Lore

[Chris Burke]

I just saw Lore and was very impressed. Incredible film, check it out. I walked away thinking that it was a very well shot digital picture. I assumed this because of the sharpness and lack of grain along with occasional clipped highlights. Perhaps it was the print I saw that helped in this matter, that of being digital. I would like to see a digital projection of this film, but no one has it around me, only prints. Now I am quite surprised to see that it was S16mm originated project shot on Ultra 16 lenses, hence the sharpness.

People carry on quite a bit about how S16 is not high enough resolution for the modern HD age, the BBC being one of them. I say hooey. Time and again I am surprised to find out S16 was the format, Venus for example. March of the Penguins. This time, I don't know if it was intentional or not, but rather than look like 35mm, it looked kinda digital. Weird. Again, maybe a odd print, but my favorite format continues to surprised me.

[Karl Eklund]

I just saw Lore and was very impressed. Incredible film, check it out. I walked away thinking that it was a very well shot digital picture. I assumed this because of the sharpness and lack of grain along with occasional clipped highlights. Perhaps it was the print I saw that helped in this matter, that of being digital. I would like to see a digital projection of this film, but no one has it around me, only prints. Now I am quite surprised to see that it was S16mm originated project shot on Ultra 16 lenses, hence the sharpness.

People carry on quite a bit about how S16 is not high enough resolution for the modern HD age, the BBC being one of them. I say hooey. Time and again I am surprised to find out S16 was the format, Venus for example. March of the Penguins. This time, I don't know if it was intentional or not, but rather than look like 35mm, it looked kinda digital. Weird. Again, maybe a odd print, but my favorite format continues to surprised me.

I saw it in cinema a month ago or so, I could tell quickly it was shot on film, because of the textures and all. I was sitting to far from the screen to see if it was super 16 or 35, I have poor eyesight :) pretty sure it was a digital projection.

 

Super 16 resolves fine around 2K (and that is down-sampled from higher quality so it isn't debayered or anything like that at 2K), and what is more important than pixels this, pixels that is the contrast and shallow depth of field, that also gives an apparent resolution that is higher. Film also have a higher resolution when the images are moving thanks to each frame being different, something that the new Aaton Digital Penelope tries to mimic.

 

Lore is very high contrast, blue (we see more detail in blue compared to red), and use lots of shallow depth of field shots.

 

One reason 35mm film might look bad too is that sometimes they tend to mimic super 16mm, like Argo, and Killing Them Softly, in the latter they push the film stock so the grain becomes more predominant. In Argo they did something like blowing the 35mm up and down down res again, I don't remember exactly but they did blow something up 200%, but I don't think it was Super 16mm.