35mm film is awesome

[Animusmors]

35mm is awesome. I just prefer the ease of use and clarity of HD. Using film is such a pain in the @$$ and it's expensive. You can get the same look from shooting HD. Robert Rodriguez shoots all of his stuff HD now and just adds the grain in when he feels like it. Plus it's easier to make any shot an FX shot on the fly since you don't have to scan the film every time you may need to fix a shot. Example: a fantasy movie accidentally has a plane flying in the background of a shot. If you are shooting film then it's just more time and money wasted fixing that shot which, could have gone towards something else. "Zodiac" was filmed using the Viper(4:4:4) camera and "Wanted" is using the Red camera. Both cameras are beautiful, especially RED(4:2:2). I can't wait to get my hands on one of those. Another added bonus of shooting HD is that what you see is what you get. You don't have to wait for the lab results then finding out the camera had a leak and one side of the film stock is over exposed. (Happened to me) Now I'm ranting sorry. I just feel shooting digital is better. Well, just as long as you don't compare to IMAX which i can't wait for "The Dark Knight" to come out. They shot much of the film in IMAX. You're going to see so much detail in the shadows. F*#%ing Awesome. Awesome to the max. And for all of those who hate grain, lay off of it. It makes some movies look really gritty and adds more life to some films. I do admit, some films don't need the grain but a good example that all of you can see right now if you have the movie, is Casino Royale. The beginning was a very good example of a really gritty, grainy, stylized scene to add tension and show that it's a flashback. 300, another one, well i think the grain was added just to hide the compositing mistakes, but it made it feel dirty to me. The problem with shooting digital is overcranked shots for slow motion action. Digital hasn't really reached a point to match film. Like with the RED cam, if you want overcranked shots, then you gotta shoot lower res. I've been able to fake it with Shake but that only goes so far. Anyhoo, I've said enough for right now.

[tofur69]

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

And you are...?

Let me guess... Duvall???

Yep...

[Bobby Henderson]

I thought Zodiac was the first film to use the Red camera for the entire film?

The Red One camera system wasn't used on Zodiac. David Fincher used the Thompson Viper digital camera system instead.

According to what is displayed on Red's own website, Wanted indeed looks like the first big budget Hollywood movie that uses Red. If any other feature films used the camera system, I would think the company behind Red would have made some mention of it.

Yeah, they probably will. 1080p is the set standard for the foreseeable future.

For over the air broadcast television, I would agree 720p and 1080i is about as good as things will get for a long time.

I don't know if Blu-Ray represents the "end all be all" of optical disc storage/playback formats. If the trends of past formats are any key, I think Blu-Ray will be the top tier home viewing format for at least 10 years.

There's a number of reasons why I believe movie viewing will go beyond 1080p. The steady improvement of Internet speeds is one factor. Rapid improvement of computing technology is another factor. "Convergence" between computing, gaming, video-telecommunications, broadcast television and movie playback/storage will push this as well.

Within the next 10 years, I believe average Internet connection speeds will ramp up to rates between 30Mb/s and 100Mb/s. When those speeds are reached there will be some major upheaval in lots of different industries. Traditional models of television broadcasting and video rental will be shattered.

Those kinds of speeds will make it easy for people to quickly download movies with as high as 4K quality resolution. They may even be able to do so in real time. 720p and 1080p will be the standards at first for HD video on demand via Internet streaming. But there's really nothing to prevent standards like 1600p or 2160p from taking hold.

The lines are also being blurred between computer monitors and television monitors. Some of the newest 120Hz HDTV monitors also work very well as computer monitors. The same thing is happening with new computer monitors. Gaming and graphics industries for larger screens with even higher resolution. When movies don't have to be packaged within the bottlenecks of 6MHz over the air broadcast or inside an optical disc with a limited bit budget nothing will stop movie producers from taking advantage of the higher resolution capabilities of those displays. Movie studios will certainly do so if they can make a buck delivering it.

[Deciazulado]

Great 35mm discussions at last
Maybe we should move this out of the newbie thread?

