Jump to content

Future of 35mm


A.J. Green

Recommended Posts

Digital projected cinema is not taking off as predicted, due to the high cost and short life of the equipment when compared to film projectors. And for a real dose of reality, technological advances happen in surges... as was the digital video surge of the past few years. With the world economy going down the tubes, I think we will be noticing the tech advances in digital leveling off for some time :P I saw a film in theater the other night shot on HD and digitally projected, it looked like stir fried crap. Super 16mm would have looked much more appealing.

 

It may not be taking off as predicted, but this might be a sign that digital will take over in the future:

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-10055919-52.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The subjectivity of film and video as art will only make substantial gains in the right direction when the medium ceases to be about greed, popularity and commerce. Jazz was replaced by rock music. Literature was replaced by cinema and television. Oral story telling was replaced by prose. Only then will the true cream rise to the top.

 

Also, in matters of art, why do the "film" guys constantly talk about "image quality, control and resolution" as a defense for film? If anything, that goes against their argument because art is just as much -- if not more -- about abstraction than it is about simply recreating reality.

 

Besides, for video to ever be taken seriously as art the consumer/tech. rat race (that a lot of you endorse and contribute to I might add) has to end. R&D would have to plateau; then, and only then, would images begin to look backwards for their inherit aesthetic qualities rather than the anticipation of the next annual trade show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subjectivity of film and video as art will only make substantial gains in the right direction when the medium ceases to be about greed, popularity and commerce. Jazz was replaced by rock music. Literature was replaced by cinema and television. Oral story telling was replaced by prose. Only then will the true cream rise to the top.

 

Also, in matters of art, why do the "film" guys constantly talk about "image quality, control and resolution" as a defense for film? If anything, that goes against their argument because art is just as much -- if not more -- about abstraction than it is about simply recreating reality.

 

Besides, for video to ever be taken seriously as art the consumer/tech. rat race (that a lot of you endorse and contribute to I might add) has to end. R&D would have to plateau; then, and only then, would images begin to look backwards for their inherit aesthetic qualities rather than the anticipation of the next annual trade show.

 

I have to agree. The advantages for shooting film over digital, by the end of the day, don't really make a lot of sense. I mean, really, what do image quality, control, and resolution have to do with art anyhow? But the main reason I don't buy what the "film" guys say is because when the movie goes to theaters, what most people will see is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, so if that's what most people are gonna be seeing, the advantages really are pointless.

 

As for digital, I'll let Rodriguez do the talking:

 

 

Edited by Benson Marks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subjectivity of film and video as art will only make substantial gains in the right direction when the medium ceases to be about greed, popularity and commerce. Jazz was replaced by rock music. Literature was replaced by cinema and television. Oral story telling was replaced by prose. Only then will the true cream rise to the top.

 

Also, in matters of art, why do the "film" guys constantly talk about "image quality, control and resolution" as a defense for film? If anything, that goes against their argument because art is just as much -- if not more -- about abstraction than it is about simply recreating reality.

 

Besides, for video to ever be taken seriously as art the consumer/tech. rat race (that a lot of you endorse and contribute to I might add) has to end. R&D would have to plateau; then, and only then, would images begin to look backwards for their inherit aesthetic qualities rather than the anticipation of the next annual trade show.

 

But Greg, even painters get excited about new paints, new painting techniques.

 

Honestly, coming from the film camp, I think the most important part of photography *LENESES* have plateaued, and are actually going backwards now in some fields due to environmental restrictions being placed on the best kind of glass, that which is leaded.

 

Unfortunately, there is this perception that things need to get "easier". Imagine if this attitude were taken with painting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benson,

 

Are you saying that Robert Rodriguez HDCAM on Desparado looks better than the Techniscope of Tonino Delli Colli in say, The Good the Bad and the Ugly?. Rodriguez can hardly hype his film by saying it didn't look that good and if he was so keen on digital why did he go shoot Grindhouse on Fujifilm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benson,

 

Are you saying that Robert Rodriguez HDCAM on Desparado looks better than the Techniscope of Tonino Delli Colli in say, The Good the Bad and the Ugly?. Rodriguez can hardly hype his film by saying it didn't look that good and if he was so keen on digital why did he go shoot Grindhouse on Fujifilm?

