Jump to content
Alex Anstey

"The cinematographer of Knives Out wants to end the film-vs.-digital debate”

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

film is dead unfortunately  ..

Oh shit, we should go tell Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, JJ Abrams, Steven Spielberg and Damian Chazelle. Nolan alone, accounts for most of Warner Brothers theatrical profit every year and Abrams has helmed some of the most successful franchises in the last decade. There are over two dozen top theatrical filmmakers who continue to shoot film like PT Anderson and Yorgos Lanthimos plus thousands more who use it for music video and commercial applications. If my garage-based camera rental house sheds any light on the future of film, it says film is alive and well. 

Quote

either the cameras go first ... I presume they are not being made anymore ...

The cameras are nearly bullet proof. Cameras like the 2C will literally last forever. 

Put it to ya another way... In the period of time you've gone through 5 different cameras, I will continue to use the same cameras and get identical quality. No reason to upgrade, no reason to change anything. As Kodak releases new stock (which they will) I get all those updates for free!

Quote

or film itself ceases to be manufactured 

Kodak is self sufficient, they make their money through real estate. If we all suddenly stopped buying film, they would stop making film. However, they only make small amounts at a time and for people who need bulk, they make it fresh for them specifically. So they don't have stock lying around going to waste. 

Also, there are many attempts to bring back older stocks. Kodak already re-engineered and brought back Ektachrome. There are other projects to bring back many other stocks, including Film Ferrania color reversal. There have been huge investments in non-Kodak stock manufacturing recently, so we should see some new stocks within the next decade. 

Quote

 solid state.. its here to stay ..

Of course, nobody is saying otherwise. 

Quote

its amazing film has hung on so long in the feature / commercial world.

What's so amazing about that? Film has been the main format for over 100 years. In fact, 35mm projection only died 7 short years ago. In December 2019, there were 5 features being shown in film at our local Arclight Cinemas. FIVE! A few years ago, theatrical projection was dead. 

Meanwhile, vinyl record production has been at an all-time high, for a format that completely died in the 80's. Meanwhile, Reel to Reel production has increased substantially over the last few years, with TWO new machines coming out any month now. Meanwhile, consumer video formats like Laserdisc and Betamax, have continued to have a growing cult following and machine cost is increasing exponentially. Forget about the film projection movement, prints are costing more than ever and every projection group I'm on, has seen tremendous up-ticks in usage and people looking for projectors/wanting to project film. You'd laugh, but there is also an uptick in the amount of working steam engines in the US, currently we have more than we've had since the 70's! 

So no, I don't see it being "amazing" at all. 

Analog is having a resurgence, it's going to get stronger and stronger as more people realize the unique qualities about both analog audio and moving image are way easier to re-create by simply working with analog from the beginning. Why "fake" the beauty of analog when you can get the real thing? Besides the benefits of how good analog mediums store. 

Quote

It died 30 years ago for everyone else toting a camera for a living ..

Yep, most filmmakers don't tote a camera for a living. So it's an irrelevant comment. 

I shoot 90% film and make a living off it in Hollywood, one of the most expensive places to Iive in the country. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Looking at Yedlin's demo I did see a difference. The left side seemed just a little more saturated and colorful to me than the right, especially in the skin tones. At the end of the demo it said the left side was the 35mm film. This isn't a surprise. Having shot digital and film still pics, I've found no way to 100% match colors of the two, even taken side by side at the same time. They are different, but only noticeable if viewed side by side. Otherwise, once the mind is drawn into the content, it's not noticeable. Back in 1964, most of us got to love the Beatles listening to them on transistor radios with one inch speakers. Art is experienced more in the mind than in the eyes or the ears.

Edited by Bob Speziale
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

We're kidding ourselves if we truly believe that we can tell the difference between a digitally captured image and a film captured image when both are brought into the computer and color graded.

It's like trying to determine which brand of knife, oven, and pans the chef used. Does the food taste good? Great, then does it matter?

I'd like to think the only time I was really fooled with digital masquerading as film was Jedi, but there have been times I've mistaken film for digital because it was graded so heavily or underwent noise reduction or something. So that's a fair point.

