logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#226046
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/226046/action/topic#226046
Time
Originally posted by: boris

I already said 35MM = about HD quality. I was talking about SW when I said that the level of detail in it - while it may be a bit more then SD would be less then HD, not T2 (what that has in common with SW except science fiction baffles me).


But 35mm=HD is completely wrong. 65mm>35mm>16mm>HD>SD
A 1000' roll of 35mm films costs about $1000 and another $1000 to develop; this gives you 9 minutes of footage. So $2000 for nine minutes of shooting time when all is said and done. A typical 35mm camera costs close to $250, 000. If 35mm=HD then why don't people pick up a $6000 HVX200 and a $200 P2 card and shoot unlimited HD? Because HD does not equal 35mm.

Let me repeat: 35mm is roughly 6000 lines of resolution. HD is roughly 1000. Thats six times the resolution if you can't do the math, or if you are also blind, which certainly may be true.

Why do you think a movie shot on 35mm looks much better on your television than an episode of Days of Our Lives? Soap Operas are shot on the highest quality SD cameras out there but they still look like ass. Watch a film like Tadpole, which was shot on the PD-150 or The Anniversary Party which was shot on the DSR-570; these are top-notch SD indie films but compare this to anything shot on 35mm. But your probably haven't seen these films in the first place to have any frame of reference.

I think i know why you may be thinking something as ridiculous as this: you are comparing something like ANH to something like ROTS on your TV and drawing your conclusions. They will look similar because the low resolution of a TV smushes the detail of a 35mm film to a similar level to HD--but even then anyone with a discerning eye would see advantages in the 35mm image.

In terms of Star Wars I don't know why you seem to think it would be different than another 35mm film like T2--because its older maybe? Star Wars is likely more detailed since it was shot in anamorphic widescreen while T2 was shot spherical Super-35.
Post
#225996
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225996/action/topic#225996
Time
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.
Post
#225944
Topic
Fox France confirms the French OOT release >NOT< to be anamorphic
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225944/action/topic#225944
Time
Good work Andy. Digital Bits also just reported this:

"We've got some more interesting standard DVD news to report today, starting with a follow-up on that French Star Wars DVD controversy we mentioned the other day. We've gotten a follow-up e-mail from our friend Arnaud at DVDRama in France. He's actually had the chance to see, with his own two eyes, the new Star Wars DVDs being released there, and it turns out Fox France was wrong. Someone in marketing over there apparently still doesn't know what anamorphic means. The special edition versions of the films on Disc One of each set are anamorphic, but the original theatrical editions on Disc Two of each are definitely NOT anamorphic. They're just letterboxed widescreen as we expected. Fox France has apparently apologized for the confusion, and we definitely appreciate Arnaud's efforts in confirming the truth of the situation. So to sum up, France is getting the same sub-par Star Wars DVDs as the rest of us. 'Nuff said."
Post
#225936
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225936/action/topic#225936
Time
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
Post
#225706
Topic
Fox France confirms the French OOT release >NOT< to be anamorphic
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225706/action/topic#225706
Time
I will just say it again: there is no reason to believe, or any evidence which shows, that this is a new transfer from a 35mm print. Because unless it is, this news is barely newsworthy. It is most likely just a fake-anamorphic upconversion from the non-anamorphic D1 Laserdisk tape from 1993. So big whop. Lets not get excited here.
Post
#225674
Topic
Fox France confirms the French OOT release >NOT< to be anamorphic
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225674/action/topic#225674
Time
They've just created a fake-anamorphic transfer from the original non-anamorphic telecine. It can be argued that this is even harmful. Until they fix the problem of the 1993 Laserdisk telecine (yes, i know its not a straight transfer) nothing has changed. People get hungup on anamorphic but thats simply a by-product of a larger issue. Now they fix the anamorphic issue with a fake-anamorphic conversion and people forget about the larger problem. Manipulation at its best.
Post
#225665
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225665/action/topic#225665
Time
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.
Post
#225591
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225591/action/topic#225591
Time
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.
Post
#224943
Topic
BFI preserving OOT!!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224943/action/topic#224943
Time
Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
auraloffalwaffle, a few of the people on your list are no longer living. Richard Marquand (director of ROTJ) and John Barry (production designer SW) are deceased. Alan Hume (DOP ROTJ) was actually fired before completing ROTJ as well.


