Tell me again why 70mm Film is better than Dragon or Arri images?

[Mark Toia]

So I'm in the cinema and the trailer for Hateful 8 pops up. ... mmmmmmm

I'm looking at it thinking ? Is that light bloom? ok ok... thats old lenses, and they would have lots of character as age is against them.

Then blown out highlights pop up... ok ok... maybe the DP slipped up and over exposed on a few shots, maybe they did it on purpose... hey I do it...

Edge smear... ok ok old lenses again. Charming yes, that's why I like using old lenses from time to time.

But I then I notice the ever apparent film grain in the darker areas... ??? Ok.. 65mm Film. I shot 35mm for more than 15 years and could see grain from time to time, but why is 65mm with 4x bigger frame still have grain so obvious ? .. Ok maybe they were shooting 800ASA stock ? I don't know. ?


So shooting on 65mm is the best cinema image quality you'll ever get to see you say ?

Ok ok.. so the projection I saw was digital and more than likely only 2k. not 70mm as what it will be presented in. ( in a hand full of cinemas only)
So you'd think a 2k digitally scanned image from 65mm film would be pin sharp and awesome! .. No.
Some of Chris Nolan's shots in Batman were soft and nosey as well when we was shooting 65mm. Other shots were pin sharp and stunning.
So I'm sure both film makers don't care about sharpness, dynamic range or noiseless images... but more the mood and style that 65mm gives, I get that and appreciate it.

Now... having shot 4K RAW for close to 9 years now, Sat in countless grades with cinema screens in front of me, I can say quite freely... Everyone can actually get a sharper cleaner and more dynamic range than what 65mm film can give you. Especially from the latest RED 6k / ARRI 65 & Sony F65 cameras.
8K Dragon will take it to another level again.
You can also print your 4k digital masters to a 70mm cinema prints the same way Quentin has done for his film. And wow people with even higher fidelity.

So my question is why? 4k digital projection will give you a far superior image, more immersive, sharper, cleaner, richer. Put those old lenses on if you want that Character flawed "LOOK" (because it does look great)

If I want your image to have some blown out highlights in a few shots like Hateful 8 , you can do that in the grade, If I want images to look a little soft, have smear, flares and bloom, then use the same lenses that Quentin used. if its still not soft enough, blur it in the grade.
If i want noise that replicates 65mm grain perfectly, you can add this look in via kodak film grain plugins that ILM and others use to perfectly match their 3D digital plates in with film plates seamlessly for the last decade.
A great colourist can side by side match the look you require.

What has me scratching my head is this...
Why do people want to burn so much money, time, energy and resources on shooting 65mm for what gives you less. ? Yes I agree it's " a look"... and a nice look at that. But why go through the dollar / time / hassle exercise when you don't need to.
Is it because its a great marketing ploy ?... or I've got so much money I can just waste it on stock, processing and scanning and lugging those huge monsters around set all day.. or... just good old fashion self indulgent '"Because I can"
I tend to think its all 3.

Irrespective of my thoughts on this subject, I'm sure the film will look stunning and amazing, and it should !. with a Great director and great DP at the helm.
Irrespective of the grain, blurs, smears, highlights, bloom and jitter... Because I'm sure thats the charm Quentin was looking for and he's got it.

I personally think its a total waste of money and time, not to mention the chemicals used and waste of natural resources. and yet for what gain ? that can't be achieved with modern day cameras and post techniques.
I'd really like to see Quentin shoot FF Full frame / Vista 8k RED with his favorite lenses attached, because he will have money left over for even better sets, locations, post, and have an even better image to play with during the post grading process. Giving him even more control..
Fincher, Scott and many others can do it...

Anyways...

I am looking forward to his new film, (and I wont be going to see it because he shot it on 65mm) He's one of the greatest filmmakers on the planet and nothing will derail my opinion of his fantastic work.

 

[Kyle Dones]

where did you pull these screen grabs from?

 

[Antonio Forjaz]

same question, where did you get those screen grabs?

and by the way, I agree 100% with what you wrote in the post, I fell the same way.

