Is analog film making a comeback for movie making

[Robert Maxey]

I guess we will see what we see. Digital is cheaper

The people who make movies are the ones who decide if film will give them what they want. Some of those people think it does. There's no debate about what they want - they either want it or not - they either think film makes a difference or don't.

In the meantime, the audience doesn't care if it's shot on film, on a vhs tape, or on digital. If it looks good and they are interested in it, they'll watch it and never even wonder how it was shot.

I am not sure about that. In my view, movie makers might choose digital because it is their only choice. Some movies require huge special effects and what i see on the screen is likely impossible with film alone. As for the audience, they want a good show. And if the color is off, or it is not sharp, or the sound is not up to snuff, they know it. One film maker's vision might not be to the audience's liking.

I remember the so called "Bullet Time" scenes from The Matrix. Everyone seemed to want to know how it was done. I think many viewers do indeed want details.

Bob

 

[wiltw]

You seem to be deliberately overlooking the word "accidentally" in the quote. Either that or you are simply blind to the fact that film has its own set of issues in capture and playback, initially and over time. Pointing out digital's set of issues in capture and playback, initially and over time, does not eliminate those which exist with film.

All storage media of all types is subject to accidental destruction..even if stored underground. Therefore I paid attention to the deliberate destruction, not having heard of that being done with still photos.

 

[Don_ih]

I am not sure about that. In my view, movie makers might choose digital because it is their only choice. Some movies require huge special effects and what i see on the screen is likely impossible with film alone. As for the audience, they want a good show. And if the color is off, or it is not sharp, or the sound is not up to snuff, they know it. One film maker's vision might not be to the audience's liking.

I remember the so called "Bullet Time" scenes from The Matrix. Everyone seemed to want to know how it was done. I think many viewers do indeed want details.

I did say "if it looks good".
The vision of a great many film makers is not to the liking of audiences - most movies that are made are not liked by very many people.
Everyone wanted to know how the bullet thing was done in The Matrix, but they'd also already seen the movie. While some may have gone to see it specifically to see those effects, most people went because of the story. Anyway, no one would bother to ask how such a thing is done, now. The magic of CG explains everything.
Star Wars - The Force Awakens was shot on film, digitized, then had special effects added. Doing a film capture in no way limits what can be done thereafter.

 

[wiltw]

The people who make movies are the ones who decide if film will give them what they want. Some of those people think it does. There's no debate about what they want - they either want it or not - they either think film makes a difference or don't.

In the meantime, the audience doesn't care if it's shot on film, on a vhs tape, or on digital. If it looks good and they are interested in it, they'll watch it and never even wonder how it was shot.

Some things that digital absolutely does not replicate

1. Cinerama, a widescreen process that originally projected images simultaneously from three synchronized 35mm projectors onto a huge, deeply curved screen, subtending 146° of arc.
2. (Today) a resolution equal to 70mm film, which digital is limited (in most theaters) to 4096×2160 or 8.8 megapixels, and there are no 8K movies at all to watch, on TV or cinema!

Film allows both to be presented. Digital is a poor distant cousin in comparison.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Some things that digital absolutely does not replicate

1. Cinerama, a widescreen process that originally projected images simultaneously from three synchronized 35mm projectors onto a huge, deeply curved screen, subtending 146° of arc.
2. (Today) a resolution equal to 70mm film, which digital is limited (in most theaters) to 4096×2160 or 8.8 megapixels, and there are no 8K movies at all to watch, on TV or cinema!

Film allows both to be presented. Digital is a poor distant cousin in comparison.

Does IMAX still use film? I will add Technicolor to your short list.

Bob

 

[Don_ih]

Film allows both to be presented. Digital is a poor distant cousin in comparison.

You need to add "for now". Digital is not a stagnant technology. Film as a projection medium is quite stagnant. There's no reason not to expect digital projection to eventually surpass what is available with film.
Anyway - most people are content to watch movies and tv shows on a television. Every now and then, you get someone with the desire to make something that exceeds the current capabilities of the digital medium - say, shoot a feature on 70mm film. Eventually, the technology will catch up. Film technology, unfortunately, will probably not advance. Hard for it to advance when no one is making cameras.

