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

[PatrickFaith]

I'm kind of in the mode of doing the highest quality work I can do within my budget and skills in the craft. BUT shooting 70mm isfor sure on my bucket list, but the following requirements for shooting 70mm film I'd need: All the FX would be done with practicals I had a nice two person 75 foot crane for the cinematographer and AC to sit on, I'd need actors that would just hit their marks and have first takes being money shots, I'd need script that made sense and I wasn't working things out on the fly, I wouldn't do a DI but would cut/edit it myself directly on the film with an old timer, I'd have glass that had an insane vibe.

I lost some 70mm clips I had of 2001 on a move awhile ago, really bums me out. I just loved rolling that film through my hands, at 70mm you could easily see the shot just looking at it as I held up the film to a white panel. But anytime soon, I'm not going to have a great set, will do most things with green screens. To me (the sets) is the big expense of doing film, only reason why is to get the real texture of the actors and real sets, also completely having every shot perfected in pre production ... so every performance counted (i.e. no retakes). I doubt this will ever happen for me, if I had the chance for such a film I'd grab it in a second. But I think I'll probably be able to get 90% there on a 8k weapon, and I'll be able to do that next year.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

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.

Well of course, because the feeling fuels the creation and technical part is just its rational tool.

In camera/medium differentiation that is also because a) some of those have not been technically quantified or standardized and b) some cannot be due to limitations of technology.
I'd also say some lie beyond the rational domain.

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.

It may not affect your choices, it may affect choices of others.

We have reached a level where the differences are irrelevant because they are so technical and small.

No they are not irrelevant because they are small.

They may be beyond rational perception and practical quantification because they are small. They may be irrelevant to some, even many, but that doesn't make them irrelevant to all.

Beauty lies in subtleties.

 

[Brett Harrison]

No they are not irrelevant because they are small.

They may be beyond rational perception and practical quantification because they are small.

That does not make them irrelevant.
Beauty lies in subtleties.

Well put. Perhaps it's because the details are subtle that they affect us on a deep level - they slip past our conscious awareness. 'God is in the details'.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

It may not affect your choices, it may affect choices of others.

Yes it might, or maybe it's that self-delusion. Especially when I've never met a person that can tell the difference between what's shot on Dragon, Alexa or film when actually sitting down in the threatre watching a finished movie. If they do spot the difference it's either because the DOP or post production wasn't good enough.

No they are not irrelevant because they are small.

They may be beyond rational perception and practical quantification because they are small. They may be irrelevant to some, even many, but that doesn't make them irrelevant to all.

Beauty lies in subtleties.

So the camera is doing the job for you? Both Alexa and Dragon is nothing without color grading, the same as film is nothing without developing the neg. The manipulation of the image in color grading is destroying most of those subtleties. I garantuee you that you can't spot the difference if you go watch a movie shot and post produced well. What I mean is that if people put so much energy into such minor technical differences they loose on what the different cameras actually bring to the table. Like the resolution, the size of the camera, the way it handles on set etc. There are far more important aspects to each of these cameras that how they handle the image is so minor that it shouldn't be the primary reason to choose either format, especially since those differences are so minor that most professionals can't even spot the difference and the audience doesn't give a damn.

Choose based on you shooting style and workflow, not based on the images, because no real professional shooting digital for the film industry does it without color grading and mastering.


I clearly see that my point got lost here. I've been doing mixed camera projects and people can't see the difference. Whenever some finished product is shown to people, even experts, they miss which is which. My point is still that TODAY it doesn't matter what camera you choose since the end quality is so similar, the sensors are so good and organic and better than film on a pure technical point that the end result ends up similar whatever you choose to film on. My point being that it comes down to what you do with the image creatively, not technically. If there were notable differences, why can't anyone see the difference in a finished film?

 

[Brett Harrison]

I think you missed the point that Hrvoje was making, and I think that colourists are a great example because they deal in adjustments so minor that a lot of people sitting right there wont see the difference, but once a colourist makes enough of these barely perceptible changes and they layer these changes together just-so, it amounts to a difference of nothing and everything. The point is that 'noticing the difference' and being affected by the difference are two different things.

