Not spot-on topically, but pretty dang cool.

Quentin Tarantino completed shooting of his new flick in Ultra Panavision - Anamorphic 70-freaking-millimeter FILM. 2.76:1 aspect ratio. Color chemistry, alive and kicking - 50 theaters to be converted to 70mm anamorphic projection so we can see grain, not pixels. I dig it!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/71820

Site sure has a lot of annoying pop up ads.

+1 but I did not go to the site because of the pop up ads.

Fotch, that sure is a helpful first response! And I didn't get a single popup. You know there are popup blockers, don't you?

Tarentino is one of the few dedicated film shooters in Hollywood. I think I have read that he won't shoot digital and some choice things he had to say about it.

The script for this movie is floating around out there. I saw it a few years ago so you can read it if you can find it. Interesting stuff. I will definitely search this out when it hits the theaters, although I doubt there will be one near me.

I'm in Dallas so hopefully we'll get a 70mm showing at one of the artsy theaters.

Far as the aint-it-cool site - well, it's free and they have to pay for it somehow. Lots of good film geek scoop, a little heavy on the sci-fi, but enjoyable lunch break diversion. My pop-up blocker works fine there.

First time I've ever seen pop up blockers stack on top of each other. Three!

And the article really said nothing. Who made/makes this 70mm film? Is this IMAX formatting?

wow, so this films all about its aspect ratio and the fact is was shot on film.

I love contemporary movies and TV shows shot on film:

39 U.S. Releases Shot on 35mm Film in 2014:
http://www.savefilm.org/news/39-us-releases-shot-on-35mm-film-in-2014/

Selected Productions Shot on Kodak Film:
http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm

Discussion of American TV sitcoms shot on film:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307646

This got me to thinking a bit deeper on this film v. digital, at the Hollywood level.

If digital had been invented first, no one would pay attention to that new stuff called film except in perhaps a few rare instances where SBR was excessive and could not be controlled by fill lights or reflectors. And I doubt that "they" wouldn't be able to fix that with fill or reflectors.

Film has a long history of auto-self destruction. Various bases, various decays. Whether it's the hundreds of negatives that I have that have "vinegared" and delaminated, to the same issue in Hollywood, (plus flaming nitrate base!) all one can do is hope that the engineers got it right this last time. OTOH, make 50 cheap backup copies of the digital movie, spread them all over the globe, bury some in salt mines, whatever. You can even back up to film, hey! An industry this huge and with so many players is not going to wake up one day and discover that they can't play the old digital movies.

I know we on this forum are all supposed to genuflect and worship film, but as far as movies go, I'm not convinced. Digital hardware and software keep getting better, keeps evolving and probably will do so for years to come. OTOH, 35mm film is about as evolved as it will get. And I'm a big cynic about "the look" that so many people claim to be able to see. I would challenge any non-cinemaphotographer to look at a move and accurately and consistently identify which one was digital and which one was film. And, cynic that I am, I think that often "the look", or "the sound" of alleged older analog technologies should really be understood as seeing or hearing deficiencies and errors.

It's like vodka. Over the years I've performed three taste tests after some friend has pronounced that they can definitely tell the higher priced ones from the cheap ones. I set up blind tests using miniature bottles and recorded the placement of the cups. In all three cases, the person pronounced the cheapest as the best.

Paul Verizzo said:

It's like vodka. Over the years I've performed three taste tests after some friend has pronounced that they can definitely tell the higher priced ones from the cheap ones. I set up blind tests using miniature bottles and recorded the placement of the cups. In all three cases, the person pronounced the cheapest as the best.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but a vodka martini is not a dry Martini. A Martini is made with Gin. Ian Flemming and his James Bond character screwed up Martini by telling the world to us vodka and to shake. Martinis are stirred, not shaken.

Try comparing the look of two movies: the first "Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" and the sequel "Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel".

The first was shot on Fuji film stock, while the second was shot using digital equipment.

The "look" of the first is very special. The second isn't particularly.

Both, however, are good fun and entertaining.

Paul Verizzo said:

... And I'm a big cynic about "the look" that so many people claim to be able to see. I would challenge any non-cinemaphotographer to look at a move and accurately and consistently identify which one was digital and which one was film.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to perform a test to see if people can detect a difference. But what would be used for viewing - you don't want to use a monitor to view film and you may not want to project video onto a screen.

Paul Verizzo said:

... And, cynic that I am, I think that often "the look", or "the sound" of alleged older analog technologies should really be understood as seeing or hearing deficiencies and errors.

Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell recently said as much in this article about audio tubes:
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/why-tubes-sound-better.htm

Theo Sulphate said:

Ken Rockwell recently said as much in this article about audio tubes:
http://kenrockwell.com/audio/why-tubes-sound-better.htm

Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell is an electrical engineer and an AES member, but sadly he suffers from Kenrockwellitis: Posting hastily, presenting a simplified, easy-to-read, entertaining view which may not be totally true. Don't get me wrong, i like his page, and he perhaps has some of the best lens reviews on the 'net.

