Film vs digital part 2

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:46 pm

In a different thread, Marc wrote:

marc wrote: When viewed side by side with the K40 it is obviously inferior with respect to it's grain structure but it can be sharp within it's own limitations.

Ha-ha! He was talking about Ektachrome but could Marc possibly be talking about digital, as well?

(Not picking on you, Marc, just using your statement as a loose example. No offense)

That's the point I was trying to make in the previous thread. People that have a bias toward film will always make exceptions about the various peformance differences naturally found in different film emulsions. But when it comes to digital, the bar seems to be artificially raised beyond all practical reason: If digital doesn't look like and act like a specific, known emulsion, then it is simply deemed unviable as a valid narrative medium, DESPITE the fact that no two emulsions will look or act the same, either!

I posted this in part one of this thread, but this link is a real eye opener, I feel:

http://www.pixelmonger.com/vip2

This is a frame from a high def, 24P camera called the "Viper". It's about a year old, so I'm fairly certain that they're working on a second generation of chips but this still is pretty damned sharp, if you ask me, and the color is nothing to sneeze at.

More info on the "Viper" can be found here:

http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html

Will WE be shooting with a scaled down version of the Viper anytime soon? "Soon" is relative, but, that's not the point. The Viper is probably in the range of $100,000 or so; hell it could be twice that amount for all I know. But that's doodly for the movers and shakers in Hollywood and Television production, and the more high performance digital cameras like this start being used, the less film. The less film is used, the more expensive it will get. The more expensive it gets, the more people will gravitate toward the latest generation of digital cameras. And so the vicious cycle goes on and on. What Hollywood and Television adopts as a new standard DOES affect us downstream because they are, currently, the biggest users of motion picture film around. We need to watch out.

Roger

Post by **Jan** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 4:41 pm

That's a really good comparison site, although it should read "digital vs digital" instead of "digital vs film".

Post by **jean** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:25 pm

Roger,

thanx for the viper link, very impressive indeed. Looking forward to such a camera in my price range! Actually I feel that the improvement of digital is one of the finest things, both in still and film.

..just that that stuff is still so expensive, bah!

Post by **MovieStuff** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:50 pm

Well, certainly it's not my intention to come off as "pro-digital", because I love film and always have. I'm just reminded of how the nay-sayers of 20 years ago dismissed 16mm and Super 16mm as novelties and were collectively shocked when Nestor Almendros and others cropped up at Cannes with several entries that had been imaged on 16mm and blown up to 35mm with results that were stunning.

For all practical purposes, it happend over night because everyone was in such denial about 16mm for so long that they didn't pay attention to the advances that were taking place. I see much the same thing happening in digital where hard-core film enthusiasts practically dismiss the existance of digital at all, as if it were urban legend and no one was doing anything commercially viable with it. The reality, of course, is that the idea of digital "having a long way to go" is more urban legend than the assumptions regarding its deficiencies, the majority of which have never really been explored first hand by those that dismiss it so readily but, ironically, are always on the lookout for ways to keep a budget under control.

I'm reminded of a cartoon that takes place during the Crusades. On the viewer side of the royal tent, there is an anachronistic salesman in a suit standing next to a machine gun, ready to do business. On the other side of the tent, we see thousands of troops with swords and staff, ready for battle and the King is brow beating his subordinate, claiming, "I haven't got time to meet any stupid salesman. I've got a war to fight!"

Oh, well....

Roger

Post by **Roy Brown** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:20 am

A short comment on the general subject:

As a amateur filmmaker who uses 16mm, Super 8mm film and Digital 8 video, I find myself slowly seeing the quality of video supercede that of film on a few levels. Professional $100,000 24P video has surpassed the picture quality I can achieve with my Canon 1014e Super 8 using Kodachrome 40. When the next chipset comes out I'm sure it will compete with my 16mm Eclair NPR using 16mm Kodachrome 25, we will have to wait and see.

Post by **Scotness** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:41 am

Here we go again!

I agree with you Roger - video is coming and we all better watch out - yes it is easier and it is cheaper - the pixel based component of the resolution is fine - BUT - I don't think the colours are there yet - in that picture of the girl it still has that greyish videoy gamma about it - but A) technology will get better and B) the bottom line will inevitably rule - and that's fair enough because someone's got to pay for it all in the end!

If the Viper's good - how about this one then?

http://www.dalsa.com/dc/dc.asp

Scot

Post by **LastQuark** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:07 am

I read somewhere the Dalsa is even better than the Viper but had some problems transferring all the loads of information in disk storage.

On the low end prosumer side, here's an interesting quote from an article that can be found here: http://videosystems.com/ar/video_jvc_jyhd/index.htm

...Little did I know that by July, a group of four manufacturers would announce a new HD format based on MPEG-2. Canon, Sharp, Sony, and JVC have proposed a specification for an HDV format that includes 720p and 1080i versions. The four companies will promote the specification and plan to finalize the versions by early fall.

