logo Sign In

Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Laserman
For a start, DVD is 4:2:0, even consumer HDTV (1080i or 720p) is only 4:2:0 so your colour resolution is horribly, horribly compromised compared to film where there is effectively a 1:1 resolution match for colour to picture information. Just to nitpick, when you say film holds as much colour as picture information (which is true at the time it's filmed), and is comparable to 4:4:4 - what we're talking about is the original star wars negatives, which have deteriated so much that they need to be colour corrected scene by scene (and I might add that they didn't do a perfect job in 1993 or in 2004 with this correcting). With this in mind, wouldn't it be fair to say that the master star wars film reels do not hold colour as well anymore? Wouldn't this be more comparable to 4:2:0 then to 4:4:4?

I have great respect for Francis Ford Coppola (more then any other single director), his movie "The Outsiders" is one of the finest movies I've ever seen. He is known for his attention to detail, and the quality of his works. If he prefers digital over film, I'm sure it's because of the quality.

Here's an excerpt from Cameron's interview with The Hollywood Reporter (I know his point of view is far from fact):

THR: How does the HD look blown up to 15-perf/70mm?

Cameron: It looks phenomenal. To say we're wildly enthusiastic would not be overstating it. One has to bear in mind, though, that it's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so it doesn't fill the entire height of the Imax screen. It chops off a bit at the top and bottom. But in a 3-D environment, you don't really notice that.

The amount of data available from a 35mm negative is much less than the amount of data available from an HD frame.

THR: Film purists argue the opposite.

Cameron: They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative.

Also, keep in mind when comparing the quality of detail in the 2004 release, that a lot of that detail is in newly created digital elements introduced to those scenes - and there are so many alterations that are of course going to be better and more crisp then the original film, so that when you watch the entire SE movies an illusion is created making you believe it's more crisp with more detail then the film itself had. Maybe I'm wrong, and the original SW negatives do hold picture information to the equilivant of 1080p - but I still really doubt it, I think a good quality interpolation upscale of DVD resolution would look pretty close. On the other hand, it would look better to be natively scanned at a higher resolution, just because there's less scaling going on. Just because some 35MM film can hold "up to 4000" lines (or however many) doesn't mean the SW negatives do - no matter what the technology.
If they transferred it again, and only removed large, visible, obvious deformities - it wouldn't be that different to the 1993 master, even if it was scanned at 720p or 1080p."
This is something a lot of people incorrectly assume.
If they fed the OT through one of the new arriscan machines, it would look immeasurably better than the 1993 transfers. I kind of got that out wrong anyway, yes of course they would look better, more crisp and contain better quality - probably much better quality. But it would not look as good quality as the Special Edition. Also, I tend to confuse what I'm talking about (in other words, make it confusing for you, the reader) - most of the time I'm talking about "our" collective ability rather than Lucasfilm's abilities.

I also disagree with what you're saying about laserdisc quality - I've watched Laserdiscs projected by professional-grade mounted movie projectors (thanks to friends who are complete movie geeks - and it sounds like you've watched them too) and the quality is good. It's not fantastic, of course, but it's still good enough to enjoy on a big screen. By the way, many independent films are filmed digitally at DVD resolution and are still more then acceptable theatrically.

"I don't own a 35mm print of SW, but have had access to some in the past, and while they were useful as a colour reference, none would have been good enough for a high quality scan."

So it seems we do agree on the basic premise.They would also be risking a gaol term. If the print got into the wild, I'm pretty sure Lucasfilm would put a lot of resources into tracking down where it was done. They are quite forgiving of the 'home' user making his own versions and playing with laserdiscs, but if a film facility scanned a print I'm pretty sure all hell would break loose. (Speculation on my part of course)
Agreed. Also, I know for a fact Lucasfilm has never been happy about pirated SW copies - I remember in about 1999 reading on their website (starwars.com) a statement against the circulation of pirated LD-based DVD copies. At the time they were mostly the SE, as I understand it. They said it's true they would be better quality then VHS, but that they would not equal DVD quality.(BTW. a huge thanks to everyone here, I'm not officially back, and promise not to take this thread any further off topic - but I borrowed a computer and thought I'd drop in and say hi. Hopefully I'll be back properly in a couple of months and will rejoin the fray.)
Well you're welcome, I've heard a lot of good things about you.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
[
Here's an excerpt from Cameron's interview with The Hollywood Reporter (I know his point of view is far from fact):

THR: How does the HD look blown up to 15-perf/70mm?

