Scarlet-W, the closest thing to a 35mm film replacement?

[Dean Butler]

I was just thinking with 35mm generally thought to resolve roughly 4k, and with the Scarlet-W having approximately 4k measured resolution, super 35, lower compression (than Scarlet Dragon), similar dynamic range to film, improved color over MX (less IR pollution too). Is this the closest we've come to a dedicated super 35mm film replacement (I know you could say that about the epic dragon but that goes beyond super35 and is more expensive). The way I see it at least on paper, this might be the closest the industry has come to a true super 35mm digital replacement for film. Obviously there are aesthetic, subjective, beautiful rich and authentic qualities to film that can't ever be completely emulated by a flat array of pixels. But on specs all I see missing now is global shutter (built into the camera) without limiting the other specifications. But the sensor speeds are pretty fast now that outside of strobes and camera flashes I don't see too many issues. Price to performance ratio I think Red has achieved something special that I've been waiting for, for a while. Is this as big a deal as I think it is? The MX is a great camera, but still behind film in terms of DR and color (out of the box IMO).... Now we are really getting there. (I would love for film to remain a viable option alongside digital forever but digital has really caught up on the technical side it seems)

 

[Anton Shavlik]

Film doesn't have a 'global shutter' either, its just really fast. It has to physically move in front of the film to block the light while the next cell is pulled into place. I've never noticed rolling shutter artifacts (like jello) except tears in strobe lights. You can always get a motion mount.

I think Scarlet-W is missing a 4:3 4perf size sensor to really replicate the 35mm experience.

But I do agree, the dragon sensor has been making filmic images for a couple years now.

 

[Brian Merlen]

Arri 4/3 or red vista are both similar but to some it won't be replaced. Distribution is the harder part these days

 

[George Butterfield]

Obviously there are aesthetic, subjective, beautiful rich and authentic qualities to film that can't ever be completely emulated by a flat array of pixels.

Why is this OBVIOUS? Can't you just scan a film image onto digital and "copy" everything? Isn't a film negative 'flat'? Can't you thru software duplicate any film to the point that the human eye can't tell the difference? What aspect of film cannot be duplicated on digital to the extent that no human being can tell the difference when projected on a 30 foot FLAT screen?

(I would love for film to remain a viable option alongside digital forever but digital has really caught up on the technical side it seems)

Film is no longer 'viable', because it can now be duplicated by digital for lower cost, and no viewer can tell the difference ... unless the digital editor chooses not to 'copy' films 'faults'. (but if the FAULTS are present ... how do you know that they weren't put there digitally?)

 

[Christopher Mills]

Why is this OBVIOUS? Can't you just scan a film image onto digital and "copy" everything? Isn't a film negative 'flat'? Can't you thru software duplicate any film to the point that the human eye can't tell the difference? What aspect of film cannot be duplicated on digital to the extent that no human being can tell the difference when projected on a 30 foot FLAT screen?Film is no longer 'viable', because it can now be duplicated by digital for lower cost, and no viewer can tell the difference ... unless the digital editor chooses not to 'copy' films 'faults'. (but if the FAULTS are present ... how do you know that they weren't put there digitally?)

No, just because you scan it, does not mean that digital origination looks the SAME as film. Underexposed film is grainy to black, completely overexposed film is transparent (yes, I am oversimplifying). Digital underexposure is murky 'noise'. Digital overexposure is white noise and bright murkiness.

Classic three strip technicolor is not only no longer possible on film, but not really duplicated yet in the digital domain.

Film's lack of viability is not due to viewers being unable to distinguish a digital projection, it is due to digital being good enough to please the check writing customers in the distribution industry.

I have shot both film and digital, and will be shooting more digital formats in the rest of my career, because economic realities mean that the good, reliable tools I can afford to use are a digital workflow.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

The map is not the territory. The territory is visual story-telling. Film had a way of mapping it, and it succeeded in many, many ways, but mostly for the few filmmakers who could afford its many, many compromises. I agree that the SCARLET-W finally delivers a combination of performance that is enough like the S35 world that most map-makers and most map-readers will be totally comfortable, while it also delivers a level of value that makes it affordable for almost anybody who wants to enter, at a high level, the territory of visual story-telling.

