Why do B&W movies look so nice and enlargements don't?

[Samuel Hotton]

I am hoping that someone can explain how a Black & White motion picture shot on 35mm B&W Eastman film can look so good when projected on a 30 foot X 70 foot screen. I think the following numbers are correct, bear with me please. A movie such as Schindler's List was shot with an Arriflex on 35mm Kodak B&W film with a 1.85 Aspect ratio. This Academy aperture is .825inches x .446 inches or 11.3mm x 21mm. This is SMALLER than a still camera "Half frame 35mm". To enlarge this 11.3mm x 21mm image up to 30 x 70 feet in size, you have to enlarge it somewhere between 833 and 1022 times. Now granted viewing distance plays a major part in the answer, and I calculate that the proper viewing distance would be between 65 and 80 feet. I also feel that the flow and movement of the film and subject lend the illusion of sharpness and lack of granularity. I'm just amazed that the original in camera negatives that are smaller in size than a half frame 35mm negative can have internegs and interpositives made and then prints made for theatres. Then projected on the big screen with 1000 times enlargment and look sharp. I take the freshest film, exposed full frame 35mm through the best glass, on a solid tripod, processed gently and carefully in the most precisely mixed chemistry. Print it through the best enlarger and lens and what do I get. A great 11"x14" print and a pretty good 16" x 20" print, but I don't think a 30 foot by 70 foot print even viewed at 65 to 80 feet would look very good. I can't even imagine how bad it would look if enlarged that much from a half frame Super xx or Plus x machine processed negative as a third generation copy.
I'd love to understand how movies look so good with that much enlargement.
With thanks,
Sam H.

 

[Jim Jones]

I suspect the eye integrates the information about the subject from frame to frame. Since the grain is random, instead of constant like the subject, the eye and brain can ignore it. Viewing distance certainly makes a difference. For example. the 18 x 60 FOOT Coloramas that New York's Grand Central Terminal featured were, on at least one occasion, photographed by a 35mm Leica. Read down the thread a bit for the citation.
Dead Link Removed

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You don't look at movies at the same distance at which you watch your photos, and the moving image fools your eyes a lot. Just watch a DVD frame by frame and you'll see that almost all frames of an action shot have some blur, but you don't detect it when the image is animated.

Don't lose any sleep over it, because if you took a frame from a movie and made an enlargement it would look as ordinary as a 35mm still.

If Frank (Kino) is watching this thread he could give you some expert information.

 

[MattKing]

In addition to all the above, remember as well that motion picture stock is designed with the internegative and interpositive process in mind. The initial film stock is, as a result, relatively low in contrast.

Matt

 

[Tony Egan]

Because it's moving. A 640x480 resolution image looks "sharp" when it's in motion at 24+fps. When you freeze it you get all the ugly pixels/soft grain you would see in a still image.

 

[wildbill]

Taking lenses that retail for $8,000-$14,000 each for starters.

 

[jford]

If you stoop to having a cheap little digi cam thing at home that shoots little movies, shoot one (of the kids or such like). Then look at individual frames on the screen. Most of them look very grainy, however they look reasonable when playing. Also, film is usually shot with a large aperture, most of the shots have very short depth of field, usually to separate the relevant characters from the irrelevant background. (Those establishing shots of people walking down a crowded 5th Avenue. How do you always work out so quickly who is the character amongst all of the extras?) I think this is also a factor of the relatively short exposure (however many frames have to be shot per second).

The eye does a pretty amazing job of filling in the gaps. We don't need much visual information to work out what is going on. Like someone said above, individual frames often have a lot of motion blur but we still know what's going on when they're strung together. A still on the other hand gives us time to notice inconsistencies, departures from what's expected, cognitive dissonances.

After studying film at university, I can't watch films without seeing how they're made. I must say, it's kind of spoilt the experience. I spend most of the time noticing the technique. It is rarely inspiring. I find films manipulative and dishonest for many reasons, some explained by the ability of the brain to fill in the gaps using prior experiences.

John.

 

[Samuel Hotton]

Don't lose any sleep over it, because if you took a frame from a movie and made an enlargement it would look as ordinary as a 35mm still.

Good morning mhv,

It would be great fun and very informative to obtain a scrap out take in camera negative and actually enlarge it.

Any ideas were such a negative might be obtained?

Sam H.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Taking lenses that retail for $8,000-$14,000 each for starters.

And that's not even the high end. Check out this current Cooke price list--

http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a68299...a7b41020e9eeea6a85256cf60019cf69?OpenDocument

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

And that's not even the high end. Check out this current Cooke price list--

http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a68299...a7b41020e9eeea6a85256cf60019cf69?OpenDocument

...the case for the first one costs more than any camera I own.

