logo Sign In

team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released) — Page 96

Author
Time
 (Edited)

That is also a part of it, there are an array of small influences that also add to a feeling of nausea or headaches,  but again, a camera movement issue, not a film/digital issue. But I'll stop clogging up the thread.

Bring on the next preview!

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time

Hm... I'm sitting here now, moving my eyes side to side like crazy but I am seeing everything in their path.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Try facing a mirror, and then look from one eye to the other and back again. You do not see your eyes in motion, but someone watching you can easily see the motion of your eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIF3FRwbG6Y

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Fascinating! I could have sworn my eyes weren't moving, so I shot it on video and you're right, they were moving quite a bit!

But then our brains do the same thing when watching a movie, as evidenced by that video you posted.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

poita said:

ZkinandBonez said:

pawel86ck said:

ZkinandBonez-  my opinion about movies shot on digital was negative (for example star wars looked flat as you say), but right now digtal cameras are much better, and I started to love films shot on digital because picture quality is most of the time very consistent, and looks realistic and sharp at the same time. Of course movies shot on film also can look good, but very few film studios care to scan their movies with good results. Few days ago I saw Edward scissorhands, and that movie received 4K remaster, and picture quality was superb. But again, very few movies (shot on film) looks like that, most of the time we get fuzzy and overprocessed picture with lots od DNR in order to mask film grain.

4K BD format will come out soon, and so I hope that we will see some quality remasters in regards to movies shot on film, maybe we will even see official high budged star wars remaster for 4K BD.

Sure, there's nothing inherently wring with digital, and it has gotten extremely good lately. But I mostly have two big problems with it (or rather it's use);
1. Digital bias - This idea that it's the new upgrade to celluloid really has to stop. It's an ingenious re-approach to getting roughly the same end result, but it's not a replacement. I have no problems with movies being shot digitally, I just wish people would stop referring to the use of film as a "hipster" thing, or calling it "out of date." Digital is an awesome new invention, but it has been over-hyped beyond belief. And film is currently evolving just as much as digital is; it just so happens to have been around for a fair bit longer.
2. Hyper-reality - I really can't stand when a movie is shot at 8k, or 48 frames per second. It's so redundant. I remember reading somewhere that the human eye sees roughly the equivalent of 4k (in digital terms), and that 35 mm film cover roughly the same amount. So why go beyond 4k when making a movie? There's just something so ugly about these 8k movies. I remember seeing The Hobbit and thinking "holy crap, what's wrong with Ian Holm's face!" in the opening scene. There's nothing wrong with it, but in 8k I can see every wrinkle and pore on his face. Heck I wouldn't have been able to see this if I was standing inches from his face in real life.
The whole 48 fps thing bugs me as well. I know people keep saying that the eye sees faster than 24 fps, but I feel like these films kind of proves otherwise. Wave your hand in front of your face and it'll look blurred. Look at any movement in the Hobbit trilogy and everything looks like a high frame rate video-game. 
Digital is fine and all, but I really see no purpose to film anything beyond 4k and 24 fps. The result is a bunch of hyper-realistic, video-game looking mess. It's just a gimmick. It sounds cool, it mirrors current iPhone and flat screen TV ads. "It used to be 4k, but now it's 8k!" It sounds cool, but it's completely redundant. It's just cheap marketing.

All in all though, I just wish it would even out a lot more so that the two mediums could co-exist with much more ease. Film has such a unique, and currently unsuccessfully emulated aesthetic, it would be such a loss to movie culture to lose it. Film also has a lot of financial benefits which no one is talking about either, which really bothers me and kind of confirms that there's a bit of a digital bias going on in the current film industry. 
I'm currently in the process of applying to a film school, and I'm hoping to one day get to direct movies of my own, and I'd be really disappointed if I'd loose the possibility to shoot on film. It has such a natural and organic look to it, and has so many currently unsung benefits. And although I have no problem with other people shooting digitally, I have no interest in using it myself.
(End of rant.

 Think about what you are saying for a moment, if your eyes only see about 4K resolution, then watching a film in 4K or 8K, you would see no difference at all, as your eye wouldn't detect the extra resolution.

