List of 4K film transfers on Blu-ray shot on film (non-digitally shot)

[Dragun]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Again: I love anamorphic precisely for the distinctive look that it creates. But not everyone's a fan, e.g. David Fincher and Jim Cameron both greatly dislike the format. I'm just telling y'all what I heard from someone who's worked on the VFX for some big movies.

Not disagreeing with you about the hassles of anamorphic for VFX.

Originally Posted by Poya

But DI greatly limits a film's visual quality. Why do you think PTA and Nolan refuse to use DIs?

Is that true, though? If anything, DIs allow you to finely tune the image in a way that's not possible with optical grading. With 4K DIs, you can retain much of the original image quality. I will say that the blacks are usually richer on film prints, from my experience.

With Nolan's films, do they scan an interpositive to make the DCP, or is a DI done from negative scans to replicate the look of the IP?

On "The Master" they had separate optical and digital workflows for for the grading, depending on the output format.

FotoKem’s Workflow for The Master in 70mm, 35mm, and 4K

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Dragun

Not disagreeing with you about the hassles of anamorphic for VFX.



Is that true, though? If anything, DIs allow you to finely tune the image in a way that's not possible with optical grading. With 4K DIs, you can retain much of the original image quality. I will say that the blacks are usually richer on film prints, from my experience.

With Nolan's films, do they scan an interpositive to make the DCP, or is a DI done from negative scans to replicate the look of the IP?

On "The Master" they had separate optical and digital workflows for for the grading, depending on the output format.

FotoKem’s Workflow for The Master in 70mm, 35mm, and 4K

Nolan literally edits the negative.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by Dragun

Not disagreeing with you about the hassles of anamorphic for VFX.



Is that true, though? If anything, DIs allow you to finely tune the image in a way that's not possible with optical grading. With 4K DIs, you can retain much of the original image quality. I will say that the blacks are usually richer on film prints, from my experience.

With Nolan's films, do they scan an interpositive to make the DCP, or is a DI done from negative scans to replicate the look of the IP?

On "The Master" they had separate optical and digital workflows for for the grading, depending on the output format.

FotoKem’s Workflow for The Master in 70mm, 35mm, and 4K

The Master was scanned digitally after they had made the photochemical interpositives. The DI was to match the photochemical timed IP so that the experience could be replicated as best as it could in digital projectors. Nolan does the same thing. That's why even when their films are projected digitally, they still look almost like film projection. Tarantino, on the other hand, doesn't do photochemical timing any more, making him that much of a hypocrite.

Plus, considering photochemical timing allows for a more range of colors and isn't limited by resolution, I can see where PTA and Nolan are coming from. Even films shot in film but scanned digitally still have an artificial look to them because of that type of grading. Besides photochemical timing is actually a lot cheaper than a DI. Cheaper yet better quality. It's a win-win.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Poya

Besides photochemical timing is actually a lot cheaper than a DI. Cheaper yet better quality. It's a win-win.

You need to watch this:

[Poya]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

You need to watch this:

I did, but each DI suite I research on is just too much money. Especially Baselight. Digital has its perks but they don't outnumber film for me. I can't get past the artificial look. It's like that Chips Ahoy quote Nolan gave. I should relate since I bake cookies myself.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Poya

I did, but each DI suite I research on is just too much money. Especially Baselight. Digital has its perks but they don't outnumber film for me. I can't get past the artificial look. It's like that Chips Ahoy quote Nolan gave. I should relate since I bake cookies myself.

How is film any less "artificial" than digital? You might prefer it, but it's not more "natural" than digital.

I guarantee you, your eyes don't have film grain when you use them to look at the real world.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

How is film any less "artificial" than digital? You might prefer it, but it's not more "natural" than digital.

I guarantee you, your eyes don't have film grain when you use them to look at the real world.

Natural doesn't mean real life. Films shouldn't look at all like real life. All this talk about higher frame rates, higher resolution, high dynamic range, etc. that we have forgotten about the most important thing: it's not about what we can make a film look like, but how it should look like, depending on the setting and story of that particular film. I've seen all the Hobbit films in the way Peter Jackson intended for them to be seen and the irony is that they're supposed to look like looking through a window, yet it looks faker than it would be in 24 fps, at least to me.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Poya

Natural doesn't mean real life. Films shouldn't look at all like real life. All this talk about higher frame rates, higher resolution, high dynamic range, etc. that we have forgotten about the most important thing: it's not about what we can make a film look like, but how it should look like, depending on the setting and story of that particular film. I've seen all the Hobbit films in the way Peter Jackson intended for them to be seen and the irony is that they're supposed to look like looking through a window, yet it looks faker than it would be in 24 fps, at least to me.

Perhaps, but unless a movie is shot simultaneously with both film and digital cameras and then edited identically, you're basically arguing that a non-existent product is somehow magically superior/inferior to the movie that was delivered.

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

.

I guarantee you, your eyes don't have film grain when you use them to look at the real world.

