Chalk one up for the silver image

[Mitch Perkins]

I haven't been piping in here because I am bored of format discussions. Formats are tools which can be used well, or not, and what matters is what is the story unfolding in the frame (and hopefully the format/tool choice was appropriate for the subject).

IMO, it's not so much a discussion as it is "holding the fort" against misleading hype, the hype that, "everything should now be shot digitally since it's cheaper and the look is suited to any story".

And I am holding off on the IE discussion until I see it for a third time. It's a brilliant movie and I think I have it figured out.

Rick

Didn't you see it again on Friday?

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

I checked this out because I saw the commercial(s) and thought the image quality looked too good for digital -

But since the film is digitized, the image you're looking at is digital. So much for the notion that digital will never reproduce the quality of 35mm film. ;)

Silly rabbit, the film-captured image is digitized, not a digitally captured image.
......

I think you're splitting silly-rabbit hares here, Mitch.

You previously posted:

My feeling though is that digital will *never* have the look and feel of film....

Yet you say that the digitally reproduced 35mm images from Spider-Man looked too good go be digital. If digital doesn't have the nads to create and sustain 35mm quailty, then Spider-Man would not look like it does.

What do you think I do all day with my telecine unit? Obviously I'm perfectly happy with film-captured images subsequently digitized - it's that ~silver halide step~, between reality and the product, that makes all the difference.

Surely you must realize there is a trickle down benefit that comes from any kind of superior digital imaging techniques. That you are perfectly happy with the results you currently get digitizing film to video is really only possible because of past R&D in the higher end of the digital arena. But, had you passed judgement on that previous level of flawed technology and demanded that it cease striving for better results, you would not be enjoying the results you are getting now. The same holds true for the future of HD. That Spider-Man 35mm footage can be so good digitized is only a prelude to the quality of future digital origination. Thus the idea that future digital will never have the look and feel of film has already been disproven by your own contemporary observation.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

But since the film is digitized, the image you're looking at is digital. So much for the notion that digital will never reproduce the quality of 35mm film. ;)

Silly rabbit, the film-captured image is digitized, not a digitally captured image.
......

I think you're splitting silly-rabbit hares here, Mitch.

Is it your opinion then that there's no difference between digitally captured images and digital intermediate/manipulation of film captured images?

[MovieStuff]

Is it your opinion then that there's no difference between digitally captured images and digital intermediate/manipulation of film captured images?

Obviously there currently is. But your previous statement was that digital would never be able to reproduce the look and feel of 35mm and it obviously does, even if such a digital device is not yet portable. The only main difference between a DI and shooting digital in the field is the scanner size/quality, complexity and processing power required to sustain that type of information. Do HD sensors currently exist that can reproduce 35mm as well as a DI scanner? Not quite yet but that's only a matter of time and where the money goes for R&D. Early home flatbed scanners sucked, too, as did home color printers. It's all about economics supporting development; not any inherent technological impossilities.

Remember, the camera you use to do transfers with produces a far superior image to 70's vintage 2 inch quad video and old tube monoliths. To have looked at that bulky studio-anchored equipment back then and state that the level of quality it produced was never going to be achievable in a portable field production unit would have been silly.

The biggest trick is creating a good enough digital image. By your own reckoning, that's already happened. The second trick is making it portable. That's just a matter of time and money.

Roger

[Mitch Perkins]

But since the film is digitized, the image you're looking at is digital. So much for the notion that digital will never reproduce the quality of 35mm film. ;)

Silly rabbit, the film-captured image is digitized, not a digitally captured image.
......

I think you're splitting silly-rabbit hares here, Mitch.

Is it your opinion then that there's no difference between digitally captured images and digital intermediate/manipulation of film captured images?

Obviously there currently is.

Then it follows that obviously, I wasn't splitting hairs, but rather making a reference to a clear distinction universally recognized in current production workflow...obviously.

But your previous statement was that digital would never be able to reproduce the look and feel of 35mm and it obviously does, even if such a digital device is not yet portable.