Cameron: It looks phenomenal. To say we're wildly enthusiastic would not be overstating it. One has to bear in mind, though, that it's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so it doesn't fill the entire height of the Imax screen. It chops off a bit at the top and bottom. But in a 3-D environment, you don't really notice that.

The amount of data available from a 35mm negative is much less than the amount of data available from an HD frame.

THR: Film purists argue the opposite.

Cameron: They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative.


Sorry just had to pop in here to say

THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.

This is the type of propaganda that proper cinematographers are fighting, this public notion that film is out of date, expensive or for some reason worse off than digital.

16MM FILM HAS MORE RESOLUTION THAN HD. AND IT DOESNT LOOK LIKE SHIT THE WAY HD DOES.

God. People are such fucking idiots.

HD appears to have the clarity of 65mm to mr. Cameron because it is super-crisp and thus shows detail more easily. This is actually a very ugly and undesireably trait that cinematographer have to fight by adding diffusion filters over the lens to soften it up and even this does not do much.

The Sony F900 series was a nice HD camera in its day--but it was not meant for dramatic motion picture work. It was designed for documentary-style stuff and in that respect it is a very nice camera. But everything it shoots for an actual dramatic motion picture looks like horseshit compared to film.

This type of stuff ticks me off.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT. Dude calm down, it's not horseshit it's an opinion. I've shared my opinion, and I've shared Cameron's opinion. Laserman has shared his opinion, as have other forum members too. And zombie84, you're welcome to your opinion as well, and to share it. We don't have to have a flame war. Not all 35MM film looks the same and not all digital filming looks the same either.

By the way - I use this post as evidence to show it takes 2 to create an argument.This is the type of propaganda that proper cinematographers are fighting, this public notion that film is out of date, expensive or for some reason worse off than digital.
Yes it's true, some cinematographers are fighting digital, and are fighting the propaganda surrounding it. However, keep in mind there is just as much propaganda on the other side out there as well that other cinematographers are fighting.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: Laserman
For a start, DVD is 4:2:0, even consumer HDTV (1080i or 720p) is only 4:2:0 so your colour resolution is horribly, horribly compromised compared to film where there is effectively a 1:1 resolution match for colour to picture information. Just to nitpick, when you say film holds as much colour as picture information (which is true at the time it's filmed), and is comparable to 4:4:4 - what we're talking about is the original star wars negatives, which have deteriated so much that they need to be colour corrected scene by scene (and I might add that they didn't do a perfect job in 1993 or in 2004 with this correcting). With this in mind, wouldn't it be fair to say that the master star wars film reels do not hold colour as well anymore? Wouldn't this be more comparable to 4:2:0 then to 4:4:4?

You try to compare something which cannot be compared. Fading negatives don´t lose their colour resolution, they are simply starting to loose the whole chemical layer which represents one colour, which, depending on the state, can be brought back fully, with digital or photochemical methods. What you are referring to is digital YUV quantization, which is not present in analogue film.


I have great respect for Francis Ford Coppola (more then any other single director), his movie "The Outsiders" is one of the finest movies I've ever seen. He is known for his attention to detail, and the quality of his works. If he prefers digital over film, I'm sure it's because of the quality.


No, because it is ENOURMOUSLY cheap compared to shooting on film. And it can have other advantages: a film reel holds 12 minutes of expensive film, and thus actors and directors cannot try much variations of a scene in lower budget productions. With digital, you can just let the camera film continuously and experiment much more. If a scene isn´t good enough, it can simply be erased from the harddisk. Roberti Rodriguez explains this in the "Once upon a time in Mexico" DVD very detailed why he and other directors, are pushing the HD format.