Looks like we'll have a new standard here and DV's life is about to end.

Post by **S8 Booster** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:13 am

LastQuark wrote:
Looks like we'll have a new standard here and DV's life is about to end.

Which is yet another very good reason to stay with our 100/75/40 years old and consistent unlimited formats :mrgreen:

R

Post by **S8 Booster** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:34 am

Besides:

Shooting with a film camera gives much better control - to me anyway.

And, I am much more creative with a film camera.
Strange huh? maybe - I am to old for this :?:

All in all - even though RogerÃ‚Â´s original description seem very accurate the reality may not be that Black &(or) White

Film and [DIGITAL] may be living side by side for ever because film is always going to be ART while [DIGITAL] is allways created by [ARTifical] engineers.

Thank God (If any) for the timing of my visit to Planet Earth. Thank you, thank you.

Canon 310 XL with Fuji F500T/K40.

Film (2.1mb) - Aaaahhh! I am a control freak ;-) not?
ftp://ftp.filmshooting.com/upload/video/mov/Jap2s.mov

R

Post by **Angus** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 2:09 pm

I saw a film at the cinema on Saturday. I think this is not common in the USA but here in the UK we get anything up to 20 minute of commercials before the film - in place of those dodgy faded shorts about jungle animals or eskimos we used to get in the 70's.

All of these adverts are projected from 35mm film. Many are shot on film, some are shot on digital and then converted to film. A series of adverts for Orange mobile phones (featuring thus far Carrie Fisher and Roy Sheider) springs instantly to mind as one originated on video.

one must presume these are shot with the best available digital equipment. These Orange ads have *not* been shown on TV, at least not on any of the 150-odd channels I have access to so they were made for the big screen.

The lack of picture quality in the digital-sourced adverts is instantly visible even to somebody not looking for it when it is preceeded by a filmed commercial. This is heightened on a very large screen, but you can buy those advert reels from Derann on super 8. I bought a couple recently and even on super 8 you can see the difference between an ad originated on digital video and one originated on film.

Not saying that digital isn't worth thinking about from a producer's POV or worrying about from ours.....but anybody attending the cinema in this part of the world has seen digital projected large scale and can see it ain't up to the standard of film yet.

Electronic imaging is almost as old as chemical...and it's always lagged behind.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 2:56 pm

Angus wrote: anybody attending the cinema in this part of the world has seen digital projected large scale and can see it ain't up to the standard of film yet.

100% true, but irrevelant because the AUDIENCES aren't up the standard of what audiences used to be. I really think that resolution in movies like Star Wars II, Spy Kids II, 28 Days, etc, would have caused quite the audience revolt if seen 40 years ago when audiences expected the BEST in theatrical experiences and not TV simply blown up. But today's audiences seem to care little about resolution or content as evidenced by the crappola on television and the even larger versions of the same blown up on the big screen.

While cameras systems like the Viper certainly show that some serious thought is being given to the new digital process, movies like Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Star Wars II blantantly forge ahead, capitalizing on the modern audience's indifference to resolution, color or content. No point asking a blind man what his favorite color is.

Post by **Angus** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:17 pm

Reassuringly most people I have talked to about Star Wars II said they noticed something odd about the picture.

28 Days Later just looked ghastly, but I wonder if that was the intention of the maker?

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 5:45 pm

Angus wrote:Reassuringly most people I have talked to about Star Wars II said they noticed something odd about the picture.

28 Days Later just looked ghastly, but I wonder if that was the intention of the maker?

In either event, the picture quality didn't hurt ticket sales, and that lowers the bar for the industry as a whole.

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:07 pm

28 Days was shot in DV not HD like the last two STAR WARS. And it did look ghastly. The funny part is, they had big bucks to make that film (from any perspective other than Hollywood studios).

I look at this issue a different way, and one which is actually positive in paving the way to super 8 originated features. If the audience accepts the murky DV look and that doesn't stop them from going, then when they see a super 8 feature with its inevitable extra grain (no matter what stock you use) and its own unique look, they will be more accepting. Actually, they won't even think much about it. Filmmakers are freed up with regards to choices.

The only danger to film's survival really lies in the inferior digital projection systems and the remote control stranglehold envisioned by Lucas and his cronies (George Lucas -- the guy who evolved from Luke Skywalker to the Evil Emperor) such a thing can --

Holy shit! My three developed rolls of Plus-X just got dropped through my mailbox! THis is awesome! Fuck I'm glad I'm using film instead of DV!
Bye!

Post by **Jan** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 8:15 pm

I thought 28 days later was quite beautiful in its blurriness. It fitted the movie's atmosphere. Much nicer than the high resolution but shallow look of the new star wars. i miss the 1970's anamorphic film look of the old star wars...

Rodriguez made it his crusade to convince people that OUATIM looked so much better than film, has anyone seen this movie? I'm curious. I think his movies since FDTD are kind of bad.