Jump to content

Star Wars 9 to be shot on 65mm film


Recommended Posts

Techniscope has been around since the 50's and even back then, it still looked fine.

I never thought Techniscope looked good. You can "get away" with 2-perf now because of modern low-grain stocks and digital sharpening, but it doesn't hold up against 4-perf IMO, even with only a 2K scan. Don't get me wrong, I love S16 for TV and given the choice of shooting 2-perf or say a Red for a movie, I'd choose the 2-perf just for the better color and motion rendering, but I would not inter-cut 2-perf with 4-perf for the sake of convenience. I know James Cameron did it, but he was a "Super" 35 shooter so he only lost about 10% of image height as opposed to almost 50% going from anamorphic to Techniscope.

 

They use compressed air to hold the film against the backplate from my understanding. They would do wet gate optical printing, so the two pieces of film touch each other, which works good. With projection, the film is held in place again with air.

Maybe things have changed in recent years. To my knowledge, the cameras were much like Mitchells (pin registered but nothing super high-tech) and printing was done via modded 70mm contact printer unless they were doing a blow-up or reduction.

 

 

I've seen actual tests where IMAX dailies held 12k worth of resolution in print form, projected through an actual film projector in a theater.

I'm glad to hear it's gotten better. I know somebody that worked for IMAX who told his boss that they weren't getting nearly the resolution (using proper test charts) they claimed with the public. The response was basically "don't say anything". I knew another guy a few years ago that did lab work for them and said they had the highest defect rate of any format he's seen.

That said, even if they ARE getting true 12K resolution, I'd still prefer 65mm. Quieter, easier to handle cameras, still an amazing image at a fraction of the expense. If somebody wanted me to produce a movie with an unlimited budget, that's the format I'd choose. Sadly, I'm well below that level so I must do most of my work on video or S16 if I'm lucky.

 

On a side note, the eye is not very sensitive to extreme resolutions, so it's possible for the center of the image to be 4K with the edges being somewhat better (particularly considering lens distortion) without anybody noticing. Most people don't even notice the difference between 720 and 1080 and some don't notice the difference between 480 and 1080 in tests. I remember several people thanked my studio for "going HD" a number of years ago when in fact, all we did was switch to 16:9.

Edited by Stephen Baldassarre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I know James Cameron did it, but he was a "Super" 35 shooter so he only lost about 10% of image height as opposed to almost 50% going from anamorphic to Techniscope.

He shot 4 perf S35 from my knowledge and cropped to 2.40:1 which is pretty darn close to techniscope. It's not exactly the same height because it has more width, but it's nowhere near 3 perf height, you're still cropping nearly half your image.

 

If you've watched The Abyss, Terminator 2, True Lies and Titanic, those are all cropped movies, probably 1mm taller frame then standard Techniscope and they look great.

 

Maybe things have changed in recent years. To my knowledge, the cameras were much like Mitchells (pin registered but nothing super high-tech) and printing was done via modded 70mm contact printer unless they were doing a blow-up or reduction.

Yes, the IMAX cameras are similar to Mitchell, but the movement is enclosed, rather then exposed in the later models. They are aren't really technically advanced, but you can't run that big of a frame through any camera without something to keep it in place.

 

I'm glad to hear it's gotten better. I know somebody that worked for IMAX who told his boss that they weren't getting nearly the resolution (using proper test charts) they claimed with the public. The response was basically "don't say anything". I knew another guy a few years ago that did lab work for them and said they had the highest defect rate of any format he's seen.

That said, even if they ARE getting true 12K resolution, I'd still prefer 65mm. Quieter, easier to handle cameras, still an amazing image at a fraction of the expense. If somebody wanted me to produce a movie with an unlimited budget, that's the format I'd choose. Sadly, I'm well below that level so I must do most of my work on video or S16 if I'm lucky.

Well, the "defect" rate is camera jams. All large format cameras have issues with camera jam's, it's quite common. Imagine how big the loop's need to be! I assume a good AC can get the cameras to work great because nobody would shoot with them otherwise. Another issue is the consistency of the film and processing needs to be spot on because any issues would be more noticeable.

 

The great thing about 5/65 is that the film only moves a little bit faster then 4 perf 35mm, but you get a much larger image thanks to the format being 2.20:1 aspect ratio natively. Unfortunately, the cameras are a lot bigger (heavier) then 35mm and there are only a few quiet cameras on the market for rental.