 

[Marc Wielage]

If the movie looks great, it's because of Bob Richardson, his crew, and the staff of Panavision (and Fotokem). Tarantino merely set the wheels in motion.

Everything I've seen looks terrific, and I'd guarantee you that Richardson will at least get Oscar and ASC noms out of it. If nothing else, you have to admire anybody who's audacious and ambitious to want to even try to shoot 65mm film today.

As a longtime technician with a close understanding of cinematography and color correction, if it were up to me, I would've said, "F it -- just shoot it on Alexa 65." I think it would've been fine. But giving DPs and directors the choices of different formats is a good thing. All that matters is how good the story and characters are; the choice of format will probably matter less than 10% to most audiences.

I am intrigued that Tarantino actually has created a longer cut of the film in 70mm film and also chose different angles and shot choices for some scenes for the film release vs. the digital release. But the film will sink or swim solely according to content, not whether it's on film or digital or 35 or 70 or Super 8. And if it looks good, it's 85% because of the lighting, exposure, and lenses -- IMHO.

 

[dio Zafi]

film has an emotional connection to the audience...it's not about specs

 

[Mark Toia]

film has an emotional connection to the audience...it's not about specs

Oh that old chest nut.

The countless times I have had film and RED mixed side by side in the early days of RED, and no body could pick which was what.
When graded and matched, no one one can tell.
People keep forgetting that most 35mm films that have huge amounts of CG shots or digital backgrounds added and matched to the original film plates. Again no one can tell.

 

[jake blackstone]

Tarantino is unabashed film purist, pain and simple. And unlike many, he actually puts his money where his mouth is. He actually owns a film theater in LA, where they show movies on film only. There is another movie theater a block away from me, that also shows old movies using film projectors. There are always long lines to see those movies. There are people who simply don't care about resolution. They just want see films the way the Director and DP created them. 70mm is a medium format film. Again, it has nothing to do with resolution, but with the medium format you get the medium format look. Anyone can immediately see the difference between medium format and even the FF. They just look different, even if people seeing those images know nothing about MTF. Also, I would be extremely surprised, if Hateful 8 was scanned at 2K. That would make no sense, even if DCP was 2k (was it?). And yes, Alexa 65 has pretty much the same sensor size as a 65mm film image. Unfortunately, Weapon VV image is smaller than that.
Regardless, I'm planing to see Hateful 8 in glorious 70mm, just the way Mr. Tarantino intended it...

 

[dio Zafi]

Oh that old chest nut.

The countless times I have had film and RED mixed side by side in the early days of RED, and no body could pick which was what.
When graded and matched, no one one can tell.
People keep forgetting that most 35mm films that have huge amounts of CG shots or digital backgrounds added and matched to the original film plates. Again no one can tell.

..use both film and digital...keep them both evolving and competitive..

the winner of the CAMERIMAGE awards in Poland this year was shot on super 16mm


tarantino...living the dream...nice!

 

[Demetri Zuev]

It's not just about sharpness and all

[video=youtube;SGg2N32Z-co]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SGg2N32Z-co[/video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SGg2N32Z-co

They are making an event out of it in which 65mm film acquisition and 70mm film projection plays a big part.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Tarantino is unabashed film purist, pain and simple. And unlike many, he actually puts his money where his mouth is. He actually owns a film theater in LA, where they show movies on film only. There is another movie theater a block away from me, that also shows old movies using film projectors. There are always long lines to see those movies. There are people who simply don't care about resolution. They just want see films the way the Director and DP created them. 70mm is a medium format film. Again, it has nothing to do with resolution, but with the medium format you get the medium format look. Anyone can immediately see the difference between medium format and even the FF. They just look different, even if people seeing those images know nothing about MTF. Also, I would be extremely surprised, if Hateful 8 was scanned at 2K. That would make no sense, even if DCP was 2k (was it?). And yes, Alexa 65 has pretty much the same sensor size as a 65mm film image. Unfortunately, Weapon VV image is smaller than that.
Regardless, I'm planing to see Hateful 8 in glorious 70mm, just the way Mr. Tarantino intended it...