Here's an excerpt from Cameron's interview with The Hollywood Reporter (I know his point of view is far from fact):

THR: How does the HD look blown up to 15-perf/70mm?

Cameron: It looks phenomenal. To say we're wildly enthusiastic would not be overstating it. One has to bear in mind, though, that it's a 16:9 aspect ratio, so it doesn't fill the entire height of the Imax screen. It chops off a bit at the top and bottom. But in a 3-D environment, you don't really notice that.

The amount of data available from a 35mm negative is much less than the amount of data available from an HD frame.

THR: Film purists argue the opposite.

Cameron: They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative.


Of course, filmmakers don't wish to admit that important cost fact of shooting in HD, since it would generate a huge negative backlash. Cameron is known for being a director who utilizies the cheapest and most effective way for making movies (in Terminator 2 you still see background projection scenes), it´s absolutely understandable he favours HD. However, by stating that HD has roughly the same resolution as a 65mm negative, he is clearly leaning himself far out of the window.


Also, keep in mind when comparing the quality of detail in the 2004 release, that a lot of that detail is in newly created digital elements introduced to those scenes - and there are so many alterations that are of course going to be better and more crisp then the original film, so that when you watch the entire SE movies an illusion is created making you believe it's more crisp with more detail then the film itself had.


Star Wars is not the only "old" film which looks superb on DVD. Take the WIzard of Oz and other 3 strip technicolor movies, which are over 70 years old. They have so much resolution and colour brilliance in them, they easily surpass consumer HD formats with their clarity (1920x1080). Take Fritz Lang´s Metropolis: when they did the restauration, they had 90 minutes of the original negative from 1927. The transfer looks absolutely gorgeous, and can easily hold up in some scenes to modern films in detail rendering. Almost 80 year old film shot with a silent movie camera...

Sorry, but your initial statement, that 35mm can hardly compare to HD or even DVD (LOL) is really utterly bullshit. It takes not two to make an argument when the other one is not stating arguments.


Maybe I'm wrong, and the original SW negatives do hold picture information to the equilivant of 1080p - but I still really doubt it,


You can doubt it, they hold more resolution than 1080p. Analogue film is still far superior to consumer video formats.


I think a good quality interpolation upscale of DVD resolution would look pretty close.


Oh boy, you are pretty wrong here, and how! Interpolation does and will NEVER add picture information. YOu can make look the pixels smoother, this will result after all not in a pixelated but very smooth picture with few detail.


On the other hand, it would look better to be natively scanned at a higher resolution, just because there's less scaling going on.


Nope, because there is MORE PICTURE information there.


Just because some 35MM film can hold "up to 4000" lines (or however many) doesn't mean the SW negatives do - no matter what the technology.


Look at the DVD´s. They look up to par with Lord of the Rings. No digital algorithm can add picture information, these information has always been in the negatives. They look very sharp, especially in the non-special effect scenes. This is a clear indication that the nagatives, although faded, retained all of their resolution.


I kind of got that out wrong anyway, yes of course they would look better, more crisp and contain better quality - probably much better quality. But it would not look as good quality as the Special Edition.


Most people here don´t want Special Edition quality. But the transfer could easily reach the clarity of the SE´s ON STANDARD RESOLUTION DVD.


Also, I tend to confuse what I'm talking about (in other words, make it confusing for you, the reader) - most of the time I'm talking about "our" collective ability rather than Lucasfilm's abilities.


We don´t have any abilities here. It´s almost impossible and will never happen that someone is going to make a private 35mm transfer of Star Wars.


I also disagree with what you're saying about laserdisc quality - I've watched Laserdiscs projected by professional-grade mounted movie projectors (thanks to friends who are complete movie geeks - and it sounds like you've watched them too) and the quality is good. It's not fantastic, of course, but it's still good enough to enjoy on a big screen. By the way, many independent films are filmed digitally at DVD resolution and are still more then acceptable theatrically.


Sorry, but this statement clearly disqualified you. YOu can have your own judgement what looks great, that´s fine, but your obviously limited perception of resolution clearly knocks you out.