I think you're arguing at the same purpose actually and it's a difference of terms - I think on the whole you're saying it's more to do with the people involved than the tools because of the subtly they impart, and others are saying simply that subtly is king and that the medium imparts subtly. I have to differ with you that colouring 'destroys' the differences. Colouring subsumes the details - a colourist usually talks pains not to erase the texture and nuance of the source material.

The post process is so powerful and nuanced now that it can also impart those details that mean everything, but so does the imaging device and the colour science that goes into it. In the end we're only as good as the tools that we use (you can't feed a script through a projector) so there's really no distinguishing between great engineering and great use of that engineering when considering the final product - it's all a continuum.

Yes it might, or maybe it's that self-delusion. Especially when I've never met a person that can tell the difference between what's shot on Dragon, Alexa or film when actually sitting down in the threatre watching a finished movie. If they do spot the difference it's either because the DOP or post production wasn't good enough.




So the camera is doing the job for you? Both Alexa and Dragon is nothing without color grading, the same as film is nothing without developing the neg. The manipulation of the image in color grading is destroying most of those subtleties. I garantuee you that you can't spot the difference if you go watch a movie shot and post produced well. What I mean is that if people put so much energy into such minor technical differences they loose on what the different cameras actually bring to the table. Like the resolution, the size of the camera, the way it handles on set etc. There are far more important aspects to each of these cameras that how they handle the image is so minor that it shouldn't be the primary reason to choose either format, especially since those differences are so minor that most professionals can't even spot the difference and the audience doesn't give a damn.

Choose based on you shooting style and workflow, not based on the images, because no real professional shooting digital for the film industry does it without color grading and mastering.


I clearly see that my point got lost here. I've been doing mixed camera projects and people can't see the difference. Whenever some finished product is shown to people, even experts, they miss which is which. My point is still that TODAY it doesn't matter what camera you choose since the end quality is so similar, the sensors are so good and organic and better than film on a pure technical point that the end result ends up similar whatever you choose to film on. My point being that it comes down to what you do with the image creatively, not technically. If there were notable differences, why can't anyone see the difference in a finished film?

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Yes it might, or maybe it's that self-delusion. Especially when I've never met a person that can tell the difference between what's shot on Dragon, Alexa or film when actually sitting down in the threatre watching a finished movie. If they do spot the difference it's either because the DOP or post production wasn't good enough.

I find this hard to believe, I make mistakes now and then but generally speaking I can tell the difference between something shot on Alexa, Dragon or film. The individual cameras do have reasonably distinct textures to them especially when you are familiar with them.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I still find this debate to be rather ostentatious, and maybe that is Toia's point as well. Do illustrators argue about which paper is superior based upon it's tooth and thickness, or do they revel in exploring a myriad of paper choices? It is a personal choice and nobody is wed to a single tool. Enjoy them all for what they are. I really don't think there is an empirical answer to the which is best question.

 

[Joe Taylor]

In December's writeup in American Cinematographer, they talk about the 120 70mm projectors that have been completely rebuilt from scratch. I'm hoping this will kickstart a new revolution.

 

[Glen Powell]

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.

They are rebuilding and installing the projectors for this release from scratch - not using gear that's already in the booth. After the run the projectors will leave and go into storage until... I guess the next Star Wars if rumours are to be believed?

 

[Mark Toia]

At the end of the day the FILM & DIGITAL debate will run wild for many years to come.

Why... because like music, The "LOOK" of film and Digital is always going to be subjective opinion.

I like the color GREEN, You like BLUE, I like JAZZ you like HIP HOP, ... Everyone has an opinion about what makes them feel good or what looks good. in their own eyes.

Almost everyone in tis discussion agrees that DIGITAL especially 6k and D65 Is sharper, cleaner, smoother, crisper and pretty much has stolen the DR race from FILM. And being a FILM user for close to 20 years shooting everything from 10x8 inche sheet film down to 16mm I can confirm this.