But to me the far more important question is–does the chef care what brand of knife he uses? 

I feel the same way about CGI. The issue isn't one of purity, it's that there's so much CGI now that the bulk of the image feels fake in most blockbusters and even practical effects are starting to feel weightless because of the context that surrounds them. It's sort of the opposite of Jurassic Park.

I've only seen Her and not La La Land, but of the screen captures posted here, I prefer the look of Her and I think both the cinematography and visual effects in that movie are excellent. It's not a question of what's "better," except in the context of a given project. I imagine Her would a lot worse if shot on film. It's a question of whether they're interchangeable, and for most people I think they're not. 

I also think digital post is a godsend for film, at least potentially. I was filing 135 prints for a photographer (who'd since moved to digital exclusively) and between his prints from scans and cibachromes, the prints from scans were much sharper and to me looked much better. (You could argue cibachrome is better in the context of another project, but he was making large prints from 135 slides and the extra resolution and consistency in color and improved detail in the shadows, to my eye, outweighed any aesthetic benefits of the cibrachrome in the context of this particular subject matter.) I suspect a lot of features shot on S16 and something like Suspiria, shot on Cooke S3s on 35mm, benefit from digital post and digital exhibition, where more sharpness and more texture is retained, but I don't follow this stuff closely and could be wrong. 

Beyond all that I do think there's a visible technical difference when you push things too far, particularly in how saturated blown out light sources are rendered on film. I tried to grade Red MX to match film years ago and got a surprisingly half decent match except the vectorscope shape was consistently more diffuse on the digital camera. Maybe there's some post wizardry to compensate, but it's beyond me and when you get into really saturated colors I think film looks better–and someone who uses it well would take advantage of this. And when you get into really low light, Alexa looks better, and you can take advantage of that, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bob Speziale said:

Looking at Yedlin's demo I did see a difference. 

Oh it would be impossible on a computer or even home display. He treats the image so much, the quality of both the digital and the film are so degraded, you could never tell. Then he finishes in 2k, so the added resolution of the 35mm won't even be noticed. If you were to go side by side with a 6k scan and a 4k finish, you'd notice the difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh it would be impossible on a computer or even home display. He treats the image so much, the quality of both the digital and the film are so degraded, you could never tell. Then he finishes in 2k, so the added resolution of the 35mm won't even be noticed. If you were to go side by side with a 6k scan and a 4k finish, you'd notice the difference. 

I don't know how you can say that. Even with a screen shot of the two images on my 2K monitor (film on left) reduced in size to post here, you can see the digital image has more blues and the film image has less. If it's not so apparent in skin tones it's obvious on the window frames.

film-vs-digital.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Robin, you work mainly in corporate and documentary right? So do I. Few in those worlds even remember what film is anymore. But to quote Stephen King, ‘there are other worlds than these.’

That said, I did introduce my director to shooting on 35mm anamorphic on my last corporate job before the shut down. He loved the look of the footage, said it was better than the Alexa Mini footage we shot. So I may be pulling the Moviecam and Arriflex back out of their coffins someday soon, if we ever get back to a semblance of normal.

Anyway, no need to shove our beloved granny into the grave while she’s still kicking. She may be as prickly and ornery as ever, but we still love her.

haha .. Yes Granny is still pottering in the garden .. but we still better be making arrangements ..  but really I think you just have to be realistic .. unfortunately its plain that film is on the last 100 yards and can see the finish line .. its a shame I know..but  folk loved valve radios.. CD,s and even cassette tapes .. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved Knives out. I have seen it multiple times, including once in a theatre. The cinematography is excellent. I personally think some of the close ups are way too sharp. Maybe vintage lenses or film would have taken some of the edge off.

Yedlin also says the camera system doesn't matter, but then uses the camera that has been proven to be the closest to film! Alexa has looked amazing in tons of film. I would love to see these tests done with a GH5 or an A7S. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh poop, we should go tell Christopher Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, JJ Abrams, Steven Spielberg and Damian Chazelle. Nolan alone, accounts for most of Warner Brothers theatrical profit every year and Abrams has helmed some of the most successful franchises in the last decade. There are over two dozen top theatrical filmmakers who continue to shoot film like PT Anderson and Yorgos Lanthimos plus thousands more who use it for music video and commercial applications. If my garage-based camera rental house sheds any light on the future of film, it says film is alive and well. 

