^ Can I vote for the estimated photo chemical blurry accurate direct view? Either way you are dealing with an interpretation of the original light, so let me know when the thread title changes to 'Making our own time machine to travel to the 76 set--a crazy proposal'
none said:
^ Can I vote for the estimated photo chemical blurry accurate direct view? Either way you are dealing with an interpretation of the original light, so let me know when the thread title changes to 'Making our own time machine to travel to the 76 set--a crazy proposal'
BS. Tachyon fields totally skew white balance.
So what would you prefer? A blurry direct view of the action, or a very accurate estimation of the action by a group of transistors?
The chemical version is just as much an estimation as the digital one, and not necessarily as accurate, but beyond that:
We are watching this stuff on "a group of transistors."
We're talking about the end result being digital playback here.
Starting digital and staying digital is less lossy than photographic reductions of film that are *then* captured digitally. Arguing that chemical interpretation is more accurate than digital interpretation is very romantic sounding, but 1) it's not relevant when the end result is digital and 2) It's not necessarily true.
For the record, I'm a lover of analog things too.
Well, 35mm negatives should being scanned in at at least 4k (if their condition warrants it), 6k if it will gain even a tiny amount of fine barely perceptible detail, better to preserve as much as you can while you have a chance to do a nice clean scan of perfect negatives. For 70mm you'd need at least 8k. Wish more films were shot on this, so much better than even excellent 35mm. :)
With digital cameras, there's a certain artificiality to the image. We live in an analog world, that's reality, and when trying to translate that to digital, there's something lost. A little hard to put your finger on sometimes, but it's there, the images look sort of plastic, fake, artificial, there's a unnatural sheen to them. Much prefer 35mm film, with it's very fine level of natural detail. :)
When you see images from a Star Wars film print, it looks so much better than even a nice video. It has a vibrancy, a sumptuous depth, detail and natural quality that is so wonderful. Just no substitute for real film. :)
The Star Wars trilogy. There can be only one.
lurker77 said:
canofhumdingers said:
I should also mention that, when scanning film the quality of the source material is incredibly important. Working with a high quality OCN or IP can certainly provide enough information to make 4k scans or better worthwhile. It's just important to understand you're not seeing anything NEAR that at even the best theater. Which then opens the debate of should the goal of home video be to reproduce what you would've seen opening night? Or provide the best possible viewing experience, even if it's technically significantly BETTER than even an absolutely perfect theatrical presentation?Depends on when the film was made. Like I said, recent-er films go through a digital intermediate for colour correction, so what you get at the theater is no better than whatever resolution the DI was made at. Older films are analog from negative to print, so even though perceivable information drops, you're still getting a "pure" transfer - it's more of a softening than a downrezzing...
Here's a way that I like to put the debate. If you watched Star Wars in 1977, the photons from the studio lights bounced off of Mark Hamill, and were chemically transferred to film. Then that image was chemically transferred down several generations to the theatrical print. Along this line, the film that was on the set naturally reacted through each successive generation eventually into your eyes, so what you got to see was the equivalent of sitting on the set, with a hazy filter set up in front of you.
If you went to see Attack of the Clones, the studio lights bounced off of...one of the actors, and each photon was mechanically estimated almost exactly the same way each time by a digital sensor. What you got you see was a very sharp binary equivalent of the set.
So what would you prefer? A blurry direct view of the action, or a very accurate estimation of the action by a group of transistors?
Isn't the analog film stil an estimation? In a purely theoretical world you could capture everything perfectly on analog film. But for one you're assuming that the photosensitive material on the film will result in a perfect representation of the colours on the scene. (being analog this might actually be HARDER to get right every time than with digital)
Another assumption you make is that the lens is perfect (which to my knowledge is never the case) so the light's always gonna be inperfectly imprinted on the film. (minor edit. What I mean to say here is that it's "imperfect" as in slightly off. This does not mean this is neccesairly noticable)
Thing is that just like digital these changes can be so small that we can't actually physicly perceive them. (in theory, not saying digital in neccesairly 100% there yet.)
Also to the guy that said we live in an analog world. We perceive the world to be analog, there's no real reason to assume it actually is. (for all we know this is a simulation run by a supercomputer somewhere)
When you see images from a STAR WARS film print, you see them digitally, don't you? It's a digital approximation of the film print, yet it is accurate enough to give you that feeling that it is film, so why couldn't a direct digital capture of the same thing have the same effect?
Don't get me wrong, I love film and the way it looks but I just think that digital has a potential to look just as good.
ok, just to make things more confusing..
how about this..
there's a movie theater that i go to
that will allow for private screening of films
for a rental fee. i brought up star wars,
and this project, and they said sure they
can do it, as long as it not advertised or for profit, etc..
however, due to the soundtrack, and cleanup
etc.. maybe we'll ask them to project the
digitally restored version from a file or bluray.
so the chain of media would be:
======================================
35 mm film -> scanner -> digital restoration -> digital projection of film
if there wasn't any artifacts or aliasing, would an average
person be able to tell that it wasn't film being projected?
(most likely).. but maybe someone wouldn't notice it right
away.. it's still going to have reel change marks, etc.
half the time i'm watching it on screens or projected,
it 'feels' like film.. because of the gate weave, dust, dirt,
scratches etc, that are still currently there.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
^1080p probably wouldn't look so bad on a large screen, but I don't know if it would look good either. Are you rendering some of the final files in 2K? I forget the goal, I apologize.