It's not about grain but colour and dynamic range.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Trax-3

It's not about grain but colour and dynamic range.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ng-film-178661

"I did a test on Alexa, and it looked right for the movie. We were doing a lot of night shooting in downtown L.A. It wasn't a big-budget film, so we were using existing streetlights and boosting with a practical light. I wouldn't have had enough exposure or the range or shadows with film."

So yeah, unless a movie is shot with both film and digital and edited identically, this sort of piss fest is a waste of time.

Film is film. Digital is digital. They are different.

[Geoff D]

The dynamic range is one area where the Alexa does very well for itself, and that's why it's become the 'go to' camera for digital acquisition in the last few years. It's not about the 2.8K/3.4K resolution (which doesn't count for a whole heck of a lot with a bayer array anyway) but that dynamic range is key.

As for Nolan, in case it isn't clear: timed IPs are used to create the DCPs for his movies (and, one would also assume, the DSMs from which other releases like home video are derived).

[Trax-3]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ng-film-178661



So yeah, unless a movie is shot with both film and digital and edited identically, this sort of piss fest is a waste of time.

Film is film. Digital is digital. They are different.

Film has more dynamic range but it's mostly in the highlights.
Human eyes also have more range in the highlights, therefore film looks more pleasing and natural to us.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Poya

Plus, considering photochemical timing allows for a more range of colors and isn't limited by resolution, I can see where PTA and Nolan are coming from. Even films shot in film but scanned digitally still have an artificial look to them because of that type of grading. Besides photochemical timing is actually a lot cheaper than a DI. Cheaper yet better quality. It's a win-win.

Of course it's limited by resolution. 35mm has fairly modest resolution by modern standards to begin with, and you take a big hit every time you print one piece of film to another. A print off the negative is the only thing that can even outmatch 2k digital, and that's completely incompatible with wide release. Your typical 4th generation print has something more akin to 720p's worth of resolution, minus the pixel artifacts.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by 42041

Of course it's limited by resolution. 35mm has fairly modest resolution by modern standards to begin with, and you take a big hit every time you print one piece of film to another. A print off the negative is the only thing that can even outmatch 2k digital, and that's completely incompatible with wide release.

Bingo. By its nature, film degrades when it's handled, when it's processed, when it's given a chemical bath, etc. Each step of the way, its effective resolution is diminished.

[Geoff D]

And that's why I don't think Tarantino is a "hypocrite" for shooting on film and finishing/distributing on digital, because he's getting the best of both worlds.

It's kinda ironic that you can have old anamorphic 35mm shows with much more detail than what Nolan's 21st century movies kick out, and why? Because they're transferred from the negative and given a digital grade, instead of the photochemical IP timing that he insists upon as the basis for his deliverables. Nolan's heavily into soft-looking 35mm stuff anyway, such is his fondness for old glass, but still: a digital finish would be able to extract more detail without sacrificing the glossy old-school Panavision look.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's kinda ironic that you can have old anamorphic 35mm shows with much more detail than what Nolan's 21st century movies kick out, and why? Because they're transferred from the negative and given a digital grade, instead of the photochemical IP timing that he insists upon as the basis for his deliverables. Nolan's heavily into soft-looking 35mm stuff anyway, such is his fondness for old glass, but still: a digital finish would be able to extract more detail without sacrificing the glossy old-school Panavision look.

I just wonder why he's so high on IMAX which is a completely different look.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Bingo. By its nature, film degrades when it's handled, when it's processed, when it's given a chemical bath, etc. Each step of the way, its effective resolution is diminished.

Not with today's chemicals and generation prints gap has gotten smaller in recent years. I did a comparison of a 35mm showing of Inherent Vice and a digital showing of the same film. The 35mm print showed off more dynamic range and details than digital presentation, and if it was vice versa, I would've gladly admitted that I stood corrected.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Poya

Not with today's chemicals and generation prints gap has gotten smaller in recent years. I did a comparison of a 35mm showing of Inherent Vice and a digital showing of the same film. The 35mm print showed off more dynamic range and details than digital presentation, and if it was vice versa, I would've gladly admitted that I stood corrected.

I saw Inherent Vice on 35mm (clearly not a print off the negative) and while in terms of colors it was quite lovely, it was much softer than a good DCP.
Whatever its other qualities, 35mm film lost the resolution wars long ago.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I just wonder why he's so high on IMAX which is a completely different look.

For that same reason: that it's so different. It's the contrast between classical anamorphic and the astonishing clarity of IMAX which is what makes it really pop, although both formats share similar issues with shallow depth of field so there's still a subliminal kind of visual familiarity when cutting between them.

I've never been as impressed with other movies shot on digital that embiggen at key moments (or have a taller IMAX ratio, period) because all they're doing is removing the letterbox mattes, not switching to an entirely different format.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

For that same reason: that it's so different. It's the contrast between classical anamorphic and the astonishing clarity of IMAX which is what makes it really pop, although both formats share similar issues with shallow depth of field so there's still a subliminal kind of visual familiarity when cutting between them.

I've never been as impressed with other movies shot on digital that embiggen at key moments (or have a taller IMAX ratio, period) because all they're doing is removing the letterbox mattes, not switching to an entirely different format.

Did you see Oblivion in IMAX? It was amazing.