The cameras are nearly bullet proof. Cameras like the 2C will literally last forever. 

Put it to ya another way... In the period of time you've gone through 5 different cameras, I will continue to use the same cameras and get identical quality. No reason to upgrade, no reason to change anything. As Kodak releases new stock (which they will) I get all those updates for free!

Kodak is self sufficient, they make their money through real estate. If we all suddenly stopped buying film, they would stop making film. However, they only make small amounts at a time and for people who need bulk, they make it fresh for them specifically. So they don't have stock lying around going to waste. 

Also, there are many attempts to bring back older stocks. Kodak already re-engineered and brought back Ektachrome. There are other projects to bring back many other stocks, including Film Ferrania color reversal. There have been huge investments in non-Kodak stock manufacturing recently, so we should see some new stocks within the next decade. 

Of course, nobody is saying otherwise. 

What's so amazing about that? Film has been the main format for over 100 years. In fact, 35mm projection only died 7 short years ago. In December 2019, there were 5 features being shown in film at our local Arclight Cinemas. FIVE! A few years ago, theatrical projection was dead. 

Meanwhile, vinyl record production has been at an all-time high, for a format that completely died in the 80's. Meanwhile, Reel to Reel production has increased substantially over the last few years, with TWO new machines coming out any month now. Meanwhile, consumer video formats like Laserdisc and Betamax, have continued to have a growing cult following and machine cost is increasing exponentially. Forget about the film projection movement, prints are costing more than ever and every projection group I'm on, has seen tremendous up-ticks in usage and people looking for projectors/wanting to project film. You'd laugh, but there is also an uptick in the amount of working steam engines in the US, currently we have more than we've had since the 70's! 

So no, I don't see it being "amazing" at all. 

Analog is having a resurgence, it's going to get stronger and stronger as more people realize the unique qualities about both analog audio and moving image are way easier to re-create by simply working with analog from the beginning. Why "fake" the beauty of analog when you can get the real thing? Besides the benefits of how good analog mediums store. 

Yep, most filmmakers don't tote a camera for a living. So it's an irrelevant comment. 

I shoot 90% film and make a living off it in Hollywood, one of the most expensive places to Iive in the country. 

You quote a handful of directors in their 50,s or well over ..  I know we have been here before but sorry no.. way more people are down loading music then buying records ..  and betamax is making a come back.. what ever you smoking I want some 🙂 

Bullet proof or not film camera have moving parts .. and no business either Arri or Kodak is going to continue making a single rubber widget if its not turning a buck..  film is going to go .. its a shame but yes like steam engines ,and valve radio,s its on the way out ...

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

haha .. Yes Granny is still pottering in the garden .. but we still better be making arrangements ..  but really I think you just have to be realistic .. unfortunately its plain that film is on the last 100 yards and can see the finish line .. its a shame I know..but  folk loved valve radios.. CD,s and even cassette tapes .. 

Unfair to compare film to cassette tapes. I am often watching documentaries and the 60 year old film looks better than the cameras they're shooting the interviews with. 

Film has only gotten more and more popular over the last 5 years, though. Even a used Super 16 Bolex is like 3 grand now. 

It seems to be mostly younger commercial directors and DPs.

Edited by Ben Ericson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Heikki Repo said:

You should also contact Logmar, they didn't get the memo regarding building new cameras 😉 https://logmar.dk/

Whats up with this  guy ..   I'll let him know asap .. been out in the snow too long .. I'll put him right dont worry ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ben Ericson said:

Unfair to compare film to cassette tapes. I am often watching documentaries and the 60 year old film looks better than the cameras they're shooting the interviews with. 

Film has only gotten more and more popular over the last 5 years, though. Even a used Super 16 Bolex is like 3 grand now. 

It seems to be mostly younger commercial directors and DPs.

