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

[Satsuki Murashige]

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?

Ah, copy that. Haven't received my copy of the December AC yet. Thanks!

 

[Mark Phelan]

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.

What this guy said. Never mind the fact we're the same age, every, single, point he made I'm underscoring. I shot this past week using my dumpy old MX Epic, you know the one that eveyrone loves to hate now, and I was marveling at how great the footage looked, reminded me of the punchy reds of Fuji film. I'm happy as a clam with my camera as is. Heck, I was happy with the results from the R1. Just finished a project that combines footage shot in 2009 on my R1 along with footage from my MX Epic and Lael's Epic Dragon. It all looks outstanding.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

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

What's funnier, almost the same people will praise "true filmic images" when someone fools them with properly graded digital material, down to the grain and filmic curve. I've seen couple of such types in person and my God, when the trick is revealed, the rage is priceless. "B-b-but you still go through great pains to make digital shit appear like 10% of true film look". Yeah, yeah, whatever you say.

 

[jake blackstone]

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.

I hate to be a stickler for the details Mark, but unless you are talking about a rare Sony telecine, I'm not aware of any other popular telecine devices, be it Rank or Spirit, none of which had used sprockets for the film advancement. It was all capstain driven and hence, silent...

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

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

Those same people would love the RED if it cost $100,000 and had a 2K sensor. They'd probably say it has a 'silky', 'film-like' image. In fact, if RED priced the R1 at 1.5x the price of the Alexa, nobody would be renting the Alexa today.

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 )

Very interesting.

 

[Marc Wielage]

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.

I don't think it will create a revolution of new 70mm productions, but it is an interesting story. Here's some technical details about how they rounded up 120 projectors, trained people to operate them, and are now in the process of assembling together the massive 220-pound prints:

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

I think it's crazy and irrational to shoot a movie for 70mm release, but I also get a kick out of anybody who is this ambitious and ostentatious to actually do it and pull it off. As I keep saying: the audience won't care as long as the story is entertaining and the pictures look good.

I hate to be a stickler for the details Mark, but unless you are talking about a rare Sony telecine, I'm not aware of any other popular telecine devices, be it Rank or Spirit, none of which had used sprockets for the film advancement. It was all capstain driven and hence, silent...

The sprockets on the Rank telecines and Spirit scanners were just for vertical stabilization; a rubber capstan roller pulled the film through the gate. The (very rare) Sony Atsugi telecine -- which was basically a hand-built transport that was notoriously unreliable -- did use sprockets and was similar to an optical printer. I don't think they ever built one for 65mm, but there were 65mm Ranks, and Fotokem has a 65mm scanner or two. If anything, the scanning process today is much more gentle than running a print in a lab, in my opinion.

A correction for Mark Toia elsewhere: lab rolls in America were typically supplied in 1000' camera rolls with just plain leader head and tail, no countdown, and the process for dailies was actually very quick -- typically double runtime, depending on the number of synced takes. It was an interesting process, but I don't miss it. Scanning film and dealing with digital files is infinitely more practical today.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Those same people would love the RED if it cost $100,000 and had a 2K sensor. They'd probably say it has a 'silky', 'film-like' image. In fact, if RED priced the R1 at 1.5x the price of the Alexa, nobody would be renting the Alexa today.


Very interesting.

Not sure I agree with that. DPs like Roger Deakins aren't concerned with price of camera. Mostly it's about getting the images they want. Perhaps there is a trust factor there as well, and for those who shot film for years, naturally there was an immediate trust in Arri. But RED has done a lot in its short history to earn some trust as well.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

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.

Are you talking about viewing source material or a movie in a theatre? Because if the latter, then this...

What's funnier, almost the same people will praise "true filmic images" when someone fools them with properly graded digital material, down to the grain and filmic curve. I've seen couple of such types in person and my God, when the trick is revealed, the rage is priceless. "B-b-but you still go through great pains to make digital shit appear like 10% of true film look". Yeah, yeah, whatever you say.

Yes, a couple of strokes with my film-curve plugins and some adjustments made under 10 sec and you have a basic starting point for most material in the grade. Done.
Fools people every time.

