35mm film is awesome

[Joe Redifer]

While perusing some of the reviews, I noticed that one member said that the AC/DC concert was shot in 35mm, so the picture quality could NEVER be good. There is a serious lack of understanding about 35mm film here, I think... at least with some members (I'm sure that many other members aren't that naive).

35mm film can vary in quality, but generally it will beat the pants off 1080p as far as overall image detail goes. It beats movies shot digitally like Star Wars Episodes 2 & 3, Apocalypto, Superman Returns, etc. Those movies were shot at a 1080p resolution, and then cropped for a 2.39:1 aspect ratio (so the movies themselves were actually no more than about 1920x805 on the master source). If one were to rate standard 35mm film in resolution, it would be close to 4,000 x 3,000px. Of course lenses, film stock, cameras and overall handling have an effect on picture quality for better or worse.

Lots of studios do bad transfers mainly because idiots are in charge of those transfers. It really comes straight down to that. A well maintained print of a movie from 1960 carefully transferred to Blu-Ray can look every bit as good as a Pirates of the Caribbean (which was also shot on 35mm film). So don't blame the source unless the source truly sucks. 35mm is great, and it means we can get awesome looking transfers of older great movies if/when the studios care enough.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Joe,

Have you seen the Blue Ray of "The Searchers" or "Casablanca"? These are the best examples to date of how good old classics can look on 1080P HD. "The Searchers" was transfered from the VistaVision large format B&W seperations... talk about pixels galore.... like 4000X6000. Warners is by far doing the best job... outstanding many times.

One thing to remember though is that D-Cinematography will improve by leaps and bounds over the next decade... remember that 35mm movies didn't look so good in their infancy either.... D-Cinematography will eventually surpass the quality of film but it will take perhaps 15 years.

Rufus T Firefly
(President Of Freedonia)

[fattyslimslim]

Originally Posted by Rufus T Firefly

Joe,

Have you seen the Blue Ray of "The Searchers" or "Casablanca"? These are the best examples to date of how good old classics can look on 1080P HD. "The Searchers" was transfered from the VistaVision large format B&W seperations... talk about pixels galore.... like 4000X6000. Warners is by far doing the best job... outstanding many times.

One thing to remember though is that D-Cinematography will improve by leaps and bounds over the next decade... remember that 35mm movies didn't look so good in their infancy either.... D-Cinematography will eventually surpass the quality of film but it will take perhaps 15 years.

Rufus T Firefly
(President Of Freedonia)

Well see here Mr President!

I don't no bout all that d-cinemerfotografy that you are learnin us about...
I don't no nothin bout no pickles galore 4shillionx6shillion...
And I don't no nothin bout no windoes xp vision or whaevur....

All I know is The Searchers looks hella good!
It's 20 years my senior, and it looks better than I do-and I look good!
Not as good as redlikefire02 apparently, but good nonetheless.

[Midnightsailor]

Yeah... I project 35mm films via dual projectors and it's awesome. One of my favorite prints that I've ever personally projected was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The image blew me away! I think 4k digital cinema will be more on par with 35mm, however. But, a lot of 35mm transfers already look significantly worse than 1080p. It all depends on the projection equipment, the projectionists, and how good of a transfer the print is. The reason I said projectionists is because of the following reasons:

a) how many times do you see a film with horrible masking? Horrible enough to make the film look like crap.

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

c) Some projectionists do really obvious splicing jobs on broken films, etc.

Also, some people like the flicker of film and others don't. Well, the list goes on...but in the end, it's all personal preference.

[Frumious Boojum]

Originally Posted by Rufus T Firefly

Have you seen the Blue Ray of "The Searchers" or "Casablanca"?

Wait, where'd you see a Blu-Ray of Casablanca?!

[Joe Cain]

Originally Posted by Frumious Boojum

Wait, where'd you see a Blu-Ray of Casablanca?!

I'm interested in that, too. I knew it was scheduled for Euro release--can't remember when or which nation .

Great handle, btw Rufus. I'd take Duck Soup on BD any day. Now we need is Mrs. Teasdale on the board for you to torment.

[sean10mm]

Joe, you've got the right general idea but you've made some factual errors yourself.

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

Those movies were shot at a 1080p resolution

No they weren't. Professional digital movie cameras are 2K or 4K resolution. Cinema digital projectors are either 2k or 4k. 1080p is a different format that is just under 2K resolution (2048 vertical lines vs. 1920 for Blu-ray).

As far as which is better, there is no real answer. In theory film has unlimited effective resolution, but as a practical matter 4K gives you all the image detail off a pristine 35mm film image...and 35mm film isn't always pristine. Film images can have grain to varying degrees depending on the film stock, shooting conditions, etc. that is inherent to the film image and you can't get rid of. Digital video, however, can have a whole other set of image problems depending on the circumstances.

You can't say film beats the pants off digital video, or vice versa, because there are too many variables at work. Either one can be great or suck horribly. The Pirates movies were shot on Super 35mm and are considered reference-quality Blu-rays. But Planet Earth was largely digital video and is ALSO considered a reference-quality Blu-ray.