 

[pentaxuser]

In the meantime, the audience doesn't care if it's shot on film, on a vhs tape, or on digital. If it looks good and they are interested in it, they'll watch it and never even wonder how it was shot.

Yes that is my feeling certainly as may be clear from my posts. As I said I must have seen a few digital films by now in the cinema and frankly I was not aware of any real difference. I imagine I may be far from unique in this inability to see a difference.

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

You need to add "for now". Digital is not a stagnant technology. Film as a projection medium is quite stagnant. There's no reason not to expect digital projection to eventually surpass what is available with film.
Anyway - most people are content to watch movies and tv shows on a television. Every now and then, you get someone with the desire to make something that exceeds the current capabilities of the digital medium - say, shoot a feature on 70mm film. Eventually, the technology will catch up. Film technology, unfortunately, will probably not advance. Hard for it to advance when no one is making cameras.

No displuting what you say. FOR NOW the reasons that some movies are snot on film, and not on digital, was the point of my post, in respense to someone's question "Why?!"

For now, the question remains "How many years/decades will it take before the local cinema has written off the expense of 4K conversion, before they are willing to swalllow the much larger expense of 8K projection?!" We see 8K TV for sale, yet the programming is not even filmed in 8K resolution.

 

[Pieter12]

No displuting what you say. FOR NOW the reasons that some movies are snot on film, and not on digital, was the point of my post, in respense to someone's question "Why?!"

For now, the question remains "How many years/decades will it take before the local cinema has written off the expense of 4K conversion, before they are willing to swalllow the much larger expense of 8K projection?!" We see 8K TV for sale, yet the programming is not even filmed in 8K resolution.

Part of the answer is tax policy. Will the 4K equipment have been full amortized and is the theater (or theater chain, more likely) willing dispose of it and invest in new equipment? Does the public know or care? Sometimes it is just a matter of marketing.

 

[MattKing]

I wouldn't say I can always tell whether a movie has been shot on film or digital, but I often guess right.
The clearest examples I can think of were an original and a sequel - "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" shot on (Fuji) film in 2011, and "The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" shot (IIRC) digitally in 2015.
The first movie (which was great fun and made decent money) looked sumptuous on the screen. The second (which wasn't nearly as fun, and labored to break even) looked blah.

 

[Pieter12]

I wouldn't say I can always tell whether a movie has been shot on film or digital, but I often guess right.
The clearest examples I can think of were an original and a sequel - "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" shot on (Fuji) film in 2011, and "The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" shot (IIRC) digitally in 2015.
The first movie (which was great fun and made decent money) looked sumptuous on the screen. The second (which wasn't nearly as fun, and labored to break even) looked blah.

Not the same cinematographer. That can make big difference in the look.

 

[MattKing]

Not the same cinematographer. That can make big difference in the look.

I absolutely agree.
But in those cases, the look of India was almost like a character in the story. The sequel looked like it had been done cheaply.

 

[wiltw]

I wouldn't say I can always tell whether a movie has been shot on film or digital, but I often guess right.

Simply put yourself in a row about 8' from the screen, so your eyes detect the individual pixels put on the screen!

• At 96" typical 20/20 human vision detects anything larger than 0.139"
• Spreading 4K cinema across of 50' wide screen makes each pixel 0.146" wide.

 

[Pieter12]

Simply put yourself in a row about 8' from the screen, so your eyes detect the individual pixels put on the screen!

• At 96" typical 20/20 human vision detects anything larger than 0.139"
• Spreading 4K cinema across of 50' wide screen makes each pixel 0.146" wide.

Don't forget to bring the pain-killer of your choice.

 

[MattKing]

Simply put yourself in a row about 8' from the screen, so your eyes detect the individual pixels put on the screen!

I'm not willing to suffer that much for my convictions!
But more importantly, I was referring to how the movie was shot, not how it was projected.

 

[wiltw]

I'm not willing to suffer that much for my convictions!
But more importantly, I was referring to how the movie was shot, not how it was projected.

Go look closely at the screen when you walk in, then go sit where your eyes won't hurt.

