35mm film is awesome

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

Wow, this thread just passed its five year Anniversary.

It does not hold the record. Some are worse (or better)…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...ed#post8058789

[THXGuru]

Originally Posted by garyrc

I have changed my mind.

I am an almost lifelong 70 mm buff, and have seen some remarkably good 35 mm prints, as well, particularly in recent years. I have repeatedly argued that either of these formats are far superior to BD. I cited the fact that several 70 mm negatives have been scanned in 8K, while BDs are approx. 2K. When I heard arguments by industry professionals that by the time a film goes through all of its printing stages, it may look no better than BD, I doubted them. But ... it turns out that I did not realize how good BD can look. We now have a very large 'scope screen and a decent projector, and the image can (but doesn't always) look amazing! Facial quality in close-ups subjectively rivals theatrical projection, even 70 mm projection in some cases. There is something that isn't quite as good as 70 mm that shows up in long shots, and the image does not have the "etched" look that a few 70 mm prints have, but some almost make it.

BR is nowhere near as good as 35mm.

BR can fool people into thinking it is D-Cinema 2K but not a chance at 35mm. You must keep in mind and remember that a 35mm is better display device than any home or 2K digital ever wishes it could be.

[quote=Midnightsailor;502824]Y

Originally Posted by Midnightsailor

b) some projectionists have absolutely no clue when a film is out of focus (gah! i hate this!)

Any really good projectionist will pull the focus for every show they start.

[RyanPom]

Not even a 4k Blu ray is as good as actual film.

[THXGuru]

Originally Posted by RyanPom

Not even a 4k Blu ray is as good as actual film.

Yeah, I was going to say that but there would be too many home theater owners on here who might might get offended.

[cornbread_1788]

I'm just glad there are those out there who prefer film, like myself. Digital just does nothing for me, the smearing, the flatness, the artificiality of it all. I'm not totally anti-digital, liking the Arri Alexa when used properly, but film has a 100 year advantage against the 10 year plus of digital "film" making. Film just gives me such a thrill, especially a terrific 35mm print run through the projector passing the light source and the sound it makes as it passes by. I hate how the studios are pushing for digital instead of allowing the artist pick their "paints". If I ever direct, it'll be nothing but film regardless of who forces me to use otherwise.

[THXGuru]

Originally Posted by cornbread_1788

i'm just glad there are those out there who prefer film, like myself. Digital just does nothing for me, the smearing, the flatness, the artificiality of it all. I'm not totally anti-digital, liking the arri alexa when used properly, but film has a 100 year advantage against the 10 year plus of digital "film" making. Film just gives me such a thrill, especially a terrific 35mm print run through the projector passing the light source and the sound it makes as it passes by. I hate how the studios are pushing for digital instead of allowing the artist pick their "paints". If i ever direct, it'll be nothing but film regardless of who forces me to use otherwise.

+1

[Canada]

35mm is great although you know what's awesome 70mm film or IMAX film stock.

[RyanPom]

Originally Posted by Canada

35mm is great although you know what's awesome 70mm film or IMAX film stock.

In the future we'll have 90 MM film and they'll charge you 100 bucks a ticket to watch it.

[Insomniac01]

Originally Posted by THXGuru

Yeah, I was going to say that but there would be too many home theater owners on here who might might get offended.

Film can be better and those shot on 70mm do have the edge. However most films in recent years whether shoot on film or digitally have used a 2k DI. So the difference is not really there.

With that being said I think grain is a mixed bag, it can look amazing and dreadful. I never want it scrubbed away though unless that is what the film makers decided to do prior to release.

[THXGuru]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

However most films in recent years whether shoot on film or digitally have used a 2k DI. So the difference is not really there.

The whole DI 2K thing is a bit overrated, it gives too many folks the opportunity to think they all of a sudden have figured it out. It is kind of like saying, "vehicle 1 with 500hp will automatically out perform vehicle 2 with 350hp" as we know there are other factors come into to play such vehicle weight, gearing, size, dynamics etc.

I find it interesting that IMAX takes the standard 2K DI image and re-processes it, they change the colors, tones, range and sharpen up the image among other things, then IMAX uses two projectors to project the image. It is worth noting that IMAX projectors for digital display are nothing but Christie 2K projectors. Why would they need to do this?

Simply put, digital is limited in the amount of color it can reproduce from a projector versus a piece of film. Digital also does not even use the full resolution of the projector to display the widescreen image.

So yes, in theory a 2K image will not lose any detail from a 2K projector, but that does tell the whole story. Film has always had the better tendency to display blacks and low resolution images better than digital. Color curves on film are better as well.