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.

My. Point. Exactly

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

Option A:
Option B:
So - your argument is based on the assumption...
So - "it doesn't matter what you use" but "DOP or post weren't good enough".
That depends on...
The point you are attempting to make was...
Suggesting me what I am...
In order to be able to spot the difference one would need to analyze...
Sequences. Not frame grabs. If there is no material to compare...
Btw, I've already written why this approach for making a distinction is...
Perhaps they just have...
These are your preferred aspects...
Don't see the problem in...
The audience doesn't make movies...
You are suggesting that...
You mean it...
I'm allowing myself to conclude that by this you mean...
If one would rely only on ...
And similar is not...
One inch above you used "technical" to fit your...
While ignoring the fact that the visual creation experienced in the cinema relies on...

Because:

a)
b)
c)

This kind of nitpicking each sentence and responding to each word is the worst kind of answer because it doesn't matter what I write, you will find A) B) and C) answers based on assumptions made on opinions about some kind of fact you say is subjective and wrong, but only two years before an invention that... please, if you can't read between the lines don't answer in this kind of a way, it's impossible within a discussion because you over-complicate everything into something that is impossible to answer to. You make assumptions based on your opinions divided in a list of branched out sub-answers that tackles even one sentence I wrote broken up in the middle.

But I hope you get the actual point I made... most people do not see the difference, the audience for whom we make films for does absolutely not see any difference and if those minor subtle details is the reason for choice of one camera or the other, all the real big differences in workflow and creative possibilities goes out the window, which is nuts. Choose based on what you want to do, not those minor details. Project Greenlight just demonstrated that very fact, the film they made didn't have to be shot on film, no one cared, no one saw the grain on HBO streaming, not one dollar of that extra money put into film did any difference whatsoever to the films look and instead took away from the money that could have gone into extra days, better stunts etc. The choice for film was based on the look, but it held back more important things and the result doesn't show any characteristics of film that Alexa couldn't replicate even without added grain.

Not sure I agree with that. DPs like Roger Deakins aren't concerned with price of camera. Mostly it's about getting the images they want. Perhaps there is a trust factor there as well, and for those who shot film for years, naturally there was an immediate trust in Arri. But RED has done a lot in its short history to earn some trust as well.

Unfortunately, the Red mistrust is still very live and living. I have to almost daily answer to idiotic questions that are based on rumors and lies told by people who just don't know shit about using a Red camera. Sometimes I just laugh and ask where they'd heard it and then tell them that they either be fools who do what others tell them or learn the truth and then decide what they like the most. Most opinions are based on hearing something about Red around 8 years ago... that says a lot.

 

[Mark Toia]

I hate to be a stickler for the details Mark, but unless you are talking about a rare Sony telecine, I'm not aware of any other popular telecine devices, be it Rank or Spirit, none of which had used sprockets for the film advancement. It was all capstain driven and hence, silent...

Yes I was having a SONY CINE ALTA flash back.

 

[M Most]

Yes I was having a SONY CINE ALTA flash back.

i think you mean Sony Vialta (that was the name of the telecine)......

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

This kind of nitpicking each sentence and responding to each word is the worst kind of answer because it doesn't matter what I write, you will find A) B) and C) answers based on assumptions made on opinions

That was intended to add clarity and address exactly each point for the benefit of this discussion.
If there are a) b) c) they are not pulled out of imagination and wishful thinking.

about some kind of fact you say is subjective and wrong, but only two years before an invention that...

Que ?

please, if you can't read between the lines don't answer in this kind of a way,

Okay. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

it's impossible within a discussion because you over-complicate everything into something that is impossible to answer to.

That was simplified.

There is no need to answer. I wasn't seeking a debate. Consideration is enough.

You make assumptions based on your opinions divided in a list of branched out sub-answers that tackles even one sentence I wrote broken up in the middle.

I tend to avoid writing assumptions.

But I hope you get the actual point I made... most people do not see the difference, the audience for whom we make films for does absolutely not see any difference and if those minor subtle details is the reason for choice of one camera or the other, all the real big differences in workflow and creative possibilities goes out the window, which is nuts.