Film has a "LOOK" and no one can argue that. It does have an organic grain that bubbles away softly over the moving images, there is a charming flicker that seems to be more than what you get from Digital. You can see occasionally little flicks of hair, tiny scratches, jitter, blurry neg pops, aperture pops on roll and cuts, it's all these little imperfections that make it what it is and that's what gives it it's charm, look and feel that people miss or strive for.

The other side of film is the love of the process of shooting, the skill that's needed to shoot it well, Being able to master the light and colour meter. You are using the most colour baked format going, you have to run filteration over your lights or lenes to counteract mixed colour temperature in some scenes. You have to decide to use daylight or tungsten sources to suite your film stock choice. The technical and mechanical knowledge needed to make it all work is far beyond those skills need to shoot Digital.
There is even the love (or fear) of hearing that you may have a scratch or a light leak in the mornings neg report, the excited anticipation of getting dailies that are 24 hours and two couriers away. The fun of sitting in the telecine with a cup of coffee watching the colourists assistant lace up the 1200 foot lap rolls, watching the image pop up onto the monitor with a clickity clack of the sprockets ticking away as the colorist pushes the roll button and watching the count down leader spool through. 3- 2- 1 PICTURE START.
All this is part of the charm of shooting film that makes people feel special inside.

For me... No. I'm done with film an happily moving on. But I do look back at my time with film with a smile. it was fun, it did teach me how to be a better digital cinematographer. Till this day still only shoot as much digital minutes as I did film. I still run my shoots as if I'm still shooting film, I still light as I did with film. (just less wattage now) Shooting film taught me many valuable disciplines and methods that are long missing on many sets these days, These disciplines have made me a better cinematographer and I'll aways thank the FILM process for those skills.

Long live the legacy of KODAK and FUJI.

 

[Andy White]

At the end of the day the FILM & DIGITAL debate will run wild for many years to come.

Why... because like music, The "LOOK" of film and Digital is always going to be subjective opinion.

I like the color GREEN, You like BLUE, I like JAZZ you like HIP HOP, ... Everyone has an opinion about what makes them feel good or what looks good. in their own eyes.

Almost everyone in tis discussion agrees that DIGITAL especially 6k and D65 Is sharper, cleaner, smoother, crisper and pretty much has stolen the DR race from FILM. And being a FILM user for close to 20 years shooting everything from 10x8 inche sheet film down to 16mm I can confirm this.

Film has a "LOOK" and no one can argue that. It does have an organic grain that bubbles away softly over the moving images, there is a charming flicker that seems to be more than what you get from Digital. You can see occasionally little flicks of hair, tiny scratches, jitter, blurry neg pops, aperture pops on roll and cuts, it's all these little imperfections that make it what it is and that's what gives it it's charm, look and feel that people miss or strive for.

The other side of film is the love of the process of shooting, the skill that's needed to shoot it well, Being able to master the light and colour meter. You are using the most colour baked format going, you have to run filteration over your lights or lenes to counteract mixed colour temperature in some scenes. You have to decide to use daylight or tungsten sources to suite your film stock choice. The technical and mechanical knowledge needed to make it all work is far beyond those skills need to shoot Digital.
There is even the love (or fear) of hearing that you may have a scratch or a light leak in the mornings neg report, the excited anticipation of getting dailies that are 24 hours and two couriers away. The fun of sitting in the telecine with a cup of coffee watching the colourists assistant lace up the 1200 foot lap rolls, watching the image pop up onto the monitor with a clickity clack of the sprockets ticking away as the colorist pushes the roll button and watching the count down leader spool through. 3- 2- 1 PICTURE START.
All this is part of the charm of shooting film that makes people feel special inside.

For me... No. I'm done with film an happily moving on. But I do look back at my time with film with a smile. it was fun, it did teach me how to be a better digital cinematographer. Till this day still only shoot as much digital minutes as I did film. I still run my shoots as if I'm still shooting film, I still light as I did with film. (just less wattage now) Shooting film taught me many disciplines and methods that are long missing on many sets these days, These disciplines have made me better over cinematographer and I'll aways thank the FILM process for those skills.

Long live the legacy of KODAK and FUJI.

