Red and digital projection

[krd]

I'd like the opinion of people who have actually seen Red footage -- including the Red team.

To date, the distinguishing factor of HD digital vs. film projection appears (at least, to my eyes) to be a certain "flatness" to digitally projected images, even with material originally shot on film (but transferred to HD).

I don't know if the apparent lifelessness and lack of dimensionality of digital projection is something as idiotic as the absence of projector weave, a reflection of HD compression and sampling rates, or if it's more crucially rooted (by comparison) in the photochemical basis of film, from negative to release print.

Specifically, I'm thinking of the translucent, almost holographic quality of which projected film is capable, which I've never seen in 1) a digitally acquired and projected image, 2) a digitally acquired image projected on film (via 35mm transfer), or 3) a film-acquired image digitally projected.

Forgetting for a moment all the uncontrolled variables, to what extent does digitally projected Red footage suggest the depth and translucence associated with projected film -- assuming, of course, you accept my assessment of non-Red digital projection/acquisition, and there's enough Red footage to judge the matter?

This is not an invitation for another film v. digital argument. I know the film era is over, whether Spielberg or the ghost of Stanley Kubrick shoots film or not. I'm just trying to figure out what we'll end up with.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

If you can define what you see as different in terms we can measure, we can talk about it. Quite frankly, although I enjoy the look of film as an acquisition format, it's the projection and it's problems that turn me off, more than anything else aesthetic about it as a format.

Graeme

 

[krd]

If you can define what you see as different in terms we can measure, we can talk about it. Quite frankly, although I enjoy the look of film as an acquisition format, it's the projection and it's problems that turn me off, more than anything else aesthetic about it as a format.

Graeme

If there's a quantitative way to describe it, I lack the technical vocabulary. Maybe some DPs will help out here -- either confirming or denying.

As for projection and what's turning you off -- no argument, film is a royal nuisance to cart around and run through a machine at 90 ft./min, but I suspect it's that analog projection process which lends much of the magic, doomed though it is....

 

[Graeme Nattress]

That magic being out of focus, with wobble and flicker? Film has a certain look, that we can measure in terms of it's gamma, it's highlights, it's grain, it's colour, it's saturation etc. Personally, although it's poetic to describe as "translucent, almost holographic quality of which projected film is capable", I have no idea what it means, as I've only ever seen digital projection as superior in every way to that of film (especially 4k). And indeed, looking at some 4k scans of Sound of Music projected in 4k, and that looked to me stunning, and so much better than any film projection I've ever seen, I'm pretty happy to say I like digital projection better.

Graeme

 

[krd]

And indeed, looking at some 4k scans of Sound of Music projected in 4k, and that looked to me stunning, and so much better than any film projection I've ever seen, I'm pretty happy to say I like digital projection better.

Graeme

I also saw the Sound of Music footage (thankfully MOS!) in 4K. I guess you could argue it was "stunning", in its clarity. Though, frankly, I was counting blades of grass, rather than actually looking at the image as a piece of sustainable fiction. Since it involved 65mm source footage, maybe the effect wouldn't be so distracting with 35mm origination.

Granted, there may be an element of inane nostalgia, in preferring film to digital, in the same way there are still people who cherish their vinyl records, including the warps, the pops and the clicks.

Anyway, let's see if anyone else chimes in.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Well, I'm one of those who still listens to, and enjoys vinyl. For me, the Beatles should be heard on vinyl as that's what they were mastered in mind of. I know people who will only want to watch classic films on projected film for the very same reason. However, that doesn't answer your question, only explains it via nostalgia and mastering intent, not the specific look you see.

Graeme

 

[krd]

Well, I'm one of those who still listens to, and enjoys vinyl.

Damn! And here I thought I was taking your side. I do find it surprising you would accept the artifacts of analog audio playback, but reject them for film. Anyway, we're already going in circles here.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I think stuff that was shot on film designed to be projected on film would maintain it's artistic integrity by being viewed projected on film. However, that's argument from integrity, not from what the image looks like. Same for vinyl.... If it was mastered for it, it plays back best on it to my ears. However, I do have a very, very good record deck that minimises it's issues - just like if you project film in a nice screening room and make sure it's in focus and doesn't wobble too much, but like that's ever going to happen at my local cinema....

 

[Clayton Harper]

Just go to Cinegear and watch the projection. The footage looks great. If it's not to your taste, sit at home and dream about shooting film while the rest of us use our red cameras.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Being sound, or image...

All that counts for me in the end is the beauty of what we see and hear. PERIOD.

We can make film look great or crappy.
We can make digital look great or crappy.

Now, nostalgia is nostalgia...

great...but it is "love of the past".

dictionary definition:

a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.

Now lets make good history and associations with our new tools !!!!

Cheers!

Antoine

 

[krd]

If it's not to your taste, sit at home and dream about shooting film while the rest of us use our red cameras.

I should have known that posting this question would end with this kind of answer. Graeme, if it's in your power, please delete the thread. I'd do it myself, but the first post of a thread apparently can't be deleted.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Hi krd,

Why delete this thread ?

It a very good subject! It's interesting discussion.
You'll have all kind of replies...normal.

Antoine

 

[Clayton Harper]

But seriously, krd, what do you want? Maybe they should stop development and recreate the camera from the ground up to introduce analog artifacts to the image. Oh wait, you can do that in post. Grain, scratches, flicker, alignment. All possible in post. I think a few people here saw Grindhouse....

 

[Stuart English]

Digital Projection

Digital Projection

I think some of this can be explained by lack of contrast in the tape format the film was mastered to prior to projection. The most commonly used master has been HDCAM, and that's only 8 bits. Watching the RED footage at NAB on a 4K projector - which itself has a reputation for somewhat milky blacks - you got a quite different sensation than watching film, but it sure as hell was was not a "hd video" look. There was resolution, color, a naturalness to the images, and yes also a lack of weave and grain. There was enough "there" and enough "not there" to lose yourself completely in the storyline.