Again, your point was understood in the first post.
It seems that you avoid accepting that it's not up to the audience.

It's up to the Creative.

Do you suggest a great musician to give up on that instrument and choose that other one because you can't tell the difference ?

Choose based on what you want to do, not those minor details.

They choose what they want to do.
They want to cherish those "minor" details and want to shoot that way.

Where is the problem ?

Project Greenlight just demonstrated that very fact, the film they made didn't have to be shot on film, no one cared, no one saw the grain on HBO streaming, not one dollar of that extra money put into film did any difference whatsoever to the films look and instead took away from the money that could have gone into extra days, better stunts etc. The choice for film was based on the look, but it held back more important things and the result doesn't show any characteristics of film that Alexa couldn't replicate even without added grain.

Any characteristics decision makers perceived or thought as important enough.

Grain is just one factor. There is a bunch of them.
Which is why these comments.

Unfortunately, the Red mistrust is still very live and living. I have to almost daily answer to idiotic questions that are based on rumors and lies told by people who just don't know shit about using a Red camera.

That doesn't have anything to do with this topic. I've passed through this as well.

 

[Scott Crawley]

A beautiful analogy:

Do you suggest a great musician to give up on that instrument and choose that other one because you can't tell the difference ?

I know guys with a dozen or more guitars. A Stratocaster is not a Les Paul, etc..

Play what you love. Get the sound you want. Play a different axe for every song if it suits you.

Oh, and you can talk to me all say about why you love each and every one of your guitars so long as you do it with passion. ... And don't dis mine. ;-)

 

[Brett Harrison]

If you removed all the details the audience weren't cognizant of, the audience would no longer enjoy the movie - and they'd start to notice the details. So many of the filmmking disciplines - both technical and artistic - are good when they are 'invisible' to the audience.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

So many of the filmmking disciplines - both technical and artistic - are good when they are 'invisible' to the audience.

To an extent, with exceptions -- I tend to think of a movie more like a symphony that has to work as a whole but where occasionally one instrument comes forward and stands out, and then steps back for another instrument. There are moments in a movie where you may appreciate a beautiful costume, a pretty face, a powerful music score, a fast camera move or crane shot, etc. as long as it is well-timed emotionally and enhances the story at that moment.

After all, a jump cut is rarely invisible, it is usually meant to be felt and noticed, like the cut from the bone to the spaceship in "2001", but it serves a purpose.

 

[Brett Harrison]

That's a great analogy for film, the symphony. There are so many instruments and they must mesh so that a few can rise above when it's their time to feature.

To an extent, with exceptions -- I tend to think of a movie more like a symphony that has to work as a whole but where occasionally one instrument comes forward and stands out, and then steps back for another instrument. There are moments in a movie where you may appreciate a beautiful costume, a pretty face, a powerful music score, a fast camera move or crane shot, etc. as long as it is well-timed emotionally and enhances the story at that moment.

After all, a jump cut is rarely invisible, it is usually meant to be felt and noticed, like the cut from the bone to the spaceship in "2001", but it serves a purpose.

 

[Aaron michaels]

You can't beat film. its soft and looks amazing and they have film that looks like video. Why do people buy video cameras then buy thousands of dollars on plug-ins etc. to try and make video look like film? Why not just buy a film camera and shoot film compared to the cost of video cameras etc. Everything is backwards if you ask me...I love my red cameras and its just the tool I chose to do my work but when they shot the hobbit with the red epic it looks like video. if you compare the old hobbits to that one I would rather watch it shot on film. video is video and film is film. We want video to replace film so we can have a chance at making a box office hit, so we can even the playing field but the raw truth is most people love movies shot on film than with a video camera because it still looks like great video. they go hand in hand. video came from a Germany film camera and America decided to split the two and make money. The bigger issue is I don't want to soot video and transfer to film and transfer back to video because my pockets aren't deep, If we had a Hollywood budget we would be shooting film and you know it.