Some do not and have never had the opportunity to see the difference between the two side by side and back to back. I am fortunate to be able to have this opportunity and I still do. Film wins.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by garyrc

I have changed my mind.

I am an almost lifelong 70 mm buff, and have seen some remarkably good 35 mm prints, as well, particularly in recent years. I have repeatedly argued that either of these formats are far superior to BD. I cited the fact that several 70 mm negatives have been scanned in 8K, while BDs are approx. 2K. When I heard arguments by industry professionals that by the time a film goes through all of its printing stages, it may look no better than BD, I doubted them. But ... it turns out that I did not realize how good BD can look. We now have a very large 'scope screen and a decent projector, and the image can (but doesn't always) look amazing! Facial quality in close-ups subjectively rivals theatrical projection, even 70 mm projection in some cases. There is something that isn't quite as good as 70 mm that shows up in long shots, and the image does not have the "etched" look that a few 70 mm prints have, but some almost make it.

Even when watching a TV show, closeups look great. Why? Because there isn't a lot of variation from pixel to pixel so the resolution is high enough. Why don't long shots look as good? Because we actually do need higher resolution to see them properly. That's why cartoons, especially cartoons made for television look great even on cruddy hardware: with big blocks of solid color, you don't need high resolution for them to look good.

The theoretical potential of film (even 35mm) exceeds digital projection and BD. But the actual day-to-day practice of how film is presented in theaters with dim projection, key-stoning, scratched and dirty prints, faded color, worn mag heads on traditional 70mm presentations, etc. all contributes to digital projection and BD on a properly calibrated monitor or projector looking better. Digital projection and BD certainly has its flaws, but overall, in practice (except perhaps at places like the DGA or Academy theatres in Hollywood), it's superior.

However, there's one thing that home theatre can rarely reproduce and that's the feeling of being completely engulfed by the image the way you are in a theatre with a 60' screen or in the peak days of Cinerama with a 90' screen.

[THXGuru]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Digital projection and BD certainly has its flaws, but overall, in practice (except perhaps at places like the DGA or Academy theatres in Hollywood), it's superior.

2K digital cinema projection SUCKS! It is a decent alternative to 35mm but not a replacement. Digital can't replicate tones like film can, this is one of the main reasons IMAX changes the look of the tones during the DMR process. And you wonder why they feel they need to use two 2K digital projectors....What a disgusting shame!

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

However, there's one thing that home theatre can rarely reproduce and that's the feeling of being completely engulfed by the image the way you are in a theatre with a 60' screen or in the peak days of Cinerama with a 90' screen.

Digital has a hard time filling up a 60 foot screen. With scope being about 820p resolution, it is a real sad what has happened at the cinemas.

[Insomniac01]

Originally Posted by THXGuru

The whole DI 2K thing is a bit overrated, it gives too many folks the opportunity to think they all of a sudden have figured it out. It is kind of like saying, "vehicle 1 with 500hp will automatically out perform vehicle 2 with 350hp" as we know there are other factors come into to play such vehicle weight, gearing, size, dynamics etc.

I find it interesting that IMAX takes the standard 2K DI image and re-processes it, they change the colors, tones, range and sharpen up the image among other things, then IMAX uses two projectors to project the image. It is worth noting that IMAX projectors for digital display are nothing but Christie 2K projectors. Why would they need to do this?

Simply put, digital is limited in the amount of color it can reproduce from a projector versus a piece of film. Digital also does not even use the full resolution of the projector to display the widescreen image.

So yes, in theory a 2K image will not lose any detail from a 2K projector, but that does tell the whole story. Film has always had the better tendency to display blacks and low resolution images better than digital. Color curves on film are better as well.

Some do not and have never had the opportunity to see the difference between the two side by side and back to back. I am fortunate to be able to have this opportunity and I still do. Film wins.

Absolutely. I will also add that I have found digital projection to kill film projection (excluding 70mm projection done well at least, but to see that is sadly rather rare). Also Imax reproccessing for feature films is generally terrible (involving way to much DRM and artificial sharpening though they have been getting a lot better recently).

I kind of hope there is a quick movement to at least 4k in cinemas.

[THXGuru]

Originally Posted by Insomniac01

Also Imax reproccessing for feature films is generally terrible

It is not a crap as regular 2K digital cinema. There is a reason why IMAX uses two projectors and enhances tones and colors, it is because digital is replacement for 35mm

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Even when watching a TV show, closeups look great. Why? Because there isn't a lot of variation from pixel to pixel so the resolution is high enough. Why don't long shots look as good? Because we actually do need higher resolution to see them properly ...