(For newbies that might get confused with the terms:
2k (horizontal notation) = 1080p (vertical notation) for Standard Widescreen films)



2048/1920 horizontal pixels, depending on the scanner's pixel pitch, the 35mm format, and the projector's aperture plate/booth distance/lens focal length/masking/screen/curtains, show the same image up on screen.

2048 pixels scan more negative area than it's shown (can), as Camera Aperture is bigger than Projector Aperture, etc etc. (35mm cameras shoot more than the 11.33 mm x 21 mm (1.85) or 17.5 mm x 21 mm (2.39) image area you're suposed to see projected with a 35mm 1.85/2.39 film) so 2k's 2048 pixel scan scans about 2000 pixels for the intended to be Projected image (can can) and a theater's masking error deviation can be 5% you might only get to see "1900 pixels" of the scan's scan (can can can). Some theaters show 100% area, some show worse than 5%. So 2000, 1950, 1900, on the horizontal direction, there's really not much difference.


It's true that 35mm negative can record more "pixels" than 1080p, but nobody can ever watch a 35mm negative directly, what we all have watched is prints made from them, or for the majority of the population, prints made from duplicate internegatives and interpositives (so they are 4th generatioin images), SHOWN through a projector's lens (which you could say creates a 5th generation version of the image). In some venues, and in the industry, you can see select prints made directly from the negative (2nd generation) through a projector lens (3rd generation)

Now the thing is, which looks better? A 5th or 3rd generation 35mm image shown onscreen, or a 35mm negative scanned directly into digital (be it 4k or -> 2k ) and shown in "1.9k" directly into a 1:1 direct view (no lens) digital display? (or in the future, 1.9 upscaled to "3.8k" (2160p) direct view displays)



Gateway has already a 1600 x 2560 pixel 30" consumer display out that takes the 1080p HDMI output of a Blu-ray player and upscales it to 1440 x 2560 with the HQV chip I believe.

[jorg]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Yeah, they probably will. 1080p is the set standard for the foreseeable future

Higher res displays won't have any software that uses them, and are mostly intended for professional installations. Unless you're simply planning on tossing PC games up there, there won't be anything to use it

from what paid geek has said it was my understanding that 2k then 4k would be a logical chocie for next resolutions makes sense i gusse once 4k hits then its possible for vertical integration with the transfer they wouldent need to re master it for a media then could just use a theater master, which could lower the cost/profits for every one since we could simpaly use next gen 4k player to feed theater projectors but by then i am gussing itlll be 12 years and by then ultra hd could be in theaters (or by then we mite see theaters far diffrent from what they are today)

and Deciazulado i always look forward to your posts and you are correct with the gate way display(its been award for best 30 lcd monitor)

[WickyWoo]

from what paid geek has said it was my understanding that 2k then 4k would be a logical chocie for next resolutions makes sense i gusse once 4k hits then its possible for vertical integration with the transfer they wouldent need to re master it for a media then could just use a theater master, which could lower the cost/profits for every one since we could simpaly use next gen 4k player to feed theater projectors but by then i am gussing itlll be 12 years and by then ultra hd could be in theaters (or by then we mite see theaters far diffrent from what they are today)

I don't know what compression the theatrical DLP showings use, but I'll tell you flat out that the resulting film is almost certainly many times bigger than 50GB.

There is no possible way for the forseeable future of using those versions in a home setting

Bottom line, it's going to take another decade or more to get HDTV into 90% of US households. It'll be another decade before those same have 1080p sets. Why would the studios want to give away their theatrical master and cannibalize a reason to go to the theater?

THere will be displays capable of it, but not meant for consumer use. Sure some enthusiasts may buy them, but people aren't going to make software to support it.

[FirebrandX]

Hey Joe! It seems no matter what board I visit, I eventually find your name! First I was a regular at Film-Tech until eventually I got fired from my projectionist job on the very day my theatre went all-digital. The lousy scumbags even had me supervise the digital installation on all 16 screens, then promptly called me into the office and fired me so they could pay some monkeys minimum wage to press the "play" button. The company I refer to is Rave Motion Pictures (Slave Motion Pictures for those that work for them), and I wish nothing but failure for that company now.

