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 :)

AS GOOD AS IMAX

Robino_J said:
I love all that. I personally and stylistically don't like the clean plastic digital and over processed look that many around here seem to love. All imperfections are welcome specially when coming from film in my book.
Click to expand...

While jitter, scratches and pop are great for nostalgia, they call attention to the flaws in the fourth wall. I prefer my dream-like quality undisturbed. I don't like sterile either, but I have to throw in with the digi crowd FWIW.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Roger Deakins said otherwise recently in American Cinematographer. He said digital had eclipsed film in many ways, in particular with low light shooting.
Click to expand...


I better be careful what I say lest I get spanked by the self appointed "Fancy Talkin' Police" but I agree digital has some plusses - low light, cost, much longer takes. There are many. But in some areas film is still king: Highlight rolloff, skin rendition, color precision. Imax still winds in the resolution wars - although I'm sure in the future that will change. We hardly ever get to shoot film anymore, but I wish we did. I miss it.
 
Mark Toia said:
Not sure about that.. I just watched a IMAX movie, jitter, scratches, film pop, was sharp... but not razor...... and I remember clearly a 4k presentation at RED that was sharper, cleaner and richer.

I think it really comes down to lens quality now.
Click to expand...

Mark, three things that often get overlooked in the IMAX disucssion are:

1) Being projected in IMAX does not mean being shot in IMAX.

2) Shooting in 65mm/70mm does not necessarily mean shooting in IMAX. IMAX cameras run the film horizontally across the gate (like 35mm stills cameras do). That chews up 15 perfs of 65mm film per frame.

3) It matters if a DI was done and if so, at what resolution.

These may have influenced what you saw.
 
Someone posted a quote from someone else on the Internet! Quick it must be debated!..
 
Once again David Mullen comes up with such clarity about resolution and backs it up with numbers..... I believe Epic has incredible rez but remember also that 65mm flat and 65mm Imax 15perf has a whole different "bokeh".
The Depth of Field falloff and circle of confusion is totally different.
Once David Fincher and John Schwartzman were going to shoot a Nike commercial. Fincher wanted a specific focus falloff. They shot 65mm. It is all about "FEEL"......
 
Rob Ruffo said:
Ketch you're a lovable guy, but these kinds of comments are ludicrous. No digital system has yet to beat ANY film, even 16, in many areas. Epic may be the best digital system, but it doesn't beat film yet, let alone Imax film using Imax format lenses.
Click to expand...

Peter Moretti said:
LOVE U Ketch. But no way is Epic beating 15 perf 65mm film. Sorry :(.
Click to expand...


Love the Love guys, but this is exactly what I'm saying, I didn't say why, I just said what I would do... ;)

FILM IS DEAD!!! Literally!!

No one can any more argue that, NO ONE!!


Take it from some one that might know few things more then the average Reduser... ;)


Celluloid factories all but closed, Celluloid Distribution, shrinking dramatically, with several Countries already with a mapped out time line ot FROBID Celluloid Prints and Distribution in their Cinemas.

Celluloid is bad form the very start it was so, but finally there is a replacement, is called RED EPIC... ;)


I prefer the clean look of EPIC now, vs even the 70mm Film Prints, this is my taste and pure opinion, we all have ours, once DRAGON will arrive, we'll discuss it further, when the MF 9k Sensor will arrive, there will be absolutely no more discussion ever again about Film vs. Digital... ;)


Don't forget, for me is not ever only about just the Image quality, which of course is the MOST IMPORTANT, but not the only reason to love EPIC, is about the workflow, the speed of getting my results, the fact that I'm ECO FRIENDLY, and much more, all in favor of Digital, and against Celluloid.


A NEW ERA HAS BEEN APPROACHING... Just watch it carefully or you'll be left behind... ;)
 
Peter Moretti said:
Mark, three things that often get overlooked in the IMAX disucssion are:

1) Being projected in IMAX does not mean being shot in IMAX.

2) Shooting in 65mm/70mm does not necessarily mean shooting in IMAX. IMAX cameras run the film horizontally across the gate (like 35mm stills cameras do). That chews up 15 perfs of 65mm film per frame.

3) It matters if a DI was done and if so, at what resolution.

These may have influenced what you saw.
Click to expand...

It was the SPACE one... I watched the behind the scenes, it looked like a real deal IMAX camera. ?

regardless of that. I don't really care :) This thread is silly.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
...How many people remember when James Cameron started shooting docs on 2/3" Sony HD 1080P cameras and saying that the quality was more like 70mm? .
Click to expand...

Yes, indeed. There are so many variables...for example:

A flat port (commonly used underwater on IMAX movies) resolves about 1/5 of standard definition away from the centre of the frame. The fact that such images were filmed with 70mm film or 2/3" CCD doesn't actually make that much difference. In this context, Cameron was probably correct.