Alan Hume was fired??! I had not heard that. Any more info on that one?

EDIT

according to his IMDB bio:" Had a falling out with the producers of Star Wars Episode VI Return of the Jedi (1983) because he felt they were mistreating the director, the late Richard Marquand. He was never officially sacked, but the photography during the last month was handled primarily by his assistant Alec Mills"

Very interesting indeed. More weight to the "Marquand was a puppet director" theory. Any additional sources other than dodgy IMDB?
Post
#224899
Topic
The Academy Award winning editing of Episode IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224899/action/topic#224899
Time
She ran off with a window designer named Tom Rodriguez in 1983, who designed that beautiful domed stained glass room on the Skywalker Ranch library. Shorlty after she had her first real daughter with him so i assume they married. Marcia reportedly got $35-50 million in her settlement with Lucas so i am assuming she simply took her money, retired and lived the rest of her life in peace.
Post
#224729
Topic
The Academy Award winning editing of Episode IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224729/action/topic#224729
Time
The IMDB "uncredited editor" credit is just put in there by a fan. It doesn't mean anything. I mean he is the director and a former editor of course he is going to be involved heavily with the editing, just as Ridley Scott is a former production designer so he is always heavily involved with production design and picks fabrics and stuff for his costumes.

As for Marcia Lucas, i agree--i think it was Speilberg or Wilard Huyck or someone who once said that Marcia was "George's secret weapon," and its very much true. People make a big stink about Gary Kurtz and how when he left the franchise went downhill but his creative involvement is heavily, heavily exagerrated--the real loss was 1983 when Marcia finally left Lucas.
Post
#224721
Topic
The Academy Award winning editing of Episode IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224721/action/topic#224721
Time
It has nothing to do with guilds, he was simply not an editor. Every director is involved with the edit, making decisions about what to cut and keep and even sometimes when and where to actual cut between shots. Some are more hands off and some are more hands on. Since Lucas comes from an editing background he was more heavily involved in the edit since he was shooting for the editing room to begin with; I don't think he should be considered an "uncredited editor," because if thats the case then pretty much every director should be.
Post
#224687
Topic
The Academy Award winning editing of Episode IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224687/action/topic#224687
Time
Originally posted by: RepDetect
According to this interview, Burtt spent so much time doing pre-visualization stuff that in many cases (the speeder chase in AOTC, for example) those early assemblies would be completely his to play with. Then, he'd sit down with Lucas in the editing room, where Lucas (of course) always had veto power over anything. But the point here is that many of the high-action sequences rested initially within the mind's eye of two people: Lucas & Burtt.

At some point on AOTC, Burtt's pre-viz work just naturally bled over into him co-editing the film. And I find it amusing that on AOTC, after Burtt had done his editing of the film, it was only called a 'first assembly'. It wasn't called a first cut until Lucas had combed through it, although Lucas once again gets no credit as an editor.



Thats actually the standard practice for a director. The "first cut" is the directors. An assembly is done by the ediot--basically every single scene with every single dialog bit is edited together, usually producing a very long and boring film that is then whittled down by the director and editor.
Post
#224652
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224652/action/topic#224652
Time

Yes I am aware this is kind of a crazy idea. I guess i am just desperate to save this damn thing before it is too late. But if it is possible to do it properly it may just be the most important event in the film's release history. Of course, yes, it is still just a crazy idea.
As for 16mm, i doubt that would really give us much, aside from the fact that these would have been severely used and scratched to hell the resolution is not much more than what a DVD offers.

As for the physical act of scanning a 35mm print--i work as a motion picture camera assistant and as such i frequently deal with and meet people in film labs and transfer houses. Lets just say i know more than a few people that would be willing to give this a shot.
Post
#224577
Topic
The Academy Award winning editing of Episode IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224577/action/topic#224577
Time
I'm pretty sure Ben Burtt did not audition. He was a just-graduated student from USC--Lucas was looking for a sound man who was young and fresh and asked one of the professors who the top sound student was and they recommended Burtt. Thats the history as far as i know.

