Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

ARRI: 16mm film is 3K, 35mm film is 6K...

Even if the resolution of the D-20 (3k) was equivalent to Super 16mm film at 3k, the larger image plane area would result in sharper edges and more MTF from the D-20. This is because the 35mm lens on the D20 would only have to resolve at half the performance of the lens on the S16mm camera.

S16 lenses have higher resolution in the S16 aperture area relative to 35mm lenses (these differences are hard to see at 50mm focal length and above, but easy to see at 25mm and below). But this is usually not enough to overcome the 2x difference in image plane size.

I've been a *big* supporter of Super 16mm for years, and I am heavily associated with that format. But I do think that S16 resolution is really around 2K.

It would be interesting to do a carefully controlled test with 7212 stock and Ultra 16 lenses. But even if we could prove response at above 2k equivalent resolution, I doubt anyone would get very excited about that.

Most people that are shooting S16mm today are not doing so because the resolution is higher than HD.
 
laguun said:
Arri has to embrace the opportunity of digital - holding on to film wont bring back the 5000+ 35mm camera customers which they lost to red so far.
Click to expand...

I think it is Sony and Panasonic cameras (and Fuji and Canon lenses) in the mid-high price range that a good number of those 5000 Reds have been chosen over as well as the film cameras.
 
Try telling that to medium format or large format photographers....

Resolution is important. I think it's important to be able to view movies at the appropriate size without seeing blocky pixels, or distracting grain. Sure, some people will use blocky pixels or grain for their art, but I'd personally want these distractions not there.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
On the whole, the Arri paper is superb. They gave me a copy at NAB and it is well worth a read.

The key thing though, is that higher resolution film scans don't so much bring in more real detail, but they do allow for less aliasing in the final result, and for better digital preservation of the grain structure, even if it doesn't lead to more detail.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Interesting. But is this a Hail Mary of sorts? It sounds to me like a pinch of desperation as they might foresee the ramp in popularity and acceptance of Red products. Especially after Epic and Scarlet come out without issues and in higher production volume. I am far from knowledgeable on this subject, but Arri, I assume, can't react fast enough to the overwhelming speed of development that Jannard is getting out of his team.

If I am right then congratulations Jim and to all the Red team! Keep it up. Don't lift the foot off the gas!
 
Graeme
For the die-hard cinematographer doing high end feature films the so far slow take up of digital acquisition is because "engineers" dont get it when they want grain or bleach by pass to help tell a story or set a mood. Think about the basement scenes in "Seven" with the flaslights and it set the suspense of the scene a completely "clean" image would have not given the same effect. The engineers at the BBC & within the digital world only think about codes & compression cinematographers have to think about mood, suspense, vision and artistic qualities so the audiance is absorbed into the story.
In too many situations DOPs feel digital is eroding their skills and putting it into the hands of graders who were not on the set and werent setting the tone of the image.
 
With resolution, if you don't record it, you can't put it back afterwards. With grain, it's easy to add, but a pain to remove. The job of a camera is to record the scene as best as it can. Digital only adds tools to the creative - it does not remove them! Digital does not erode skills, but challenges you to learn something new, new tools, and gives you the ability to control your image to an even finer degree in ways you could not have done before.

Making a movie though, is a team effort. You can, if you want, learn to all the aspects yourself, but even then you still need people to help you out! It's always been a team effort. Digital doesn't change that. Doing a DI doesn't change that. Communication is the key though, as always.

BBC engineers need to think about compression and grain though. It's their broadcast chain, and it's not the DOP who gets blamed if the screen dissolves into a bunch of macro-blocks, but the BBC engineers. All art has limitations on what is reproduceable, and if you want people in the home to watch your work, you've got to make the work in a form that is broadcastable.

Graeme
 
Nova Invicta said:
In too many situations DOPs feel digital is eroding their skills and putting it into the hands of graders who were not on the set and werent setting the tone of the image.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense at all. The problem in this case would be that creative power was given to a grader that wasn't up to the task... the problem wasn't the medium but in whomever hired the wrong grader, or in giving creative power to the wrong person and not having the director in the room. Don't blame the medium, blame the person that was responsible for the decision. I always make my own decisions in grading, and I always invite the DoP to help me reach that decision.
 