On land there are other considerations such as lens performance and diffraction limits, not to mention DOF and accurante focus pulling.

Frankly, I found more hype than sharp images on the giant screen.

70mm film can be very sharp - much sharper than 5k. I think it is rare to actually see images that get the most out of the 70mm film. Well shot 4k or 5k actually looks very sharp to most people and is probably sharp enough for IMAX screen. The limitations seem to be in other areas than the recording format/medium.
 
Well, if you have the opportunity to shoot the movie in 70mm 15-perf IMAX format - good for you. I know Nolan shot parts of TDKR on 15-perf. In the meantime Red will deliver near-IMAX quailty with Dragon. 6K with native dynamic range comparable to the commonly available film stock, let alone HDRx. Thanks to a friend of mine, I saw few minutes of SAMSARA in 2K recently and while I say it's gorgeous movie and 70mm film's color is great I also couldn't help but notice the obvious grain everywhere. After visually clean Prometheus presented in the same 2K copy I can only repeat what Ridley said. "It's so 1960s". It's beautiful and nostalgic, though. Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master looks perfect, being shot on 65mm (pushed, if I'm not mistaken). Amazing look and feel of film indeed.
 
Hi guys, i wanted to say something in this debate, first of all i support digital and fucking love red epic and it is the best digital cinema camera on this blue planet,But I said the best "digital" cinema camera. i cannot call epic the best imaging format on this planet, not yet. See if we all look at it a bit practically and leave workflow aside,leave the form factor aside and just talk about image quality,i think motion picture film is a "bit" ahead, just a bit. Film still has more dynamic range and more latitude than epic, a "bit" more, it does produce a "bit" better color and the skin tones are a "bit" better, so u see this "bit" more is important for some people.Film will truly die when there is a digital cinema camera(DRAGON) that has more dynamic range, latitude, sensitivity than film, can produce better colors and skin tones. I think dragon will achieve that, till then i think film has an upper hand, it is still the 1st boy in the class,but that will change soon.........

i think no one can argue with that...:hand:
 
KETCH ROSSi said:
Love the Love guys, but this is exactly what I'm saying, I didn't say why, I just said what I would do... ;)

FILM IS DEAD!!! Literally!!

No one can any more argue that, NO ONE!!

...
Click to expand...

Win a soccer game and it all goes to your head, LOL!


Just kidding :). GO ITALIA & GO RED :D!
 
Peter Lyons Collister said:
Once again David Mullen comes up with such clarity about resolution and backs it up with numbers..... I believe Epic has incredible rez but remember also that 65mm flat and 65mm Imax 15perf has a whole different "bokeh".
The Depth of Field falloff and circle of confusion is totally different.
Once David Fincher and John Schwartzman were going to shoot a Nike commercial. Fincher wanted a specific focus falloff. They shot 65mm. It is all about "FEEL"......
Click to expand...

Good on you. I'm astounded that no one else is seeing this side of the argument. Its a different acquisition altogether and respects the chosen optics differently than s35.
It does end up making sense, as the reduser-base are mainly resolution/latitude junkies, but Pfister always says he embraces the format because of the expansive frame.

Now I'm waiting for 'X cinematographer says RED is better than wet-plate!'
 
Donald Strubler said:
Good on you. I'm astounded that no one else is seeing this side of the argument. Its a different acquisition altogether and respects the chosen optics differently than s35.
It does end up making sense, as the reduser-base are mainly resolution/latitude junkies, but Pfister always says he embraces the format because of the expansive frame.

Now I'm waiting for 'X cinematographer says RED is better than wet-plate!'
Click to expand...

Thanks for showing up on these boards and dissing everyone. Classy.
 
2c$

Sometimes things dont have to be perfect to be great. I own an Epic now. It astonishes me. I would however kill to shoot on 35mm again. Only did it twice in my career, and to this day i love the way it looks. Ketch, you are correct in one sense, it is dying. But why kill it? why not have another brush to paint the picture with? Yes its slow, complicated and expensive... but so is sailing a regata, but some people seem to love that for those reasons... the sensation, and emotions of an analog chemical medium is powerful when done right. Would Se7en have been better on Epic? Maybe... maybe not, the bleach bypass and chances Khonji took with the processing make it spectacular. Would the NIN Closer video have been better on Epic rather than on a Bell and Howell hand cranked camera, and high temperature flashed film that Savides spent weeks to perfect have been the same? Dunno...

But they got that look that way. Now today, we can get that look that way, AND in 5k with an Epic and a great colorist. Some like to sail the ship, some like to steer the motor boat, both get us to the same place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top