Quoted for full agreement

 

[Al Lougher]

I tell you what though, there's nothing that bursts the bubble of watching a "movie" more than the windows desktop accidentally popping up before the movie begins.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Yes it might, or maybe it's that self-delusion.

Two options for consideration, of higher probability for self-delusion concerning these matters:

Option A:
Filmmakers with decades of film making, responsible for large figure projects, able to test and use any tool they choose

Option B:
Digital camera owners

Before knee jerk reactions, not uncommon on forums, it would be beneficial to mention that I fit the second category of this simplified example.

Especially when I've never met a person that can tell the difference between what's shot on Dragon, Alexa or film when actually sitting down in the threatre watching a finished movie.

So - your argument is based on the assumption that the sensibility and criteria of everyone on the planet matches your experience.

If they do spot the difference it's either because the DOP or post production wasn't good enough.

So - "it doesn't matter what you use" but "DOP or post weren't good enough".

The manipulation of the image in color grading is destroying most of those subtleties.

That depends on a grading goal, technique and who's doing it.

I garantuee you that you can't spot the difference if you go watch a movie shot and post produced well.

The point you are attempting to make was visible in your first post.
Suggesting me what I am or I am not capable of is not helping in achieving that goal.

In order to be able to spot the difference one would need to analyze same sequences of different origin.
Sequences. Not frame grabs. If there is no material to compare there is no difference to observe.

Btw, I've already written why this approach for making a distinction is partial and insufficient.

What I mean is that if people put so much energy into such minor technical differences they loose on what the different cameras actually bring to the table. Like the resolution, the size of the camera, the way it handles on set etc.

Perhaps they just have a different set of criteria ?

There are far more important aspects to each of these cameras that how they handle the image is so minor that it shouldn't be the primary reason to choose either format, especially since those differences are so minor that most professionals can't even spot the difference and the audience doesn't give a damn.

These are your preferred aspects and reasons.
Don't see the problem in those or others.

The audience doesn't make movies.

Choose based on you shooting style and workflow, not based on the images, because no real professional shooting digital for the film industry does it without color grading and mastering.

You are suggesting that the choice of the image acquisition tool should not be based on the imagery it captures ?

My point is still that TODAY it doesn't matter what camera you choose since the end quality is so similar,

You mean it doesn't matter to you.

the sensors are so good and organic and better than film on a pure technical point

I'm allowing myself to conclude that by this you mean the technical points you perceive.

If one would rely only on technical points to make decisions.

that the end result ends up similar whatever you choose to film on.

And similar is not the same.

My point being that it comes down to what you do with the image creatively, not technically.

One inch above you used "technical" to fit your argument. Here you are dismissing it to fit that same argument.

While ignoring the fact that the visual creation experienced in the cinema relies on both the "feel" (beyond rational) and technical (rational) part.

If there were notable differences, why can't anyone see the difference in a finished film?

Because:

a) visual faculties differ
b) finished film doesn't offer multiple acquisition medium material variants for audience's comparison,
c) viewers watch the story primarily

 

[Glen Powell]

Hmmm - I think I'll unsub from this thread; it's run it's course.

 

[Elsie N]

At the end of the day the FILM & DIGITAL debate will run wild for many years to come.

Why... because like music, The "LOOK" of film and Digital is always going to be subjective opinion.

I like the color GREEN, You like BLUE, I like JAZZ you like HIP HOP, ... Everyone has an opinion about what makes them feel good or what looks good. in their own eyes.

Almost everyone in tis discussion agrees that DIGITAL especially 6k and D65 Is sharper, cleaner, smoother, crisper and pretty much has stolen the DR race from FILM. And being a FILM user for close to 20 years shooting everything from 10x8 inche sheet film down to 16mm I can confirm this.

Film has a "LOOK" and no one can argue that. It does have an organic grain that bubbles away softly over the moving images, there is a charming flicker that seems to be more than what you get from Digital. You can see occasionally little flicks of hair, tiny scratches, jitter, blurry neg pops, aperture pops on roll and cuts, it's all these little imperfections that make it what it is and that's what gives it it's charm, look and feel that people miss or strive for.