 

Sorry, A.J., Rodriguez shot Planet Terror with the Panavision Genesis camera using primo lenses. Sure, the movie got printed onto film using Fuji, but he didn't use Fuji for shooting.

 

As for your comment on Desperado not looking better than The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, certainly not. I never said Desperado looked like it was shot on anamorphic 35mm. What I did say was that by the time a 35mm film goes to theaters, the quality is already gone. It is known that every copy you make of a 35mm film print loses more of its quality and resolution than the last one. Even with a DI, you still have to make a lot of copies. So, by the end of the day, there isn't a real big advantage to shooting film other than it looks soft.

 

If you think about it carefully, there really isn't an advantage for either format. Film guys always seem to look for all the things that make digital horrible and yet don't look for the things that make film horrible, at least, that's what it looks like to me.

 

In short, digital isn't great (although it's improving), and neither is film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
What I did say was that by the time a 35mm film goes to theaters, the quality is already gone. It is known that every copy you make of a 35mm film print loses more of its quality and resolution than the last one. Even with a DI, you still have to make a lot of copies. So, by the end of the day, there isn't a real big advantage to shooting film other than it looks soft.

Oh please, this is just a bunch of bullshit. 35mm has so much resolution that even if you strike a print from an IN it still looks good in the cinema. Obviously not as good as a print from the ON, but still a much better image than anything shot on digital. And going by your argument, one had better shoot on film, because if you start with an HD image that has less resolution than film to begin with, in the cinemas nothing will be left.

 

And really, I don't think Robert Rodriguez is a reference when it comes to knowing what looks good. He's been raving about HDCam for years but his films look like poop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please, this is just a bunch of bullshit. 35mm has so much resolution that even if you strike a print from an IN it still looks good in the cinema. Obviously not as good as a print from the ON, but still a much better image than anything shot on digital. And going by your argument, one had better shoot on film, because if you start with an HD image that has less resolution than film to begin with, in the cinemas nothing will be left.

 

And really, I don't think Robert Rodriguez is a reference when it comes to knowing what looks good. He's been raving about HDCam for years but his films look like poop.

 

Again, Max, digital is improving. There's already 4k digital cameras which can almost match the quality of film, so I stand by my argument that neither format is great anyway.

 

Do I have to defend Rodriguez? Not every movie he makes is horrible. In fact, "Sin City" and "Grindhouse" have been favored by most who saw those films, so maybe it's just your tastes, Max. That's all I can say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a somewhat distorted understanding of the process.

 

Its true you loose information as copies are made. The advantage of 35mm film starts with so much information that it still looks good after going through so many copies. Its not as though you loose all of the qualities of 35mm by the time light hits the screen.

 

 

Their isn't necessarily anything horrible about film or digital. Their are advantages and disadvantages to each. So far digital has only strived to do what film already does, and hasn't proven to have enough advantages that warrants the replacement of film.

 

 

As for your comment on Desperado not looking better than The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, certainly not. I never said Desperado looked like it was shot on anamorphic 35mm. What I did say was that by the time a 35mm film goes to theaters, the quality is already gone. It is known that every copy you make of a 35mm film print loses more of its quality and resolution than the last one. Even with a DI, you still have to make a lot of copies. So, by the end of the day, there isn't a real big advantage to shooting film other than it looks soft.

 

If you think about it carefully, there really isn't an advantage for either format. Film guys always seem to look for all the things that make digital horrible and yet don't look for the things that make film horrible, at least, that's what it looks like to me.