What part of "capture" don't you understand? How many languages do you need it spelled out in?

The only main difference between a DI and shooting digital in the field is the scanner size/quality, complexity and processing power required to sustain that type of information.

The "only main" difference? What the hell is that? Obviously, not the only difference.

Whatever - the future holds what the future holds.

Meanwhile, I said, "I checked this out because I saw the commercial(s) and thought the image quality looked too good for digital..." My apologies to anyone who didn't understand I meant ~digital capture~, though apparently you're the lone ranger in this category.

The biggest trick is creating a good enough digital image. By your own reckoning, that's already happened.

By my reckoning, you have a debilitating reading comprehension problem.

[Patrick]

Here we go again.......

I wonder how many pages we'll get through this time.

[Mitch Perkins]

Here we go again.......

I wonder how many pages we'll get through this time.

~:?) I'm done.

Not sure what the going rate is in your neck of the woods but I know people who do earn thousands per film hiring out their cars to TV and film crews.

I'll wait for them to make an offer. Any amount is easy money, and our beautiful GP will be immortalized!

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

What part of "capture" don't you understand?

The part where you try to make distinction where there is none. A video camera scans the image onto its CCD array and a scanner scans the image it sees onto its CCD array. Both the video camera that you use to transfer home movies and the scanner used to produce DI's "capture" the image and both are "digital". Your main contention has always been that digital can not reproduce the look and feel of film but it clearly can and does so to your satisfaction when making a DI. Just because such a system isn't portable now doesn't mean that it never will be. Early video wasn't portable at all.

By my reckoning, you have a debilitating reading comprehension problem.

While you, on the other hand, have no comprehension problem at all. You understand my argument precisely.

Roger

[christoph]

hmmm, i'm not sure i want to be drawn into this, but one thing..

the main difference between a scanner and a camera CCD is not so much that the scanner is slower/bigger, but that the scanner captures an image that has already been compressed into a different contrast range while the digital sensor has to cope with the real world contrast...
which in exteriors (and uncontrolled interiors) is more then any CCD can handle. so the CCD clips and the image caputured on film has the typical highlight/shadow compression that we've grown to love.

more simply put, you'll *have* to compress the real world contrast to make it viewable on a screen/tv/photograph, and so far film emulsion handles this task best. once this compression has been done of course the image can be manipulated digitally without anybody noticing.

there might (probably will) be a time when sensor technology is good enough to get 15+ stops of range and signal processing to compress that nicely, but it wont happen the next 5 years.
++ christoph ++

[woods01]

[What do you think I do all day with my telecine unit? Obviously I'm perfectly happy with film-captured images subsequently digitized - it's that ~silver halide step~, between reality and the product, that makes all the difference.

I feel the greatest video images from film are attained from prints. There
is something about that loss of detail between the various printing stages
that I like. It also embeds the title words and the visual effects better. They
don't appear so painted on.

35mm shot for TV is hard to distinguish from HD unless its a sunny outdoors
shot. Its just too crisp.

[MovieStuff]

more simply put, you'll *have* to compress the real world contrast to make it viewable on a screen/tv/photograph, and so far film emulsion handles this task best.

Agreed. But my point is that technology does not remain at a standstill. What Mitch does with his custom built telecine using a simple video camera would most likely exceed what most Ranks could do 10-15 years ago. So to ignore that and take the attitude that something can't be done in the future because it can't be done now is sort of silly. Scanners may get an assist now from the built in compression that film offers. But 20 years ago, that assist would have meant very little, in terms of keeping a DI from looking like digital. The same forces at work that made DI viable for regular use now are also at work on making 35mm quality digital acquisition viable in the future. One can't ignore the staggering advances in digital imaging, just because it is inconvenient to a pro-film argument.

Roger

[Patrick]

This reminds me of that Monty Python sketch about the man who's paying for an argument.

"Is this the right room for an argument?"
"I've told you once."
"No you haven't!"
"Yes I have."
"When?"
"Just now."
"No you didn't!"
"Yes I did!"
"You didn't!"
"I did!"
"You didn't!"
"I'm telling you, I did!"
"Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?"