What independant films are filmed at DVD resolution? Most independent films are filmed at 16mm or even 35mm. Every time I see video material,I can clearly identify it, and spot out easily on big screen. Not to mention, it looks horrible. Even commercials made in 800x600 or 1024x768 with a computer (text and cgi gfx), and then transferred onto 35mm, i can still clearly see pixels and anti-alias structures on film.

Sorry, no offense to you. It must be a modern disease that people are getting used in watching pixels, and claim this is the new state of the art, and everything before was rubbish. Much like the "CD´s sound much better than LP" argument, where (many too young) people state than LP´s sounded stone age horrible back then.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Just to nitpick, when you say film holds as much colour as picture information (which is true at the time it's filmed), and is comparable to 4:4:4 - what we're talking about is the original star wars negatives, which have deteriated so much that they need to be colour corrected scene by scene (and I might add that they didn't do a perfect job in 1993 or in 2004 with this correcting). With this in mind, wouldn't it be fair to say that the master star wars film reels do not hold colour as well anymore? Wouldn't this be more comparable to 4:2:0 then to 4:4:4?

No. Maybe you'd better read up on what 4:4:4, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 actually means. It has nothing to do with faded or washed out colour. Even faded film still has a direct 1:1 colour to 'detail' ratio.

Originally posted by: boris

Also, keep in mind when comparing the quality of detail in the 2004 release, that a lot of that detail is in newly created digital elements introduced to those scenes - and there are so many alterations that are of course going to be better and more crisp then the original film, so that when you watch the entire SE movies an illusion is created making you believe it's more crisp with more detail then the film itself had.

No.

Take a look at any of the 'untouched' scenes, like closeups of Leia's face etc. The level of detail is stunning, and this is *after* the film image is downsized and had 3/4 of the colour information thrown away, and then compressed through a lossy codec.

Originally posted by: boris
Maybe I'm wrong, and the original SW negatives do hold picture information to the equilivant of 1080p - but I still really doubt it, I think a good quality interpolation upscale of DVD resolution would look pretty close.

Yeah, I'd have to say you are wrong on this one - I'll scan a super8 frame and post it when I get myself a new computer and you can see how much information even *that* holds compared to laserdisc or DVD. The SW negs definately exceed 1080p in detail and colour.

Really, I used to have to scan and put frames back out to film as part of my job, the difference between 2K and 4K and original film is instantly obvious when viewed side by side. Go down to 1080P and 8 bit colour and 4:2:0 and there is an even bigger difference.

I know Cameron and Lucas have opinions on HD, but then again Cameron prefers Pan and Scan over letterbox, and they are Directors, not DOPs or Cinematographers. HD has enormous cost and workflow advantages for a Director and *looks* very sharp. The older HD cameras like the Sony cinealtas have a massive depth of field which gives the *impression* of more detail in a scene as more of it is in focus. (Which makes it more suitable for 3D which was Cameron's focus in that article - you want a very deep depth of field for 3D)

There is absolutely not more information in a 1080P image though, you can test it scientifically and prove it - it isn't a matter of opinion any more than that a CD audio track holds more information than an MP3 file. You may not personally be able to hear the difference but it doesn't mean that the MP3 file holds the same fidelity.
We have shot HD and film side by side and scanned it and there is just a lot more information on the film negative.


I also disagree with what you're saying about laserdisc quality - I've watched Laserdiscs projected by professional-grade mounted movie projectors (thanks to friends who are complete movie geeks - and it sounds like you've watched them too) and the quality is good. It's not fantastic, of course, but it's still good enough to enjoy on a big screen. By the way, many independent films are filmed digitally at DVD resolution and are still more then acceptable theatrically.


