The equivalent for grain is not noise. Grain is like a pixel that can be put anywhere.
And I certainly did not see a lousy screening, it was probably the best I possibly could have gone to.
IMAX is theoretically better but I feel they blow it up too far and lose some of that clarity in the process. Certainly doesn't help when it gets blown up on a dome.
Anything sourced from 4k will not compete with film that much I can say.
No, grain is like noise. It's called generational grain. Most of the visible grain you see in many films is due to copying. Modern negatives started to look so clean that it actually encouraged a move towards adding visible grain to the emulsion to make them more obviously film-like, like Saving Private Ryan. But when you see 35mm, you aren't watching the negative. You are watching copies of copies. That's why you see grain, which in modern emulsions is very fine and normally not very apparent. Noise is a by-product of the camera sensors and grain is a by-product of the crystals that make up an emulsion. Since we are dealing with copies, this adds up in an exponential manner, which is why 35mm looks a little grainy and HD is capable of clean, noise-free, mirror-like images (i.e. The Hobbit) since the data is lossless. On a scientific level, it simply isn't possible for film to look like that.
Most HD shot films look noise free because they don't need to boost the signal, or you would see noise. That's what the "gain" switch does on high-end cameras, it artificially amplifies the signal and increases the noise floor (like that staticy sound on receivers and speakers). Film has the equivalent to a gain switch too, which is push-processing, which amplifies the signal (the silver halide crystals sensitivity) which in turn boosts the grain levels. In the early days of HD filming, we would leave the gain switch on just a tiny bit so the image looked more like film with that "gainy"/grainy subtle layer. People stopped doing that years ago because, with the widespread adoption of HD displays circa 2008-2010, people accepted the HD "clean" look and began to actually not want HD to artificially mimic the qualities of film.
BmB said:
And I certainly did not see a lousy screening, it was probably the best I possibly could have gone to.
Best you could have gone to still sounds kind of lousy if you saw softening around the edges. I was scrutinizing every inch of that screen the whole time, and the whole time I was amazed and how incredible sharp it was. Unless you just have super human visual perception, I think there is a very good chance your experience was compromised by equipment issues.
Zombie made a good point about most 70mms being blow ups. There hasn't really been a whole lot recorded on 70mm since the 60's, so unless you are watching mostly old films, the 70mm prints you've seen are likely 35mm blow ups anyway.
Maybe I do. I consider myself to have average vision but I don't actually know what average is and I have never had my vision tested as such. I doubt it, I know what 5K should well be able to resolve and that seemed just about right for the screen. It was very good but not good enough.
The 70mm I saw was material shot on 65mm. No blowups.
You really are desperate for my experience of film as superior to be invalid.
Alright, lookie this here, proof!
http://www.smashboxdigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/SBD-TEAM.C009_C017_072848.0000585_5120-PIX.jpg
5K frame out of the very same kind of camera. I found a bunch of others and this frame is sharper than the average. And even on the sharpest bit near the middle guys teeth it's visibly lacking in definition. In fact, this is exactly what I saw in The Hobbit.
It's a very good image but it's not comparable to what I saw in 2001.
zombie84 said:
Was Titanic Super 35? I forgot he was into that. In a weird way, it helped keep his movies very visceral because of the grain. I think it was Xhonzi that said in the Last Movie thread he was glad that Cameron kept T2 rough around the edges to match the first film. I disagree with that,
No sir!
It was captainsolo. All I'm guilty of is a man-crush on Michael Biehn.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Whoa! We're like man crushing Eskimo bros., xhonzi! Michael Biehn is great. It is still surprising to me he didn't end up in more stuff.
You lost me at eskimo, but had me at Michael Biehn.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
One of my favorite Michael Biehn moments. He steals the movie in this scene, in my opinion.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
TV's Frink said:
bkev said:
Today's "make Frink feel old" post is brought to you by bkev, who was born in 1993.
Wow.
Don't feel too bad, Frink. He's younger than me and my younger brother which means I feel old too, now.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
SilverWook said:
zombie84 said:
I didn't know there even were prints made. Now that I think about it, it's kind of surprising Cameron didn't actually film Titanic in 65mm. That would have been pretty sweet.
He's been in love with Super 35 far too long for that. ;)
That would have been my response. I still don't understand some people's love for the format.
zombie84 said:
Was Titanic Super 35? I forgot he was into that. In a weird way, it helped keep his movies very visceral because of the grain. I think it was Xhonzi that said in the Last Movie thread he was glad that Cameron kept T2 rough around the edges to match the first film. I disagree with that, I think T2 is way too slick to even compare to T1, but it's that grainy, fuzzy quality that I think Xhonzi was catching onto, had T2 been filmed anamorphic it would have looked amazing but also would have highlighted the differences even more. That's one reason I regret the Aliens blu-ray, 1986 was a bad year for film stocks, especially on 35mm, but that grainy super35 quality is what I really loved about Terminator and Aliens, it gave them a certain documentary-like, grindhouse feel that matched the quick cutting and handheld camerawork.
I never felt that way about Titanic, but I guess by 1996 technology was just cleaner in general.
Yeah, that visceral quality is immediate to a film nut like me, but what struck me was the overall quality of both story and production maintained a similar rough and human edge that reflected the first film.
I've seen all kinds of 2K and 4K presentations, but I have never seen a digital image that actually surpasses the 35mm version. I usually prefer a DI back to 35 even with some clarity loss, there is typically a better balance of color and depth at least to my eyes. (Sounds like my CRT loving self talking ;) If you can find a second run theater, most are still 35, and some like the one nearest to me have kick-ass 90's era THX equipment. The 70mm IMAX TDKR was great in the full resolution, save for the forced perspective and screen curvature. The 35mm scenes looked quite degraded.
One of my biggest regrets is never having seen 70mm with correct sound placement in a grand theater as of yet. But besides that, the biggest things I've been bowled over in a theater are Techniscope (visceral to the max), VistaVision (depth even a BD would find hard to manage).
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
So...
I saw Hobbit 1 in 48 FPS and found that I couldn't quite stop looking at it long enough to enjoy the movie (which I didn't).
I passed on Hobbit 2 theatrically all together.
The early showing of Hobbit 3 I went to was 24 FPS.
So I didn't get the chance to see if the 48 FPS experience was improved at all (either objectively or subjectively) over the course of the three films.
Can anyone comment?
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
I had a really bad day at work and was feelign really depressed. But then someome here actually said that 35mm looked better than 4K. And for a moment, felt better and will sleep better tonight. So thank you.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
Mike O said:
I had a really bad day at work and was feelign really depressed. But then someome here actually said that 35mm looked better than 4K. And for a moment, felt better and will sleep better tonight. So thank you.
"Looks better" is a subjective term, I guess.
"I prefer the look of 35mm to 4K" is a valid statement.
"I think there's more detail in a 35mm print than a 4K dcp" probably isn't.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
I never said it had to be 100% true, just that it made me happy ;).
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death