 

With the mix of more expensive rental, expensive stock and post workflow, 5/65 is still a very tough format to work with. The step up to IMAX is only a cost factor, because you'd use the same support equipment on IMAX, you'd be using the same stock, same lab and similar post workflow, it's just more expensive due to the use of film. Sure, there isn't a quiet IMAX camera, but nothing stops filmmakers from looping critical dialog.

 

I have a script that was written specifically for 5/65 acquisition. I've done the math, it costs around 1.5M more to shoot 5 perf 65mm then 4 perf 35mm on a tight shooting ratio, 90 minute run time, including 10 5/70 prints and soundtrack. So on a 14M budget (which is what that particular movie is), quite a bit of it is the "film" aspect. However, I think it's doable, the math always comes out well when I do it and it would be a lot of fun. So yea... few years from now I hope to have enough clout to make a large format movie! Until then... I'll just have to suck it up and shoot 3 perf 35 and super 16. Poor me. LOL :P

 

On a side note, the eye is not very sensitive to extreme resolutions, so it's possible for the center of the image to be 4K with the edges being somewhat better (particularly considering lens distortion) without anybody noticing. Most people don't even notice the difference between 720 and 1080 and some don't notice the difference between 480 and 1080 in tests. I remember several people thanked my studio for "going HD" a number of years ago when in fact, all we did was switch to 16:9.

I'm pretty sensitive and on a huge screen like IMAX, you can tell right away. It's part of the reason I rarely see 15/70 prints these days, they're all finished at 4k and some of them are shot digitally at 3.2k and blown up to that huge screen. You can practically see the gaps between the pixels! Yuck! I mean, when you watch the 15/70 print of Interstellar, the IMAX material is so detailed it's just insane. To get that much detail on a screen THAT big, you've gotta have A LOT more resolution then 4k. Unfortunately it's impossible to quantify it, you kinda have to go and see it for yourself to tell. I will be doing just that this coming weekend for Dunkrik... IF I can get in. I got tickets already for the 5/70 showing, but IMAX is a whole other can of worms as in Los Angeles, there is only ONE THEATER showing it in 15/70 vs 10 or so in 5/70.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He shot 4 perf S35 from my knowledge and cropped to 2.40:1 which is pretty darn close to techniscope. It's not exactly the same height because it has more width, but it's nowhere near 3 perf height, you're still cropping nearly half your image.

That's what I mean. The end result of "super" 35 is only about 10% more real estate than Techniscope, so no big difference. I use quotations because there's really nothing super about it. It's literally just full frame with 50% of the film getting wasted. I'm certain S35 is the most wasteful film format ever created. At least Techniscope reduces film consumption. Since almost nothing I do makes it to theaters, I was actually considering getting a Techniscope camera a while back but it's getting too hard to justify using film to clients.

 

 

I have a script that was written specifically for 5/65 acquisition. I've done the math, it costs around 1.5M more to shoot 5 perf 65mm then 4 perf 35mm on a tight shooting ratio, 90 minute run time, including 10 5/70 prints and soundtrack. So on a 14M budget (which is what that particular movie is), quite a bit of it is the "film" aspect.

Yeah, the film may be a big expense, but is still a relatively small part of the expense even on a "low budget" production. Shooting a 65mm feature on 14M would also send a strong message to Hollywood about the stupidity of insisting on shooting video, not that they would change anything. I thought about doing a feature on S16 and figured the film and lab costs would be around $50,000. That's a big chunk of change to me but compared to even say a typical TV movie budget, that's NOTHING!

 

 

It's part of the reason I rarely see 15/70 prints these days, they're all finished at 4k and some of them are shot digitally at 3.2k and blown up to that huge screen. You can practically see the gaps between the pixels!

Yeah, IMAX is a pathetic, hollow shell of what it once was, as are the regular theaters. It's all in the name of saving money for the studios, but now there's no reason for me to go to a theater, considering most DCPs are 2K and I have almost that on my plasma screen at home. i know DCPs have better gamut, less compression etc. but it isn't worth $20 for one-time tickets for two when I can BUY a Blu-Ray for the same price. Plus, none of my speakers are blown and the floor isn't sticky.

 

 

Yuck! I mean, when you watch the 15/70 print of Interstellar, the IMAX material is so detailed it's just insane. To get that much detail on a screen THAT big, you've gotta have A LOT more resolution then 4k.

