Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

We are talking about changing the entire look and feel of film here.

For the last several years most movies have been shot using video cameras. For the most part the look and feel of the finished master occurs in post. It is video but most producers/directors don't want it to look like a soap so they use something like DaVinci Resolve (or Adobe and others) to change the look. In some instances they take what was probably nice pictures and make a mess of it. A small sample of what Resolve can do:

Colorist 2016 Reel - Justin Robinson (DaVinci Resolve) - YouTube

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yeah, but better audio is a no-brainier. We are talking about changing the entire look and feel of film here.

We are talking about changing the entire look and feel of some films here. No one is advocating that all movies henceforth be shot in HFR. You always think that anything new or different absolutely has to be the death knell for all that came before it.

Innovation comes from a willingness to try new things. 4K discs with wide color gamut and high dynamic range changed the look and feel of film, too, but most of us welcomed these improvements. Your trepidation for technological evolution would have had us stuck forever with blu-ray and standard dynamic range.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by gotmule

I gave in and bought it for pure technical merit reasons, as I didn’t have much hope from a movie standpoint. To say it was a mediocre movie might be giving it a bit more credit, as it was at times pretty painful to watch. Technically speaking however, it was impressive. The opening scene in a train station was jaw dropping as I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Action scenes were equally as impressive, as there were no motion artifacts. The image was a distraction though, as you were sometimes caught up in what you were seeing since your eyes are just not use to something like this. There is a motorcycle chase scene that is demo material, as it looks and sounds amazing with an effective Atmos mix.

With all of this glowing praise for the movie itself, maybe I should wait until this thing costs $10 to satisfy my HFR curiosity. It sounds like it will be priced that low soon enough. 4K discs are not available for rental in my area, so I lack that option.

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by Vilya

With all of this glowing praise for the movie itself, maybe I should wait until this thing costs $10 to satisfy my HFR curiosity. It sounds like it will be priced that low soon enough. 4K discs are not available for rental in my area, so I lack that option.

$10 feels about right. I am not proud of three weeks of new release purchase decisions as I had a run of Gemini Man, Zombieland II, and Terminator Dark Fate. But Joker before and Dr Sleep and Ford vs Ferrari afterwards make up for it I think. Midway tomorrow and Knives Out next week as well.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by gotmule

$10 feels about right. I am not proud of three weeks of new release purchase decisions as I had a run of Gemini Man, Zombieland II, and Terminator Dark Fate. But Joker before and Dr Sleep and Ford vs Ferrari afterwards make up for it I think. Midway tomorrow and Knives Out next week as well.

Quite the trifecta there; all three of those are movies that I will wait for a price drop on.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

We are talking about changing the entire look and feel of some films here. No one is advocating that all movies henceforth be shot in HFR. You always think that anything new or different absolutely has to be the death knell for all that came before it.

Innovation comes from a willingness to try new things. 4K discs with wide color gamut and high dynamic range changed the look and feel of film, too, but most of us welcomed these improvements. Your trepidation for technological evolution would have had us stuck forever with blu-ray and standard dynamic range.

Why do you think only some films would utilise this method? Surely it’s an adopted thing. You couldn’t have some movies shown at 24 FPS and others at 60 or higher. It would be too jarring.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Why do you think only some films would utilise this method? Surely it’s an adopted thing. You couldn’t have some movies shown at 24 FPS and others at 60 or higher. It would be too jarring.

Movies are a form of creative expression and filmmakers are free to choose from this and any other method that achieves their aim.

Of course we can have content at different frame rates; we already do. The use of one particular frame rate does not preclude the use of others. It all depends on what the director wants to accomplish.

HFR is just a tool like so many others. It might be great for one project and terrible for another. HFR has great potential for documentaries, high speed action subjects, sports films, or any movie where extreme detail and realism might be desired.

If HFR does prove to be "too jarring" and if most people dislike it, then it will fail, but once again it is ridiculous to assume that it might someday be the only frame rate chosen by filmmakers. It is possible for more than one form of creative expression to exist just like your much feared vertically framed content can, and does, exist without killing off traditional wide aspect ratio content. It does not have to be all one way or the other as you so often insist that it must be.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Movies are a form of creative expression and filmmakers are free to choose from this and any other method that achieves their aim.

Of course we can have content at different frame rates; we already do. The use of one particular frame rate does not preclude the use of others. It all depends on what the director wants to accomplish.

HFR is just a tool like so many others. It might be great for one project and terrible for another. HFR has great potential for documentaries, high speed action subjects, sports films, or any movie where extreme detail and realism might be desired.