[Mitch Perkins]

[What do you think I do all day with my telecine unit? Obviously I'm perfectly happy with film-captured images subsequently digitized - it's that ~silver halide step~, between reality and the product, that makes all the difference.

I feel the greatest video images from film are attained from prints. There
is something about that loss of detail between the various printing stages
that I like. It also embeds the title words and the visual effects better. They
don't appear so painted on.

Speaking of painting, that's a big part of why I actually prefer smaller film formats - they have a painterly quality that's pure eye candy to me. I use "painterly" here in the sense of the image having a rougher texture, with the weave of the underlying canvas showing through in parts, softer lines, and visible brush strokes - that is, slightly ironically, not "photo-realism"!

This is why I'm going to test the digital cameras available to me at the extreme edge of their performance capacity, because that's where I hope they'll lose their hard look. As I said, the only shots in INLAND EMPIRE that I found close to being really beautiful were in the lowest of low light scenes.

35mm shot for TV is hard to distinguish from HD unless its a sunny outdoors
shot. Its just too crisp.

Anytime I've found myself wondering, it usually turns out I'm looking at tape, whereas when it's film you just know it. To me, CSI, especially Miami and New York, have the crispness you refer to (but still beautiful). "Without A Trace" OTOH, often has very pleasing grain/softness, and the premiere of "The Riches" was absolutely gorgeous. These shows I can watch with no sound, strictly as visual research.

--------------

My stance is pro-choice, as it relates to available artistic media, so I was very interested to read that George Lucas, the king of "lets just shoot tape and be done with it", apparently said in a recent interview that he "would use whatever is more appropriate to the particular project". That's what I'm talking about.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to find the particular interview in question, only references to it -

http://www.google.ca/search?client=fire ... gle+Search

Removing quotes from the search did not help.

Mitch

[Mitch Perkins]

What part of "capture" don't you understand?

The part where you try to make distinction where there is none. A video camera scans the image onto its CCD array and a scanner scans the image it sees onto its CCD array.
Roger

the main difference between a scanner and a camera CCD is not so much that the scanner is slower/bigger, but that the scanner captures an image that has already been compressed into a different contrast range while the digital sensor has to cope with the real world contrast...
which in exteriors (and uncontrolled interiors) is more then any CCD can handle. so the CCD clips and the image caputured on film has the typical highlight/shadow compression that we've grown to love.

More simply put, you'll *have* to compress the real world contrast to make it viewable on a screen/tv/photograph, and so far film emulsion handles this task best.

Agreed.

So you understand that there's a distinction, except when I try to point it out?

But my point is that technology does not remain at a standstill.

I thought your point was that there's no distinction between capture and scan...my, you've a jolly great bunch of horses mid-stream!

I wonder, is 35mm motion picture technology at a standstill?

Mitch

[MovieStuff]

I thought your point was that there's no distinction between capture and scan

That was never my point nor did I say that. I was comparing the two because they both have to "capture" an image and they both are "digital". More importantly, they both have advanced exponentially over the last few years. DI's seem like a common place digital tool now but that was not always the case. Some years back, a DI was a pretty tricky thing to pull off and not look digital. For instance, when they made "Honey I Blew Up the Kid", they tried using a DI for a very short sequence that needed the simplest compositing and it was, apparently, a nightmare because the shot kept ending up looking like it had been processed through video so they kept looking at traditional optical printing as an alternative because of its superior results (at that time). Now, DI's are the only way to do compositing in Hollywood and a film-based optical printer is considered low man on the totempole because the results aren't as good as using a DI.

So when you say that you saw something that looked too good to be digital and it turns out to be digital, that's just an indicator that digital is getting closer to the mark in all areas. Saying that digital will never be able to reproduce the look and feel of film ignores the advances being made right in front of you because it wasn't too long ago that people attempting DI's were basically getting the same results that you'd get by pointing an HD camera at a piece of film, and often not even that good.

Roger