 

In short, digital isn't great (although it's improving), and neither is film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film is also improving. Kodak continues to improve the sensitivity, dynamic range, and color reproduction of film. The benefit of this system is that most of the technology is in the film itself. Modern 35mm film can run in a 40 year old camera.

 

Film is not really 4K. Film is not digital. Film is not limited to a set number of pixels. The decision of considering film resolution at 4K came as much from the practicality of what current electronic technology can scan, store, and project from a 35mm negative. Under the proper circumstances 35mm can be scanned far beyond 4K.

 

I think the work of Robert Rodriguez is probably judged more on a generational basis. Those born before 1985 tend to not think it all that great.

 

 

Again, Max, digital is improving. There's already 4k digital cameras which can almost match the quality of film, so I stand by my argument that neither format is great anyway.

 

Do I have to defend Rodriguez? Not every movie he makes is horrible. In fact, "Sin City" and "Grindhouse" have been favored by most who saw those films, so maybe it's just your tastes, Max. That's all I can say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, those are fair points, Tenolian. You make a good point that digital is trying to imitate film (I wish it wouldn't). In my opinion, that's not going to make digital great. I think for digital to be great it must be different from film. Personally, I don't get why a movie has to look like film to be great. Does everything have to look like an oil painting in order to be great?

 

In contrast to what you just said, I think digital does have a shot if it can be different, but at the way it's going I don't see it coming, either.

Edited by Benson Marks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the face of it, it all comes down to money. Digital camera manufacturers are trying to sell a product for money. Hollywood studios want a presentation technology that will make them more money. For digital cinema to be widely adopted it needs to do something different enough from film that audiences will pay to go see it.

 

They are attempting to do this with 3D. But 3D is such a cumbersome production process that its unlikely to be widely used. Its also a cumbersome format to watch as you have to wear glasses and it gives some people headaches.

 

With what we currently have I think large screen IMAX is a more visceral theatrical format. This past summer when I watched the Dark Knight. That first IMAX shot of the Chicago skyline appeared on screen you could hear the gasps from the audience at the detail and clarity of such a large image.

 

 

 

Okay, those are fair points, Tenolian. You make a good point that digital is trying to imitate film (I wish it wouldn't). In my opinion, that's not going to make digital great. I think for digital to be great it must be different from film. Personally, I don't get why a movie has to look like film to be great. Does everything have to look like an oil painting in order to be great?

 

In contrast to what you just said, I think digital does have a shot if it can be different, but at the way it's going I don't see it coming, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Tenolian for citing the Chicago skyline shot from the Dark Knight I'd like to add the scene where Batman interrogates the Joker, when he smashes him about the cell - only film can make that image - even when we watch it through a digital means.

 

The debate of Digital V Film is really the challenge of digital to prove it's aesthetic value as an equal, and I agree with Benson that Digital as a format will prove and stand alone, probably with it's own means of viewing: but, it's going to the cinema - and watching a film 35mm film that is innate. The fact that almost anybody can take a snap shot with an SLR camera, providing they expose it correctly is unifying. I was in Pall Mall in London a week ago and I saw an old dude tourist probably in his 80s framing up a shot with his SLR. Time, precision and calculation. There is only one word for it - photographer. Were as there are plenty other folks snapping away with 5/10/20mp digital cameras, the word is consumer. The expansion of digital to the 'film' world is not the development of craft, it's the development of a 'prosumer' class that believes opportunity and success can be bought. This is wrong because 'prosumer' will disappear as fast as the boom that created it. What will last is the - photographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What can 35mm do that video can't?

From the strictly technical standpoint there is one thing film cannot do yet: exposure time as long as with video. NTSC and PAL systems offer 92 percent picture and 8 percent non-picture. The maximum for a film camera shutter angle is still 235 degrees out of 360 (Mitchell 16 HS), equivalent of 65,28 percent vs. 34,72.