As for 48fps and the moving your hand in front of your face, again, if your eyes were blurring the movement, then the 48fps of your hand would look just as blurry as the 24fps of your hand, as your vision would be doing the blurring between the frames.

Also, there is no way you saw The Hobbit projected in 8K, I don't know of any 8K cinemas anywhere, and there certainly wasn't an 8K version produced for distribution. What you saw was 2K, so you certainly weren't overwhelmed with detail that was more than your eyes could perceive, as you thought was the case. The reality is that Hobbit in particular suffered from a few problems.

1) To get 48fps, they had to throw a lot more light at the actors and the sets, this made lighting far more difficult, and it simply wasn't lit as well as the the LotR trilogy. This resulted in seeing more of the flaws in the makeup, costumes and sets.

2) 3D. To get 48fps and 3D, and keep the images clear, they went for a deep depth of field, as it keeps more in focus. Particularly in the Hobbiton internal scenes where the sets are not physically large, this resulted in nearly everything being over-lit, and everything in-focus. It also required greater compression rates. There is little leading of the eye in these scenes.

These two things gave it that Soap Opera/TV feel, the flat-ish lighting, the higher compression rates smoothing out detail, and the deep DoF resulting in everything being in focus, yet smoothed out a bit by compression. They got better at it as the film went on, and when they could shoot outside, the second half of the film looks much more natural than the first 45 minutes. The Hobbit is a flawed production, it looked just as bad in a 2D, 24fps cinema, i wasn't really the framerates etc. that were the problem, it was the crew struggling with finding how to shoot this way, and making a bit of a botch of it. This is to be expected when trying something for the first time, but it is a shame they didn't nail it, as many people now hold The Hobbit up as the example of why 48fps looks terrible.

As for film being unique, and not currently emulated, well, that just isn't true, we did a test screening with 11 film based directors quite a few years ago now, showed the same sequence shot on film vs shot on digital, and not one of them could reliably pick which was which. You can make digital look just like film if you want to, but most are now starting to explore the ways to utilise the extra fidelity, light sensitivity and dynamic range that digital offers to find new ways to tell stories.

The reason you find the clarity of 4K, and the high frame rate disturbing, is that you have had pretty much your entire life, being trained to see narrow depth of field, soft images, low dynamic range, raised blacks and 24fps blur as 'cinematic'. All of those limitations of film, became the language of film, and directors started using those limitations and working with them to create that language.

So a narrow depth of field is used to lead the eye where the director wants you to look, it is used particularly with slow focus pulls to show beauty, not necessarily because it is beautiful, but they have shot beautiful things and people that way for the last 100 years, so we have learned to read and assimilate that language, and it kicks off an emotional response.

Had film from the get-go been 48fps and film stocks much faster allowing for deeper DoF, then a different language would have appeared, and we would think of high resolution, sharp, 48fps as being the 'film look' and not liking whatever came along and replaced it.

You can make digital look just like film now if you want, and 100+ years of artistic language doesn't just go away, especially because it works, but a new language will evolve, and new generations will prefer its look.

The new dolby HDR laser projection is just astounding, it makes film look terrible in comparison, I think it will be much more important that resolution going forwards, it brings a range of options to directors that will enhance story-telling and sense of presence greatly.

Time marches on, things improve, we old dinosaurs don't like change. There are truly beautiful, artistically stunning digital movies being made now, and there are awful, soap-opera digital movies being made now, just as there was 50 years ago. The great movies and stories will look marvellous shot on digital or film, it is down to the talents of the crew, and the story to be told.

If you want to shoot on film, no-one is stopping you, Kodak is making 35mm film for at least the next decade, 16mm film is abundant, and you can even buy Super8 film if the mood takes you.

But if you do become a good director, the medium will be mostly irrelevant, you should be able to tell your story, capture your audience and create something that will mesmerise, regardless of the aquisition method.

Ok, clearly I got the whole 8k thing wrong, but that still doesn't hide the fact that it wasn't one of the most convincing looking films I've ever seen. 