The film industry can survive on Bolex cameras...   thats total Bolex..   really 60 year old film looks better than an Alex / Venice / Red.. on this old reversal  documentaries ..  ?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robin R Probyn said:

The film industry can survive on Bolex cameras...   thats total Bolex..   really 60 year old film looks better than an Alex / Venice / Red.. on this old reversal  documentaries ..  ?

That was merely an example. Any 16mm camera is just really in demand right now. Every single film camera has gone up in value by 2 or 3 times in the last 5 years.

Saw this one in an IMAX theatre. That color though!

https://youtu.be/RSTucPDS0-8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ben Ericson said:

That was merely an example. Any 16mm camera is just really in demand right now. Every single film camera has gone up in value by 2 or 3 times in the last 5 years.

Saw this one in an IMAX theatre. That color though!

https://youtu.be/RSTucPDS0-8

Sure yes they will always be around as collectable items, for enthusiasts, and thats great .. there are still many steam trains around as Tyler noted . my brother makes a  living selling model ones !. but how many are running Amtrak routes .. well zero..  . .. I think its just common sense .. look at the stills world .. they stopped making the last DSLR in production just recently.. technology moves on .. always be a niche market for anything .. but thats all it will be .. we all love film.. but its obviously the final quarter.. dont shoot the messenger 🙂 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

You quote a handful of directors in their 50,s or well over ..

I quote 5 directors that make up for several of the top grossing films of all time. The list of younger filmmakers who are moving up through the ranks shooting on film is even larger. In fact, the guy I shoot for, has a very promising feature that I'll be shooting once Covid is over. He's already won dozens of awards for his work and he's a 100% film guy. 

4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

I know we have been here before but sorry no.. way more people are down loading music then buying records ..  and betamax is making a come back.. what ever you smoking I want some 🙂 

Of course more people download music, that's not the point. My point is that, there is such high demand for pressing new vinyl currently, they're actually making new pressing machines. I mean who would have thought that a not very good technology from the early 1900's, has turned full circle into something modern that actually sounds good? https://www.forbes.com/sites/billrosenblatt/2018/09/18/vinyl-is-bigger-than-we-thought-much-bigger/#4a25aa971c9c

A great "analog" to this is film projection. Like Vinyl's resurgence, it required a complete collapse to re-build. I'm currently on the front lines for a new motion picture resurgence and we're a few short years away from potentially having a new color negative stock AND a faster/cheaper way to higher-quality large format prints. Like Vinyl, it will take time but rest assured, with studios actually seeing higher profits on film run's than digital runs, it won't be long until the ink is dry on the contracts and our dream to resuscitate theatrical will come true. With millions of feet being made for small theatrical runs, it's only a matter of time before Kodak will be working 24/7 again. 

Besides, you can make your own film emulsion. How long will it be before companies develop an at-home emulsion making machine? Insert chemicals on one end,  out comes film on the other. 

4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Bullet proof or not film camera have moving parts ..

So does a steam locomotive. There are over 250 working steam engines in the UK, many are from over 100 years ago. If you're telling me that rebuilding a steam engine is easier than putting new bearings into a Arri 2C, then you don't know the Arri 2C. Yes, some film cameras, like your digital cameras, will stop working thanks to electronic failure. But the vast majority of film cameras are truly analog and have very simplistic mechanics and electronics that anyone with a tiny bit of tinkering knowledge will be able to fix. Heck, I've fixed two completely fried Aaton boards and I have around 5% of the knowledge required to do so. 

I'm certain along the way you've had to give up cameras that you really liked due to them either failing and not being able to be serviced anymore AND/OR forced to keep up with technology. Imagine if all the cameras you liked were all gone and all you had was shit that was unworkable? That day is probably coming MUCH faster than you care to let on. Meanwhile, us "film" makers will continue to use our 20+ year old cameras for another 20 years. I anticipate the all-mechanical cameras like the Arri 2C will be highly sought after in the future, as they're were many examples made and are probably one of the most robust cameras as well. 

4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

 film is going to go .. its a shame but yes like steam engines ,and valve radio,s its on the way out ...