It's nice to see a movie with some intellect behind it (even though it isn't really scientifically accurate) rather than the typical Hollywood schlock like the Star Trek reboot. One thing I appreciate about Chris Nolan is his reluctance to use digital intermediaries. You can't avoid it with composites these days, but I always thought a contact print looked better than a film-out. Plus, DIs give producers and corporate mooks an excuse to spend weeks going "highlight his face, they lit him too dark." and "can you tint everything orange?" creating what I call the "alien world" effect where the laws of physics no longer apply. It's really disturbing looking. I got irritated with one guy just for increasing the contrast on the final product of a movie I shot. I told him I intentionally shot with an Ultra Contrast filter BECAUSE I wanted a very flat, dreary look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just on the 2 perf stuff (and boy did we stray from SW :D ), I really disagree. There have been quite a few 2 perf shot films lately, and some of them (those I've seen) look spectacular on the big screen: On The Road, Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, The Fighter, The Place Beyond The Pines, Too Late, In A Valley Of Violence, Outlaws & Angels, Mississippi Grind, Digging For Fire, Kill The Messenger, etc. It's leaps & bounds beyond super 16, and barely more expensive. Sure, you're not going to cut 2 perf with 4 perf (why would you even do that unless you have different formats for narrative purposes), but it's still a great image & look for a low cost.

 

It's not as dense and as rich & detailed as 3 perf (and let's not talk about ana 35mm) but it's a great way to get that 35mm look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

3 perf Super 35mm is the happiest medium. Not everyone wants 2.40:1 and outside of the Penelope, there aren't any 2 perf/3 perf cameras, it's either or. So if you're investing in a camera, 3 perf is really the way to go and then crop it down to 2.40:1. Yes there is cost savings with 2 perf and yes it looks fine, but the rental costs for 2 perf camera bodies which are pretty rare, kinda outweigh the benefits. A friend of mine just rented a 2 perf camera from Panavision and all they had to do was pay for glass. That's the first time I've heard of them doing that, so maybe 2 perf cameras will be cheaper for rental then previously, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah, the film may be a big expense, but is still a relatively small part of the expense even on a "low budget" production. Shooting a 65mm feature on 14M would also send a strong message to Hollywood about the stupidity of insisting on shooting video, not that they would change anything. I thought about doing a feature on S16 and figured the film and lab costs would be around $50,000. That's a big chunk of change to me but compared to even say a typical TV movie budget, that's NOTHING!

Exactly my point. Put your money into the script and actors. Then spend less money shooting because you don't need 20 takes since the script and actors are good. Today, everyone shoots huge ratios which is just ridiculous and it makes shooting on film more expensive then it COULD BE.

 

Super 16 feature stock and lab costs are pretty low, around $27k for a 90 minute movie 10:1 ratio. Here is the breakdown per format: http://www.celluloiddreaming.com/documents/filmbudgetscombined.pdf

 

Yeah, IMAX is a pathetic, hollow shell of what it once was, as are the regular theaters. It's all in the name of saving money for the studios, but now there's no reason for me to go to a theater, considering most DCPs are 2K and I have almost that on my plasma screen at home. i know DCPs have better gamut, less compression etc. but it isn't worth $20 for one-time tickets for two when I can BUY a Blu-Ray for the same price. Plus, none of my speakers are blown and the floor isn't sticky.

Over time the people who started IMAX left the company or died off. As the company expanded, they needed to get into new ventures and getting the studio's to release movies on 15/70 was a killer idea, but how they did it was lame. They made a poop tun of money off it and basically stopped caring about the film infrastructure and workflow. They could have built a lab in Canada to bring the price down and keep it going, but instead -like everyone else- they bailed on film and created yet another projection system that costs theaters millions of dollars. They could have kept releasing movies on 15/70 and done special licensing deals for theaters who were on the fence about continuing to work with them, but instead they only offered new licensing deals with laser projection and NO film. This made a lot of theaters angry, with huge 300K+ contracts each year they simply couldn't afford. The solution was simple, dump the IMAX name and put in Dolby or some other competitors laser projection system.

 

Of course as an in-between for "new" constructions, IMAX created LIEMAX, a 2k projection system that is no better then anything else at any other theater in the world. Double 2k projectors that magically create 4k? No sorry, doesn't work that way if your projectors are 2k. Anyway we all knew that was an in-between, it was a way for IMAX to sell more licenses and theaters to charge $20 for a theatrical experience that is seldom better then the standard run of the mill theater.

 

The next big step for them is to basically stop supporting film all together. Tell their 15/70 theaters, no more film prints period. I hope this never happens, I hope they have enough science movies released on 15/70 to keep it going. I just have bad feelings about the whole thing and someone like Kodak needs to step in and figure out how to keep it working. I know they've had lots of meetings to try and promote it, but honestly the new executive structure at IMAX is all about money, they could care less about quality. Where I do think the IMAX 4k laser projection system is the best DIGITAL solution on the market, it doesn't hold a candle to 15/70. IMAX did such a good job with their film projection solution, it's really unbeatable. They tout how special the digital solutions are, but if they just marketed the 15/70 format as "the best in the world" they would have plenty of people coming to watch their warez.

