Controversial Opinion - Is Digital Better than Film for 4K?

[NARMAK]

So as we now come to a point where more native, upscaled, digital and film based contents available on UHDs i wanted to ask. For all the really well done titles that manage to well manage grain, there's probably some that don't. So would it be fair to say that digital is probably the more perfect companion for higher resolutions?

We know that studios have managed to make 8K scans for some prior on film remasters but it seems "Grain management" has become more of a focus than say at 1080p when we look at 4K releases. Yet if we look at a release like Joker for example, a digitally shot title finished at a 4K DI, we see how a slight grain filter was added in post. A technique perhaps that would much better mimic the days of old and keep grain alive but in a perfect way at higher resolutions?

Or does this all come down to personal preference? Something about preferring digital to film? Or vice versa.

So, i'll hand it off to you guys but i can say personally that i feel digital with grain filters is certainly looking acceptable if Joker review on this sites anything to go by when mastering at higher resolutions.

[Geoff D]

16K? WTF are you talking about?

[edit]

Nice edit

--------------------------------------------

To actually answer your question, though I'm not entirely sure what you're aksing, is that Joker was shot on one of the bestest cameras around, the Alexa 65 which captures 6.5K in Open Gate mode and uses high quality large format glass. A lot of the underlying quality you're seeing is due to that capture format and the film emulation LUT is a post-production add-on. If they'd shot the movie on 5-perf 65mm it would've had much the same effect in terms of detail, depth of field and so on. If they'd shot it on a 35-sized format like regular Alexa or indeed 35mm then it would've had a different look.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

16K? WTF are you talking about?

Narmak is very close to Normac...

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

16K? WTF are you talking about?

Okay Geoff, thank you foe pointing it out. Your impassioned capitals were appreciated

I amended it to 8k. However i am sure at some point or other i've seen mention of a movies master being rescanned at 16K. I just can't recall for the life of me so i've put my hands up and used 8K. I 100% know 8K is a thing because Baraka used that for its master.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Narmak is very close to Normac...

Please stay working on that material. You'll eventually have enough for a Netflix special

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Okay Geoff, thank you foe pointing it out. Your impassioned capitals were appreciated

I amended it to 8k. However i am sure at some point or other i've seen mention of a movies master being rescanned at 16K. I just can't recall for the life of me so i've put my hands up and used 8K. I 100% know 8K is a thing because Baraka used that for its master.

8K is fine, movies have been scanned (at point of capture) at 6K and 8K for years already, we just don't hear about it.

Final Frame jury rigged a 16K datacine for the 65mm material they scanned on Apollo 11, I've never heard of 16K being used prior to that. Even when IMAX scan up their massive 15-perf frames they're doing it on an Imagica XE which has an 11K sensor and outputs at 8K max.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

8K is fine, movies have been scanned (at point of capture) at 6K and 8K for years already, we just don't hear about it.

Final Frame jury rigged a 16K datacine for the 65mm material they scanned on Apollo 11, I've never heard of 16K being used prior to that. Even when IMAX scan up their massive 15-perf frames they're doing it on an Imagica XE which has an 11K sensor and outputs at 8K max.

Well, thanks for sharing.

I think eventually as tech moves forwards, digital will be taking over just based on ease of use in VFX workflow and judging by how Joker handled the grain filter. Grain will become more like an artistic choice than an inherent component of movies associated with tye whole "Shot on film" labels.

I just feel like Joker shows us that we can replicate what we had traditionally in an all digital era should we end up there.

[Geoff D]

Joker's not the only digital show to have had a film emulation applied, it happens a lot more often than you'd think. And most movies are already shot digitally.

Welcome to the world of tomorrow, today!

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Joker's not the only digital show to have had a film emulation applied, it happens a lot more often than you'd think. And most movies are already shot digitally.

Welcome to the world of tomorrow, today!

True. I've noticed reviews mention how there's movies that have been shot on both formats and the grain was applied post to the digital abd and lined up really well. I think we're just seeing so much talk of 8K for example and i just look at our current UHDs and how many struggled to come from 4K DIs because of the VFX not being finished at that resolution.

It just makes me feel shooting all digital in the future at higher resolutions and finished VFX in those resolutions would be the logical route to take but hey, i'm not pouring millions into making em. Just a schmuck who likes watching them lol.

[Geoff D]

Aren't we all, dude. Aren't we all.

[ronboster]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

Narmak is very close to Normac...

At least there aren't posts about CED discs/titles having better PQ than their UHD counterparts. I'm old enough to have owned a CED player and I can tell you without going back and viewing any discs (sold it years ago), no title's PQ better on that format vs UHD.

I won't get into the film stock vs digital debate. I'm not in the industry and have no opinion that would have any relevance based on professional experience.

[Scottishguy]

I just think it's a crazy coincidence Narmak appears after Normac is banned.

[fighthefutureofhd]

I don't know, but I'm not sure I can agree. Maybe I've become too old school for this discussion, but I don't feel like shooting digitally is really all that great. I sometimes find it's a little too perfect and shiny. Sort of plastic-looking. I was watching Mission Impossible and Batman over the weekend. I noticed how amazing they looked on 4K and what an amazing thing film is. I also watched Thor: The Dark World on 4K and didn't think it was close to what film offers. Of course, it all does all come down to how a film/movie is transferred and presented on 4K, but if two movies are done and presented in the best way possible on 4k I will almost always prefer film over digital. I just don't get the feeling that it is real and whatnot when shot digitally. I think that maybe because I grew up with film for most of my life (almost 40 years)

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I just think it's a crazy coincidence Narmak appears after Normac is banned.

