The Silver Screen

[Daniel Meador]

I am on a quest to actually see a comparison of film vs 1080p (2K) vs Epic (5K) seen side by side on an actual 60 foot theatrical screen.

Is NAB a place for that to happen?

I was hoping maybe Red Studios had something like that too. Seeing the shots posted here on my computer screen is all well and good, but ...... You know what I mean.

Also, took a trip to San Francisco to Diane Disney's museum. Walt Disney had used a 16 mm camera on a movie at one point. He mentioned that 16 mm film can look very nice on a theatrical screen. Any thoughts on that? Thanks.

 

[Kevin Rasmussen]

Also, took a trip to San Francisco to Diane Disney's museum. Walt Disney had used a 16 mm camera on a movie at one point. He mentioned that 16 mm film can look very nice on a theatrical screen. Any thoughts on that? Thanks.

Go see Black Swan, shot by Matty Libatique in Super 16mm on Fuji Eterna stock.

 

[Tim Hole]

I don't think you would really get a sense of Epic's full potential unless you saw it on a 4K projector. But to keep it on an equal par to to see all three side by side you would obviously need a venue that had the ability to project dual in the same screen. In my experience, in the UK, most of the larger screens were the first to be converted to digital and are not left with the ability to run dual. Sure its different in LA though - or some of the bigger cities in the US.

Unless NAB are specifically doing a side by side test it would be something that would have to be organised. A reel would have to be mastered for both digital and film then projected. But it depends on how far you want to go. If it is a high contrast silver screen for digital 3D this has a, although very minor, affect on film. The best thing about matte white screens was the overall and dispersal and wide viewing angle - something that could not be afforded with polarised 3D.

But if it is just generally to see what they look like side by side it would be fine.

16mm does look fine projected in 2K. It would be interesting to see a comparison between blown up on 35mm film to digitally projected 16mm. I think it really makes a difference on how the stock with used and what the post process was. Black Swan looked great on a 2K projector but it had noticeable grain because that is how Libatique/Aronofsky wanted it. A lot of the adverts that are shown before the film are good indicators for 1080p or 16mm blown up to 35mm, some look good...some look terrible. Extremely soft and flat. In comparison the scalers in digital projectors are really good and the same ads look great.

 

[Daniel Meador]

Black Swan is playing in town. Will go tonight!

I need to know that if I put in the time and money I will be pleased with the 'look' for my project all things being equal. 35 mm motion picture film is basically gorgeous. But what independent filmmaker with a small budget can afford that? So I am looking at super 16 vs RED.

I have this perfectionist thing that spots video a mile away. It's a curse. Those blown out highlights, crushed blacks. Seeing every pore on an actors face. Film has a deep dream-like look compared to the brutal reality of video. Maybe EPIC has crossed into a new frontier. Until I see it I can't say. I hope so.

Thanks to everyone posting. I know I'm not the only one thinking this.

 

[Daniel Meador]

Black Swan was great. 33 people in the audience to which I was the only male. The same feeling I had when I was driving through Berekley 20 years ago, saw a long line of cars going to a concert and just followed. Wound up being a very rare white person at a hugh Teddy Pendergrass concert. It was so cool. Anyway, 16 mm is a fine format for theatrical release but I came away actually more encourage for digital theatrical. What audiences, in my opinion, really want is a good story and proper lighting. I had to focus to study the filmmakers technique because the story was so powerful. All I can say about the Black Swan and digital vs film is that 'beauty comes in many forms'.

 

[Daniel Meador]

Jim Jannard once made a comment that he was getting older and he wanted to make his mark on digital cinema. Cameras will come and go. Starting Reduser for me is where Jannard has made his mark.

 

[Mark Collins]

Black Swan is playing in town. Will go tonight!

I need to know that if I put in the time and money I will be pleased with the 'look' for my project all things being equal. 35 mm motion picture film is basically gorgeous. But what independent filmmaker with a small budget can afford that? So I am looking at super 16 vs RED.

I have this perfectionist thing that spots video a mile away. It's a curse. Those blown out highlights, crushed blacks. Seeing every pore on an actors face. Film has a deep dream-like look compared to the brutal reality of video. Maybe EPIC has crossed into a new frontier. Until I see it I can't say. I hope so.

Thanks to everyone posting. I know I'm not the only one thinking this.

We shot Super35mm for a student film on a Panavision Gold. Our budget was around $7000.

Yay for industry support!

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Black Swan is playing in town. Will go tonight!

I need to know that if I put in the time and money I will be pleased with the 'look' for my project all things being equal. 35 mm motion picture film is basically gorgeous. But what independent filmmaker with a small budget can afford that? So I am looking at super 16 vs RED.

I have this perfectionist thing that spots video a mile away. It's a curse. Those blown out highlights, crushed blacks. Seeing every pore on an actors face. Film has a deep dream-like look compared to the brutal reality of video. Maybe EPIC has crossed into a new frontier. Until I see it I can't say. I hope so.

Thanks to everyone posting. I know I'm not the only one thinking this.

Pore issues are a result of 1:1 pixel attribution on 1080p cameras - it is even worse on line-skippers. On Red, there are no such problems, and, properly shot and graded, no "video-ishness". The thing about 35 is, do you really want to take money away from other departments, when money is tight? Can you really afford to lose even one light rental? To lose several days of shooting? 35 is great, but sometimes the differences vs. Red MX are very subtle, or sometimes even invisible - but these other losses - sometimes not so subtle.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

super 16 vs RED

super 16 vs RED

So I am looking at super 16 vs RED.

Super16 looks hideous without digital or video processing, the chroma MUST be low passed, as it was in wet gate optical printing, and in video transfer.

When you watch "film" on video the chroma undergoes very heavy low pass filtering, if you see a sharp RGB scan, it looks unusable on a 35mm transfer.

ARRI developed its Relativity software to try to keep its Super16 going a few more years, you can see the A/B on the Relativity site,

http://www.arri.de/digital_intermediate_systems/relativity.html

The cost of "cleaning" the Super16 for your DI may be more than just shooting 35mm on a somewhat lower ratio.

If you have a high ratio project, you should go Digital since the cost of film, lab, and transfer adds up quite a bit once you get over a 5:1 ratio.

If you can control the light, and know what you are doing, you can get good results on RED, see Social Network for an example of careful use of the camera vs. lighting. Any camera will have problems under impossable lighting, 35mm ECN may help a little, but you get high cost, dust, muck and scratches to deal with, or to pay someone to deal with...

What about using Techniscope, its out of use, you might get a camera very cheep. But given the choice between film and digital for a first project I would go Digital since you can shoot until you get what you need, with film you will always have to stop before you have a good take since you don't have enough money to shoot film at a 100:1 ratio, or to re-shoot, as you should on a first project, it does no good to show a film that is not worth looking at, you need to be able to re-shoot over and over until you have what you need, and even re-cast and re-shoot, and at $100 per minute for film, that's not going to happen.