Anyway, next, I come across a fraps video somebody posted on a warcraft forum I visit, and I laughed when I saw they used one of your game remixes! Now I've been collecting blu-rays based on the debate thread over at Film-Tech (it was one of those HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray threads), so I guess I should have known it wouldn't be long before I see Joe's name again :-P

Getting on topic, I have to agree with Joe, having been a projectionist of both formats myself. If you want 35mm detail, you pretty much have to go 4k res. In fact, I have a 35mm film cell scanner at home that I keep at 4k res when I'm scanning 35mm images. I've set it to 2k before and you can easily notice the detail loss. That's not to say I'm not impressed with some of the finer Blu-Ray transfers. I was blown away by the Bladerunner Blu-Ray, which was downcoverted from a 4k scanned and cleaned film negative.

[jorg]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I don't know what compression the theatrical DLP showings use, but I'll tell you flat out that the resulting film is almost certainly many times bigger than 50GB.

There is no possible way for the forseeable future of using those versions in a home setting

Bottom line, it's going to take another decade or more to get HDTV into 90% of US households. It'll be another decade before those same have 1080p sets. Why would the studios want to give away their theatrical master and cannibalize a reason to go to the theater?

THere will be displays capable of it, but not meant for consumer use. Sure some enthusiasts may buy them, but people aren't going to make software to support it.

i probly should of said at laest to untill 2030

Why would the studios want to give away their theatrical master and cannibalize a reason to go to the theater?

i was just thinking it would be more profitable for studios if all films were shoot in digital and better yet the same medium that used in residential products that way could save money with no need to scan the film and restor ect. but unless the cost for the digital mediums in comerical/industrail such as the camera and hard drives to store the data never falls below the cost of a traditional film camera and the film medium

but that would make the only reason to go to a theater is for the social and for a huge screen and aloots of speakers

[Joe Redifer]

Hello FirebrandX, forgive me if I don't know exactly who you are. Who the hell is using my music on a Warcraft forum?

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Maybe we should move this out of the newbie thread?

Yeah, I tried to start it in the General Discussions or wherever, but I was still under my 3 day-old limit so I was forced to create it in here. If you move it, please be sure to leave a redirect for a few days (even though I am usually against redirects, but this thread has lots of activity).

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

SHOWN through a projector's lens (which you could say creates a 5th generation version of the image).

I don't really agree with that. In my opinion a generation occurs when something is physically copied to a physically different storage medium. For example, copying the 35mm negative to a 35mm print would be a generation loss. Copying that 35mm print and making another 35mm print would be another generation. But simply projecting it to the screen would not constitute a generation. Yes, many theaters suck large amounts of ass with their presentations, but there are a few which would blow you away with the same 35mm prints the other show (just as long as they get those 35mm prints new or well preserved and not destroyed by the loser theaters).

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

I don't really agree with that. In my opinion a generation occurs when something is physically copied to a physically different storage medium. For example, copying the 35mm negative to a 35mm print would be a generation loss. Copying that 35mm print and making another 35mm print would be another generation. But simply projecting it to the screen would not constitute a generation. Yes, many theaters suck large amounts of ass with their presentations, but there are a few which would blow you away with the same 35mm prints the other show (just as long as they get those 35mm prints new or well preserved and not destroyed by the loser theaters).

Yes technically you're correct, a lens doesn't create another generation. And projecting through a lens doesn't add grain, as there's no new emulsion, actually it decreases it's visibility.

I meant it in the way that the lens' MTF and contrast (flare) losses degrade the image sharpness in a similar way that duplicating the image onto another emulsion does, just by passing it through the lens. Not counting mechanical vibrations of a 35mm projector, focus operator errors, or the degradation in focus that the heat of the lamp creates when it momentarily buckles the film and shifts it while the frame is being projected onscreen (Though there are ways to slightly counteract this but they're seldom used). Which all adds up (dupes, lens, projectors) and is why the maybe up to 2000 lines per picture height on a 35mm negative can end up being only 800 lines on a theater screen.

[Joe Redifer]

I think that is exaggerated. That's taking into account the worst possible scenario only. With 2048 digital projection, you can see aliasing even in the back half of the auditorium. This is clear lack-of-detail type of stuff. On movies shot with a 1080p digital camera, you can even see aliasing on the 35mm release prints.