Until I can get set back up and scan you a Star Wars frame myself, here is a grab from another old film (T2) comparing the DVD (ultimate edition) to a 816P scan from the film (The WMV 'HD' release - keep in mind the HD image is *heavily* compressed). If someone has digitised the laserdisc *please* post this portion of same image - it will be HALF the detail again of the bottom image!

http://mudgee.net/ot/t2.jpg

If you really can't see the difference between upscaled lasedisc, DVD and film (the above is just DVD vs low bitrate HD - both sourced from film - laserdisc would look much worse again) All I can surmise is that it was not a very good projector, not very well setup or your eye is *very* forgiving.
No amount of interpolation would make the 'subway' logo on her cup readable from the DVD version.

I've watched DVD upscaled with a Terranex on a G90 (possibly the best projector other than a Cine9) and it just doesn't compare to the same films on a native HD transfer - there is literally no comparison.
Laserdisc going through the same process just looks awful. It kind of looks OK until you play the same move in HD, then you can hardly stand to see the laserdisc. (and I am a BIG laserdisc fan, but it just doesn't cut it for big screens)
There are only 270 or so lines in an NTSC widescreen laserdisc. No matter what you do to it. It will never look in the same ballpark as 1080 lines or even 720 lines. Seriously there is no comparison - you can watch it, but it isn't pretty.
Where do you live Boris? I'd like to send you round to someone where you can see LD compared to HD properly on a decent setup. On a dodgy DLP or LCD projector with a bad scaler, or a bad setup DVD could look almost as bad as laserdisc I guess.

You are welcome to your opinion, and I have no problem if you can't tell the difference between a widescreen laserdisc and film, or think that the difference isn't important - but to say "I'm certain that any 35MM print will not have as much picture information as 720p, let alone 1080p" isn't correct, and is easily shown to be so. Even the image above shows how much more detail there is on film than on DVD, and it doesn't even begin to capture the level of detail of the negative.

It always good for people to discuss this stuff though, as it can help clear up a lot of misconceptions and cut through some of the marketing spin put out there.
Author
Time
Post link
To Boris:

Boris you are entitled to your opinion...that's fine...it's just your "opinion" is just utterly and completely wrong....LOL

At least base your opinion on a solid foundation of facts and technically correct data....It's like you are in your own little version of reality where the laws of physics are unique, where 2+2=3 or sometimes 5..... but from what I have seen of your posts I think you adopt the antagonist viewpoint just to have something to argue about, it doesn't matter how absurd your argument is, you just love to argue. That is what is so maddening to the rest of us, Boris....it's like we are all arguing about if the sky is really blue or not....to you it's a shade of purple or maybe green.......NO it's BLUE! ARRRHH!


To Frustrated OT members:

It is my "opinion" that Boris is here to engage in argument. He is not here to LEARN anything....if anybody here thinks that they can persuade Boris to change his mind, good luck. LOL. I'll give him this, at least he is consistent.


I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: vbangle
That is what is so maddening to the rest of us, Boris....it's like we are all arguing about if the sky is really blue or not....to you it's a shade of purple or maybe green.......NO it's BLUE! ARRRHH!
Boris is colorblind. To him, the sky IS purple, and when he looks at it he sees nothing but purple. Therefore it must be purple, regardless of what the rest of the world says. You will not convince him otherwise.

Boris, it might be time to call it a draw.

--SKot

P.S. - Why is it that Mace Windu is the only one who gets to have a blue lightsaber?

Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: zombie84
THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.
Dude calm down, it's not horseshit it's an opinion. I've shared my opinion, and I've shared Cameron's opinion.


I'm not blasting you, I'm just blasting Cameron for spreading completely ignorant anti-film propaganda. And yes, it is an opinion. BUT ITS WRONG. If my opinion is that 2+2=5, well thats my opinion, but its wrong. HD is nowhere near film, not even 16mm, and certainly not 65mm. As someone who works in the cinematography department, who has experience with both digital and film and who has a political prejudice against neither, Cameron's statement first made me laugh out loud because it is so ridiculous and then made me angry because i realised people will listen to him and believe him.

Let me put it to you this way: no cinematographer would ever argue that HD can approach 65mm. Hell, its been a half-decade uphill battle just to get it up to 35mm standards and we are still a long ways off. HD has its benefits and those are that is quick and cheap to shoot and has a simplified post flow. Nobody ever uses it for image quality and resolution. As i said, 16mm film yeilds higher resolution than HD video--and not only is it higher res, it also looks gorgeous as well.