Also could I get some more info on the story with the "11 film directors"? This is all a very funny conflict that is currently going on, because I know people who will swear to being able to tell the difference between the two almost all the time. It's funny that you mention dynamic range as well because that's always a word I keep hearing in articles arguing for the use of film, even from professionals who use both mediums. 
I could be wrong, but I've yet to be properly convinced that a digital movie was shot on film. I've seen movies shot on film that have been so heavily altered in post that they end up looking very digital, but then film is done properly it does have a very unique look it. Like I've said earlier, I'm not an expert, so maybe I'm full of crap. I'm trying very strongly to not react nostalgic about these thing, I'm just not convinced by it all. Most of the time I can tell the difference, and when film is done properly there's just something that speaks to me so much stronger.

On an the whole "no one's stopping you" thing is kind of misleading, in some cases that's very much what it feels like. I live in Norway, and film is literally dead in this country. No movies are shown on film at all, and you sure as hell can't find anywhere to buy film, especially not anywhere to develop it. I'm currently working on a short film project and I'm shooting it digitally because there is literally no way for me to shoot it on film. Sure I'm just an amateur, but there are currently professional filmmakers in Norway who is struggling just to make film an option. A director who comes from the same areas as I do has been struggling for years now to convince the Norwegian studios to let him shoot film, and it's not really working for him. Like most other's he'll either end up in England because they have a better system for it or he'll just compromise and use what the studios tell him to use. This is someone really young too, not even thirty yet I think, and I find it hard to believe that someone like him would believe so strongly in something like this over mere nostalgia.
So I'd hardly call 16 mm abundant, as in my part of the world it is non-existent, and even I don't see much worth in 8 mm. If 8 mm was my only option, even I would prefer to shoot digitally.

Anyway, this argument is, as it generally is, mostly a matter of aesthetic taste. But I won't clutter this thread up anymore with my vague rants and poor facts about how digital movies work.   
(I would like to read some more about those 11 directors though.)

Star Wars is Surrealism, not Science Fiction (essay)
Original Trilogy Documentaries/Making-Ofs (YouTube, Vimeo, etc. finds)
Beyond the OT Documentaries/Making-Ofs (YouTube, Vimeo, etc. finds)
Amazon link to my novel; Dawn of the Karabu.

Author
Time

poita said:

I'll start a new thread.

In the meantime, these guys can sort you out re film and film camera hire.

http://www.kamerautleien.no/modules/standard/?id=88

Thanks, I wasn't aware of these people. They might be a little bit out of my price range, but I'll contact them to see what they have to offer.

Could also you PM me a link to the thread when you've made it?

Star Wars is Surrealism, not Science Fiction (essay)
Original Trilogy Documentaries/Making-Ofs (YouTube, Vimeo, etc. finds)
Beyond the OT Documentaries/Making-Ofs (YouTube, Vimeo, etc. finds)
Amazon link to my novel; Dawn of the Karabu.

Author
Time

Jeez Poita, is there anything you don't know? You have a succinct way of relating complicated information, a hightly valuable trait, and there is little about film that you don't know. It is a real treat when you chime in on any discussion. Glad you still have time for us with all the other crap you have going on!

-G

Author
Time

Not sure where to post this yet but the trailer looked pretty good.  Maybe JJ is better at Star Wars than Star Trek.

Author
Time

And you should get rid of that awful avatar.

Author
Time

Ha ha ha ha.  Oh Frink.  You nut....NEVER!!!!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

g-force said:

Jeez Poita, is there anything you don't know?

-G

 

I don't know what is happeing in Ep7. I have avoided all trailers etc. to keep it as fresh as possible. New trailer is up now, I am busily not watching it...

Donations welcome: paypal.me/poit
bitcoin:13QDjXjt7w7BFiQc4Q7wpRGPtYKYchnm8x
Help get The Original Trilogy preserved!

Author
Time

I'm against most trailers these days.  They give waaaaay too much information.  But so far the Abrams camp is doing it right.  I think they need to not show one more trailer.  Maybe a hint of Luke in a new one.  Nothing else.  I'm sold.  I'm going.   But they show me something stupid or give too much info I will not see that opening week. 

Author
Time

brycebayer said:

Ha ha ha ha.  Oh Frink.  You nut....NEVER!!!!