Again? That guy gets banned as often or more than Oprah yo yos on her weight.

[Farerb]

You should remove one of the "is" as soon as possible cause it's going to drive me crazy everytime I see this post.

[LegacyCosts]

Well its a subjective opinion but film looks so much better than digital and it has a wider range to play with so my short answer is no. Regarding Joker I saw that in Dolby and other than the stuff behind the curtain at Deniro's show found it pretty underwhelming visually, probably would have looked much better actually shot on film.

Once upon a time in hollywood , lighthouse and Ad Astra were the best looking movies this year to me so its not like I'm holding on to the past, I feel like it genuinely looks much richer even on new works so of course I want more catalogue stuff that does grain management intelligently like casino or the shining.

[Ricky G]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

True. I've noticed reviews mention how there's movies that have been shot on both formats and the grain was applied post to the digital abd and lined up really well. I think we're just seeing so much talk of 8K for example and i just look at our current UHDs and how many struggled to come from 4K DIs because of the VFX not being finished at that resolution.

It just makes me feel shooting all digital in the future at higher resolutions and finished VFX in those resolutions would be the logical route to take but hey, i'm not pouring millions into making em. Just a schmuck who likes watching them lol.

You haven't been watching FilmsAtHome reviews have you? He reviewed Joker and went on and on about how its was beautifully shot on 35mm film.

Some reviewers don't do their due diligence.

[crazybeats]

Everything will be digital one day. Many UHDs are not 4K at all, they are 2K, here in the UK I've yet to see a UHD player in person. Apart from HMV and Fopp there's only really supermarkets and none of them sell UHD players either so as a physical format it has a lifespan but digitally that stuff doesn't really matter. People will stream from their TVs and as long as it looks good people are happy. That's the way things are for the most part now anyway, the general public isn't buying things like they were even 10 years ago. As long as it looks good it's fine. You have to remember films and TV shows are just entertainment, it's just disposable entertainment, it's just something to fill time and keep you entertained.


I'm sure one day 8K will be a thing but let's be honest, unless you're in your teens or 20's you probably wont live long enough to see the day 8K players and discs and TVs are out in the public lol. I think TV just now is about as advanced as it will be for people, that's as good as it needs to be. I think things will stay the way they are for some time now. Film might have all these advantages over digital but at the end of the day you're not going to sit and see it at their highest resolution, you'll watch it on UHD, blu ray or DVD or through your TV. You don't get to see 5K or 6K or 11K or anything else, you'll watch what you're given and what you're given is a lower quality version of what is really available so no one has to worry at what something is scanned in at......you'll never see it in that quality. The best you can hope for is things look as good as they possibly can in the format you are watching.


I don't think there is a demand from the general public for things to be shot on film anymore or things to be in 8K and beyond. I think people are lucky to have what they have now. I do think the day will come when worldwide.....and it'll take a few years for contracts with TV channels to run out but one day all big studios will have apps....and that's how you'll be watching films from then on. No more big black machines under the TV and £20 for a plastic disc with a film on it, you'll press a button on your remote and you'll pick Warner Bros or Paramount or Sony or Disney and then you'll get what they own. The day wont come where you will be able to buy an 8K disc or even an 8K TV. Things will stay at 4K and things will continue to be shot digitally.

[LegacyCosts]

I've grown tired of the "general population doesn't care about quality" argument. Ok fine they don't care about film but people buying UHDs do, this is a niche enthusiast hobby. Most people don't care about sound quality or vinyl either but its still making bank because nerds are nerds.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Scottishguy

I just think it's a crazy coincidence Narmak appears after Normac is banned.

First off, i didn't "appear" per se. I just don't frequent this part of the forum that often and it's a coincidence that this "Normac" you talk of got banned or whatever. Please don't judge me off the actions of others. Been here since Feb 2007

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

I don't know, but I'm not sure I can agree. Maybe I've become too old school for this discussion, but I don't feel like shooting digitally is really all that great. I sometimes find it's a little too perfect and shiny. Sort of plastic-looking. I was watching Mission Impossible and Batman over the weekend. I noticed how amazing they looked on 4K and what an amazing thing film is. I also watched Thor: The Dark World on 4K and didn't think it was close to what film offers. Of course, it all does all come down to how a film/movie is transferred and presented on 4K, but if two movies are done and presented in the best way possible on 4k I will almost always prefer film over digital. I just don't get the feeling that it is real and whatnot when shot digitally. I think that maybe because I grew up with film for most of my life (almost 40 years)

I've heard the complaints of some calling it too shiny, plastic etc. but a part of me wonders if that's obviously changing with how titles like Joker handled it with grain filter added in post making it look film like. Again like you say, perhaps if you didn't know one was shot digitally and one on film but like Joker that grain was added in post, you could potentially be tricked by it.

Originally Posted by farerb

You should remove one of the "is" as soon as possible cause it's going to drive me crazy everytime I see this post.

I would love to, but i couldn't update myself. Annoyed me as soon as i noticed the mistake myself

PS - Managed to update title

Originally Posted by Ricky G

You haven't been watching FilmsAtHome reviews have you? He reviewed Joker and went on and on about how its was beautifully shot on 35mm film.

Some reviewers don't do their due diligence.

Nah, but again maybe supports the opinion that digital is getting much better at offering more traditional looking aesthetics rather than overly shiny and so on as people posit digital is over film. Hell, that said we've had digital around for a while so it won't be a massive shock for people to transition to whilst allowing a traditional film stock like aesthetic.