If HFR does prove to be "too jarring" and if most people dislike it, then it will fail, but once again it is ridiculous to assume that it might someday be the only frame rate chosen by filmmakers. It is possible for more than one form of creative expression to exist just like your much feared vertically framed content can, and does, exist without killing off traditional wide aspect ratio content. It does not have to be all one way or the other as you so often insist that it must be.

I just don’t see multiple film makers opting for different methods. Not when HFR becomes a thing (if it does). I’m speaking of film here by the way, not sport or docs.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I just don’t see multiple film makers opting for different methods. Not when HFR becomes a thing (if it does). I’m speaking of film here by the way, not sport or docs.

I don't see many filmmakers choosing to make vertically framed content, either, but so what if they do? It won't harm the making of traditional wide aspect ratio films. It would just be another creative choice.

Filmmakers choose from a wide array of methods when making their movies; they always have and they continue to experiment with new methods and technologies as well they should. Innovation and creativity go together.

3D movies are not exactly "a thing" compared to 2D movies, but I still enjoy both of them immensely. HFR actually benefits 3D according to director Ang Lee in that it reduces strobing; he is credited with saying that 3D should be shot and presented at 120 fps! HFR could likewise be used to great effect in the hands of a talented director and cinematographer and no special headgear is required to enjoy the 2D version of it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I don't see many filmmakers choosing to make vertically framed content, either, but so what if they do? It won't harm the making of traditional wide aspect ratio films. It would just be another creative choice.

Filmmakers choose from a wide array of methods when making their movies; they always have and they continue to experiment with new methods and technologies as well they should. Innovation and creativity go together.

3D movies are not exactly "a thing" compared to 2D movies, but I still enjoy both of them immensely. HFR actually benefits 3D according to director Ang Lee in that it reduces strobing; he is credited with saying that 3D should be shot and presented at 120 fps! HFR could likewise be used to great effect in the hands of a talented director and cinematographer and no special headgear is required to enjoy the 2D version of it.

Cinematic storytelling is about escapism not realism. This stuff takes away from that. It did for me at least.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Some film makers prefer to use film, others prefer to use digital cameras.

Some film makers use a 2.35 aspect ratio, others use a 1.85 aspect ratio, some use alternating aspect ratios.

Some film makers make 3 hour films, others make 90 minute films.

Some film makers use vibrant colors, others use muted colors.

Some film makers prefer animation, others prefer live action.

Some film makers use lots of CGI, others prefer to use stunts and miniatures.

High frame rate is just another choice.

So why do people not shoot films at less than 24 FPS (I’m not talking about fractionally less either) Remember silent movies?

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I don't see many filmmakers choosing to make vertically framed content, either, but so what if they do? It won't harm the making of traditional wide aspect ratio films. It would just be another creative choice.

Filmmakers choose from a wide array of methods when making their movies; they always have and they continue to experiment with new methods and technologies as well they should. Innovation and creativity go together.

3D movies are not exactly "a thing" compared to 2D movies, but I still enjoy both of them immensely. HFR actually benefits 3D according to director Ang Lee in that it reduces strobing; he is credited with saying that 3D should be shot and presented at 120 fps! HFR could likewise be used to great effect in the hands of a talented director and cinematographer and no special headgear is required to enjoy the 2D version of it.

I am not always a fan of found footage filmmaking, but HFR would be an effective approach to take after seeing Gemini Man.

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Cinematic storytelling is about escapism not realism. This stuff takes away from that. It did for me at least.

Aren’t you a fan of 3d? How is that not a distraction to escapism?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Cinematic storytelling is about escapism not realism. This stuff takes away from that. It did for me at least.

Cinematic story telling is about telling a story, any story, well; by no means are all cinematic stories meant to be escapist.

Such flights of fancy may be what you're looking for in a movie, but these are not the only kind of movies made. Some movies are definitely intended to be as realistic as possible, sometimes painfully so. Your idea as to the purpose of cinematic story telling is vastly incorrect if you think that escapism is the only objective.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Cinematic story telling is about telling a story, any story, well; by no means are all cinematic stories meant to be escapist.

Such flights of fancy may be what you're looking for in a movie, but these are not the only kind of movies made. Some movies are definitely intended to be as realistic as possible, sometimes painfully so. Your idea as to the purpose of cinematic story telling is vastly incorrect if you think that escapism is the only objective.