So far, all Film has done is become more popular and it took me a week of research to find out what tube preamp I wanted as "valves" are coming back in a huge way. It's hard to find a company who makes decent hi-fi gear, who doesn't also offer a tube option. Imagine if that were still camera companies? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

haha .. Yes Granny is still pottering in the garden .. but we still better be making arrangements ..  but really I think you just have to be realistic .. unfortunately its plain that film is on the last 100 yards and can see the finish line .. its a shame I know..but  folk loved valve radios.. CD,s and even cassette tapes .. 

Whereas my thought is, let’s just spend the time we have left enjoying film before it’s gone. I spend enough time at work with digital cameras I don’t really like anyway. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Whereas my thought is, let’s just spend the time we have left enjoying film before it’s gone. I spend enough time at work with digital cameras I don’t really like anyway. 

Sure Im not anti film .. I don't have shares in Sony ..my first ever paid day as a freelancer was with an Aaton, but it is pretty amazing film has lasted this long in the business world..  there is alot of wishful thinking going on.. to combine an answer to Tyler , yes there are alot of stream engines in the UK.. I think Ive been to most of them as a kid !.. .. but none are in active service .. (if you can say that the UK actually has a rail service at all ) they are run by enthusiasts, with some dwindling Gov grants .. for tourists and the occasional  film shoot.. ..its actually a very good way of proving my point .. they are great but they are not used in the commercial world .. technology moved on .. why people think film and film cameras are not part of this process I dont get .. they dont even make digital DSLR anymore .. let alone film camera,s..  

11038796_10206456686399620_7831377991853357951_n.jpg

Edited by Robin R Probyn
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2020 at 6:14 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

Most guys with Arri lasers are $400 - $800 per minute of finished print. (Around $40k on average for a internegative with soundtrack) 

We can do a bit better than that and have done many short films for sub $1000 with a cinevator. It's limited to 2k and isn't quite the quality of the Arri laser, but it's a very good machine. 

That's pretty cheap!

10 hours ago, AJ Young said:

We're kidding ourselves if we truly believe that we can tell the difference between a digitally captured image and a film captured image when both are brought into the computer and color graded.

I'm going to respectfully disagree, on the grounds that the two media capture light differently.

10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So no, I don't see it being "amazing" at all. 

Analog is having a resurgence...

I'm amazed, though. You know why? Because, as I've written elsewhere, it's so bizarre that film is taking off again just when digital is getting really good. I'm talking about cameras as diverse as the Red Dragon, the Panasonic GH5s, the Nikon D3 (it's old, I know), the Sony A7S, and one day, the Apple iPhone... On paper, all of these cameras are superior to film in most areas, and yet here we are.

56 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Besides, you can make your own film emulsion.

Wow. Really? Your'e right about valve amps, anyway. Even if it's just about how they look. I used to have an old b&w TV when I was a teenager. It was probably from the 1960s, and I should have kept it. It was powered by valves, although they were in the back, so you couldn't usually see them.

20 minutes ago, Robin R Probyn said:

they dont even make digital DSLR anymore .. let alone film camera,s..  

It won't be long until DSLRs are dead. That's the kind of progress that people deny until it happens. Because there's no way that DSLMs could ever be as fast or accurate as DSLRs, right? Even post processing with be deprecated, and those who love sitting in front of their computer all day will lament the 'traditional way' of applying a look to an image. But that's progress within digital, and not necessarily applicable to film.

Time will tell, the market is always right, and there isn't much we can do about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

That's pretty cheap!

I'm going to respectfully disagree, on the grounds that the two media capture light differently.

I'm amazed, though. You know why? Because, as I've written elsewhere, it's so bizarre that film is taking off again just when digital is getting really good. I'm talking about cameras as diverse as the Red Dragon, the Panasonic GH5s, the Nikon D3 (it's old, I know), the Sony A7S, and one day, the Apple iPhone... On paper, all of these cameras are superior to film in most areas, and yet here we are.

Wow. Really? Your'e right about valve amps, anyway. Even if it's just about how they look. I used to have an old b&w TV when I was a teenager. It was probably from the 1960s, and I should have kept it. It was powered by valves, although they were in the back, so you couldn't usually see them.