 

BTW THX did this whole thing and look what happened to them? Nobody gives two shits. That's where IMAX is going... into the dumpster and eventually, all that will be left are a few science museum theaters who will be converted to 2k digital like everything else. Suck!

 

It's nice to see a movie with some intellect behind it (even though it isn't really scientifically accurate) rather than the typical Hollywood schlock like the Star Trek reboot. One thing I appreciate about Chris Nolan is his reluctance to use digital intermediaries. You can't avoid it with composites these days, but I always thought a contact print looked better than a film-out. Plus, DIs give producers and corporate mooks an excuse to spend weeks going "highlight his face, they lit him too dark." and "can you tint everything orange?" creating what I call the "alien world" effect where the laws of physics no longer apply. It's really disturbing looking. I got irritated with one guy just for increasing the contrast on the final product of a movie I shot. I told him I intentionally shot with an Ultra Contrast filter BECAUSE I wanted a very flat, dreary look.

Nolan's team also does 11k laser out's to film for VFX shots. They "get" it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality of the situation is: most films are made for the consumers, not for pixel-peepers. Film is still shot on occasions like this because the filmmakers like shooting on film, and they have the power to dictate it. The reality is, after digital intermediates, compression, and DCP - I would challenge the average consumers to tell me which of two identical shots was film vs digital. 98% will not be able to effectively guess short of just a lucky guess at the correct one. Film is nice looking, and I'm not trying to throw a wrench in that arena, but the reality is film is nice looking to other filmmakers - the public, in general, could care less. Because digital is more efficient than film, and in a heavy-vfx film more cost-economical, of course the studios are going to opt for that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, 4K projection, digital LieMAX and other kinds of "innovative" nonsense are for pixel-peepers, and film origination is for a better viewing experience, i.e. for consumers.

An average viewer doesn't care for resolution and grain (as long as it's not the size of a football) - they want an immersive experience, which means a natural-looking image, as if we were looking at the scene (no matter how unrealistic or out of this world it is) through our or character's eyes. And digital fails to deliver a natural looking image in a majority of lighting/color situations, which makes audiences' subconscious nag even harder: "you're watching some pointless sh-t, aren't you?" And these days it's already hard for a director - and DoP, PD, editor - to suspend disbelief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Deakins,..has done it many times on digital ..delivered a natural look.. no..? whats the idea that digital cant ever deliver a natural look..? if the audience think they are watching pointless shite.. they probably are, regardless if its shot on film with a gold plated Panavision camera loaded by virgins, super 8 or 20 Alexa,s hung from condor cranes .. it will mean a crap script/acting/direction.. way before they worry about what its shot on.. name the crap films saved by being shot on film :)..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bunch of nonsense Landon imo, some of the latter big films shot on film such as La La Land, Silence (for everything but low light) or Steve Jobs (first two acts), The Force Awakens, Baby Driver (not the handful of day Alexa shots (which are obvious by the way) or the last action scene in the parking structure on Alexa) ); BvS, Man Of Steel, The Lost City Of Z, Fences, Hidden Figures, Nocturnal Animals, Jackie, Gold (for the portions in Indonesia which stand out a lot from the digital stuff in the US (on purpose) ), Carol, etc etc.

 

Would you mistake them for digital? No. Who cares about the average consumer, general audience not caring, and not being able to tell the difference, I believe that people, who know nothing about that stuff (because they're not educated, they don't know the differences, etc), will still FEEL the difference on a subconscious level. But saying that the "reality" is that they care less, therefore, you imply that "hey why bother right?". DI, or no DI, or whatever, film is film, film doesn't stop being film or looking like film just because it goes through a DI. And film is not shot on "occasions", there is a sizable amount of films being shot on actual film these days, especially big ones. It MATTERS.