The other side of film is the love of the process of shooting, the skill that's needed to shoot it well, Being able to master the light and colour meter. You are using the most colour baked format going, you have to run filteration over your lights or lenes to counteract mixed colour temperature in some scenes. You have to decide to use daylight or tungsten sources to suite your film stock choice. The technical and mechanical knowledge needed to make it all work is far beyond those skills need to shoot Digital.
There is even the love (or fear) of hearing that you may have a scratch or a light leak in the mornings neg report, the excited anticipation of getting dailies that are 24 hours and two couriers away. The fun of sitting in the telecine with a cup of coffee watching the colourists assistant lace up the 1200 foot lap rolls, watching the image pop up onto the monitor with a clickity clack of the sprockets ticking away as the colorist pushes the roll button and watching the count down leader spool through. 3- 2- 1 PICTURE START.
All this is part of the charm of shooting film that makes people feel special inside.

For me... No. I'm done with film an happily moving on. But I do look back at my time with film with a smile. it was fun, it did teach me how to be a better digital cinematographer. Till this day still only shoot as much digital minutes as I did film. I still run my shoots as if I'm still shooting film, I still light as I did with film. (just less wattage now) Shooting film taught me many valuable disciplines and methods that are long missing on many sets these days, These disciplines have made me a better cinematographer and I'll aways thank the FILM process for those skills.

Long live the legacy of KODAK and FUJI.

Mark, I think you've captured the essence of the film/digital debate. Unlike you, many who have spent untold hours learning and in some cases mastering film are desperately trying to maintain the value of that skill.

And some like me who have never worked with film can shoot digital because it is easy enough to learn so that we can put something on screen without making a fool of ourselves. And many of us are trying to do what the old film shooters did... that is, we try to make what we do more valuable by becoming immersed in the whole movie-making process. Someday we will be devalued because software will do whatever we do, that might make us stand-out.

If we adapt, as you have done by embracing digital over film, then we can still retain some relevancy. If not, we'll become the same deniers of whatever comes in the future as the Tarantinos of film are deniers of digital today.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Here's a reality check. I was just at Pinewood UK yesterday. They told us they have the only film scanner in the UK at the moment in large part due to a group of Hollywood film directors such as Eastwood, Tarantino, Scorcese, and Abrams all committing to 35MM to shoot their films. So they've invested in cameras and telecines and are even training a new generation of people to handle film because these people are specifically asking for it. So it is certainly not going away...and the seven filmmakers all said yes, if you invest in hanging onto 35MM through the pipeline we too will invest in it. Of course with their films money is no object so it's an easy decision...although if I had the choice I would probably shoot digital just because the resolution and dynamic range is there, and comparable and perhaps better than film.

 

[M Most]

Here's a reality check. I was just at Pinewood UK yesterday. They told us they have the only film scanner in the UK at the moment ...

There are at least 3 or 4 companies doing scanning in London alone.

 

[Elsie N]

Here's a reality check. I was just at Pinewood UK yesterday. They told us they have the only film scanner in the UK at the moment in large part due to a group of Hollywood film directors such as Eastwood, Tarantino, Scorcese, and Abrams all committing to 35MM to shoot their films. So they've invested in cameras and telecines and are even training a new generation of people to handle film because these people are specifically asking for it. So it is certainly not going away...and the seven filmmakers all said yes, if you invest in hanging onto 35MM through the pipeline we too will invest in it. Of course with their films money is no object so it's an easy decision...although if I had the choice I would probably shoot digital just because the resolution and dynamic range is there, and comparable and perhaps better than film.

The really good part of this is that there is no direct competition between film and digital. There's not even an exhibition competition between the two as either can be shown in just about any modern day theater.

The only competition between the two platforms seems to be between the different groups of advocates.

 

[Malik Tigrine]

I have often heard people say that the RED imagery "has no soul". Maybe this is why FILM Industry persists.

 

[dio Zafi]

in some commercials I worked on ...it's also cost...alexa rental and post vs film 35mm or 16mm...with a can of film your getting your archive material and look ( so film is cheaper vs alexa )