It won't be long until DSLRs are dead. That's the kind of progress that people deny until it happens. Because there's no way that DSLMs could ever be as fast or accurate as DSLRs, right? Even post processing with be deprecated, and those who love sitting in front of their computer all day will lament the 'traditional way' of applying a look to an image. But that's progress within digital, and not necessarily applicable to film.

Time will tell, the market is always right, and there isn't much we can do about that.

The market is always right .. agreed sir .. money .. it is alot cheaper to shoot digitally (runs for cover ).. its already happened in every other camera market ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

A great "analog" to this is film projection. Like Vinyl's resurgence, it required a complete collapse to re-build. I'm currently on the front lines for a new motion picture resurgence and we're a few short years away from potentially having a new color negative stock AND a faster/cheaper way to higher-quality large format prints. Like Vinyl, it will take time but rest assured, with studios actually seeing higher profits on film run's than digital runs, it won't be long until the ink is dry on the contracts and our dream to resuscitate theatrical will come true. With millions of feet being made for small theatrical runs, it's only a matter of time before Kodak will be working 24/7 again. 

A move to film projection is really a step back why would that be a good thing?

- Its expensive to master and produce prints. There is a greater environmental impact then digital files 

- Prints are heavy and expensive to ship, again worse for the environment then digital.

- On screen the quality of 35mm has been superseded by the current generation of digital projectors, 70mm is perhaps better better but that brings in even more costs to produce and ship.

- Limited number of venues that can show film, less then 100 for 70mm

- Projecting film is more labour intensive 

- Film gets damaged, sure with an A grade projectionist and equipment film can look very good, even after 100's of runs...but that is very much the exception, not the rule. Most cinemas trashed the prints, dirt scratches etc... Even happens on the 70mm expensive runs, the London 70mm print of the master was scratched pretty early in the run and thats at a supposed "west end" cinema with good facilities. 

- In perfect conditions film projection can look loverly, but the reality  is it usually didn't. Digital has brought consistency to cinema projection. I've seen Bladerunner projected on 35mm three 3 times and once on DLP - the DLP looked a thousand times better then the 35mm prints in circulation - which as times were more scratches then image. 

Sure their is some hipster cool factor attached to film projection in the same way that vinyl is popular. Screenings sell well because Chris Nolan is good branding.... but 35mm at least isn't that good, its less practical, more expensive and usually looks like crap. Once you put laser projection or Dolby cinema into the mix its not even close in terms of quality.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Connolly said:

A move to film projection is really a step back why would that be a good thing?

- Its expensive to master and produce prints. There is a greater environmental impact then digital files 

- Prints are heavy and expensive to ship, again worse for the environment then digital.

- On screen the quality of 35mm has been superseded by the current generation of digital projectors, 70mm is perhaps better better but that brings in even more costs to produce and ship.

- Limited number of venues that can show film, less then 100 for 70mm

- Projecting film is more labour intensive 

- Film gets damaged, sure with an A grade projectionist and equipment film can look very good, even after 100's of runs...but that is very much the exception, not the rule. Most cinemas trashed the prints, dirt scratches etc... Even happens on the 70mm expensive runs, the London 70mm print of the master was scratched pretty early in the run and thats at a supposed "west end" cinema with good facilities. 

- In perfect conditions film projection can look loverly, but the reality  is it usually didn't. Digital has brought consistency to cinema projection. I've seen Bladerunner projected on 35mm three 3 times and once on DLP - the DLP looked a thousand times better then the 35mm prints in circulation - which as times were more scratches then image. 

Sure their is some hipster cool factor attached to film projection in the same way that vinyl is popular. Screenings sell well because Chris Nolan is good branding.... but 35mm at least isn't that good, its less practical, more expensive and usually looks like crap. Once you put laser projection or Dolby cinema into the mix its not even close in terms of quality.

 

 

Careful of your strong logic sir .. I wonder if all the hipsters would rather go in for an operation or dentistry with all those lovely old brass instruments .. thats workman ship for you ... and that lovely gas light ..  things were so much better back then,..  and at last I hear betamax is back ..  !!  I hear Chris Nolan is shooting his next film on a Canon Scoopic ..  OMG prices are sky rocketing ..  I saw one for sale in Santa Monica last week .. its double price now .. but I was carrying my yoga mat back to the yurt..  no time .. such regrets .. I'll get on next time Im in Berlin ..