 

I don't know where this attitude comes from, is it because some are just used to shooting digital, don't get to shoot film, so there is some form of bitterness or rejection against film, with the usual "oh yes, Nolan, Spielberg, Scorsese, those guys are nostalgic, they shoot film for the nostalgia aspect, they're out of touch, they should face reality and embrace technology"

 

@Robin: of course a crap film is still crap whether shot digitally or not, but to me, if you've got a great movie, I believe being shot on film not only can enhance that, enhance the emotional aspect (if it's an emotional film), help with suspension of disbelief, make you feel MORE, maybe that's silly to some of you but that's my point of view. I feel it's also more special. So much stuff is being shot digitally that when someone shoots on film, does something good, it stands out, it has an added value. (and no, doesn't mean that whatever is shot digitally doesn't have any value ;-) )

 

@Tyler: The quote I had from Pana for a 2 perf package with a Gold GII was cheap as hell.

Edited by Manu Delpech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been quite a few 2 perf shot films lately, and some of them (those I've seen) look spectacular on the big screen:

You know, you do have a point to an extent. It used to be that when there was an anamorphic print, the curtains would draw back revealing more of the screen and you would actually get a bigger image than with flat 1.85:1. Shooting Cinemascope meant not only a wider screen but also tighter grain while Techniscope would mean wider screen but lower res and higher grain. That doesn't happen with digital projection, so shooting 2.4:1 means a SMALLER image and massive wasted real estate on the screen. There would be no real difference in terms of resolution because there's no additional enlargement. Even using anamorphic lenses on the camera just means small image and wasted screen space now. I think it's really odd that since anamorphic film prints and proper screens are a thing of the past, 2.4:1 has become the norm. I wish people would adopt the native 1.89:1 ratio of the projectors/screens. 3-perf is ideal for this purpose, particularly for action movies because there's no nauseating rolling shutter.

 

 

Exactly my point. Put your money into the script and actors. Then spend less money shooting because you don't need 20 takes since the script and actors are good. Today, everyone shoots huge ratios which is just ridiculous and it makes shooting on film more expensive then it COULD BE.

Yeah, I never understood that mentality even when shooting video. You're wasting time on-set and making the editor's job harder. If I shoot 6:1 on average, that's a lot. What really irritates me is when directors (it happens with film too) who start the camera, do a take and then start coaching the actors on what they actually want without stopping the camera or slating new takes.

 

 

Double 2k projectors that magically create 4k? No sorry, doesn't work that way if your projectors are 2k.

I am under the impression that this is more to get enough light and eliminate dot pitch on the giant screens.

 

 

I hope they have enough science movies released on 15/70 to keep it going....They tout how special the digital solutions are, but if they just marketed the 15/70 format as "the best in the world" they would have plenty of people coming to watch their warez.

I don't like seeing Hollywood movies on that large of a screen. The material really needs to be specifically produced for IMAX to work well. Sadly, the documentary films are getting rather out of date but the profit margins are too low compared to repackaging an existing product.

 

I actually spoke to a Kodak engineer a few years ago, during the time when they were actively hiding the fact that they were a film company at heart. They made a lot of mistakes over the years. 1, not utilizing/selling digital imaging back in the 70s/80s when they had a corner on the market and 2, intentionally concealing film and pushing digital when they already lost the war with other digital imaging competitors. I'm afraid it would be the same with IMAX at this point.

 

 

BTW THX did this whole thing and look what happened to them?

I thought THX was great but consumers had no idea what it actually was. They also charged too much. The theaters cost more to build/equip and they added insult to injury by adding huge licensing fees.

 

 

Nolan's team also does 11k laser out's to film for VFX shots. They "get" it...

Being primarily an audio guy, I totally get it. I remember having a discussion with somebody who thought scanning The Wizard of Oz in 8K was a bad idea because the optical resolution was 2K at best. I told him it's not about getting higher resolution, it's about minimizing digital artifacts, especially since they had to resize the separate strips differently. In audio, we regularly work at 96KHz even though most people only hear up to 15K or so. It's not about getting more bandwidth, it's about keeping the digital artifacts out of the hearing range.

 

 

Film is still shot on occasions like this because the filmmakers like shooting on film, and they have the power to dictate it.

Some do, most don't. The studios really push for shooting video because they think it saves money. If you ask me, they should save money by refusing to pay $10,000,000 for big name stars.

 

 

they want an immersive experience, which means a natural-looking image, as if we were looking at the scene (no matter how unrealistic or out of this world it is) through our or character's eyes. And digital fails to deliver a natural looking image in a majority of lighting/color situations

I think the digital intermediary did more to destroy the concept of "natural-looking" long before video capture/projection became the norm. Tell me what's "natural" about this film I have in my physical possession, the frame scanned with completely neutral settings.

