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 :)

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

If your definition of a good image is just how sharp it is and how clean it is, then shoot digital and you'll be very happy.

Film has some unique image properties, though I think they are pretty subtle actually... some might think of them as artifacts.

The dynamic range of color negative and print film are pretty well-documented now. Since "Hateful Eight" is going through a 65mm photochemical finish, the digital version is not using any power windows or other corrections that can't be done for the print version, so the entire dynamic range of the negative won't be on display in the positive version, just as it can't if you make a contact print off of a negative -- you've got 14 or 15 stops truncated to around 10 or 11 stops in a print due the gamma needed to get good contrast on a screen.

Large format film photography has a look but it's not necessarily a technically flawless look, especially not if you use old anamorphic optics.

I've only seen the digital trailer for the movie in theaters and it looks quite lovely to my eyes.

We're getting to the point where defending film is a bit like defending a certain musical form like jazz -- if someone says "I don't like jazz" or "I don't get jazz", then describing all of its characteristics or properties isn't going to make that person suddenly enjoy something that they didn't enjoy before. Same goes for painting or any other art form -- they are limits to changing someone's mind who claims that they just don't see the value in some particular work of art.
 
He could have shot The Hateful Eight on a Fisher-Price Pixelvision camera, and hordes of people would fall all over themselves to see it.

When The Force is with you, it doesn't really matter too much what camera you shoot on, in this day and age. :conehead:

There's something about the nostalgia of the Western that makes it a nice pairing with film, though.
 
Sometimes I sense this "if you are for film, you have to be against digital" and "if you are for digital, you have to be against film" level of discussion going on, and I just don't get it. Digital is here, it has "won", film is more or less fading away, so the anti-film arguments get more and more silly over time, it's a bit like kicking an old lady.
 
Also, this is a trailer....and sometimes trailers go through their own separate post process. I'd reserve judgement until seeing Hatelful 8 in a 70mm theatre as Tarantino intended.
 
Nick Morrison said:
Also, this is a trailer....and sometimes trailers go through their own separate post process. I'd reserve judgement until seeing Hatelful 8 in a 70mm theatre as Tarantino intended.
Click to expand...

Also a trailer compressed and encoded for the Youtubes at that...
 
some just think that digital, especially RED digital, is too sharp and clean. the reason why many underpower their corrective glasses a tad, its just too much information. the hobbit movies looked horrible to the older crowd [35+], there was nothing to hide the flaws in the sets. directors who shoot on film just have a different aesthetic and this is more pronounced when you look at the majority of content shot on REDS, especially the low budget stuff.
 
Does anybody know if they have selected which theatres will be showing The Hateful Eight in 70mm? I recall reading months ago the Tarantino was helping install 70mm projection systems in select theatres.
 
I was at Cinegear over the summer and was lucky enough to see the Hateful 8 test footage projected in 70mm.

For me, the colors were the first thing that popped out at me. The greens from the trees and the oranges from the sunsets were stunning. Also, the scale of the format really helped portray the epic scale of the environment.

However, anytime a large part of the frame was pure white (like say the snow covered side of a mountain) the gate flicker was horrifically distracting (which doesn't bode well for a film that takes place mostly in snow).

I'm not a huge Tarantino fan but luckily I live in Los Angeles so I'll probably see it in both 70mm and digital and decide for myself.
 
...it's like I don't want to live in a country with only one political party...I want a choice..artistically and what's right for the job....I don't want a digital dictatorship where I don't have a choice anymore....that would really be awful
 
I got to see the 3.5 hour version with a 15 min intermission at the Irvine Spectrum in 70mm last week. Although I can't talk about the film yet I can say the look is absolutely fantastic, will see it again in 70mm as soon as I can. The only problem is your going to need a light saber to slash through the Star Wars fans wrapped around the theater on Christmas day to see it.
 
There is a lot of great replies here.

Passion for a particualr "LOOK" is obviously what ultimately drives people. Not Clarity, resolution, sharpness, colour or dynamic range.

Emotional connection for the idea of shooting film is another reason why people shoot it.

My post was questioning the reason why people opt for shooting FILM when there is no need to, but you have all shared with me valid reasons to why people should keep shooting film.

I need to reflect back on my very first Cinematography award some 20 years ago from a tv ad I shot on Video.. Everyone thought I'd shot on 16mm. Funny now when I think back.

Proves that Content is king nothing more, nothing less. And the "LOOK" is the cream on top.

To Tarantino, Cheers.

Thanks guys. Great replies.
 
And thank you for provoking the discussion!