Agree, if you want a big backplane alexa XL is as good as it gets if you limit your self to shoot digital, Tarantino simply has no need to limit him self to that, he is not the one who need to worry about the raw film or lab costs or the struggle it takes to actually handle those cameras that comes with it.
I think he and a lot of directors with him actually like the camera team to be slowed down by the weight and the struggle that comes with changing mags, rigging those cameras etc. It gives him that additional time to reflect, talk it trough with the actors and the whole approach very much keeps everyone on edge. And simply there is no digitalsensor available at that size.

Its easy to forget that backplane size compared to the object shot makes huge difference I think that alone is very much a valid reason for him. Then also who would not want to shot with those lenses etc I think he way past a point where the cost of it all makes any difference. He simply want too squeeze in a few "ben hur´s" caliber films to his resume, and using the most bad ass format available at the time. and Tarantino use classic techniques it´s more about large gear heads and cranes with operator sitting on top then reaching for a DJI ronin or such. So for him I think it´s an excellent choice not to mention the marketing boost it gives.... Next trick he can pull in that category would be to shoot his next flick on a VHS camera, that would then cause quite a stir as well

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

The countless times I have had film and RED mixed side by side in the early days of RED, and no body could pick which was what.
When graded and matched, no one one can tell.

Having matched this to that a few times...something from less number-focused perspective:

Picking and analysis is a rational activity, requiring sensibility and ability to perceive and focus on a specific factor. In this context this is a domain of an imaging specialist who knows what to look for and can perceive it. Outside of that domain, specific impression of an analog medium is in subtleties, many of which are beyond the range of ability to pin-point the exact factor just by directly experiencing it. In many cases even for an imaging specialist.

You would not be able to differentiate between neighboring color tonalities in 16 million color palette of 8 bit color sampling, let alone billion of those in 10 bit sampling, but you shoot using 16 bit A/D with 16 bit capable container, offering potential 282 trillion.
The difference in immediate impression between 10 bit and 16 bit A/D sampled image (DR factor excluded), although technically enormous, visually is practically imperceivable. It is out of the rational domain.
Yet it is there. You feel it.

Had your test group experienced longer lasting motion sequences instead of a frame grab the results might have differed, especially if seen on a cinema projector.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

You are not wrong. One thing I don't get is the Ultra Panavision format. I mean, damn, that's too wide for my taste. Keep it to 5-perf 65mm, I say.

I think I would be happy to shoot on RED and then print to film - if I had to. If I had to shoot an IMAX film I'd probably shoot it with a RED VV Dragon. Probably.

The countless times I have had film and RED mixed side by side in the early days of RED, and no body could pick which was what.
When graded and matched, no one one can tell.

Well, if you couldn't tell, it was probably because the RED footage was printed onto film. Or maybe it wasn't. Film comes into its own in certain situations more than others. It also depends how you're handling it. Scanning the camera negative? Or a second generation interpositive? Or a third generation internegative?

I've seen, and been able to compare, quite a few movies now, shot on RED, Sony, Arri, 3-perf, 4-perf. All on DVD as I don't have an HD or 4K TV. But the playing field is the same. And all the 35mm films look better (but the TV mini-series, Secret State, was shot on RED ONEs and was very close to 35mm).

I haven't seen an Alexa feature that looks as good as either RED or 35mm. Downton Abbey does look nice, don't get me wrong, but it could look a bit better. Almost all episodes of Inspector Morse look better. That was shot on 16mm - back then they didn't have the VISION stocks that they do now, and they are not only nice to look at but surprisingly sharp. If you think that grain and colour are the only things that make film different from digital, then I will disagree with you.

I'm not against digital at all - thank God for digital cameras! Thank God for affordable, superior digital movie cameras by RED!

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

I think he and a lot of directors with him actually like the camera team to be slowed down by the weight and the struggle that comes with changing mags, rigging those cameras etc. It gives him that additional time to reflect, talk it trough with the actors and the whole approach very much keeps everyone on edge. And simply there is no digitalsensor available at that size.
)

Good post, Björn. Miss 35mm, the myth, the fear of the black picture in the telecine, the spinning groundglass, the vibrating camera. Loved the BL3 most of all cameras. Technically the Dragon is much better, Alexa too. Since 2008 I shoot mostly digital, own a Dragon, spend the saved money into talent, production value is higher today. Things Tarantino has not to think about.