Yup, it's all about teamwork and communication within that team.

Graeme
 
If you provide all the cash, I'm sure you'll get to make all the decisions....

Graeme
 
Presumably that's why you picked them!

Graeme
 
USlatin said:
This makes no sense at all. The problem in this case would be that creative power was given to a grader that wasn't up to the task... the problem wasn't the medium but in whomever hired the wrong grader, or in giving creative power to the wrong person and not having the director in the room. Don't blame the medium, blame the person that was responsible for the decision. I always make my own decisions in grading, and I always invite the DoP to help me reach that decision.
Click to expand...

But face reality. Not all DOPs are getting paid to attend and supervise a DI/grading session whereas in the photochemical past it was per se part of their job.
 
OK guys, while I was sick I finally got around and dig out the 3K scans of the original camera negative from NoNoBe (Kurosawa's unreleased project). This original film stock is the property of the Museum of Modern Art in Tokyo, Japan. I am posting this files for academic and R&D purposes only and all rights are reserved. Please respect this when You choose to download the scans...

The film stock used was (then) experimental Kodak T-Grain stock. There is a great PDF about this stock here:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/support/h1/H1_23-27.pdf

"Tabular-grain film is a type of photographic film that includes T-MAX films from Kodak (with Kodak's T-grain emulsion), Delta films from Ilford Photo and the Fujifilm Neopan films. The silver halide crystals in the film emulsion are flatter and more tabular (hence T-Grain)." (from WiKi)

This was scanned at ARRI HQ's in Munich with the 3K "overscan" mode in order to get the perforations. This was to assist us with the actual restoration. This very grainy stock was chosen by Kurosawa-san specifically for a purpose. What that was I do not know... :)

Without more blabbering, here are the files (TIFF links bellow each image):

00760.jpg

Link: http://www.ramjetfilms.com/peter/ARRI3K/00760.tif


11587.jpg

Link: http://www.ramjetfilms.com/peter/ARRI3K/11587.tif


12273.jpg

Link: http://www.ramjetfilms.com/peter/ARRI3K/12273.tif


Once again, please treat these files with respect...

Regards

Peter
 
kalone said:
But face reality. Not all DOPs are getting paid to attend and supervise a DI/grading session whereas in the photochemical past it was per se part of their job.
Click to expand...

OK, yea, but that is still not the medium's fault. If anything that's because chemical processes where a LOT more expensive and a lot more like walking with your eyes closed. Including a good DoP that knew film in and out and knew what he had done on set was almost a must to try to skip steps. But now you can just get your creative guy in there (who hopefully isn't technically challenged) and let him mess around till he sees what he likes. So you need less (expensive) people present. Well there are a lot of scenarios, but bottom line it is not the medium but the hiring, scheduling and the quality of the people you get, not the medium.

I guess the problem is that we are going though the adolescence of Digital and we feel the growing pains. Once cameras like Red One have been used for a few years there will be a new generally accepted principles of production extablished and less productions will waste money or ruin their look.
 
Hi

Double Negative have done Dark knight most of the shot at 8K on compositing. IMAX resolution is suppose to be theorically 18K, but the perception of the sharpness is not matter of resoltion but MTF...

Most of the DOP I know will continue to shoot film for the rest of their lifes. Arri as proven to be one the most respected company in the movie industry and their analysis is true. 2K resolution for film was determined years ago when people compare what was the final resolution for a copy Z0. All the mecanism of copy, generation at different MTF loss detail of the final print. Originally, 35 mm neg "store" much more resolution. So let's just say that Red has a good resolution to play with on feature film, and there is no need to bash film. Sharpness is not matter of resolution but MTF...Film will ever have a larger dynamic range witch make lighting much easy and save time.

Sorry for those 2 bucks...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top