Sorry to derail, I'm actually out shooting right now which is why i haven't really been here lately, but i just thought I'd pop in and CORRECT this dangerous and ignornat statement by Cameron.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: boris
Originally posted by: zombie84
THIS IS ABSOLUTE HORSESHIT.
Dude calm down, it's not horseshit it's an opinion. I've shared my opinion, and I've shared Cameron's opinion.


I'm not blasting you, I'm just blasting Cameron for spreading completely ignorant anti-film propaganda. And yes, it is an opinion. BUT ITS WRONG. If my opinion is that 2+2=5, well thats my opinion, but its wrong. HD is nowhere near film, not even 16mm, and certainly not 65mm. As someone who works in the cinematography department, who has experience with both digital and film and who has a political prejudice against neither, Cameron's statement first made me laugh out loud because it is so ridiculous and then made me angry because i realised people will listen to him and believe him.

Let me put it to you this way: no cinematographer would ever argue that HD can approach 65mm. Hell, its been a half-decade uphill battle just to get it up to 35mm standards and we are still a long ways off. HD has its benefits and those are that is quick and cheap to shoot and has a simplified post flow. Nobody ever uses it for image quality and resolution. As i said, 16mm film yeilds higher resolution than HD video--and not only is it higher res, it also looks gorgeous as well.

Sorry to derail, I'm actually out shooting right now which is why i haven't really been here lately, but i just thought I'd pop in and CORRECT this dangerous and ignornat statement by Cameron.


Here here! I've shot a lot of 16mm film and dabbled into HD a bit, and all I can say to Boris and anyone else who has a half-assed opinion based on technology they have no personal experience in - only one based on articles they read on the internet - don't try to argue. You just end up looking naive and ignorant. Laserman and zombie84 have put my opinion and knowledge of cinematography in better words than me, and plus there's no reason to be redundent.

PS: Laserman, it's good to have you back. You're like the wise grandfather that brings reason to occasional chaos around here.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: vbangle
Originally posted by: andy_k_250
You know, it might be kind of neat to just have a straight film transfer, scratches and everything.


I'd have to agree with that......very neat....


I shot some Super 8 film a few years ago in this very old cemetary. It has a look to it that digital will never give you.

Author
Time
Post link
That is the sort of sentiment from the "film is great" folks that is just as offensive as the "HD is better than film" line from the "HD rulez" people.

Truth is, it is almost certainly possible to replicate the look of your Super8 with digital video of some sort. Maybe not straight outta the camera, but with post-processing it's not such a big trick to match the look and feel of film -- especially Super8. Just add in a bunch of grain, lots of dust, and the occasional hair, and you've pretty much got it!

Thinking of either film or HD as "the best" and the other not worth bothering with is sort of like arguing whether a convertible or a pickup is a better vehicle: it really depends on what you're wanting to do with it.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
That is the sort of sentiment from the "film is great" folks that is just as offensive as the "HD is better than film" line from the "HD rulez" people.

Truth is, it is almost certainly possible to replicate the look of your Super8 with digital video of some sort. Maybe not straight outta the camera, but with post-processing it's not such a big trick to match the look and feel of film -- especially Super8. Just add in a bunch of grain, lots of dust, and the occasional hair, and you've pretty much got it!

Thinking of either film or HD as "the best" and the other not worth bothering with is sort of like arguing whether a convertible or a pickup is a better vehicle: it really depends on what you're wanting to do with it.


I don't know about you but not too many amature film makers can afford expensive HD video cameras. I bought my Super8 camera for $50. Sure 3 min of film costs you $20 in the end for purchase and developing. But for a short project and for the fun of actually shooting on film you can't beat it. You actually learn how to shoot and get it right the first time. And like many others have said HD resolution can't touch 35mm to 65mm clarity.
Author
Time
Post link
I have never shot film on either digital or analog formats, but even not knowing anything, I am sure there are good qualities for each.

