- Mar 14, 2009
- Real Name
Well, sort of. You're getting closer to capturing everything that was recorded onto a piece of film, but further away from what it looked like in the cinema when it was new. A 35mm release print in projection doesn't have the kind of colour, dynamic range or anywhere near the resolution that a 4K disc does.
Well, sort of!
It all depends. This is just my 2c/opinion. If you think a crappy spooled-onto-one-reel-run-loose-in-the-gate-ensuring-worse-focus-multiplex-meaning-stadium-seating-meaning-worse-focus-again-due-to-angle-not-to-mention-wear-and-tear is what we should aim for as the 'look' of a movie then yeh I guess that could be interpreted as true. And sure I agree you lose 10 percent of the tonal range give or take because of the white screen/lack of true black and so on. The dynamic range though is still around 16 bit. whether analogue or digital. And I'm not talking silver recombination or anything. And we're not even getting into whether you're talking chicken and egg 2k Digital IPs or DCPs and so on. And I've already said above how UHD discs are just getting to film quality - the black and white thing is a perfect example. There's no way even a 10 bit HDR picture is better than black and white film's dynamic range.
And even there the analogy is problematic because do you allow for pre-multiplex depending on the age of the film? Stuff projected properly? Ignoring worldwide releases that look like garbage because the labs churned them out (My God, Godzilla 98...)? Because what you describe as "what it looked like in the cinema when it was new" for the last few decades is arguably nowhere near as good as if you said the same thing about movies for most of their century in the cinema. I'd never describe that lowest common denominator as the proper benchmark. No wonder you think projected film doesn't come near 4k discs! As you word it it seems your ideas are in opposition to pretty much everyone in the industry. And even when the digital cameras are now approaching film in the top end sensitivity (and have arguably surpassed it in the bottom end), when it still mostly all comes back to 2k for post and DI, it's a bit difficult to argue film is inferior.
But I'll argue up and down that an answer print/the one the director sees projected (or others at cast and crew and/or preview screenings) is the look of the film/what it should look like, not the one we generally get because the exhibitor is too cheap to employ enough projectionists, fix the dying lamp, replace the failing speakers and so on. I don't think the generally compromised thing we get from your average/lousy exhibitor is the 'look' of the film. That's sorta the tail wagging the dog to me.
Besides which, you're basically comparing something that finished about 20 years ago (film projection as standard) to something three years ago (UHD discs with HDR)? So, y'know, I'd hope so! I think it's pretty fantastic too. But just can't agree with your statements on film. Cheers.