I'm also really looking forward to seeing RED on a next generation 4K projector.

 

[GlennChan]

Mmm... I'm personally not a big fan of the milky blacks on the Sony projector. While film isn't perfect there either, film generally has a better contrast ratio. This might account for the 'flat' images you're seeing with Sony 4K projection.

 

[Nook Kim]

Interesting article for you.

Interesting article for you.

Hi krd,

After reading the latest issue of Videography, I could see your point.
In the article, Format Factor Fundamentals, Mark Schubin suggests an
interesting theory. "Believe it or not, film is probably the only truly
digital medium for capturing moving images..."

Basically, what Mark is saying is that the silver halide salts on the film
emlusion get exposed or not exposed to create a visible image, which
suggests that it's either 0 or 1 process.
This chemical process results in how much grain the picture contains
by the "exposed to not exposed" silver halide salts ratio.

However, in digital imagers, the photosensitive sensors (potosites?)
generates an analog signal from the amount of lights hitting them.
Therefore, there is in-between exposed sensors before it forms a visible
picture, not 0 or 1 digital method. This only gets digitized by the A/D
converter later on.

Now, regarding your topic, krd.

When the film is digitally transferred for digital projection, we can
assume that the picture loses the "either exposed or not exposed" process
of the film emulsion. I don't have enough knowledge of this film to digital
conversion as far as what process the picture goes through. Anyway,
the point is that we are losing the grain effect that has created by the
"0 or 1 digital process" of film.

I know there is not so many perfectly projected viewing environment in the
theaters, but when the picture is projected on a perfectly calibrated
condition, it will contain all the original picture information that a digitally
converted/projected simply can't mimic.

Mark also mentions about how the digital cameras have fixed-pattern on the
picture since all the sensors are aligned in a fixed pattern, whereas the silver
halide salts are ever randomly positioned in the film emulsion.

I'm sure there are a lot of other elements of film emulsion that we are losing
while trasfering "with" the digital imagers. Just like how Graeme likes to listen
to vinyle, one can argue that the digitally projected pictures don't have
the same feeling or elements as if it was projected on film.

To sum up, the picture shot on film and projected on film should have the
best result, followed by digitally shot and projected on film, and digitally shot
and digitally projected. Of course, this is for maintaining the film look.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

krd,

I think Stuart have a good argument here.
Most of the digital we see is 8 bit. It is not smooth enough to compare with film.

But, back to your initial question...Yes i see a difference between film and digital. You're not alone to see that.
But after seeing the 4K RED footage at NAB, i was convinced that RED WILL change that perception of "dry" looking digital picture. It looked warm and smooth.

....AND...it was one of RED's the first footage.

I am quite certain that with testing, experience, and practice, we will see even more stunning footage from RED.

What i saw at NAB was totally different looking from what i've seen uptil now from digital acquisition. RED's footage looked WAY better, smoother, natural.

Antoine

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

That magic being out of focus, with wobble and flicker? Film has a certain look, that we can measure in terms of it's gamma, it's highlights, it's grain, it's colour, it's saturation etc. Personally, although it's poetic to describe as "translucent, almost holographic quality of which projected film is capable", I have no idea what it means, as I've only ever seen digital projection as superior in every way to that of film (especially 4k). And indeed, looking at some 4k scans of Sound of Music projected in 4k, and that looked to me stunning, and so much better than any film projection I've ever seen, I'm pretty happy to say I like digital projection better.

Graeme

That's because it is in fact superior in every respect. Seeing Revenge of the Sith projected digitally, then seeing it in film was a jarring experience -- one was vibrant, colorful, perfect, like being in the world of the film... that one was the digitally projected version, which was truly beautiful. The other was full of scratches, imperfections, and other nonsense that was no fault of the filmmakers but of the awful projection system called film.

I watched the prequels dozens of times, and one time when I watched The Phantom Menace the print just broke in the middle of it, they said they couldn't fix it in time for the next showing, so they gave us all a refund and called it an afternoon. That happened again with Attack of the Clones but closer to the start, so I hadn't wasted as much time, haha. I really hate film projection with a passion. To be honest I hate everything about film, the acquisition, the projection, it's just all ancient crap that needs to go the way of the typewriter. It belongs in a museum where everyone can reminisce about their childhood memories of how "magical" it all is. I love MOVIES, but the fact that they've had to be shot on film for so long is more of an unfortunate film history fact than anything magical.

 

[krd]

FWIW, of the HDCAM productions I've seen, from Hollywood (Rodriguez, Mann) to foreign independents and arthouse entries, both in film transfer and HD projection, none offers (to me) the same pleasures as film. It may be a question of an immature technology, or conditioning, or both.

But I'd argue that these digital products are "inferior" to film with respect to characteristics generally associated with "beauty" in Western art (and film!). Black level, shoulder, knee, gamma, etc. all have analogs in classical painting and art photography. And HD digital doesn't, at the present time, satisfy those expectations of beauty, built up over hundreds of years -- in addition to the more intangible qualities I was trying, however inadequately, to describe in the first post, photochemical vs. electronic.

That's why I posed the question: is Red fundamentally different? I don't expect digital to look exactly like film, and we know what can be done in post these days.

However, I'd really like to hear from some DPs -- people who have shot both film and digital, and at least seen Red.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

krd,

All i can say for sure is that i truly "feel", that with RED, based on what i saw at NAB with a friend of mine (film DOP), we will be able to achieve a kind of "organic" look normally absent from digital.

...exactly like film...dont know, but certainly really beautifull.