Phil Holland has epitomized the journey from S35 film to DSMC, and now DSMC2. Along that journey he discarded artifacts of film that no longer served, while embracing new capabilities of digital that served better. He replaced bits on the film maps that said "Here Be Dragons" with actual DRAGON sensors that matched or out-performed the chemical counterparts.

Agreeing with the OP, I would say that we have moved beyond merely trying to copy what film can do (i.e., merely creating a facsimile of the map) to a point where we can approach anew our approach to visual story-telling. That said, the era of film did develop a rich body of wisdom that transcends the actual imaging platform: lighting, camera movements, field of view, depth of field, etc., etc. By translating those best practices to the digital world, we get the best of both worlds, not merely the best digital version of a great analog tradition.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I was just thinking with 35mm generally thought to resolve roughly 4k, and with the Scarlet-W having approximately 4k measured resolution, super 35, lower compression (than Scarlet Dragon), similar dynamic range to film, improved color over MX (less IR pollution too). Is this the closest we've come to a dedicated super 35mm film replacement...

To me, the look of 35mm is more about dynamic range and colorimetry than it is about sharpness. I also think the camera has very little do with it, once you get performance above a certain level. There's probably a dozen 4K+ cameras out there that will do an acceptable job, but the biggest difference boils down to the lighting, the lenses, and the exposure, a lot of which has to do with the skill of the DP.

If it were as simple as simply "more K is better," I think the competition between cameras would have been settled years ago. Clearly, there's far more differences than just that.

Why is this OBVIOUS? Can't you just scan a film image onto digital and "copy" everything? Isn't a film negative 'flat'? Can't you thru software duplicate any film to the point that the human eye can't tell the difference? What aspect of film cannot be duplicated on digital to the extent that no human being can tell the difference when projected on a 30 foot FLAT screen?Film is no longer 'viable', because it can now be duplicated by digital for lower cost, and no viewer can tell the difference ... unless the digital editor chooses not to 'copy' films 'faults'. (but if the FAULTS are present ... how do you know that they weren't put there digitally?)

I think you have a lot of misconceptions here, George. For one: if I were to take a piece of 35mm negative and scan it on a Spirit, scan it on a Northlight, scan it on an Arriscanner, or scan it on an Imagica scanner... they all look different. The scanner itself has an effect on the picture. And the skill of the person scanning the negative also has an effect on the picture.

Bear in mind that once production budgets get above a certain amount, I'm not sure if shooting on film is really all that much different than shooting digitally. My guess is that this budget is probably around $15M-$20M; if the cost of the film stock is about $200K, I don't think it makes a big difference, all things considered... particularly if the daily film camera rental becomes 1/5th what a digital camera costs to rent. The lens packages, the support gear, the grip truck, and the lighting gear are all pretty much the same. Film stock costs more, developing costs more, dailies cost more... but not massively more. The scheduling issues for dailies become the biggest factor, particularly when shooting in remote areas.

What's interesting to me are the movies that have shot on film and then done all the post digitally, and the vast audience does not care. All they see is story and character, and then if they notice the visuals, they're looking at the lighting and the exposure. The differences in camera qualities are insignificant to the point of not mattering in the theater, provided the camera hits certain minimum performance levels. (I'm not saying an iPhone could be used to shoot a feature... but I would bet a $6000 4K camera or a $15,000 4K camera or a $20,000 4K camera could be.)

Bad lighting and bad focus and bad focus... anybody can notice those, regardless of how technical they are. Great lighting, shot by Alexa or Canon or Red or Sony... it's all going to be fine once it hits that 30' screen.