As far as the "feel" that actual film lends towards a...film, I am also sure that it is there and is something that is not really replicable, even with filters and grains and post-processing. The OT vs. the PT is a great example. No matter how good a job digital post-processing does, there is still only so much randomness most editing programs can create, so you end up with the same scratch in the same place periodically, the static grain starts to make a pattern, etc. - or - you end up with a movie that looks like a plastic playset (AOTC/ROTS).
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1113/userbar381851ln2.gif
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/8653/userbar381853dp6.gif
Super Mario Bros. - The Wicked Star Story
"Ah, the proverbial sad sack with a wasted wish."
Author
Time
Post link
Also if someone is actually offended by that type of comment they need to get a life. All I'm saying is digital doesn't have the look of film. Just as film doesn't have the look of digital. I just prefer the film look.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Karyudo
That is the sort of sentiment from the "film is great" folks that is just as offensive as the "HD is better than film" line from the "HD rulez" people.

Truth is, it is almost certainly possible to replicate the look of your Super8 with digital video of some sort. Maybe not straight outta the camera, but with post-processing it's not such a big trick to match the look and feel of film -- especially Super8. Just add in a bunch of grain, lots of dust, and the occasional hair, and you've pretty much got it!

Thinking of either film or HD as "the best" and the other not worth bothering with is sort of like arguing whether a convertible or a pickup is a better vehicle: it really depends on what you're wanting to do with it.



Thats the sort of misconception that fuels the anti-film propaganda. Film is not just "grain." There is an innate quality to the way that the image is rendered that digital, by its very nature, cannot yet faithfully replicate.

Softeness. But this is different than just diffusion lens filters--the quality of the edges in film are soft and organic, while digital is sharp and clear. This is dampened with diffusion but it nowhere near eliminates it.

Lattitude. This is another huge one. The amount you can under and especially overexpose film is completely different than with digital. Put someone against a window--with digital that window will blow out and engulf the subject, while with film there will still be detail visible outside. This is an extreme example but it is even more important in more subtler instances--highlights and reflection burn out very easily with digital, producing an often ugly looking image and requiring great care and skill to bring the exposure levels together. Film reproduces the exposure lattitude of the human eye, which can see detail in both shadow and brightness.

Depth of Field. This is an issue for all but the most recent and state of the art HD cams like the Genesis. Film reproduces human vision by only rendering certain areas in focus. The depth of field of film is much, much shallower compared to video. Video will give you depth from here to the end of the earth, making everything seem crisp and in-focus, a very ugly and undesirably trait. This is often one of the more subtle things that most people don't realise about why film looks the way it does. In fact with low-end cameras with 1/3 and even 2/3" CCD chips, it is impossible to achieve and DOF without opening the iris all the way and using very long lenses, but this produces a different effect than simply having a natural depth of field.

Resolution. HD is roughly 1000 lines of resolution. 16mm is slightly more than this, 35mm is about 6000, and 65mm and IMAX formats are higher still. Even digitally scanning a piece of film only yields 4K (4000 lines) resolution. A photochemical duplicate of 35mm film is still many, many, many times higher quality than anything video can produce--there isnt even a contest here.

There are tons of more issues, like grain, light sensitivity, noise, gamma and color issues as well as the limitations of the hardware itself and the cost of digital production. The notion that HD somehow is cheaper is also inaccurate--you need more lights, better lighting and longer set-ups, more technicians and much, much more hardware and software--at the end of the day its not much cheaper than film, unless we are talking about low-budget (i.e. under $1 million) productions, which most people who argue in favor of HD dont watch anyway.

But to say you can re-create film in a computer is completely ignorant and is obviously made by someone who has no experiene with shooting motion picture film. One day, yes, it will likely be possible to achieve a look that is virtually indistinguishable from film--the rate things are going it will probably be twenty or thirty years or so, but even then people will still be shooting on film for various reasons
Author
Time
Post link
Thanks. You said what I wanted to say but coudn't put into words.
Author
Time
Post link
It (film) has a look to it that digital will never give you.