From his article i can comment:

"Tube amplifiers measure poorly in the lab specifically because of these added distortions, but these distortions are often a part of what make them sound better."

They actually don't measure "poorly", this only depends on the kind of measurement. When testing for intermodulation distortion and crossover artifacts, which are really serious problems, under important conditions (i.e. actual power used at listening levels), good quality tube equipment tests just fine. Also, they present a limited series of harmonics being added to the music, in stark difference to most solid state amps. In this respect they can measure better.

"Ditto for guitar amplifiers used in creating music. The ways that tubes distort when pushed to the edge are much more musical than the artificial sounds that come from transistor amplifiers when overdriven. "

This is a different use of tube amplifiers -- intentional distortion and coloration.

"Tube amplifiers have much more distortion than solid-state amplifiers, but most of it is second-order, which is quite musical. That's why it's called "harmonic" distortion."

Actually, second-order distortion is not so musical once added to certain kinds of music like complex choral music, etc. Which is, coincidently, the music used for giving a serious listening test to an audio system.
The difference between a good tube amp and not-so-good transistor amp, is that the tube amp would perhaps only add 2nd and 3rd harmonics to the signal, while a cheap transistor amp would add also the 4th, 5th, 6th and so on and so on. Which impacts the sound. Therein lies one important difference.

"Even-order harmonic distortion can be so pleasant that back in the 1970s the Aphex Aural Exciter was very popular in recording and broadcast specifically because it was designed to generate and add these harmonic distortions!"

... and other people passionately hate the Aphex Aural Exciter being added to recordings.

"Tube amplifiers overload gradually. Add more input and they distort more, but there is no precise level above or below which they suddenly start to clip.Contrast this to solid state, where there is a very definite clipping point."

Yes, but one buys a transistor amplifier of sufficient power to never, ever, ever, get close to clipping. Also, power is cheaper with transistor amps.


"In contrast, because of the much higher voltages and lower capacitance values needed, tube amplifiers almost always use much better film (or 50 years ago, paper) capacitors for audio coupling."

Good quality transistor amps also use higher quality capacitors. I'm surprised that an Electrical Engineer would use such a cheap argument. Again, it's just Kenrockwellitis interfering with Ken Rockwell's vast knowledge of electronics.

"Solid-state equipment usually uses polarized electrolytic capacitors to decouple DC, and that's bad."

Solid state amps can be (and ARE routinely) designed so they don't require coupling capacitors at all!! Using electrolytic coupling capacitors in the signal path is so 1970s... Or they can use them, and use higher quality caps. Which should happen on an audiophile solid state amp.

"Tube power amplifiers have higher output source impedances (...) It will tend to lower the low-frequency damping, which can have the effect of blooming the bass, which some may prefer."

Or some others may not prefer at all, because this, by definition, is getting non-accurate bass response.

At the end KR mentions a blind listening test where the audience couldn't reliably identify a tube vs solid state amp. I think this is the really important part of KR's post. Basically, if one wants to design a really high quality amplifier, he/she can do it with tubes or with transistors, no problem with either one!

MattKing said:

Try comparing the look of two movies: the first "Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" and the sequel "Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel".

The first was shot on Fuji film stock, while the second was shot using digital equipment.

The "look" of the first is very special. The second isn't particularly.

Both, however, are good fun and entertaining.

Click to expand...

This brings up another pet peeve of mine in the category of "Which is better?" Lordy, the discussion here and on inkjet printing forums, the dozens of prints comparing dozens of papers.......and, oh, wait, what about the ink set? And, dang, there's the matter of how well the printer knows to change settings. Variables upon variables, all trying for perfection. Oops, that was a topic here in the last week, wasn't it?

I've yet been to a theater or an art gallery that showed comparative prints. Our brain can "correct" a lot that is slightly wrong in an image, just think about color acceptance. Stare at it long enough and the hue now looks just fine.

If you are only looking at a digital movie, it looks fine, if professionally done. There are also semi-pro film wannabe's that will shoot in Super 16, digitize it frame by frame, make adjustments as wanted (think photoshop at 24fps), then scan it back to 35mm!

It's hell to be a purist these days.

flavio81 said:

...

From his article i can comment:

...[snip (see post above)]...

... At the end KR mentions a blind listening test where the audience couldn't reliably identify a tube vs solid state amp. I think this is the really important part of KR's post. Basically, if one wants to design a really high quality amplifier, he/she can do it with tubes or with transistors, no problem with either one!

Click to expand...

Thank you for your replies and comments to that article; I appreciate it and will save what you've written. I'm not a EE, so I couldn't evaluate what he was saying except in the simplest terms. I do recognize KenRockwellitis when he writes about photography, though!

Theo Sulphate said:

Thank you for your replies and comments to that article; I appreciate it and will save what you've written. I'm not a EE, so I couldn't evaluate what he was saying except in the simplest terms. I do recognize KenRockwellitis when he writes about photography, though!

Click to expand...

You're welcome!!

I was unable to find out the list of 50 theaters. Does anyone know?


I want to make a point of seeing this movie projected from film. (even with my failing vision)

Thanks to anyone who can post a list.