35anamorph.jpg

Now compare that to some film I have from before digital color grading was a thing, scanned under the exact same conditions.

up70mm.jpg

35matte.jpg

All of those examples were shot and printed on film and yet there's nothing "natural" about the top example, which heavily utilized the DI process. The sky is yellow, faces are pasty and trees are the same color as the Dolby tracks and the Blu-Ray review touted "natural color"! "Khartoum" has a little bit of a yellow cast, but this was just a timing test that was donated to me by somebody in the industry. Now I agree that no digital camera can capture color as accurately as film, but far more damage is done in the name of "artistic" flexibility.

Edited by Stephen Baldassarre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Deakins,..has done it many times on digital ..delivered a natural look.. no..? whats the idea that digital cant ever deliver a natural look..? if the audience think they are watching pointless shite.. they probably are, regardless if its shot on film with a gold plated Panavision camera loaded by virgins, super 8 or 20 Alexa,s hung from condor cranes .. it will mean a crap script/acting/direction.. way before they worry about what its shot on.. name the crap films saved by being shot on film :)..

We as lighting cameramen don't edit scripts and can only this much influence direction or acting. So the only place we add value to a movie is image. As to crap films rescued by film, I've no to list: excellent cinematography - and technically flawless image at that - hasn't saved any crap movie, at least for a general auditory. But it has happened otherwise, IMO, pretty much with every good film shot on video.

 

With all due respect to a master cinematographer. Deakins delivered excellent lighting and color choices which would have provided for an immersive "cinematic reality" image quality - if he had a tool with accurate-to eye color and highlight/shadow handling. These tools go by names like Eterna, Vision, etc... Shot on an Alexa, there are things that distract, me - consciously, the audience - not so consciously. The No1 thing is weird color, especially warm color, saturation, very visible on faces. Will that spoil the show for the audience? No way, But it sorta robs the movie of its visual beauty anyway.

His films shot on 35, to me at least, are noticeably better at creating realism than Alexa ones.

 

And I won't trust loading to virgins, they probably don't know what's 99 vs 9P or think it's something to do with 69...

Edited by Michael Rodin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super 16 feature stock and lab costs are pretty low, around $27k for a 90 minute movie 10:1 ratio. Here is the breakdown per format: http://www.celluloiddreaming.com/documents/filmbudgetscombined.pdf

That's a cool resource, thanks. In my budget estimate: I utilized a lower shooting ratio, included an all photo-chemical post with print and I own my camera equipment.

Actually, I could probably borrow a Mitchell BNCR and all its support (dolly, crane etc.) if I asked REALLY nicely but I would never be able to raise the money for the film/lab costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger Deakins,..has done it many times on digital ..delivered a natural look.. no..? whats the idea that digital cant ever deliver a natural look..?

 

Roger Deakins? This Roger Deakins?...

 

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes thats the guy.. keeps on screwing films up by not shooting film.. well not a very experienced bloke.. he should read this forum and wise up.. :)

 

Yes see how bad the new Blade runner looks.. no one will go and see this once word gets out..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

35anamorph.jpg

 

 

All of those examples were shot and printed on film and yet there's nothing "natural" about the top example, which heavily utilized the DI process. The sky is yellow, faces are pasty and trees are the same color as the Dolby tracks and the Blu-Ray review touted "natural color"! "Khartoum" has a little bit of a yellow cast, but this was just a timing test that was donated to me by somebody in the industry. Now I agree that no digital camera can capture color as accurately as film, but far more damage is done in the name of "artistic" flexibility.

 

My chance to be horribly pedantic. Those aren't the Dolby tracks. :) I had to look up what they were as I totally forgot but the green tracks are SDDS:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Dynamic_Digital_Sound

 

The Dolby digital audio is the digital stuff that is very cleverly put out of the way between the sprocket holes!

 

The DTS timecode is the morse like dashes right next to the optical analogue soundtrack on the right.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes thats the guy.. keeps on screwing films up by not shooting film.. well not a very experienced bloke.. he should read this forum and wise up.. :)

 

Yes see how bad the new Blade runner looks.. no one will go and see this once word gets out..

 

It might be best if he learned how to use his digital camera first! I mean white balance! duh! ;)

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My chance to be horribly pedantic. Those aren't the Dolby tracks. :) I had to look up what they were as I totally forgot but the green tracks are SDDS:

Heh, I was talking about the analogue (Dolby Stereo) tracks, sorry. But yeah, the SDDS tracks are the same color (though it doesn't quite show that way on the scan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The reality of the situation is: most films are made for the consumers, not for pixel-peepers. Film is still shot on occasions like this because the filmmakers like shooting on film, and they have the power to dictate it. The reality is, after digital intermediates, compression, and DCP - I would challenge the average consumers to tell me which of two identical shots was film vs digital. 98% will not be able to effectively guess short of just a lucky guess at the correct one. Film is nice looking, and I'm not trying to throw a wrench in that arena, but the reality is film is nice looking to other filmmakers - the public, in general, could care less. Because digital is more efficient than film, and in a heavy-vfx film more cost-economical, of course the studios are going to opt for that route.