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robin R Probyn said:

Careful of your strong logic sir .. I wonder if all the hipsters would rather go in for an operation or dentistry with all those lovely old brass instruments .. thats workman ship for you ... and that lovely gas light ..  things were so much better back then,..  and at last I hear betamax is back ..  !!  I hear Chris Nolan is shooting his next film on a Canon Scoopic ..  OMG prices are sky rocketing ..  I saw one for sale in Santa Monica last week .. its double price now .. but I was carrying my yoga mat back to the yurt..  no time .. such regrets .. I'll get on next time Im in Berlin ..

Robin,

 

I know you have your tongue partly in your cheek with a somewhat sardonic air but as an engineer in broadcast with thirty years of yet more bloody advanced technology hype in imaging, etc I’d like to contest the ideas in your post.

There is no such thing as one technology being more advanced than another. Heating water with a either wood fire or a Gen 3 reactor is simply doing the same thing with two different tools. So it goes with cmos imaging chips and silver halide crystals stochastically distributed across an emulsion.

For me, personally, after thirty years of staring at both under controlled conditions I just like film. I enjoy video (the term ‘digital’ just causes me to snigger but I understand why it is widely used) and it can be used in all sorts of neat ways but to say one technology is superior to another........oh, purlease!

Edited by Jeremy Cavanagh
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeremy Cavanagh said:

Robin,

 

I know you have your tongue partly in your cheek with a somewhat sardonic air but as an engineer in broadcast with thirty years of yet more bloody advanced technology hype in imaging, etc I’d like to contest the ideas in your post.

There is no such thing as one technology being more advanced than another. Heating water with a either wood fire or a Gen 3 reactor is simply doing the same thing with two different tools. So it goes with cmos imaging chips and silver halide crystals stochastically distributed across an emulsion.

For me, personally, after thirty years of staring at both under controlled conditions I just like film. I enjoy video (the term ‘digital’ just causes me to snigger but I understand why it is widely used) and it can be used in all sorts of neat ways but to say one technology is superior to another........oh, purlease!

But when you want a cup of tea do you go and cut the wood and a bang. a couple of flints together  .. or plug in a kettle..when you heat the water  🙂   the thing is I have never once said one is better than the other .  the pro film lobby doth pretest too much me thinks..  everyone can have their personal tastes .. I care way more about the script and the acting , which seems less important to some than the medium ..  ..  over the last 15 years its impossible to not say that the number of film cameras available from rental companies has not plummeted and the same time the majority  of feature films ,commercials ands high end TV .. that was previously 99.9% dominated by film.. has gone over to digital ..and why has that happened .. digital is cheaper .. thats all ... it used to look crappy and so film at the high end kept its perch .. but now thats gone with technical advancements ..digital can look just as "good" as film, thats now undeniable to anyone who is a DP..   and film sadly is on the way out .. its a shame for sure but who in their right mind is seriously arguing that its not happening .. ..   to repeat.. I have never claimed one is better than the other .. in fact its the film zealots  who are claiming one technology is vastly better than the other .. not I sir  .. the defense will now rest your honor .. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

I'm going to respectfully disagree, on the grounds that the two media capture light differently.

Fair, but digital cameras from the major brands capture light differently from each other if we really want to start diving into the mechanics. 🙂

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

digital can look just as "good" as film 

This is rather besides the point, as nobody can agree on what ‘good’ is. If this thread proves anything, it’s that most people would rather fight endlessly to defend the superiority of their own taste rather than just letting other people enjoy what they enjoy in peace.

Also, the camera wars punditry is ridiculous. You know that old saying about gym teachers? Well, turns out there’s a rung below that.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Glidecam



    FJS International



    Wooden Camera



    Visual Products



    Ritter Battery



    Metropolis Post



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Tai Audio



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    CineLab



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Abel Cine



    G-Force Grips



    The Original Slider



    Just Cinema Gear



    Serious Gear



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...