... But the actual day-to-day practice of how film is presented in theaters with dim projection, key-stoning, scratched and dirty prints, faded color, worn mag heads on traditional 70mm presentations, etc. all contributes to digital projection and BD on a properly calibrated monitor or projector looking better. Digital projection and BD certainly has its flaws, but overall, in practice (except perhaps at places like the DGA or Academy theatres in Hollywood), it's superior.

However, there's one thing that home theatre can rarely reproduce and that's the feeling of being completely engulfed by the image the way you are in a theatre with a 60' screen or in the peak days of Cinerama with a 90' screen.

I agree. The big close-ups, I believe, give me as good a look at pores and pilomotor responses as 35 mm or -- in some cases -- 70 mm. As you say, maybe the lack of variation from pixel to pixel provides good enough resolution for faces, but not for those long shots.

As to the day to day practice in regular movie theaters, of all the factors you cite, I think the dim projection is perhaps the biggest one I run into. The brightness isn't near what it was in the old carbon arc days. This is even true with horizontal running 70 mm IMAX. For those who have not seen old fashioned carbon arc projection, no, the the added brightness didn't wash out the picture, but images did often sparkle (in a good way).

We recently estimated that we would need a screen twice as wide as ours (it's 130" true width 2.35:1 AR), and curved, to simulate the feeling of engulfment we had with the original 70 mm Todd-AO in the theater we used to frequent.

All of that being said, the Blu-ray close-ups we see with out new equipment are amazing, and, as I said, they can pass.

THXGuru (and anyone else), do photochemical, theatrically projected films that were made with a 2K intermediate digital step get reduced to the approximately 2K resolution of Blu-ray? I recently heard (IMDb) that Cloud Atlas was shot on film, but used a 2K intermediate. According to the Nyquist thing, wouldn't they need to scan the negative at 4K to get a 2K result, or 8K to get 4K? Maybe I misunderstand.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by garyrc

THXGuru (and anyone else)

'THXGuru' was given a red card for being a naughty boy, so I guess I'm 'anyone else'.

For 2K DI to Blu-ray, without getting into an overly complicated discussion (i.e. a combination of cropping and rescaling solution) at the very minimum, you’ve got to either rescale or crop, same kind of thing for when going from 4K DI to consumer 4K…. https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...op#post5724086

But in the case of 2K -> Blu-ray, if you’re talking cropping, it’s like 64 pixels off each side of 2048.

[cramped_misfit90]

Oh jacki
What took you so long
On just a holiday
Oh jacki
What took you so long
I thought you knew the way

[42041]

Originally Posted by THXGuru

2K digital cinema projection SUCKS!

The folks who think 2K digital is some kind of downgrade over the general state of film projection it replaced seem to have little experience with either the average quality of film projection in the last few decades, or what nice digital projection looks like

(and yes, I've seen plenty of lousy digital projection, but with film the limitation is fundamental: you can't mass-produce thousands of prints and maintain the quality of one struck off the negative).

[Insomniac01]

Originally Posted by THXGuru

It is not a crap as regular 2K digital cinema. There is a reason why IMAX uses two projectors and enhances tones and colors, it is because digital is replacement for 35mm

Wow thankyou for that, I needed a good laugh today.

Originally Posted by 42041

The folks who think 2K digital is some kind of downgrade over the general state of film projection it replaced seem to have little experience with either the average quality of film projection in the last few decades, or what nice digital projection looks like

Indeed.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by 42041

The folks who think 2K digital is some kind of downgrade over the general state of film projection it replaced seem to have little experience with either the average quality of film projection in the last few decades, or what nice digital projection looks like

(and yes, I've seen plenty of lousy digital projection, but with film the limitation is fundamental: you can't mass-produce thousands of prints and maintain the quality of one struck off the negative).

With the tender loving care that used to be employed in striking 70 mm prints there was pretty good uniformity, and wonderful walk-into-it quality.

With 35 mm, then and now, some prints were horrible, some quite good.

With digital, I'd expect they would all look the same, except for projection brightness. I assume the projectors can be adjusted to low brightness to save the lamp, just as with home projectors. Stardust (2007), projected in digital, was so dim that it was hard to tell if it was sharp -- but I've seen the same thing happen with film.

With either film or digital, another source of variance is whether something in the booth -- like focus -- needs to be adjusted after the initial set up by a trained individual. Twice the audio has been unnaturally soft -- probably due to a person in charge turning it down to way below reference, perhaps due to an audience complaint. In one instance I had to accompany a manager (who was about 20, admittedly untrained, and working the candy counter) to the booth and show him how to turn it up.