I don't think the exact characteristics of film can be duplicated in digital just yet. Read Glenn Kennel's book Color & Mastering for Digital Cinema, and also David Stump's book Digital Cinematography: Fundamentals, Techniques, Tools, & Workflow. Both of them go into great detail as to the similarities and differences between film and digital, why they respond differently at different light levels, and why the human eye sees them as different. If it were easy to match them, it would've been done long ago. I think there are good reasons as to why 35mm film negative is still used as a benchmark for digital cameras, and even as we cross into 2016, I'm not convinced any digital camera on earth can make pictures indistinguishable from film images just yet.

 

[Ben Scott]

Just on the subject above, once digital reached a certain level of dynamic range, resolution and sensitivity I don't think there is any problem whatsoever with not looking like film. If we all spent less time trying to look like film and more time trying to craft beautiful images that are beautiful in their own right then we'd move on from this silliness.

Star Wars looked great and was shot on film (perhaps to increase the perceived visual continuity between this and the originals) and looked like it.
Revenant looked great and was shot on digital and didn't look like film.

 

[Ben Scott]

Oops wrong thread.

 

[Milano Questa]

Nope Alexa is still closer

 

[M.Halsell]

Debate Emulsion or Digital? The conversions and comparisons are no long sustainable. Digital is where its at, meeting the resolution and color fidelity needs of the todays storytellers. Any camera in the ARRI or RED lineup is more than capable of film replacement.

Film is a medium that has fantastically served the marketplace for many moons. But its a dated acquisition process, fewer folks that know how to actually photograph and process film. Going forward and outward facing, we are generation away from folks who wont know the difference from, or have the cognitive ability to tell the difference, or worse be indifferent or not care. Frankly, if the current blockbuster had been a commercial failure, there would be even less conversation about film.

Film basically became the holy grail because of resolution. Which spawned different types of stocks for various shooting environments. sensitivity levels, emulsion behavior. Digital collectively and pragmatically has replaced film production. With digital, no longer is there resolution compromise. Its there, right now. The other aesthetics of film that we have come to love can be mimicked in post (mostly). Much easier and flexible for digital to mimic the negative pulldown or projection gauge type of film. Commercial projection generally was the driving force behind most of the projected film sizes. Some stuck, some didn't. So basically, in yesteryear, one had to commit to the most common and popular projection types. Not so with digital projection, no need to shoehorn into any particular ratio from a storytelling point of view.

Very little downside with any of current acquisition tools rolling off the assembly line. Promised newer cameras will certainly reach a bit further into the 65-70mm corners of the acquisition space. Little left to do but decide how much camera is needed on a regular or interim basis. Red particularly has bridged the gaps quite nicely. Whatever is left in the slush fund can be redirected to production and distribution.

 

[M Most]

J
Revenant looked great and was shot on digital and didn't look like film.

There are a number of shots in that picture that were done on 65mm film, including a number of shots many people are assuming were Arri 65 digital. For the most part, the picture is "standard" Arriraw, with some Arri 65 as well. But not completely.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

According to the AC article, none of the 65mm film shots ended up in the final cut. It also said about 13% was shot on the Alexa 65, leaving 87% of the movie being regular Alexa using Open Gate (so 3.4K).

Anyway, it was a great-looking 4K DCP!

 

[Nick Morrison]

We dont need to replace film. Digital is just more convenient, and with cameras like Scarlet-W...certainly more accessible and practical for the indie shooter.

But film is a treasured standard that hopefully never goes away. As filmmakers were enriched by more options, not less.

 

[M.Halsell]

ARRI, despite the smaller sensor, seems to do well in character/story driven productions. RED on the other hands seems to be used in more visual effects driven films. Categorically, speaking that is. I prefer the ARRI pixel when watching, but the RED pixel when capturing.

 

[Ben Scott]

According to the AC article, none of the 65mm film shots ended up in the final cut. It also said about 13% was shot on the Alexa 65, leaving 87% of the movie being regular Alexa using Open Gate (so 3.4K).

Anyway, it was a great-looking 4K DCP!

yep absolutely stunning.