I'd be quite interested if it was in Los Angeles or the general area.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
2K is nearly the same resolution as 1080p (2K=2048x1152 and 1080p=1920x1080) and it is the resolution most digital projectors in cinemas use, so the resolution shouldn't be a problem at all.
I recently saw a 2K digital projection of the new American Pie and it was beautiful, because if it wasn't for the digital subtitles, I would have believed it was actually film (I was a bit disappointed that the BD of it didn't quite live up to the same standard) and I remember thinking the same when I saw the 7th Harry Potter film.
In those cases, when you think about it, they use 35mm to shoot it and then use a digital intermediate which is then either losslessly encoded and projected directly or copied to film, which can only degrade the quality because with high quality digital projection it will look like film anyway because it was originally shot on film and copied to film, it will simply be one or two generations removed from the oneg. This is a similar situation - I bet lot of people wouldn't recognize it for not being film if the scanning, cleanup, encoding and projection were of high enough quality.
Of course, my ideas are only good when the end result is projected film. Since this specific project will be digitally viewed no matter what, not much to say except "do a good job".
;)
negative1 said:
half the time i'm watching it on screens or projected,
it 'feels' like film.. because of the gate weave, dust, dirt,
scratches etc, that are still currently there.
later
-1
You mentioned gate weave.
Is that do to the scanning or is that how it was filmed?
I know that the GOUT had rely bad gate weave that made me seasick.
Harmy said:
2K is nearly the same resolution as 1080p (2K=2048x1152 and 1080p=1920x1080) and it is the resolution most digital projectors in cinemas use, so the resolution shouldn't be a problem at all.
Funny, I ALWAYS thought that 2K means ~2000 lines, 4K means ~4000 lines etc :-)
Yeah, I used to think that too :-)
Ah, but you forget: Computers.
Huh?
lurker77 said:
Of course, my ideas are only good when the end result is projected film. Since this specific project will be digitally viewed no matter what, not much to say except "do a good job".
;)
if we were REALLY CRAZY, (as if we aren't already),
we would get it printed back to 35mm film..
using some laser to film:
=================
http://www.efilm.com/dloverview/laser
lots of good information
here:
=================
http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/digital-cinematography/feature/efilms-di-directions/10076
pricey!
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
Harmy said:
Huh?
Sorry, I was needlessly obtuse, probably because I deal with computers all day.
When you have 10 kilobytes, you don't have 10,000 bytes. You have 10*1024 bytes. Because 1024 is a power of 2, and that's binary and that's how computers work. So 2K is gonna be a multiple of 2...because computers. It doesn't really need to be that way, you could obviously make 2000 the standard if you wanted...but old ways die hard. It's probably that the cost of the difference between 2000 and 2K is minimal or 0, so why not extra pixels.
red5-626 said:
negative1 said:
half the time i'm watching it on screens or projected,
it 'feels' like film.. because of the gate weave, dust, dirt,
scratches etc, that are still currently there.
later
-1
You mentioned gate weave.
Is that do to the scanning or is that how it was filmed?
I know that the GOUT had rely bad gate weave that made me seasick.
yeah, i know what you mean.
there is some inherently in the movie.
we will be minimizing what we can through
stabilization and cropping.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
timdiggerm said:
Harmy said:
Huh?
Sorry, I was needlessly obtuse, probably because I deal with computers all day.
When you have 10 kilobytes, you don't have 10,000 bytes. You have 10*1024 bytes. Because 1024 is a power of 2, and that's binary and that's how computers work. So 2K is gonna be a multiple of 2...because computers. It doesn't really need to be that way, you could obviously make 2000 the standard if you wanted...but old ways die hard. It's probably that the cost of the difference between 2000 and 2K is minimal or 0, so why not extra pixels.
Yeah, I know that but we were talking about having thought 2K was 2000 (or 2048 if you will) horizontal lines, when actually it's 2048 vertical lines (or columns); that's why your post didn't make sense to me ;-)
Oh man. I missed that.
Welp, I feel dumb now.
That could happen to anyone :-)
Harmy said:
That could happen to anyone :-)
Yeah, it happens to me everytime I watch the special editions and realize I bought them.
negative1 said:
if we were REALLY CRAZY, (as if we aren't already),we would get it printed back to 35mm film..
Print it to 16mm and then Puggo can preserve it @_@
This signature uses Markdown syntax, which makes it easy to add formatting like italics, bold, and lists:
Another person chimes in:
Someone else writes:
Asaki wrote:
negative1 said:
if we were REALLY CRAZY, (as if we aren't already),we would get it printed back to 35mm film..
Print it to 16mm and then Puggo can preserve it @_@
...and then someone will video bootleg it.
...and that bootleg will be duplicated by the VHS traders.
I kneu this we're tha ways the callours should am:
negative1 said:
lurker77 said:
Of course, my ideas are only good when the end result is projected film. Since this specific project will be digitally viewed no matter what, not much to say except "do a good job".
;)
if we were REALLY CRAZY, (as if we aren't already),
we would get it printed back to 35mm film..
If I had original prints of the OT, I'd do an analog preservation - do a wet gate transfer to fine-grain stock peforming shot-by-shot colour correction with coloured lights. ;)