Like most things in life, it's less the tool and more how well you use it.

[Bobby Henderson]

No they weren't. Professional digital movie cameras are 2K or 4K resolution. Cinema digital projectors are either 2k or 4k. 1080p is a different format that is just under 2K resolution (2048 vertical lines vs. 1920 for Blu-ray).

Actually, Joe was correct.

The ARRI D20 (used on Superman Returns) has a native maximum resolution of 2880 X 2160 pixels. However, the video footage on Superman Returns was shot mostly at HDTV levels of resolution: 1080p.

Also, there are no digital movie cameras that shoot in 4K resolution. You have to use film to get that level of detail.

Other digital (video) originated movies like Sin City and the third Star Wars prequel were also shot at 1080p resolution. Not 2K. And certainly not 4K either. The 2nd Star Wars prequel was shot at levels significantly below 1080p HDTV resolution. That Sony/Panavision digital camera was in mere prototype form at the time.

I have no doubt digital cameras for movies will continue to improve, possibly at a fairly rapid pace even. But I think it's still going to be awhile before such cameras can truly match 35mm origination, not just in terms of sheer image quality, but also speed as well.

Shooting in "digital" adds a lot of convenience. But it has its own drawbacks too. Lots of movies (especially these days) are shot in low light conditions. Look objectively at Michael Mann's last two movies. Miami Vice and Collateral were both shot mostly with digital cameras. You'll see smearing, black crush in the shadows and all sorts of other problems that come from CCDs and CMOS chips struggling to "see" detail and lagging as a result. 35mm can be poorly exposed, but there's not going to be any pixel lag either unlike what you get from a video camera. Mann's Heat (1995) had lots of dark, low light night scenes, but still ended up looking really good. It's actually a great example of 35mm anamorphic origination. I wish Mann would go back to making movies like that.

[edgebsl]

I think a lot of fear of 35mm is that many hd enthusiasts don't like grain.

But grain can be concealed in DI and the newer film stocks can have very fine grain.

But the thing is many movie buffs and directors like grain, at least some.
It has become an artistic effect and some even like to bring more out by push processing or shooting on 16mm.

So, yeah, good clean hd is great but old school movie addicts love that "film look" and at least a little grain will be around for some time to come.

Myself, I think it depends on the movie. Some movies look great in that 3d like pristine hd. I think some movies look better a little "dirty"

IMO though, with BD and a 1080p 24 projector, you've got the closest to screening a pristine 35mm film print we've ever had in our homes.

[WickyWoo]

Totally agree. Digital just isn't there yet

And I know Spielberg will shoot film and cut on a moviola to the day he dies

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Totally agree. Digital just isn't there yet

Not yet... but it is coming SOON. Red is phenonemal... and the upcoming 8k cameras will offer a lot more clarity than 35mm could ever hope to (certainly more than Super35)... 65mm on the other hand... well, I still wish we'd stuck with that format.

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

And I know Spielberg will shoot film and cut on a moviola to the day he dies

God bless the man. Though, he is Spielberg... they'd let him shoot on S-VHS if he demanded it.

[Joe Redifer]

Joe, you've got the right general idea but you've made some factual errors yourself. Professional digital movie cameras are 2K or 4K resolution. Cinema digital projectors are either 2k or 4k. 1080p is a different format that is just under 2K resolution (2048 vertical lines vs. 1920 for Blu-ray).

As Bobby basically stated, digitally shot movies are not shot at the same resolution of d-cinema projectors. That's basically like assuming VHS can resolve 720x486 since it plays back on NTSC TVs. Also, not all movies that are shown digitally were shot that way. Many were shot on film, scanned and then compressed with JPEG2000 into a d-cinema file. Personally I think that the 2K projectors are weak for real movie theaters, at least for anything other than the smallest screens at a complex. 4K is much better and they should have started with that to begin with. Oh well.

Yes, the Red camera is awesome and I'd love to own one as it'd be perfect for some great HD home movies. But as it stands now, no digital motion picture camera on the market can match the image detail of 35mm film. That is fact. Yes, it absolutely will improve someday. But I'm talking about now and the people who do not believe 35mm can ever offer good quality, like the moron who commented on the AC/DC Live at Donnington Blu-Ray.

I wonder why so many "HD Enthusiasts" fear grain. Perhaps it is because they really don't know much about how movies are made? Excessive grain is bad, yes, but c'mon!

[Bobby Henderson]

Correction from one of my previous posts: Superman Returns was shot using the Panavision Genesis system, not the ARRI D20. The Genesis has 1920 X 1080 pixel resolution.

Not yet... but it is coming SOON. Red is phenonemal... and the upcoming 8k cameras will offer a lot more clarity than 35mm could ever hope to (certainly more than Super35)

Who is developing a 8K camera?

The Red camera's on paper specs are impressive. The proof of just how good this camera is will be in finished image quality. The upcoming action film, Wanted is the first major movie release to make use of Red.

But a number of questions remain unanswered. Was Wanted shot exclusively with the Red camera system? What resolution was used? 2K? 4K? Red claims to be capable of 4K, and at lower compression and deeper color bit depths no less. But it also shoots in a number of other formats. Without doubt, the Red camera's CMOS sensor would be more responsive running at lower resolutions.