As for the editing, yes, Star Wars is magnificent in its flow and pace, as is Empire to a slightly less degree. Let us also not forget credit to Dwayne Dunham for ESB.

The last twenty minutes of ANH are among the tensest in cinema history--even to this day i can still feel the tension as Luke rips down that trench with Darth Vader in pursuit. The breathless finale of Empire works as well, except the ridiculous "alert my star destroyer" sequence that does some major damage to the flow.

I think Marcia was Lucas' biggest asset, she helped bring out the best in his abilities and keep his eccentricities in check while also providing warmth and humanity to the characters.
Post
#224570
Topic
Star Wars in High Definition: OT clips from "Science of Star Wars" in HD
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224570/action/topic#224570
Time
Originally posted by: JediFlyer06
I also wouldn't bet on optical discs going away any time soon. Consumers have invested a huge amount of money in dvd video libraries, and none of them is interested in replacing all of those titles all over again. I wager that any "revolutionary" video format would face a FORMIDABLE task in just survining, let alone dominating the market or replacing dvd. And don't throw the "dvd beat vhs" argument at me either. When VHS was king, we were a nation of renters and recorders. VERY few had voluminous video libraries. Today...just look at dvd sales figures. Hell, studios plan on dvd sales as a part of their profit model. I have over 400. At last count, my boss had over 650, and most on my staff have upwards of 50 titles or more on their shelves.



Thank you, i have been saying the same thing.

Regardless of what format "wins" the war...none of them will become common consumer products or replace DVD. DVD is here to stay for a long time and HD format will become the new Laserdisk--a high-quality alternative for home theater enthusiasts who are willing to spend the extra cash on high quality. People aren't going to give up on DVD just as it becomes the new standard.

As for "Blu-Ray is better so it will win"...well, I'm not so sure. Keep in mind i am a Blu-Ray supporter: i do indeed believe this is the superior of the two current formats. But let us not forget that Betamax was clearly superior to VHS. Convienence and price go a long way, though admittedly because HD is not going to be widely owned this factor is not as crucial as it was with the early tape format wars where the battle was for the heart of Joe Blow consumer. Still, something to keep in mind.

Really, HD-DVD botched their early release very majorly but have now caught up with themselves, and then Blu-Ray botched their early release. Lets give them a chance to get back on their feet. Both of these things are due to the rushed manner in which they were put out obviously, trying to race each other to release date and neither was ready. Soon we will see VC1 encoded disks instead of MPEG and then we will see what Blu-Ray is really made of. I think Christmas or early 2007 is an appropriate time to actually start guaging how well either format is. Until then, they both have some good and bad qualities about them.

Post
#224541
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224541/action/topic#224541
Time
The wealthy and famous have often been priviledge with owning private 35mm print collections--Francis Coppola and Martin Scorsese being prime examples. Funny that Roddy McDowel was railroaded like that.

As for the legality--it is true that owning copyrighted, and most importantly popular, 35mm films is something of a grey zone. If I'm not mistaken the actual ownership of said reels is not illegal per se, but it usually implies that less-than-legal means were used to obtain them as 35mm prints are not commerically sold. It does not always mean that they are stolen or illegally obtain however, and collectors enjoy a relatively uneventful if somewhat underground trading market. Ebay was pressured by studios to stop listing prints because they felt it encourgaed theft. With the advent of home video in the 1980's the once-controversial issue of "owning films" has sort of been mooted.
And oftentimes private collectors have been the source for film restorations for material previously thought to be lost or damaged.
Post
#224526
Topic
Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224526/action/topic#224526
Time
Individually scanning the frames on a home consumer film scanner is pretty much impossible, or at least so much work that it wouldn't be a realistic goal.
35mm=24FPSx121minutes=174,240 frames. And you then have to store them all, stitch them together and make sure that every single frame lines up upsolutely perfectly. Not going to happen. Forget months, this would take years.

Soundtrack wouldn't be a concern, this would be purely for picture information (although syncing would also be a time-consuming matter).