As has been mentioned, the gear involved and the nature of cine film and techniques have a lot to do with it. But if you went up and looked at the screen from a foot away, I'd guess the grain would be just as apparent at such a huge size. I haven't tried though, something about my mum saying it'd ruin my eyes...

 

[Gerald Koch]

There is also the matter of a projected positive exhibiting a greater brightness range than a print.

 

[Samuel Hotton]

Taking lenses that retail for $8,000-$14,000 each for starters.

Good morning wildbill,
That figure sure makes ones Summicron purchase appear as pocket change!!

It would be great fun to mount one of those cinema lenses to a properly adjusted still camera body, with pin registered film, glass platten and a moving pressure plate.

Love to see the resulting images exposed in strong dramatic contre-jour lighting and also some exposed at fully open T-stop. Even with only a 18mm x 24mm negative I'm sure the image would have a very different character to it than I'm used to seeing with conventional still cameras.

Thanks for the input wildbill,
Sam H.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It would be great fun and very informative to obtain a scrap out take in camera negative and actually enlarge it.

Any ideas were such a negative might be obtained?

Sam H.

Well, if you call Spielberg, he might be convinced to depart from a few frames from his in-camera negatives for you...not! The in-camera negative is probably the most precious thing a studio may own.

A while ago it used to be fashionable to make experimental movies with pieces of film that were thrown away, but I don't know if the negatives or the prints were used. If there's a film school around town, ask whether they shoot 35, and try to befriend someone over there to give you some scraps.

 

[Samuel Hotton]

And that's not even the high end. Check out this current Cooke price list--

Good morning Mr. Goldfarb,
That price list sure got my attention!!

Am I to assume, judging from these prices that we still shooters are using inferior lenses to that of the motion picture industry? It would seem such.

From all the talk of the visual signature and bokeh of this lens or that lens, it appears that we still camera operators are truly in the dark when it comes to really superb optics and the images they produce.

I wonder why Cooke does not produce lenses for the 24mm x 36mm format still cameras. They produce them for the 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 format. I think I recall that Taylor, Taylor Hobson & Cooke did many years ago produce lenses for 35mm still cameras.

All the best,
Sam H.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Professional cine stuff is just priced at a different scale, and these high-end lenses are relatively small production, and are usually rented. You might note that the design used in Cooke's PS945 4x5" soft focus lens is used in a soft-focus attachment made for the cine lenses, and the price of this screw-in lens attachment is about the same as the cost of the 4x5" still lens.

For $60,000, you can make a decent 10x zoom lens that won't have all the problems (barrel/pincushion distortion at the ends of the range, color fringing at the tele-end, etc.) that zooms for 35mm still cameras are prone to have.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . Am I to assume, judging from these prices that we still shooters are using inferior lenses to that of the motion picture industry? It would seem such. . . .

As long as the the lenses us mere mortals use can approach the resolving ability of film, or just capture all the detail necessary in the print, we needn't feel deprived. It is usually more practical to be adequate than to be perfect, despite the loss of bragging rights.

 

[Samuel Hotton]

As long as the the lenses us mere mortals use can approach the resolving ability of film, or just capture all the detail necessary in the print, we needn't feel deprived. It is usually more practical to be adequate than to be perfect, despite the loss of bragging rights.

There is a lot of wisdom in what you say. Very well put.
Sam H.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Everyone misses one important fact!

Film can have a dmax of over 3.0. Print films used for MoPic up to 4.0.

Prints on paper have a dmax of about 2.0.

This limits the tone scale and therefore the resultant apparent quality. Under extreme illumination, with a good paper, you can begin to approach motion picture quailty.

It has nothing to do with integration of the images, as this quality can be seen in a siingle frame projected at the same viewing distance as a print. I have seen it done.

PE

 

[Ross Chambers]

The greatest part of the footage in a motion picture is contact printed for each generation. Prints from the original neg are limited in number and show only in prestige cinemas, by the time the lesser mortals get to see a print it has been through a interpos/interneg/release print stage, so the most commonly viewed quality is pretty amazing.

Opticals went through several generations, before digital techniques were used, and were usually evident to an eye used to looking at prints.

As a once film editor I can vouch that individual still frames, even viewed on the very good optics of a Moviola are often not as good as many stills at the same size (about 120mm x 180mm approx, from memory)

There's plenty of blur in action shots which becomes imperceptible when the film is run at the correct speed.

On the occasions that a still was printed from a motion picture single frame in my experience the result was not particularly good, in colour at least.