Regarding the tubes - I've played guitar for over 40 years, and many of those were 4 or 5 nights a week in clubs, playing very loud music. There is still nothing like a tube amp, though some makers are coming close.

Even more interesting - I currently use an Egnater 40 watt tube head, with the usual Russian or Chinese tubes (no more US or Euro tube plants I understand). I found a deal on some 1960's era RCA preamp tubes from a Baldwin organ. And yes, they sound better than the best of the currently made tubes. Not something everyone would even hear, but there's something strange going on with the high frequencies - the sound is more open, feels more "surround"-ish, 3D, etc. Like I used to have a think blanket over the speakers and took it away. Subtle but man - another lost art I suppose.

Film vs digital for the cinema: The great Roger Deakins experimented with the Red camera, disliked it and at the time thought "if that's the best, I don't see shooting digital". Now he shoots every film on the Arri Alexa. They've really changed the game with that piece of gear.

BTW, if you're interested in cinema-style lighting, Deakins has a forum where he answers questions - there are years of "how he lit it" up there. It's pretty cool that a current great is sharing anything he's asked about.

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewforum.php?f=22

Paul Verizzo said:

Film has a long history of auto-self destruction. Various bases, various decays. Whether it's the hundreds of negatives that I have that have "vinegared" and delaminated, to the same issue in Hollywood, (plus flaming nitrate base!) all one can do is hope that the engineers got it right this last time.

Click to expand...

Paul you have hundreds of films with 'vinegar syndrome'? I ask this because cellulose nitrate is the only base that decomposes; all the triacetate ones don't do that. I'm unaware of any film produced on cn after the mid 1950's so it is unlikely the engineers have anything to 'get right'.

To my eyes film looks VERY different from digital I can tell a stock and even an individual film by the look. I watched the 'Kings Speech' with my wife on DVD last week and can see it was not digital, but film especially the indoor scene which have lovely highlight transitions that look like Fuji film....

BTW I can single malt from blended whisky; Vodka I can't be sure as I don't drink lighter fuel

Mark Antony said:

Paul you have hundreds of films with 'vinegar syndrome'? I ask this because cellulose nitrate is the only base that decomposes; all the triacetate ones don't do that. I'm unaware of any film produced on cn after the mid 1950's so it is unlikely the engineers have anything to 'get right'.

To my eyes film looks VERY different from digital I can tell a stock and even an individual film by the look. I watched the 'Kings Speech' with my wife on DVD last week and can see it was not digital, but film especially the indoor scene which have lovely highlight transitions that look like Fuji film....

BTW I can single malt from blended whisky; Vodka I can't be sure as I don't drink lighter fuel

Click to expand...

He he, love a good dialogue! And whiskey. I lean towards blended. As to being able to define digital vs. film in movies, my hat is off. But, the bottom line is, does it matter? Especially to the billions of unwashed heathens? The content of the film is more important to the viewer than "look" nuance. I know, I know, heresy.

In my research on "vinegarization" of film stocks, I remember reading about Kodak putting out a triacetate about 1946. About ten years later, people in India (hot, humid) were reporting degradation. And the many pounds of bad still negs that I have, mostly, I think from the late 1940's shows that this was not solved post-nitrate. Fortunately, I have prints of those negatives, but wouldn't it have been great to have the real deal?

As I mentioned, how is it some loose footage on the reel is degrading and after the first ten feet, no problem? And the 8mm which I do not know the date of, completely degraded.

Apparently it isn't a simple matter of film base stock nomenclature. Back to the whiskey.

flavio81 said:

"Tube amplifiers measure poorly in the lab specifically because of these added distortions, but these distortions are often a part of what make them sound better."

They actually don't measure "poorly", this only depends on the kind of measurement. When testing for intermodulation distortion and crossover artifacts, which are really serious problems, under important conditions (i.e. actual power used at listening levels), good quality tube equipment tests just fine. Also, they present a limited series of harmonics being added to the music, in stark difference to most solid state amps. In this respect they can measure better.

Click to expand...

I think that there's a perfect analogy here. Tubes add odd-order harmonics and whatnot, so you're not getting a perfect recreation of the signal (digital you also don't get a perfect recreation of the signal, unless you've got an infinite-support Sinc-function DAC, and with infinite bit-depth because quantisation noise is proportional to (a/2^b)^2 / 12. Yeah, I had my Master's Signal Processing exam yesterday). But still, with 192kHz 24-bit that's as near as dammit to a 'perfect recreation' as you're getting anyway. And if you want a 'perfect' amp, google 'Halcro DM81', that thing can make signals with distortion so low the best instruments can barely even measure it.
But still, tubes 'sound' better because of that extra distortion.
Likewise, putting a warming filter on a lens makes it 'look' better (at least, to my eyes), because of the extra distortion. Velvia 'looks' better because of the weird colours. Noone can argue that warming filters and velvia make for a perfect recreation. Noone can argue digital makes a perfect recreation either, but it's still a lot closer than velvia. I can also say what I shoot with a hell of a lot more these days.