Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Wally Pfister video interview

i don't think they've used an epic yet :) listen, i honestly was just as much of a purist as wally is and Chris is, but when evidence is there it's there, and with hdrx, 5k, and rcx, i don't know if there's a really good argument for film as far as wether it beats out digital or not. At least, from what I've seen, it's about time to admit that we're on equal par now. And this is before the Monstro program :)

Although, just gotta say, he did address teh structure of film capture being part of what gives it its look which gives me some points in the "foveon-type-cinema-sensor" department. Maybe when I'm a billionaire, i can do like Jim says and make my own, become a millionaire, and then retire to fiji :)
 
Gabe S. said:
Interesting video interview with Wally Pfister. He discusses how he got started, film vs digital, working with Chris Nolan and other things.
If i understand correctly, his opinion is that 35mm resolves at 8k (he mentions it at about 11:35). Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n6DQuyBu-c
Click to expand...

I think he was talking about the IMAX cameras they used on the Dark Knight. Isn't the general consensus that 35mm film resolves to about 3.2k?

Great Interview nonetheless. Very humble guy.
 
Craig W. Bickerstaff said:
Who was it exactly that decided film resolves 3.2k? And how did this person come to such a conclusion?
Click to expand...

"K" is a stupid metric in the first place, but that number does come from somewhere.

I think Red did some tests on sine wave resolution charts and one of Kodak's slower films and got 1600 line pairs per image width, or 3200 pixels per image width, or..."3.2k." You can also check Kodak's website and the mtf charts of their most popular films put them at about 80 lp/mm at 20% or 30% mtf. Or something. Anyhow, I forget the exact number but it equates to about 1500-1750 line pairs per image width on super35 before extinction, and then the lens knocks that down a bit, so Red's estimate of 3.2k (1600 line pairs) for film is actually rather kind to film and very best case scenario. But also totally plausible. The reason we hear "6k" or "8k" a lot is because when a scanner goes to scan film, it needs to resolve twice the resolution in each dimension in order to pick up all detail and eliminate aliasing according to sampling theory. The odd part is a "3.2k" film can be scanned at 6k to avoid aliasing and then be put on blu ray and that tiny end package retains the vast majority of the perceived sharpness since 20% mtf is pure mush.

"Ks" have nothing to do with perceived sharpness because the measure is only of resolution resolved, not of the contrast with which it's resolved. The integral of the area under the mtf curve times the surface area of the chip is a better measure of sharpness, but then how do you account for sharpening in post or aliasing or whatever, so even that's not great. It's also worth noting that some popular films resolve a lot LESS than what's quoted above. The whole argument is so weird and convoluted that it seems wiser just using what you like.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Matt for the info!

And my numbers were a bit off, I was attempting to quote something that Jim said in one of his recon posts a while ago. I can't find the exact quote but he said something like Film resolves to around 3k and the RED ONE 3.2k.

But I agree with Matt on the "shoot what you like statement." Heck if I had the money and the crew, I would definitely shoot on film.

EDIT: Unless I had an EPIC in my hands, in which case I might just give in to its beauty.
 
Jannard said:
Film resolves around 3K measured (from a 4K scan) and the RED ONE about 3.2K. Those will scale to 4K delivery no problem. EPIC is a 5K sensor that delivers a full 4K measured resolution. More than just about anything you can shoot and exactly what the doctor ordered for the future.
Click to expand...


Oh ok so here is the quote. My mistake, He says from a 4K scan film resolves to about 3k. Sorry!
 
The Kodak color scientists I worked with (down the hall, anyway) in 2002-2004 always claimed to me that, best case, low-speed color 35mm negative could resolve 6K in terms of line pairs and MTF and all that stuff. Real world, though, you're never going to see that in a film theater, even in a print directly struck from that negative. Heck, just the jitter in an un-pin-registered print is going to lose some sharpness.

SMPTE did a terrific demo some years back A/B-ing D-cinema 1080 projection vs. a pin-registered print, and it was pretty stunning how close it was. The D-cinema was better in terms of sharpness, steadiness, and flatness across the entire field, but I'd give the edge in color and black detail to the print. I'm not sure this is true today, under best conditions.

BTW, congrats to Pfister for winning the ASC award. Inception was a beautiful film; that and Social Network were hands-down my favorites of the year. Both very different films, but also both where the cinematography was in service to the story. The lighting never called attention to itself, and the camerawork was seamless. I wish more films could be like this.
 
Mark L. Pederson said:
To use Pfister's own words - this video seems to have .... "an agenda".
Click to expand...

Anyone who can create pictures with images as consistently stunning as "The Prestige," "Batman Begins," "Dark Knight," and "Inception" is entitled to have any agenda he wants.
 
M Most said:
Anyone who can create pictures with images as consistently stunning as "The Prestige," "Batman Begins," "Dark Knight," and "Inception" is entitled to have any agenda he wants.
Click to expand...

+1000000000000000
 
M Most said:
Anyone who can create pictures with images as consistently stunning as "The Prestige," "Batman Begins," "Dark Knight," and "Inception" is entitled to have any agenda he wants.
Click to expand...

Definitely. He's an extremely talented, accomplished man who can choose the format that he feels most comfortable with. I think what is irking is the way in which he presents his opinions as inarguable fact, many of which I (and probably others) take issue with.

On stunts, high-speed, and oners:

"The film is able to deliver that to the director. You will have a usable image shooting that on film. You will not on a digital format."

Again, "You will not." I think it's entirely possible to capture that on a digital format. You will also know immediately, not after it's been processed, that you do have it, and that it's useable.

On a personal note, I found it interesting that many of the arguments he had against digital are reservations I have with film - from a person who's grown up shooting analog and digital video since I could walk. Where he says a digital shoot relies on a good DIT, not only do I take that as a no-brainer, but I would ask - doesn't a film shoot rely on good ACs and loaders? Nothing is idiot-proof. Where he says film is simple - I've always found film to be more complicated. Digital makes sense to me - probably because I've spent my life with it - electronics versus mechanics.

I won't argue everything here; that's not the point. I think the key takeaway from this video is "your capture medium shouldn't be a distraction. Your capture medium should be a creative tool." Just leave it at that.
 
i think someone just needs to put an epic in his hands :)

it doesn't matter, he is a director of photography and is entitled to everything he believes in. i'm sure a lot of us will agree to disagree and leave it at that. he's one of the best, he does what he does the way he wants. I'm sure in the years to come he'll give all the current gen cams a try, and it might change his tune.

he might just have to if celluloid keeps going the way it does. make take 5 more years, may take 10, but Kodak and Fuji aren't doing as well as they'd like.

i mean they are promoting a video that "proves" film is king. but i don't think anybody can argue how great film is, in fact it set the bar for RED in every aspect.
 
totally ok if he wants to use film on 2D films.
when he gets the chance to shoot a 3D feature, epic will be the choice i assume.
 
Old school keeps forgetting again and agin that by the time the film hits the screen it is the third copy and digital stays the same all the way to the viewer.

Unless the film goes though DI where it becomes “slow and complicated process” :-)

Graeme is still listening to the vinyl though.
I guess it is sentimental..............

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=55674&page=4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top