 

[Marc Wielage]

ARRI, despite the smaller sensor, seems to do well in character/story driven productions. RED on the other hands seems to be used in more visual effects driven films.

Although I would point out that all of the Marvel effects-driven films have been shot on Alexa. The upcoming Captain America film uses both Alexa and Alexa 65. Jurassic World, The Force Awakens, and SPECTRE, all major effects films, were shot on 35mm negative. I don't think the choice of capture medium matters nearly as much as the people hired to do the work and then the post crew determining the best workflow for the results the filmmakers want.

When you're in the upper stratosphere of feature budgets, the camera might be the least-important choice in the budget. My joke is if you have a 150-day production with a crew of 100 people on two or three continents, the catering bill is going to cost more than the film stock. There are a lot of pluses for shooting digitally, but I think speed more than money is the real factor.

BTW, note that Marvel has gone with Red Epic on their Daredevil and Jessica Jones​ TV shows -- both of which have quite a few effects (for TV) -- so it shows they're willing to experiment and go in different directions.

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

BTW, note that Marvel has gone with Red Epic on their Daredevil and Jessica Jones​ TV shows -- both of which have quite a few effects (for TV) -- so it shows they're willing to experiment and go in different directions.

This is more because it's a netflix production, 4k capture is mendatory, and Arri does not offer it on s35 Alexa.

Any camera in the ARRI or RED lineup is more than capable of film replacement

This is the real idea. It's just like in sound. HIgh end Preamps are all good, but all sound different.
All highend camera are good, but all looks different.

Arri, Red and a bit less Sony have all great cameras in their line up. They all have strenghts and weaknesses.

 

[M Most]

According to the AC article, none of the 65mm film shots ended up in the final cut. It also said about 13% was shot on the Alexa 65, leaving 87% of the movie being regular Alexa using Open Gate (so 3.4K).

That sounds reasonable. All of the 65mm film was shot near the beginning of the schedule, as Chivo had requested the Arri 65 for specific shots, but it was not yet available.

 

[M Most]

Although I would point out that all of the Marvel effects-driven films have been shot on Alexa. The upcoming Captain America film uses both Alexa and Alexa 65. Jurassic World, The Force Awakens, and SPECTRE, all major effects films, were shot on 35mm negative. I don't think the choice of capture medium matters nearly as much as the people hired to do the work and then the post crew determining the best workflow for the results the filmmakers want.

When you're in the upper stratosphere of feature budgets, the camera might be the least-important choice in the budget. My joke is if you have a 150-day production with a crew of 100 people on two or three continents, the catering bill is going to cost more than the film stock. There are a lot of pluses for shooting digitally, but I think speed more than money is the real factor.

BTW, note that Marvel has gone with Red Epic on their Daredevil and Jessica Jones​ TV shows -- both of which have quite a few effects (for TV) -- so it shows they're willing to experiment and go in different directions.

These things are not "either/or." While there is almost always a "primary" camera choice for the "A" camera, I am really hard pressed to think of any decent sized production in the last year that has used only one digital camera type. Alexa has been very popular as an "A" camera, but on nearly every "Alexa show," other cameras are used for various purposes. Epics are very popular for aerial work and visual effects, regardless of whether they are the "A" camera choice or not. Other devices (Blackmagic, GoPro, Canon, Panasonic GH4) are used for specialty situations all the time. And studios do not usually dictate the camera choice, although in the case of Marvel they tend to "encourage" the use of devices and workflow that have worked for them on past projects. But Marvel does tend to take a much more "hands on" approach at pretty much every level than nearly every other studio, including Disney, who owns them. In the case of Netflix original productions, Netflix does not specify camera choices, but it does approve (or refuse to approve) the choices the individual productions make, which narrows the choices somewhat, although it still allows for the use of cameras from Red, Sony, Panasonic, and others. Even Arri, if it happens to be the Arri 65 (although I don't know of any Netflix production that has proposed that).