AFAIK, it does not matter if it were shot on film, as the quality is driven by the lowest quality link in the chain to your eyes.

• 'Hybrid' is a process, but the quality is no better than the scanner.
• An Ansel Adams print photographed with a 20MPixel dSLR is a digital image.
• A 4K screen photographed with an SLR loaded with Tmax is a digital image.
• A 50 Mpixel camera is no better than a 4K projector, ever, when projected.

 

[MattKing]

There is quality, and there are qualities. It is the qualities of film that I like.
And I am quite sure that the qualities of the result are a consequence of the interwoven characteristics of the medium and the experience and vision of the people making use of it.
I have also seen some really fine results in theatres where the original was shot digitally - clearly by people who are skilled in its use.
For a Television example, I would refer you to Stanley Tucci: Searching for Italy:

 

[guangong]

As I noted in an earlier post on this thread, storage of movies as digital copies is extremely expensive, so digital movies are transferred to film and stored in abandoned mines for much cheaper, carefree storage. Not sure about how many films are shot initially on film now. As for myself, sort of a belt and suspenders approach: shoot on digital as a kind of rehearsal and for digital distribution, followed by film for permanent record.

 

[pentaxuser]

In terms of seeing pixels I'd just like to say that in all the cinemas I have been in recently in the U.K. you'd be lucky to get anywhere near 8 feet to the screen.Even if you wanted to walk beyond the frontmost seats there would be other barriers and this applies to all the old cinemas that were built in the 1930 and 1950 and 1960s .

So isn't this really a difference that none of us will ever see?

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

In terms of seeing pixels I'd just like to say that in all the cinemas I have been in recently in the U.K. you'd be lucky to get anywhere near 8 feet to the screen.Even if you wanted to walk beyond the frontmost seats there would be other barriers and this applies to all the old cinemas that were built in the 1930 and 1950 and 1960s .

So isn't this really a difference that none of us will ever see?

pentaxuser

I don't know what differences exist betwee UK and US, but I can say with certainty that in movie theaters that I have been two (before COVID made it somewhat dangerous to sit in a theater), as I entered I was close enough t the screen to see individual pixels and made note of that ability, before finding a seat 2/3 of the way back from the screen to watch the feature movie.

 

[awty]

Stocking up for the big come back.
As it happens I managed to find a 16mm editor, ancient but seems to be all there, just need to fix up the wiring.
Also picked up another 8mm camera a s1 zoom reflex automatic in great condition. Doesn't have any focus assist and needs new batteries, but was cheap and works.

 

[awty]

We have illumination.

 

[Don_ih]

I just bought a Eumig C3m double-8 camera, from a thrift store. It's missing the eyepiece, unfortunately. Impossible to find an original eyepiece, I may need to make something to be able to see in there (can't read the meter, otherwise). I have not yet shot any double-8 film. I have a few rolls of Foma awaiting being ruined.

Conversion from 4K to 8K for a theatre would just be swapping one projector for another. It's not like they'd have to change the screen. And you likely won't see much difference when watching a movie. You're not supposed to be sitting so close to the screen that you need to turn your head to see what's happening on either side.

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't know what differences exist betwee UK and US, but I can say with certainty that in movie theaters that I have been two (before COVID made it somewhat dangerous to sit in a theater), as I entered I was close enough t the screen to see individual pixels and made note of that ability, before finding a seat 2/3 of the way back from the screen to watch the feature movie.

Yes, the cinemas you use and those that I have used in the U.K. do seem to be laid out substantially differently. Was the distance at which you could see those pixels a comfortable distance for viewing a full length feature film?

8 ft seems incredibly close. I watch my TV at home which at 32 inches is small by modern day standards at over 7 ft away

pentaxuser

 

[wiltw]

Yes, the cinemas you use and those that I have used in the U.K. do seem to be laid out substantially differently. Was the distance at which you could see those pixels a comfortable distance for viewing a full length feature film?

8 ft seems incredibly close. I watch my TV at home which at 32 inches is small by modern day standards at over 7 ft away

pentaxuser

I don't want to tell a lie by bad recall. The next time I go to that theater, I will try to estimate viewing distance from first row of seats, and post.