Here are two films which are out now (or should be soon). They are different genres, with different lighting, different cameras, different lenses. Don't worry too much about acquisition - the point is that both have their positive qualities:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/mgm/spectre/

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/christmaseve/

Is one 'better' than the other? I think each look has merits. Soda water, beer, champagne are all carbonated, but they're all different. Nobody has to like all of them - or any of them. But it never hurts to try something new.
 
I can certainly understand the point you were trying to make, Mark... I recently saw "Spotlight" and thought the 35mm film format was a good choice to recreate that period, there was a nice texture to the image, not too sharp or clean... Then I found out it was shot on the Alexa. So even I was fooled.

But I still think there is a film look, even if it can copied to some extent. In 65mm in particular, there seems to be some nice color textures that are better resolved by the larger negative. I find 65mm film, ignoring cost and inconvenience, to be the best of both worlds -- the richness of film in terms of color, contrast, and skin tone, with the clarity of digital. On the other hand, most of us don't have the sort of budget to even consider 65mm film...
 
Cool info! Personally without knowing the speed of these old 65mm Panavision lenses, hard to make a call.. that could be the issue or maybe not ha.
I know the rehoused Arri Alexa 65 rental only lenses or very slow which are rehoused Hasselblads.
 
Brian Anderson said:
Cool info! Personally without knowing the speed of these old 65mm Panavision lenses, hard to make a call.. that could be the issue or maybe not ha.
I know the rehoused Arri Alexa 65 rental only lenses or very slow which are rehoused Hasselblads.
Click to expand...

Ive got a set of rehoused Hasselblad PL Glass, in a SHIFT TILT configuration, from 25mm upwards to 150 all F2 to 2.8
Creamy smooth awesomeness.

I should get them out of the cupboard more.

8K Vista will do, And if RED ever bring out a 65mm Sensor. (which honestly is not needed) Im set. :)
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I can certainly understand the point you were trying to make, Mark... I recently saw "Spotlight" and thought the 35mm film format was a good choice to recreate that period, there was a nice texture to the image, not too sharp or clean... Then I found out it was shot on the Alexa. So even I was fooled.

But I still think there is a film look, even if it can copied to some extent. In 65mm in particular, there seems to be some nice color textures that are better resolved by the larger negative. I find 65mm film, ignoring cost and inconvenience, to be the best of both worlds -- the richness of film in terms of color, contrast, and skin tone, with the clarity of digital. On the other hand, most of us don't have the sort of budget to even consider 65mm film...
Click to expand...


I like your replies David,
Always very knowledgeable, factual and straight to point.
 
I saw "Samsara" (shot on 65mm) projected at 4K and it looked SO GREAT. Sometimes I think guys like Tarantino are missing the boat with 4K and 4K laser projection. They are going to lose a lot of image quality making and sending out chemical film prints, when a 4K DCP will not have any analog image loss at all - no scratches, no generation loss, no image shake, etc.
 
Been Italian, and having grew up in the recoil of Spaghetti Westerns, Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia and the large series of Roman Epics, I had a true love affair with film...

It was the process...

Now I am a grown up, well partially any ways...

I still love everything about film, but the film process...

Digital has too much over Film is indisputable...

The love, the passion, the nostalgia, the what ever you wish to call it for Film, I can accept and understand, but Tarantino, is some times misunderstood, and many times misquoted by the press...

I love the guy, and love what it does and how it does, even so I wish it would do it on RED of course Weapon 8k preferably... :)

But I have in the most recent times been expose to a series of inner projects and tests that I no longer see the Film vs. Digital in the way I was seen it just few years back...

Digital has come aLONG way, and with the Weapon 8k, Arri 65 and others in the LARGER sensor then 35, I really see Digital gaining the extra ground in ways not possible before...

All about SENSOR size...

Same as I see happening form 35 to MF photography... Such different texture and fill to the imagery is not just anymore about sharpness, DOF, etc. it is about how grand the image fills and how more deep you get sucked in by it...

Film or Digital, I see the coming of what I have been waiting for a long time, 8K in larger sensor!

As for Tarantino, I love him, He loves Film which I don't hate, He hates Digital which I love, but He is a fellow Filmmaker, and respect his choices and simply as pointed out by many, Content is KEY...


Oh, one IMPORTANT factor here... As I see many talk about the greatness of FF lenses covering the 8K sensor... If you shoot 8K with MF glass it will have a different, very different impact on the visualization of your imagery... FACT... But if you like the look of lenses made for smaller sensor then ok go for it, just be aware that it is NOT the same...

Great Thread, love some of the replies!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top