BTW, if projected 35mm impresses you, try super 16mm.

Regards - Ross

 

[Maris]

I reckon it is the frame rate that averages the imperfections, grain, scratches and makes them disappear.

Years ago in the small town where I grew up the local cinema had old projectors and a lazy projectionist. Accidents were common. One of the best was when the projector tore the film sprockets and the film stopped in the projector gate. The sound cut out and picture suddenly became quite unsharp and very grainy. More excitement was to follow. Within a second or two a brown spot appeared in the middle of projected image which rapidly evolved into huge falling blobs of melted film and a glaring white screen.

Audience reaction was hoots and cat-calls. The projection window would slam shut. The cinema manager was livid. Great excitement for a lad at the Saturday night pictures!

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The REAL answer to the original posters question is this. Persistance of vision enables the eye to integrate the resolution from multiple frames into one overall image. There are 24 separate frames of film for ever second on the screen, and at least 48 frame interruptions (each frame projected twice). The eye and brain process these multiple frames as one frame with moving objects within it...

Cinematography lenses are not any sharper than still camera lenses, in fact sometimes much less sharp (for a reason). But when you consider the "cumilitive" resolution of several or many frames of film integrated by the eye and brain into one overall impression, then the resolution capabilities of the cinema are impressive.

 

[JBrunner]

The REAL answer to the original posters question is this. Persistance of vision enables the eye to integrate the resolution from multiple frames into one overall image. There are 24 separate frames of film for ever second on the screen, and at least 48 frame interruptions (each frame projected twice). The eye and brain process these multiple frames as one frame with moving objects within it...

Cinematography lenses are not any sharper than still camera lenses, in fact sometimes much less sharp (for a reason). But when you consider the "cumilitive" resolution of several or many frames of film integrated by the eye and brain into one overall impression, then the resolution capabilities of the cinema are impressive.

Uh, each frame is projected once, (24 frames/sec, 24 pull down intervals/sec = 50/50 or 1/48sec per frame) well, until you show the movie again. Just needed to point that out. Other than that, yes, persistence of vision plays a large part, as does viewing distance, with other things dropping in behind these two biggies. The sharpest and best coated lenses I have ever worked with are cine lenses, the best of which easily better some of my best LF lenses, but far more important than that, a set of lenses, 18, 24,50, and 85mm match color and contrast precisely, and that is part of the great expense.

 

[Helen B]

Uh, each frame is projected once, (24 frames/sec, 24 pull down intervals/sec = 50/50 or 1/48sec per frame) well, until you show the movie again. ...

Er, no. Each frame is projected at least twice, sometimes thrice. The shutter is likely to have at least two blades. Showing each frame once at 24 fps, with 1/48th sec of darkness inbetween each frame would look a little flickery. There are two things going on: the perception of motion and the appearance of flicker. You need fewer frames per second to produce smooth motion than you need flickers per second to produce the appearance of continuous illumination.

Best,
Helen

 

[JBrunner]

Er, no. Each frame is projected at least twice, sometimes thrice. The shutter is likely to have at least two blades. Showing each frame once at 24 fps, with 1/48th sec of darkness inbetween each frame would look a little flickery. There are two things going on: the perception of motion and the appearance of flicker. You need fewer frames per second to produce smooth motion than you need flickers per second to produce the appearance of continuous illumination.

Best,
Helen

Yup. I stand corrected, you guys are right, I'm guilty of
thinking from a shooting point of view. I remember now inspecting an old Bauer projector, that had a super friggin cool conical shutter, and noting that it had two slots, which the projectionist then explained to me, which I promptly forgot, (apparently).

 

[Helen B]

Are you refering to 3/2 pulldown, or projection?

I'm referring to projection. Here is what happens. The first shutter blade covers the gate. The next frame is clawed into position. The first blade clears the gate and the frame is projected for 1/96 second. The second blade obscures the gate and the audience sit in darkness for 1/96 of a second. The film stays where it is. The second blade clears the gate and the frame is projected once more for 1/96 of a second. The first blade obscures the gate and the film is clawed down and the cycle repeats. The rate of flicker is 48 cycles per second - just enough (barely enough) to avoid the appearance of flicker. 60 cycles per second is better.

At the silent speed of 16 fps the shutter might have four blades. Just one of the reasons why silents look flickery when shown on a sound projector with too few blades.

Ever wondered why everything looks flickery in the viewfinder, but never when you watch the film?

And an afterthought: When you watch animation you might be seeing the same image at least four times because they (we) often shoot 'doubles'. Two frames of the same image, because 12 fps is just good enough for perception of motion.

Best,
Helen