[Deciazulado]

Yes you need about 2000 x 4000 digital pixels in the final image to make things smooth to the eye.

I was talking about 35mm onscreen res from 35mm film.

http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

[jorg]

too bad we cant just use the negative to watch movie :P lol but never new the diffrence was that great

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

I don't know what compression the theatrical DLP showings use, but I'll tell you flat out that the resulting film is almost certainly many times bigger than 50GB.

There is no possible way for the forseeable future of using those versions in a home setting

Indeed. The DCI spec uses Motion JPEG2000 intra-frame compression of 12-bit 4:4:4 video (3d spec uses 4:2:2). File size can run anywhere from 200-500GB, depending on length, compression, audio used, etc.

Given that no one has propsed a home-theatre spec using 4:4:4 12-bit video... and most people don't have easy access to dual-link HD-SDI connections anyway... I wouldn't bet on being able to use D-Cinema presentations anywhere but the cinema any time soon.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Even the Mod is lost in the pixel count , someone send for the bloodhounds. The Fredonia Motion Picture And Army Tank Engineers always refer to film resolution capability in lines per millimeter of resolving power. Higher Speed film can resolve LESS lines per millimeter while Slower Speed films resolve More lines per millimeter. ASA 100 Eastman color is easily capable of well over 80 lines per millimeter. When we transfer them to video for showing at our Army Bases THEN we speak in terms of pixels.... lets keep things straight around here or I'll get Chickolini after you all .

I don't know what compression the theatrical DLP showings use, but I'll tell you flat out that the resulting film is almost certainly many times bigger than 50GB.

WikiWoo is wost in DLP Wand! Here in Freedonia our DLP systems typicwie see files for 2 hour films at awound 150 to 250 gigawigabites. That wacky Piwates of the Cawibbean movie weqwired a 500 gig dwive to ship on because it was so wong. When you take into account the twipical data wate gwoing into the DLP 50 gigs might wepwesent woom on the dwive for a 1/2 howr Stooges Showt.

Rufus T Firefly
President Of Fredonia

RCA 10" B&W Set
Edison Cylinder Player
Crystal Radio Set

[Deciazulado]

I could talk in c/mm

[FirebrandX]

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

Hello FirebrandX, forgive me if I don't know exactly who you are. Who the hell is using my music on a Warcraft forum?

Heh, just think Michael Beard and you'll remember me Anyway, it was a fraps video and they did give you credit at the end for the music. It was a remix tune you did for Herzog Zwie I believe. Btw, I cracked up when I listened to your FF-chocobo parody tune

[LynxFX]

Check out Lost on BD. One of the few shows still being shot on film and it is absolutely gorgeous in 1080p.

[tofur69]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Indeed. The DCI spec uses Motion JPEG2000 intra-frame compression of 12-bit 4:4:4 video (3d spec uses 4:2:2). File size can run anywhere from 200-500GB, depending on length, compression, audio used, etc.

Given that no one has propsed a home-theatre spec using 4:4:4 12-bit video... and most people don't have easy access to dual-link HD-SDI connections anyway... I wouldn't bet on being able to use D-Cinema presentations anywhere but the cinema any time soon.

I just checked the hard drives for BEOWULF 3D and the movie and audio occupies 176.8Gb. You also have to remember that this also runs at 144FPS (72FPS left eye and 72FPS right eye). To get that high frame rate for the the 3D, the resolution is usually brought below 2k.

I have not seen too many of our digital presentations at my theatre run over 300Gb if any.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by tofur69

I just checked the hard drives for BEOWULF 3D and the movie and audio occupies 176.8Gb. You also have to remember that this also runs at 144FPS (72FPS left eye and 72FPS right eye). To get that high frame rate for the the 3D, the resolution is usually brought below 2k.

I have not seen too many of our digital presentations at my theatre run over 300Gb if any.

True enough. My comment (up to 500GB) was in reference to DCI estimates of 4k films (which obviously take up more space, though the compression improves). You're right, though, many current and past films have come in below 200GB. If I remember right, Bicentenial Man (one of the earliest digital test films) actually came in at less than 50GB... though that film wasn't compressed the same as current films.