I think analog video has a more natural look than and actually looks closer to film than digital, especially in focus and depth. Sure a $1,000 and up digital video camera won't look bad but even those and HD can have smearing, video noise, pixelization and other fun digital artifacting. The consumer level digital camcorders being sold today are horrible. The consumer level Hi8's that were sold 10 years ago have such better quality. As I ranted on in my post about slow motion vegas problems, my 8mm from '97 has color vibrancy and accuracy about the same as a really good 3ccd camera.

As for the topic about preserving an actual print, I know it's a long shot but I think it is the only chance we have. The X0 team will squeeze the best possible transfer out of laserdisc with most accurate color and contrast ever which will compete with the official release. What happens after that is unknown. It's a safe bet Lucas is only doing because of the bootlegs and lost revenue. We have forced him to give in a little bit and release something slightly better than what we already have. (X0 is still in progress) The only way I think he will cave completely is if we can best the official release. Beyond the X0 project, the only fan preservation that could be better would be from a film print. If someone by, hook or by crook, managed to get a film scan and quietly distribute it without any imperial entanglements, Lucas would be forced to give in.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Post link
SO, since we have now confirmed shoddy releases: let´s make some plans, and divide the tasks of:

1. Stealing a technicolor dye print of Star Wars

2. Bribe/blackmail someone who has access to a digital film scanner

3. Divide the restauration effort among the people of this forum. If every person here will hand-correct a few thousend frames, I´m sure we can do it by the end of 2020.

SHAAAKAAAA!!!!
Author
Time
Post link
If you can handle 1 & 2, I'm up for 3.
Author
Time
Post link
A frame a day for a thousand days? Sounds like my speed. I'm in!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: RIJIR
I shot some Super 8 film a few years ago in this very old cemetary. It has a look to it that digital will never give you.


You agreed that your own statement is false when you agreed with zombie84, who wrote that it might be "20-30 years" before digital matches film.

If you had said, "It has a look that digital doesn't yet give you," I'd agree with you. But you didn't. You said "never." Well, my friend, "never" is a very long time.

You may think I'm a pedantic asshole, and you're right: I am. But I'm not an incorrect pedantic asshole. This pedantic asshole dislikes statements that include words like "never," when describing the unknowable (in this case, you, as a Super8 filmmaker, are really in no position to be able to say whether digital will ever match Super8 -- especially when people more in the know than you are indicate it already has).

Statements like yours belong to the "film is great" camp, just like I said.

Don't get me wrong: I read American Cinematographer and Cinefex. I like the art and science of filmmaking (even though I don't do it myself). I understand more than your average bear about dynamic range and resolution, etc., with respect to film and video. I don't disagree that film has a lot going for it, and that people who figure who HD is already perfect for replacing film completely are nuts. But I also think lunatics like Spielberg who say they will never use HD are being very short-sighted.


Author
Time
Post link
In an extreme example of how you can't just make every piece of cinema digitally: Stan Brakhage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Brakhage

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time
Post link
Karyodu:

Technically, Rijir is right: digital will never 100% reproduce film. He's not a stubborn ass, he's right--because film is actually organic and chemical based, there are parts of it that digital can only emulate but never totally reproduce. Things like random chemical fluctuations and unpredicatable reactions of light and such that is literally impossible for anyone to totally re-create; digital will eventually give us something that is about 95% identical, and for just about everyone including professionals this is visually indistinguishable, but there will always be that illusive, undefinable quality about actual real chemical-based film.

Its the same thing with digital paint. Give a digital artists a tablet, photoshop and some compositing software and he can make you a really good digital painting with digital paint simulators--but even as digital paint technology improves and becomes nearly indistinguishable from physical brushstrokes, there will still be a quality that a real hand-painted painting will give you that we will never be able to totally simulate.

This is why Speilberg says he will never work in HD--plus the pyschological and physical associations with working with film. It may also be that he will never work with the HD available in his lifetime. And i agree with him. Janusz Kaminski will never be able to photograph his films the way he does without using film.
Author
Time
Post link
Hmm...time for a film vs. video thread, perhaps?