 I read that as Frink never nuts. Hmm.

Author
Time

poita said:

g-force said:

Jeez Poita, is there anything you don't know?

-G

 

I don't know what is happeing in Ep7. I have avoided all trailers etc. to keep it as fresh as possible. New trailer is up now, I am busily not watching it...

 I just saw it. By the trailer alone I'd label it recycled and not fresh. From appearances all the stuff that happened in the OT, instead of being built upon and expanded, has been reduced to legend as some contrivance for a rebirth with some goofy vendetta by a mask wearing Vader Jr character. Throw in a pursuit by a lanky stormtrooper with a scratchy throat box for added story momentum. Ground and air battles and cameos mixed between to keep the audience awake.

Supposedly in their galaxy the force is all but forgotten. Two Death Stars exploded and the Jedi and rebels who brought evil down to it's knees apparently didn't make the evening star news. Basically they reset to stage zero so master Luke can whoosh in toward the journey's end to mentor the new generation of tingling clairvoyant telekinetic super youth against the upstart evil regimes that have moved in, and to reunite with the rest of the old cast who haven't kept in touch. 

Author
Time

brycebayer said:

You're in the future Frink....the future

 Apparently the future is filled with people who don't know what this thread is for.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

brycebayer said:

You're in the future Frink....the future

 Apparently the future is filled with people who don't know what this thread is for.

...and seahorses. Never forget the seahorses

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Es7x_9n9a6s/hqdefault.jpg

Nobody sang The Bunny Song in years…

Author
Time

At the risk of being totally unoriginal, thanks so much for extraordinary hard work you've put into these projects! I reckon the key word is choice. It's what LucasFilm hasn't provided and is what you guys and Harmy and everyone else are providing!  The Grindhouse ESB is great! Don't remove too much noise for the next releases ;)

If you can preserve the kind of colour that's in this clip in the final export then you're doing a better job than most BluRays ever do

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k2L2k7hpwvMCs3aYTHI

Looking forward to SW whenever it comes out

Hello form London!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

AllAboutThatSpace said:

At the risk of being totally unoriginal, thanks so much for extraordinary hard work you've put into these projects! I reckon the key word is choice. It's what LucasFilm hasn't provided and is what you guys and Harmy and everyone else are providing!  The Grindhouse ESB is great! Don't remove too much noise for the next releases ;)

If you can preserve the kind of colour that's in this clip in the final export then you're doing a better job than most BluRays ever do

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k2L2k7hpwvMCs3aYTHI

Looking forward to SW whenever it comes out

Hello form London!

 Have you seen their more recent samples? Though it's not the same scenes, I would say the color is even better, and the deflicker is improved (unless that scene or reel you linked to was more problematic to start?).

Author
Time

towne32 said:

AllAboutThatSpace said:

At the risk of being totally unoriginal, thanks so much for extraordinary hard work you've put into these projects! I reckon the key word is choice. It's what LucasFilm hasn't provided and is what you guys and Harmy and everyone else are providing!  The Grindhouse ESB is great! Don't remove too much noise for the next releases ;)

If you can preserve the kind of colour that's in this clip in the final export then you're doing a better job than most BluRays ever do

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k2L2k7hpwvMCs3aYTHI

Looking forward to SW whenever it comes out

Hello form London!

 Have you seen their more recent samples? Though it's not the same scenes, I would say the color is even better, and the deflicker is improved (unless that scene or reel you linked to was more problematic to start?).

Nice! I've seen some of the samples but none of the reel previews, great to hear the colour's improving! the colour in the ESB grindhouse is pretty phenomenal.  Also good to know that some sequences will be Eastman.  It fades like a bastard but if you catch it in time colour is weirdly cinematic. Must say I'm looking forward to Jedi without all those special edition changes. Harmy did a terrific job, but the GOUT is a bit limiting.  I can remember as a kid being surprised at how much the actor playing Anakin's ghost looked like Hayden christensen :\ then the planet of Jarjar Binxes got liberated and I became suspicious..

Author
Time

brycebayer said:

But they show me something stupid or give too much info I will not see that opening week. 

 You mean like BB-8?

This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists: