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

[David Battistella]

I think I'd rather try to restore film than 3/4" or 1/2" video tape or hard drives. If you think that there is no "digital erosion and bits lost, then, well, I don't know...

i think ink ill just step out of this discussion, I find these X vs. Y discussions a tad boring.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

i think ink ill just step out of this discussion, I find these X vs. Y discussions a tad boring.

I agree, unless there are some examples to look at and compare. Does anyone have any 70mm frames that have been scanned at high resolution? All I have is one of those Interstellar 70mm cells from a film print.

Having studied my grandfather's post WWII photos he took while he was in Germany with the Marshall Plan, there are things about film that are very unique. Add in the lenses of the era, processing labs, etc. it all becomes another world not easy to replicate. He passed recently, and his cameras he used to capture amazing things like Mercedes Benz factories post WWII are heading my way. I had the photos in my possession but they are temporarily being stored at another relatives at the moment. When I get them back, I will scan and publish them.

I think posting some examples, exploring the unique qualities of each format is more interesting than a simple one is better than the other statement. For example, I've always been curious why film seems to have focus falloff more naturally, smoothly than digital. Especially in medium format film. For example, have a look here http://www.nickbrandt.com/portfolio.cfm?nK=7617&nS=0&i=219173#image-1

The good thing is, these are early days of digital. In fact, will digital be supplanted by some other future technology? Who knows, but I think embracing what is here and now, while respecting and learning from the past is not a bad way to go. I love that the option to shoot film still exists. But I would be naive to think it will be easily accessible ten years from now.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Here's a (partial, unsubstantiated) listing of theatres showing the 70mm print on Christmas day:

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm

It has to be partial since there are no listings for cities like New York or Toronto where there are 70mm houses and most likely ticket demand. The link also has lots of geeky info about the 'struggle' to show a film print in 2015.

Hard to believe that all of those Bay Area listings are accurate. I've only ever seen 70mm (15perf IMAX or 5 perf spherical Super Panavision, never Ultra Panavision) at either The Castro or The Metreon. Pretty sure The Kabuki at least is now all digital. I once had the pleasure of screening a 35mm camera test for director and crew there years ago, as our Best Boy electric was also a projectionist there.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

... I've always been curious why film seems to have focus falloff more naturally, smoothly than digital. Especially in medium format film. For example, have a look here http://www.nickbrandt.com/portfolio.cfm?nK=7617&nS=0&i=219173#image-1

A lot of it is due to the binary nature of digital imaging versus the randomized nature of film grain imaging. Leads to softer edge transitions frame to frame for motion pictures. For stills, I think the fact that film grains don't require telecentric light rays to produce a response probably leads to lower contrast edges around in-focus objects, lowering the impression of edge sharpness. Then you have microscopically imperfect registration, microscopically imperfect focus on the RGB sensitive layers in the film, imperfect anti-halation protection from the backing, motion blur from a mechanical shutter, and so on. The beauty is a cumulative effect of technical imperfections.

 

[Martin Stevens]

The beauty is a cumulative effect of technical imperfections.

I love this statement. After all, the cumulative effect of imperfections is what makes art, evolution and humans.

 

[Brett Harrison]

I love this statement. After all, the cumulative effect of imperfections is what makes art, evolution and humans.

"People call these things imperfections but they're not, ohh that's the good stuff" - Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting.

I think the ever-growing art and science of digital image processing is beginning to add the sorely-missed complexity and richness of the silver halide medium.

 

[Stacey Spears]

I remember driving to Westwood (From West Covina) just to see Far and Away in 70mm when it opened. I fully plan to see this in 70mm too. I have posted before about how blown away I was from the opening of the Dark Knight in a real IMAX theater. The bank robbery scene was something to experience.

I don't get Tarantino's love for VHS. He commented on not watching streaming because of quality concerns and then he goes out of his way to buy out all the VHS tapes from his old video store and watches them.

 

[Mark Toia]

We can all agree the Quinton Tarantino is passionately crazy. But at the same time, that's what makes him so unique.
You have to love his energy and devotion to the past. I find it humorously indeering.
My love and hate for his films is not what he shot his images on, I honestly couldn't give a rats what camera film or stock he used. but the execution and story lines are what capture my attention . His script / screenplays just dribble out of him onto paper. ( I've heard him say ). I'd love to sit in a room and watch him write. He thinks pages ahead of most writers. That's a doco in itself.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I remember driving to Westwood (From West Covina) just to see Far and Away in 70mm when it opened. I fully plan to see this in 70mm too. I have posted before about how blown away I was from the opening of the Dark Knight in a real IMAX theater. The bank robbery scene was something to experience.

I don't get Tarantino's love for VHS. He commented on not watching streaming because of quality concerns and then he goes out of his way to buy out all the VHS tapes from his old video store and watches them.

It's a collectability thing, I don't think he watches VHS tapes because they are analogue I think it's just a physical piece of history to own, he has a collection of movies on film too 16mm and 35mm prints etc and usually watches movies that way apparently.
Since he also collects DVDs I can only assume he has Blu-ray as well.

 

[Elsie N]

Speaking of collectability, buy this on ebay and roll your own 70mm.

 

[David Battistella]

Interesting.

Looks like a film can going into that vault.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/11/26/john-malkoviche-seen-in-2015/

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I believe we've entered a time when comparisons doesn't matter anymore. Dragon, Arri etc. achieve so much image information that whenever we have the means to look at an image that presents the limits of the sensors it will far surpass film by technological capability to human eye-capabilities.

We will never be able to compare film and digital on a pure mathematical level. It's like the difference between the real world and a digital world, a painted brush stroke of real pigments compared to a digital high resolution brush stroke based on math. The more complex the math of the digital becomes, the closer to reality it becomes, but even if a digital world becomes on the level of "The Matrix", it will still be based on digital math instead of organic chaos and quantum mechanics.

The bottom line is that we can simulate film to the level that it surpass film, but comparing them is quite irrelevant. At this time in cinematic history, digital cinema is really on par with film, there's no questions about it. People can't see the difference when looking at the final film and even experts can't see the difference if they aren't pixel peeping it.

Right now, it's more about a questions of what you like to work with. Tarantino loves film, it might be the feel, the tempo, the nostalgic feeling that makes him want to go down that road. James Cameron might like the possibilities of creating a purely digital world and make a movie "within it". David Fincher might like the total control of using a high resolution sensor to manipulate the image down to individual pixels.

The reasons to use different cameras doesn't seem to be about the actual quality of the image anymore, it has to do with what type of filmmaker you are. I think most people just try to justify their own choice by trying to explain how their format is superior. "Alexa has the best organic looking digital image out there, go digital, don't loose the film feel", "Film is organic, it's the only thing that's real and what every digital format is trying to replicate without ever reaching it's quality", "Dragon is the highest resolution sensor to be able to capture most of how the world really looks, there's so much information and so many possibilities that film and Alexa can't even compete". Etc.
Every camera-user has their own explanation on why their choice is the best, but when it comes down to it, it's superficial. We choose what feels best for what we do. I'm more at home with the Fincher-esque style of production, I want to have as much possibilities as possible in post, I don't want to limit my resolution or field of view, I want to be in control, that's why I like Red. It's also that I don't have the money for Arri or real film. If I did, would I choose film? Probably not, because I'm not in control, it has nothing to do with the actual quality of film.

So... bottom line. The choice of a camera has nothing to do with the quality of the images to the actual filmmakers using them. That is an artificial thing, a self-delusion to justify the choice instead of just saying the real reason, what lies underneath your creative craft. I like control over the image and I like sharp high resolution images, that's why I shoot on Red. Also, Dragon makes color grading easier because of the more natural colors, it's not that MX was bad, it just took more time to work with, so I like Dragon colors more, they are better for control and the same reason r3d RAW is better for control. Yes, Alexa has raw, but looses in time consuming handling of those files. Less time equals less control.

So, I'm a control freak, that's why I use Red. Fast filmmakers who love film and want the same kind of quality but doesn't care for resolution or control over the image might choose Alexa, people who want the nostalgic feel of film, the time it takes on set and the way everything is handled compared to the sometimes stressful digital workflow might want to shoot on film.

My question is, are you REALLY choosing film, digital, Alexa or Red based on how the images look when color grading makes most of that irrelevant today? Or are you just giving yourself delusions over the reasons? Aren't your choice of format based on entirely other aspects than the technical ones?

People choose film because it "feels better", I think people, including themselves saying it, miss the fact that the "feel" has nothing to do with the image, it's purely "feel", one format "feels" better than the other, based on yourself, not some objective truth.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

My question is, are you REALLY choosing film, digital, Alexa or Red based on how the images look when color grading makes most of that irrelevant today?

Color grading does not make that all irrelevant.

Or are you just giving yourself delusions over the reasons?

There are many delusions in film making.
Domain of experienced filmmaker's tool choice is not a fertile ground for those.

People choose film because it "feels better", I think people, including themselves saying it, miss the fact that the "feel" has nothing to do with the image, it's purely "feel",

That's not a fact, that is your interpretation.

"Purely feel" is a natural reaction to a sensation. It is not a projection.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

That's not a fact, that is your interpretation.

"Purely feel" is a natural reaction to a sensation. It is not a projection.

The words I wrote worked in favor of film in that sentence. What I meant was that whatever format you choose it's because it feels right for you, not because of the mathematical and technical aspects of the actual image. Red feels right for me, 35mm for someone else, Alexa for a third party... it's never a choice based on the image you see in cinema, right now, at this time in film technology. We have reached a level where the differences are irrelevant because they are so technical and small. Right now, we choose based on what format that... feels right for ourselves.

 

[Robino_J]

I watched "The Danish Girl" this weekend and while most of it looked really great some of it looked like digital video. Mostly second unit / establishing shots with deep focus. Could be the grading, over sharpening or could be because of 2K blown up to a huge screen. I see this often. Everything is looking great then it looks like a GoPro.. sometimes because it's an actual GoPro. If this movie was shot on film it would have looked consistent throughout (unless there was some funky color work during DI)

About resolution during presentation, I'm so tired of seeing aliasing on titles and over sharpened shots. You won't see this on any film prints 70mm, 35mm, 16mm or 8mm. Most every theatres don't even care enough to let people know what kind of DCP they are presenting and most are 2K. I like to sit close - there should not be a visual penalty for sitting close, it should look perfect in every seat.

Spielberg, Tarantino, Nolan and the other film advocates out there are smart. When people are going to look back on their films & careers, their movies will stand out visually with that classic look, resolution (soft or sharp) and colors.

I wonder if Kubrick would have shot digitally if he had access to high end cinema cameras like Dragon? ...Maybe, he was a gadget and technology enthusiast after-all but I'm so glad he didn't.

 

[Emir Aksay]

Doesn't a 65mm film camera have more truer colors than a bayer pattern filter digital camera? I bet the next step for digital cameras would be this??

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The words I wrote worked in favor of film in that sentence. What I meant was that whatever format you choose it's because it feels right for you, not because of the mathematical and technical aspects of the actual image. Red feels right for me, 35mm for someone else, Alexa for a third party... it's never a choice based on the image you see in cinema, right now, at this time in film technology. We have reached a level where the differences are irrelevant because they are so technical and small. Right now, we choose based on what format that... feels right for ourselves.

But that sort of implies that no one is making the choice based on look, just gut feelings in the abstract with no testing or evaluation going on. I think many are basing their opinions on the look of the image, but they don't always know how to evaluate what they are looking at -- they see some movie timed for a washed-out and desaturated look and suddenly think "this camera creates washed-out and desaturated images" as if that were inherent to the camera. Sure, as artists they respond to images in idiosyncratic ways based on personal preferences, but that doesn't mean there is no intellectual process going on, that it is purely an emotional process.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Again, I don't see why one format has to WIN.

Film and digital both have their place.

Digital has proven it's here to stay.

But film remains a technical and emotional standard that is unique, and has stood the test of time (literally).

These are tools filmmakers use to recreate reality.

I think all of us are better for it when both formats stand side by side.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I watched "The Danish Girl" this weekend and while most of it looked really great some of it looked like digital video. Mostly second unit / establishing shots with deep focus. Could be the grading, over sharpening or could be because of 2K blown up to a huge screen. I see this often. Everything is looking great then it looks like a GoPro.. sometimes because it's an actual GoPro. If this movie was shot on film it would have looked consistent throughout (unless there was some funky colour work during DI)

I had a similar experience watching The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug in the theatre, though I didn't really have an issue with the 48 Frames per second but in the Barrel sequence there are shots which to me looked like they were intercutting someones Go Pro Water Rapids footage into this big budget feature film.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I had a similar experience watching The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug in the theatre, though I didn't really have an issue with the 48 Frames per second but in the Barrel sequence there are shots which to me looked like they were intercutting someones Go Pro Water Rapids footage into this big budget feature film.

True, but then you get a movie like "Diary of a Teenage Girl" (RED EPIC + Panavision C), and it looks totally organic, and never digital:

Or take any of Deakin's recent movies, "Skyfall", "Prisoners" or "Sicario" - none of these looked "digital" to me either; they were just epic cinema.

Sometimes it depends as much on WHO's doing the shooting, not WHAT they're shooting on.