Where it's true the average consumer doesn't understand the whole film v digital thing, what the consumer does understand is "different" and "special", those two words mean something.

 

The only reason why 70mm is making a come back is because theaters can charge more money for those movies then the standard 2D digital stuff. Studio's see the profit and they think it's worth while. Obviously it costs the theaters more to run the film prints because :cough: they have to hire a projectionist and pay a higher rental fee then a DCP. Still, Hateful Eight on film did better business per screen then the digital theaters. With an even wider Dunkirk release on 70mm, I expect those numbers to be pretty interesting.

 

Here in California, the 70mm screenings are generally more busy then the digital screenings of the same movie. But we have an audience that understands what they're seeing is special. Same goes for many cities around the country with diverse artistic populations. Some cities aren't even getting film prints ever again, there just isn't any demand, which is unfortunate.

 

I really like your comment about the studio's pushing digital because it's economical. I think the studio's hate film and think it's taboo old technology. When a filmmaker comes in and say they wanna shoot film, they probably roll their eyes and try to convince them otherwise. Truth of the matter is the only reason film still exists is due to those people and the studio's acceptance of those artists wanting to shoot film. So on one hand we should be applauding the Weinstein's and Warner Brothers for allowing filmmakers to do major releases on film. On the other hand, we need more studio's to follow suit. I have a feeling if Dunkirk is a success, other studio's will re-think things. It's all about profits and being "unique", which large format film may provide once again! Unfortunately, 35mm is pretty dead as a theatrical format... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm not arguing that film doesn't look good - or maybe even better than digital. What I am arguing though is that digital films are the new norm, and you don't see the general public, in their reviews, complaining that the Arri Alexa footage looks more 'washed out' than it would have if shot on film. They just don't care, as long as the story is good they can hear and see it ...

 

As far as economics is concerned, this one has puzzled me a bit actually. I can see a low budget filmmaker opting for digital - easier on set, less post production cost, etc. What I cannot see, though, is why studios believe they are 'saving money' on large films by shooting digital over film. I mean, lets look at the reality - the camera and stock budgets on a blockbuster film make up such a small portion of the budget as to not even be worth mentioning, and the cost to scan to DI is also pretty marginal.

 

Honestly, I think from a producer-prospective, film as seen as more expensive because in theory it can be. Yes, filmmakers can control cost by reducing their shooting ratio, or opting for optical rather than a DI workflow (is that even done any more?). BUT, with digital, it relieves the production of these potential burdens. Hard drives are cheap and reusable every day, and the 'film' is already in a digital format. But the real reason why a lot of digital is being shot nowadays is because a lot of younger filmmakers (like myself) where raised on digital and not film, we shoot what we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film making is a creative thing. Creative people are also called artists. People say the majority of audiences don't care whether shot on film or video. True. But the people making the thing care. A painter often (but not always) cares what type of brush he/she uses. Down to the type of bristles. That's just the reality of being a creative person. Some like video best for their tools. Some like real film. I think there's a perfect match 'made in heaven' between a film 'shot on real film' and then digitised and presented that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah, I never understood that mentality even when shooting video. You're wasting time on-set and making the editor's job harder. If I shoot 6:1 on average, that's a lot. What really irritates me is when directors (it happens with film too) who start the camera, do a take and then start coaching the actors on what they actually want without stopping the camera or slating new takes.

On bigger shows though, they already had bad habits during the film days. Shooting ratio's in the 100:1 range was common place on big movies. So there really is no difference today with digital, there is just a perceived cost and time savings that doesn't really exist.

 

I am under the impression that this is more to get enough light and eliminate dot pitch on the giant screens.

Yes, one projector is slightly out of focus to the other projector. This helps reduce the black lines between each pixel. However, it's literally impossible to line up both images perfectly and keep them aligned. So if that's IMAX's holy grail concept for making digital look good... I can't imagine theaters re-calibrating every few weeks, they don't even have projectionists anymore!

 

I don't like seeing Hollywood movies on that large of a screen. The material really needs to be specifically produced for IMAX to work well. Sadly, the documentary films are getting rather out of date but the profit margins are too low compared to repackaging an existing product.