I'm also wondering about the camera lens systems as well. The ARRI D20 and Panavision Genesis cameras have an advantage in that they can use some well established, very high end film camera lens systems. Lenses are a big factor in both image quality and speed of image capture.

Of course, I have to mention the digital post production quality bottleneck (and tyranny) of 2K.

Few movies, film or digital originated, have DI and CGI work flows any higher than 2K. 4K post production is starting to get more popular, but the ratio of 4K rendered movies is still very low compared to those rendered in 2K. Until this cost cutting problem is addressed, there won't be much point to 4K or 8K digital cameras.

The 35mm film cameras are still hanging around largely because they deliver better image quality regardless of projection or home video format. And the original negatives do give a movie studio at least some sort of "future proofing" measure against home video systems of increasing image resolution.

Home systems won't stay at 1080p forever. In another 10 years (or less) we'll move to 1600p (2560 X 1600) and jump up further from there. Some of the giant sized televisions and computer monitors shown at Winter CES are already pointing in that direction.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Now we need is Mrs. Teasdale on the board for you to torment.

Mrs. Teasdale... Well, if she gets any closer to me I'll in back of her....


While the present digital cameras may not have real high pixel count you guys also are not stopping to think what the actual pixel count is on a an average release print... After the 4 or 5 generations I'd be willing to bet that a release print is down to about 2800 to 3000 pixels resolution... So 2K D-Cinema presentation seems to be a good comprimise both technically and from a practicality standpoint.

Bobby, At the Fredonia Film Studios our Red Cameras all use the latest Zeiss Lenses just like the Arris use.

Rufus T Firefly
President Of Fredonia

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

[U4K61]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Totally agree. Digital just isn't there yet

Originally Posted by Joe Redifer

While perusing some of the reviews, I noticed that one member said that the AC/DC concert was shot in 35mm, so the picture quality could NEVER be good. There is a serious lack of understanding about 35mm film here, I think... at least with some members (I'm sure that many other members aren't that naive).

35mm film can vary in quality, but generally it will beat the pants off 1080p as far as overall image detail goes.

+1
35mm film is better then 1080p, providing around 12 mega pixels of spatial resolution, to say nothing of its rich texture and partitive color - film grain. So we need at least a 4K HD system to equal that. I hope Sony and Toshiba can work together this time around. The film image we see looks bad because the production print is often old, scratched, dirty, and shown by a somone who does not always do his job. If you ever get the chance view a 2nd gen answer print, you will see that HD has a long ways to go.

Film Grain

• 35/70mm
• Grain is Suppost to be there - BSteke
• Soft Picture - Craig

[FilmmakingFiasco]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

The Red camera's on paper specs are impressive. The proof of just how good this camera is will be in finished image quality. The upcoming action film, Wanted is the first major movie release to make use of Red.

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

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Shooting in "digital" adds a lot of convenience. But it has its own drawbacks too. Lots of movies (especially these days) are shot in low light conditions. Look objectively at Michael Mann's last two movies. Miami Vice and Collateral were both shot mostly with digital cameras. You'll see smearing, black crush in the shadows and all sorts of other problems that come from CCDs and CMOS chips struggling to "see" detail and lagging as a result. 35mm can be poorly exposed, but there's not going to be any pixel lag either unlike what you get from a video camera. Mann's Heat (1995) had lots of dark, low light night scenes, but still ended up looking really good. It's actually a great example of 35mm anamorphic origination. I wish Mann would go back to making movies like that.

I think Mann likes the imperfections and artifacts that the current digital medium brings... gives some scenes in MIAMI VICE and COLLATERAL a certain extra stylish grittiness. Perhaps much the same way DP's used to frown on lens flares, but a lot of the better DP's in the last thirty years embrace them. I think that Mann's last two movies are visually interesting in this manner (with COLLATERAL looking absolutely beautiful most of the time). But it's interesting to go back and look at movies like THE KEEP, MANHUNTER and LAST OF THE MOHICANS where his visual style is much more of a technical precision in contrast to the almost raw, more on the fly style he's adapted of late.

It will also be interesting to see what style he has in mind for his DILLINGER movie, which I simply cannot wait for.

[WickyWoo]

Home systems won't stay at 1080p forever. In another 10 years (or less) we'll move to 1600p (2560 X 1600) and jump up further from there. Some of the giant sized televisions and computer monitors shown at Winter CES are already pointing in that direction.

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

[tofur69]

Joe and Bobby,

Nice to see some familiar names here. I have been waiting on some of the Film-Tech film gods hit the forum here to help in the education of 35mm film projection. Welcome aboard...

BTW,
Anybody out there on Blu-Ray.com want to know the "reel" deal when it comes to theatrical presentation, head over to film-tech.com. These guys can and will make your head spin with the amount of knowledge they have in the theatre industry. I am a member there as well and visit the site daily but cannot post there too much due to some silly corporate regulations.

[Joe Redifer]

And you are...?

Let me guess... Duvall???