color wise as an actual print. The problem is, we haven't made "decent" prints for a long time now. I saw The Force Awakens on 35mm and it looked like crap, real disappointment. It's exactly what I expected, it was simply not done right and a lot of digital prints in the mid 2000's up till today, were done the same way. In the grand scheme of things, it was a great big conspiracy to keep people moving towards digital distribution. It's all about money and the studio heads wanted to save money, so the pawned off digital upgrades to the theaters so the studio's could make more money. So far every year since the move to digital has been more and more PROFITABLE for the studio's, even with the HUGE flops. Why? Because the theaters now charge more money then ever for digital distribution and they don't need to pay top projectionists or film prints or shipping those prints. Today's distribution model is practically free compared to the days of photochemical filmmaking and all that savings goes directly into the pockets of the studio's and the theaters pay for all the constant never-ending upgrades. Film projectors run forever and digital projectors? They're being replaced and serviced constantly. It's just really sad... and it pains me to think that we've been watching crappy prints since around 2000 when people started pushing DI and digital film-out's. How amazing those films could have been if done photochemically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 2K digital on a big screen is not soft, come on. Softer than 4K sure, but I have never thought going to my movie theater, seeing 2K movies shot on film and digital that they looked soft. I agree that 2K is not enough and that even a blockbuster like The Force Awakens is a 2K DCP (which is still weird because the AC article mentions at some point 2K scans, and then 4K scans) is astounding. Can't fight the economics here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I'm not in the US, so that's never ever gonna happen :D . I have a top notch projector, so that helps too. Just want to point out here that Lawrence off Arabia was a British movie directed by David Lean. We have 70mm here in London too. Not that that might help you much but I'm just sayin... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I watched "The Hateful Eight " in 70mm at the Odeon Leicester Sq. where "Lawrence " had it's World Premier in Super Panavision 70 in 1962 and run for a long time there after that . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Just want to point out here that Lawrence off Arabia was a British movie directed by David Lean. We have 70mm here in London too. Not that that might help you much but I'm just sayin... ;) I know. Nor am I in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Nor am I in the UK. Didn't think you would be but just sayin... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Hartman Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I'm not in the US, so that's never ever gonna happen :D . I have a top notch projector, so that helps too. Just want to point out here that Lawrence off Arabia was a British movie directed by David Lean. We have 70mm here in London too. Not that that might help you much but I'm just sayin... ;) I know. Nor am I in the UK. Didn't think you would be but just sayin... ;) Manu, is it time to lift the veil of secrecy?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 :D I live somewhere on this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 :D I live somewhere on this planet. Have to say, just visiting myself and planning to leave before things get really out of hand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted February 1, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted February 1, 2016 Have to say, just visiting myself and planning to leave before things get really out of hand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Very late to this party. I saw the movie on our 32" HD sony and, as a movie, a construction of concepts, I confess I almost fell asleep, at the moment when a quasi Woody Allen VO poped up. I thought QT had lost it. Earlier, looking around for the 70mm show here in NZ, it seemed that the only projector we had was decomissioned shortly before Quentin arrived at the Premiere. Somebody please tell me I fudged the timeline. It all happened as it should, and I missed it. All to confusing for me. Inglorious seemed a bit vain. Pulp was a fantastic movie. Kill Bill was (were) interesting. Reservoir Dogs felt pretty cool. I don't care if Quentin is a vain twat, as long as he makes great films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now