The only objective? No. The main objective, yes. The figures back me up. Go over to box office mojo and check out the top 10 grossing films (top 20 works also) for the last 20 years.
Fantasy and Sci-Fi with action films backing it up. People go to the cinema to escape the real world and forget their troubles for 2 hours. It’s why the cinema did so well in war time. It’s why horror has been going since the creation of cinema. People loved to be scared and even horrified, knowing they are in a safe environment. Even those ultra real examples you mention are escaping into a different world and place in time.
You love figures and evidence, I present you with them. All the huge money makers have been escapist cinema.
Th3 fact ultra real films exist is a good thing and I own many of them but I feel you are taking the usual stance of just disagreeing with every point I make.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by gotmule

Aren’t you a fan of 3d? How is that not a distraction to escapism?

It’s the opposite. 3D provides depth and (vintage films mostly) provides negative parallax that draws you in even more to that world.

HFR seems to do the opposite. It reminds people that these guys are just acting, it makes static scenes look like documentaries, it shows up FX if they are not perfect. It takes away from the experience.
For me personally, I Agree with those drawbacks.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Silent movies were shot with hand cranked cameras, that's why the frame rate varied. Theaters showed then at a consistent frame rate and it often didn't match the director's intentions.

When 23.96, 25, and 29.96 frame rates became standard support was dropped (in both the cameras and projectors) for other frame rates. No one was able to shoot at other frame rates even if they wanted to.

Which I already knew, but thanks for the history lesson. In other words, a new standard was adopted because of old technology. Fast forward 20 years from now?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The only objective? No. The main objective, yes. The figures back me up. Go over to box office mojo and check out the top 10 grossing films (top 20 works also) for the last 20 years.
Fantasy and Sci-Fi with action films backing it up. People go to the cinema to escape the real world and forget their troubles for 2 hours. It’s why the cinema did so well in war time. It’s why horror has been going since the creation of cinema. People loved to be scared and even horrified, knowing they are in a safe environment. Even those ultra real examples you mention are escaping into a different world and place in time.
You love figures and evidence, I present you with them. All the huge money makers have been escapist cinema.
Th3 fact ultra real films exist is a good thing and I own many of them but I feel you are taking the usual stance of just disagreeing with every point I make.

The main objective of a movie is to tell whatever story its creators had in mind and to tell it well.

Actually, you did not present me with any evidence or with any figures. Not a single one. You just made a claim and then told me to go look it up for myself. There would be no need for me to look anything up had you already provided the figures and the evidence. If any of this was even relevant, I might have bothered to fact check you, but it isn't, so I haven't.

How popular or how much money a given genre makes was never the point. Movies tell many kinds of stories and escapist fantasy fare is not the only kind offered. It is refreshing that you can concede this much.

I never disputed that people enjoy escapist movies. I enjoy them, too, but I also enjoy a whole lot more. I simply refuted your absolutist statement that the goal of cinematic story telling is escapism. Sometimes it is and often it is not. I said nothing about historical movies or those set in exotic locales, either, as not all realistic films are set in the distant past or in faraway places. You make far too many absolutist statements in general and the only thing that is absolute about such statements is that they are almost always absolutely wrong.

HFR is just one creative tool among many and its usage is not restricted to just telling reality based narratives. We have not even had many examples of its usage to be fair. If you do not like what you have seen of it so far, that's perfectly fine, but what little of it I have seen intrigues me. I think it has great potential to draw people into the movie when used skillfully. I am open minded about it and I will not rush to judgment as quickly as you apparently have.

I do not disagree with you just to do so, but you often make "all or nothing" exaggerated statements and those I do take exception with and I will continue to do so. Making such remarks is intellectually lazy and they are also factually wrong. The narrative goal of a movie varies widely with each movie made. I want filmmakers to feel encouraged to take chances and to use any tool that they desire; the more tools that they have at their disposal, the better. I will await the end result and make my judgments on a movie by movie basis rather than make a blanket condemnation of any one creative option.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So why do people not shoot films at less than 24 FPS

The frame rate was based on studies at the time. 24 was chosen as the lowest rate possible without objectionable flicker (48 flashes). Then as now, it was money, the lower the frame rate the less film used.

48 and 60 would take a lot more film or a lot more storage for video therefore it is seldom used. Last time I looked the high capacity memory modules for the Sony F65 were about $5000 each and shooting in 16 bit RAW takes a lot of memory even at 24.

[cheez avenger]

I watched the 2001 Space Odyssey 4K disc last night and it was absolutely stellar. I also watched Gods of Egypt on 4K disc, as well, with HDR. I also finished binging this really cool show called Giri/Haji on Netflix - it's a BBC/Netflix production and it was presented in Dolby Vision/Atmos via Netflix. It's a neo-noir slow burn Yakuza tale that takes place in London and Tokyo.

It was a busy day off yesterday indeed!