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

I am clearly in the minority here but in my humble opinion Tarantino is far far from being a great director. In fact, I think that he often shows very poor taste in his films without much if any great story telling. However, he is a film lover and you have to respect that. 65mm projected on 70mm in a ridiculously wide aspect ratio wil look.... glorious! In the hands of Bob Richardson it will look nothing short of incredible. There is a certain organic Beauty to film that many people still hold on to but digital is the future and it's only getting better. I think once the next generation of digital cinema cameras rolls along this argument of film be digital will be put to rest once and for all.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

To an extent, with exceptions -- I tend to think of a movie more like a symphony that has to work as a whole but where occasionally one instrument comes forward and stands out, and then steps back for another instrument. There are moments in a movie where you may appreciate a beautiful costume, a pretty face, a powerful music score, a fast camera move or crane shot, etc. as long as it is well-timed emotionally and enhances the story at that moment.

After all, a jump cut is rarely invisible, it is usually meant to be felt and noticed, like the cut from the bone to the spaceship in "2001", but it serves a purpose.

Love this!

I fill exactly the same and funny enough have been saying exactly the same thing over and over at many Inspirational Workshops I have given...

The hard part in either medium is to be a good enough of a Director to see when and where this instruments should come in to notice...

 

[Ketch Rossi]

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.

This descriptively ( I could add few more to it but not need, as this has most and surely enough of clarity of my same fillings) tells in part my fillings as well...

After shooting away my very first roll of film, and got nothing out of it, I learned the very hard way how and why things must be done a certain way, and mostly the true importance of EXPOSURE and LIGHTING in order to create imagery...

As a child, growing up in a very small towns (two) the local screening cinema, was not a cinema at all, was just a large room outfitted for screening on Sundays, and this was my very first taste of FILM, looking at the Projectionist unpack and load it with care, well not so much as He would have a Cigarette on his closed lips, but seen those first images flicker away thru the back light of the Projector was magic, and many times I would be frozen there watching this for several minutes before the projectionist would ask me to help him and make me snap out of it... Then finally the images would pop on to the White wall... No screen there...

But since then, age 8, I would ask why it was all scratched out and had all those artifacts on it, (not referring exactly with this name, especially in Italian, but that is what I was referring to) I never like that which many find so interesting about Film, and for this I LOVE Digital, it's purity and crisp clean imagery, no "FILM" related artifacts, which of course you find very little in new more recent stocks, but then again, this is only true for a limited time, as you load and roll them more and more they too, will become in the same way, full of scratches and artifacts, it's the nature of Film, and again even so new Stocks are more resilient to some extent to get as easily damaged and scratched as old stocks did, also because of new Projectors and how they work vs how old projectors work, but still...

Then of course this days you would be very lucky to see a Film Projected in actual FILM, as most Films shot on Film get transferred on to Digital and projected via Digital Projectors... So this means that the original Artifacts and Scratches present at time of transfer will not get any worst by time and this to me is far better, again personal preference to see an image as clean as possible, and not distracted by all the scratches hai cot in the stock etc.

As for shooting a movie with "FILM" I simply would not consider it at this stage and age, not with RED Epic Dragon 6k, not with Alexa65, and most definitely NOT when RED Weapon vv8k is out and about... Plenty there to do even a 70mm Print out... For Tarantino to watch in his private screening room...


But I respect choices and most importantly I respect opinions and what others like, and for some one like Tarantino, a true Film lover, I respect the most how He goes about it, supporting what He loves despite the efforts required to make it happen... This I support 100%!!

 

[Marc Wielage]

i think you mean Sony Vialta (that was the name of the telecine)......

The operators I knew at the Sony HD Center referred to the prototype 35mm HD scanner as the "Viagra," and sometimes the Atsugi (the name of Sony's technical center in Japan.)

I am clearly in the minority here but in my humble opinion Tarantino is far far from being a great director. In fact, I think that he often shows very poor taste in his films without much if any great story telling.

Django Unchained made $425 million, and that's enough story telling to justify an entire career for most filmmakers. I personally like the fact that his films are a romp that aren't to be taken seriously, and there's enough winks at the audience to reference many other films. You can make an argument that Tarantino steals plenty, but I think a lot of what he steals from is so obscure, it can be forgiven.