montrealfilmguy
Supporting Actor
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 541
- Real Name
- Ben Weaver
Wow Worth ! thanks for the awesome lists And yeah,they closed Technicolor here in Montreal also.
A while ago, Kodak was working on creating a digital negative for archival purposes - that is, digital data would be stored on motion picture film rather than discs or drives because of its durability. But I don't know what ever became of this.Brian Kidd said:People in the future would find it far easier to figure out how motion picture film works than digital copies in obscure, copy-protected formats. More movies and shows are likely to be lost to neglect. We can still see films that are over a hundred years old because of the genius and relative durability of the format. Electronic media are not nearly so durable; case in point, obsolete videotape formats.
I've seen the same thing, and I hate it. But, as you said, maybe they weren't 4K.Scott Calvert said:I see stair-stepping and pixels in my digital cinema experiences. Something about those artifacts drives me up the wall and takes me out of the movie. Like I just spent $12 to watch a big TV. I dunno if those were 4K presentations though.
Originally Posted by RobertR
I've seen the same thing, and I hate it. But, as you said, maybe they weren't 4K.
This has existed for a while. There are Avid and After Effects plug-ins that simulate the look and grain structure of specific film stocks. It's not uncommon for productions shot digitally at 24p to add a layer of grain to the image to mimic the look of film.David Wilkins said:I wonder how far away we might be from having apps that specifically mimic the subtle qualities of selected film stocks, for both still and cinematography?
How do you figure that? Film doesn't have infinite resolution any more than any other existing visual storage format.Rick Thompson said:The fact is, digital will never equal the resolution of continuous-tone film.
But what does this have to do with digital? There are lots of different film formats, with different resolutions, too.Rick Thompson said:The fact is, digital will never equal the resolution of continuous-tone film. Hollywood will go the path of "good enough is good enough."
Sorry to disagree, but when 35mm is shot through good glass, a 4K resolution scan will maybe capture about 75 percent of the data on the film; and that's a conservative estimate. My own experience in scanning 35mm slides and negatives for archival purposes (shot through Canon and Nikon lenses) has convinced me that I need to scan at least at 6K to make sure of getting all the data. At that level of detail, you can just begin to make out the grain in the shots, so long as the light is good. Some colour shots at the Library of Congress, shot on Graflex cameras, using Kodak sheet film, in the 1930s and 40s have even more detail, with no grain really visible at all, i.e., those shots could have been scanned at higher levels and revealed even more. I agree that digital will (probably) one day be as good as film, but 4K strikes me as much too low, compared to what film is capable of capturing.Worth said:Speaking as someone who still prefers film over digital, that's complete nonsense. Digital has made huge strides in the last decade and I have little doubt that it will equal and eventually surpass the quality of film in all objective measures. And I don't think you'll find many people arguing that you need to scan 35mm film at anything beyond 4K to capture everything the negative is capable of resolving. Even now, 2K digital projection offers a significant improvement over standard 35mm release prints in most areas.
Originally Posted by Billy Batson
well 35mm still photography and 35mm cinema photography have substantially different areas of film exposed, compared to one another. so 4k for a cinema frame but you'd want a higher resolution for a still frame.
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Technicolor had been cutting corners ever since the 1970s, and after they ditched dye-transfer (1974 in the US, 1977 in the UK) they were just another lab as far as I was concerned. I'm not a fan of the grungy look, but it's been around since the late 1960s yet and a lot of young filmmakers don't know and don't care what films looked like before then. Some of them think the banding and excessive grain of trying to lighten underexposed shots looks cool. While I mainly use digital, I prefer the old techniques of shooting and I use the look of pre-1970s films and photographers for inspiration in my film and photography work.
A 35mm still photo frame is twice the size of a 35mm motion picture film frame, so if 4k can capture a movie frame it would take 8k to hold all the info on a still photo frame. And that's a TIFF file of over 100 MB.
Having a "duh" moment. Of course you are right; the orientation of the still and movie frames are completely different; and in fact, most of my still scans come in at about 97-99MB. They are mostly about 7000 x 5000, which is 35 megapixels. (The Red camera is apparently able to shoot much much higher than this, but I wonder sometimes how creepy an image with that much detail would look.)MatthewA said:
Technicolor had been cutting corners ever since the 1970s, and after they ditched dye-transfer (1974 in the US, 1977 in the UK) they were just another lab as far as I was concerned. I'm not a fan of the grungy look, but it's been around since the late 1960s yet and a lot of young filmmakers don't know and don't care what films looked like before then. Some of them think the banding and excessive grain of trying to lighten underexposed shots looks cool. While I mainly use digital, I prefer the old techniques of shooting and I use the look of pre-1970s films and photographers for inspiration in my film and photography work.
A 35mm still photo frame is twice the size of a 35mm motion picture film frame, so if 4k can capture a movie frame it would take 8k to hold all the info on a still photo frame. And that's a TIFF file of over 100 MB.