 

Then, with film you can expose single frames for years if you want ― without electricity ! No such thing in video

 

Next: elimination of flicker has been made with film projectors since 1895. The Skladanowsky Bioscope is a duplex machine as well as the Prestwich-Green wide film apparatus of 1896 is. Smooth transition between frames

 

Film is capable of resolving power values beyond reason. At the sacrifice of speed you can capture every tiny detail a lens sketches out. Fuji Eterna RDI and Kodak Vision x242 are such stock.

 

Film takes you to 500+ frames a second without any compromise in quality (16 mm), to 425 fps (35 mm). Millions of fps are feasible with the drum camera, on a lesser quality level but it's there.

 

Film cannot be deteriorated magnetically in transport. Not everybody has a 35-mm printer at home, even less 65-mm machinery. It is simpler to keep hands on an original than with video. Film can be projected in the light of a 4 kW lamp without cooling, no beamer will do that. You can draw and paint directly on film. Video will never offer this.

 

Enough ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Film takes you to 500+ frames a second without any compromise in quality (16 mm), to 425 fps (35 mm).

 

Hi Simon,

 

There is always s slight loss of resoloution at higher speeds due to camera vibrations & possibly less staedy gates especially in 16mm.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor
Hi Simon,

 

There is always s slight loss of resoloution at higher speeds due to camera vibrations & possibly less staedy gates especially in 16mm.

 

Stephen

 

 

This is true, however we do allot of work for a Jet engine manufacturer which is 8000 to 12000 fps HycamII photography which we neg cut and answer print. Every time we do one of these jobs I am amazed at the detail which is visible in the print image, things like the writing on a small wiring tag on a small corner of a BIG jet engine. Typical setups are 500K W worth of tungsten lighting and kodak 500T with a shooting stop of 5.6 to 8 Std 16mm rotary prism cameras which are brand new and have much better electronics than the older versions.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi Simon,

 

There is always s slight loss of resoloution at higher speeds due to camera vibrations & possibly less staedy gates especially in 16mm.

 

Stephen

That's why I invented a new mechanism which has no reciprocating parts, only revolving ones. It shouldn't jitter. Doesn't anybody know somebody who'd invest in this project of building the camerast camera ?

:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

May I throw in some oblique points that may or may not really count in this debate?

 

Film could be described as a pan-resolution image. From what I've gathered out of my scanner experience is that dye and grain sites are randomized in size. John Pytlak, God rest his soul, used to mention this as well. There is a proportion of dye clouds (I stole that from Mullen) and grains that could require something on the order of 64K to be accurately represented digitally. It's only because a sufficient percent of grains and clouds are big enough to be represented by 4K with all the smaller getting a pixel-proxy (I invented that one). At 2K most of the grains and clouds are just pixel-proxies. But, for the most part 2K seems to fool the eye. Not very well, though, in the opinion of trained eyes.

 

The point of all that rambling is that pan-resolution is a viewer experience that low-res DI and dig-acq can't do. Only film can.

 

Another point has to do with cloud and grain as well. I call this phenomena, "screen crawl". It would probably be better called, "motion grain" or "motion texture". This is a subtle but lovely effect. I could even claim it to be hypnotic. It is definitely entertaining to the brain as a form of eye candy. The screen literally buzzes (visually, that is) with vitality from this effect. Of course, this is a feature of film only. Low-res DI cripples this effect. Digital compression is its enemy. Dig-acg kills it completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The maximum for a film camera shutter angle is still 235 degrees out of 360 (Mitchell 16 HS),

I have somewhere a 35mm Acme kinescope movement that was used with a 288 degree shutter, though only for recording NTSC TV. It has one cam to drive the claws up and down, and another to engage them in the perfs, or not. After the pulldown, the claws withdraw from the perfs, they go up and without engaging come back down again. Then they go up and engage for the next pulldown. It also has pin registration.

 

The interesting new thing with digital chips is that you can come within a hair of a full 360 degree shutter. That lets you pan and dolly at any speed you want without skipping. You can also do interesting tricks with combining groups of frames.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

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

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...