Agreed. Framing and lens selections need to be wider to encapsulate a whole scene rather then all the close up's we're use to in modern movies. The pacing also needs to be slower so the audience can absorb a given scene.

 

The science films do have two things going for them... they're cheap to make and they run for months not weeks. Some science films will run for an entire year, all be it at maybe 100 theaters. Still the good ones make a considerable amount of money because they're inexpensive to shoot, especially these days when they're making them on digital cameras. But even during the 15/70 days, they wouldn't shoot a lot of material to make them, they'd get the shot and move on, rather then wasting film.

 

The last "science" film I saw that was entirely shot on 15/70 was The Rocky Mountain Express, which was awesome. Its was very immersive and powerful. I actually bought it on BluRay and even on my pretty decent home theater, it didn't hold a candle to the IMAX experience... to be expected of course.

 

I actually spoke to a Kodak engineer a few years ago, during the time when they were actively hiding the fact that they were a film company at heart. They made a lot of mistakes over the years. 1, not utilizing/selling digital imaging back in the 70s/80s when they had a corner on the market and 2, intentionally concealing film and pushing digital when they already lost the war with other digital imaging competitors. I'm afraid it would be the same with IMAX at this point.

Yea, the management really screwed the pooch. I think today they've got better management, but they still aren't very defined as a company. Are they a technology company? yes. Are they a photochemical company? yes.

 

I just hope they do what I've been told they'll be doing. It will re-define them as a company and bring the name back to the forefront of cinemas around the world.

 

I thought THX was great but consumers had no idea what it actually was. They also charged too much. The theaters cost more to build/equip and they added insult to injury by adding huge licensing fees.

Ya know my home town theater was the test bed for THX. Thomas Holman went to school in Cambridge and he needed a theater willing to work with him. The Wellesley Playhouse had a horrible stereo and agreed to let him work there.

 

It's a small world!

 

Anyway, yea THX was a great idea but it was implemented incorrectly. IMAX did a far better job using the timbre matching speakers and using the same size cabinets around the room with the proper EQ to go along with it. I've never been to a THX theater that had anything like that, only IMAX... but not ALL IMAX. LIMAX theaters don't have anything like that. In any case, yea THX charged too much for their licensing and once digital sound became the norm, most people pulled out. I was still living in Boston when they pulled the THX logo's off the walls of all the General Cinema's in the Boston area. Those theaters were really good sounding for standard megaplex theaters. I just visited one of them over the weekend on vacation and it sounded like crap, totally unimpressed. :(

 

Being primarily an audio guy, I totally get it. I remember having a discussion with somebody who thought scanning The Wizard of Oz in 8K was a bad idea because the optical resolution was 2K at best. I told him it's not about getting higher resolution, it's about minimizing digital artifacts, especially since they had to resize the separate strips differently. In audio, we regularly work at 96KHz even though most people only hear up to 15K or so. It's not about getting more bandwidth, it's about keeping the digital artifacts out of the hearing range.

Exactly. To me it's more about the conversion from analog to digital, not just the bit rate, but how good the conversion is done. With audio, even a 16 bit CD can sound great with the right mastering and D/A conversion on the back end.

 

What kills me about "digital" is that we are analog creatures. Everything in our lives today needs to be translated before it can be seen or heard. Sure, our translation is good, but 20+ years into the "revolution" we've sold more records then any other physical media in the last two years straight. People look at the spec sheets and they're like, no way are LP's anywhere near the technical specs of digital audio. But it's not about that, it's about what ya don't hear, it's about the sound stage and what you feel when you listen to the medium. Lets face it, a well mastered LP with a decent needle and table, sound unbelievable. Those missing frequencies? Ya don't even think about them after a while, they're just not a problem.

 

To me the moment you take film and make it digital, you loose the essence of what film is. If you look at the exterior snow scenes in Hateful Eight on 70mm, they're just amazing. I had tears in my eyes first seeing the Sam Jackson shot where he said "need room for one more", because THATS what cinema is suppose to look like! The detail in his face, the richness in the skin tones and the contrast throughout the shot. You could feel the depth of the shot, where with digital, everything is so damn flat! Even movies shot on film and projected digitally on GOOD projectors, they still are lacking the depth even if they have similar dynamic range and color space.

 

The best thing about shooting and projecting the old fashion way is that it's something you can't take home, it's an experience that can only be seen for a short period of time at your local cinema. This is what Kodak is trying to jump onto, they know the value of film... now they just need to get audiences to understand if you don't see it now in this way, you won't ever get to see it like this again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...