Hans

 

[Glen Powell]

But I then I notice the ever apparent film grain in the darker areas... ??? Ok.. 65mm Film. I shot 35mm for more than 15 years and could see grain from time to time, but why is 65mm with 4x bigger frame still have grain so obvious ? .. Ok maybe they were shooting 800ASA stock ? I don't know. ?

I've read multiple places that they shot Kodak Vision3: 200T 5213 and 500T 5219 - If that's the case I imagine that the day exteriors were probably 250D 5207?

If I can get to a 70mm screening, I have to believe that this will be fantastic visually to watch... and probably too long by half from a story / content perspective. Thankfully there will be an intermission for the 70mm screenings.

We obsess over the capture part of the equation here on RU, when a huge part of the experience is the in theatre projection. This is the part that lets us down again and again; dirty screen, off/white screen, low power projector bulb to save money, scratched prints, improper focus / alignment of projector lens, etc, etc. Since the distributor is making such a fuss about the roadshow screenings... they'll probably (possibly, hopefully) be done right.

 

[Milano Questa]

Shouldn't you wait for the film's release before making a judgement on film quality? I'm pretty sure 65mm has more resolution to offer than any digital cine camera out there.

 

[Martin Stevens]

My take on the Film vs Digital debate is that a great deal of the issues people have about it often come from "social/psychological imprinting".

If Tarantino was born today, he might end up loving digital imagery because he was exposed and imprinted with that image first.

I personally LOVE film, as most of my favorite motion pictures were shot on film. And, I am glad that Kubrick shot "2001: a Space Odyssey"
on 65mm film and not digital. And, I am beyond happy that "Schindler's List" was shot on film. However, I would shoot on film if I were making
a WWII type of film today, but if I were shooting a science fiction film, I would shoot digital.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Mark, in end, I think people do what they know best and are most comfortable with. All of us have some degree of resistance to change in our lives, we just have different sensibilities about where we will embrace it and where we will fight it. The film die-hards who can still afford to shoot film will keep it alive until they retire. It will take the passing of generation to get to the point where film is essentially gone; relegated to "experimental" and "special purpose" use. Meanwhile, we can be thankful that there ar good storytellers in both camps and enjoy the ride.

 

[Lakis Amarantithis]

If film is so good why Kodak went out of business? And why all you guys use Reds? And for every "Mr. Tarantino" why there are another 300 respectful film makers who use digital? Are all those idiots and Tarantino is the "purist"?

 

[Björn Benckert]

We can argue back and forth as much as we like but he already won... We all will have a special urge to see that film, if its to see if it looks better the same or worse than digital and so will many others, when searching on the title for the film there is more hits than anything and all regarding the film format... So by adding the little tiny difference in cost and problems not only does he get the crowd for the film to go see it, and the news papers to write about it and us to discuss it here... I think also he get the actors more eager to participate. Chances are this is the last film done on that format and from looking at that Samuel L Jackson youtube link he actually look like he is atleast a little bit excited about it, or is it him just acting.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I think we can all agree that digital is here to stay. Filmmakers are embracing it, perhaps a few reluctantly. Pros and cons to both formats and obviously there are differences within each format, so it's often a bit more complex than film vs digital generalities. I do love film. Just got a roll of Tri-X back and I shot these on an old Pentax system with a broken meter so I missed exposure and yet the photos have a look to them that is very different than anything I have shot digitally. Film captures the world differently. Now is that difference able to justify its existence? I think that's why most of us do what we do. We like to create. We find the tools, the colors, the textures that allow us to create and tell stories in our unique way. I remember seeing 2001 in a special 70mm screening in Boston. It was amazing. But there will be amazing digital 65mm films as well. I agree with Martin that a lot of this is how we are conditioned. Had we been brought up on digital and then film was introduced, what would our preference be?

Anyway, I need to check out this movie.