A Serious Question

[dreamers.space]

Agreed sir, but that is the matter of projection. My actual debate was movies being shot in 35mm film negative. I am very worried about it's existence.
"A Serious Man" was shot in film isn't it? at this point of the discussion i wish to make movies in film as much we can before it gets lost. i do hope it co-exits in some way.

[Roger]

Film and digital co-exist right now and I believe they will for some time. It is common practice that films shot 'on film' are digitized in post and timed digitally before being recorded out to film again for projection. "A Serious Man' was finished this way and I don't think it suffered for it. I fully expect that in a year or two digital capture will offer advantages over film for a similar production.

[octopoli]

i don't want to add too much as I don't want to upset Roger anymore, but I also so 'Serious Man' in the UK (i think 2 weeks ago) and the print was very scratched up (mostly in the center of frame and especially the first 50 minutes). I didn't see it in London, but at a provincial multiplex. It was the first time in a while I had seen a new release that scratched up. It seemed to me that it may have been sent from the States after the run had ended over there. At first I thought it may have been an effect for the look of the opening scene but it was clear afterwards.

I can imagine it being something of a headache to spend so much time, care and passion into a film to know that the end result quality is out of your hands and open abuse.

Anything that adds consistency to projection should be a good idea (but the problem doesn't end in the cinema I don't think). And I think digital is a good thing in general.

[Kurt]

Sorry for drifting...

Okay. Digital technology rules. Just out of interest: what is the vertical resolution of a standard 2k 2.35 widescreen Digital Cinema Package and how does this compare to a 35mm anamorphic print at highest quality?

(I don't expect 4k projectors will be the standard for some time and once a 2k projector is installed in a theater, it will most likely spend the rest of its days there)

[Roger]

Even at 4K I doubt that a digital image would be comparable to a show print from an anamorphic negative shot on a slow stock with low grain. However, how many theatres would ever project a show print outside of Hollywood? By the time you make an IP, an IN and then a print the resolution would probably be better on the 2K digital projector. And then there is the projection itself to take into account - the scratches, the flicker, the out of focus edges, the uneven illumination, the unsteadiness, the print dirt. I know this doesn't have to be so but it is!

[Kurt]

Well... at least there won't be the extra trouble of laser etched subtitles anymore for countries where films are not not dubbed. I sincerely hope you're all not too familiar with them.

(Merry christmas!)

[Jglucks]

Roger, could you explain what it is about this upcoming Arri digital camera that is such a game changer? When I see (most) films shot on, say, the Genesis camera, it's not the resolution that is problematic, it's the motion blur. Lock the camera down and keep the actors still, the image looks fantastic -- they start moving and it looks like I'm watching a high quality bootleg. I'd love to hear your thoughts ...

Thanks.

[Roger]

Do you see the same motion blur problem with the D21? I have not seen an image, still or otherwise, from the Genesis that I would call fantastic - at least in terms of image quality. It is a good camera but that is all relative and I see no reason to use it rather than a film camera. I don't know whether the new Arri camera will be a 'game changer' or not but it does promise to both capture a high quality image and be 'operator friendly'. I think that is all I am looking for.

[Jglucks]

The only footage I've seen of the D21 is the demo on the arri site and yes, there is motion blur -- the footage of the the man and woman walking down a hallway in a club -- yuck. And I agree with you that there is no discernible reason to shoot with the Genesis. Any 35mm camera can do it better. I would love to find an adequate digital replacement for film and shake off being treated like a second class citizen at developing houses and hoping that the recan I shot with isn't damaged. I hope when June comes around all that will change. Still, I would love to know what it was that caught your attention.

[Roger]

I don't think watching a video from the Arri site is a fair way to judge motion blur or any aspect of image quality. What caught my attention was an image from a prototype sensor that I saw projected in a 20' digital screening room. In perhaps a few more weeks there will be feedback from cinematographers who have tested the camera for themselves and I hope to be one of them.

[Stefan]

Roger, could you explain what it is about this upcoming Arri digital camera that is such a game changer? When I see (most) films shot on, say, the Genesis camera, it's not the resolution that is problematic, it's the motion blur. Lock the camera down and keep the actors still, the image looks fantastic -- they start moving and it looks like I'm watching a high quality bootleg. I'd love to hear your thoughts ...

Thanks.

I think this different motion blur you are talking about is caused by shooting digitally with a 360°shutter (shooting 24fps at 1/24th of a second). This is the reason why for example "public enemies" looks so video-like whereas there are several other films shot with the same camera which look "normal".

[DavidFu]

Stefan is right. Native ISO of digital cameras are rated for 360 degree shutter, but most cameramen would use 180 degree shutter, just as shooting film. Somewhere along the line, this capability of digital cameras to shoot 360 with a flick of a switch become a shortcut to save time (and lights). Shows that have shot this way have ruined what would have been a very nice image (21 had this issue, shooting with the Genesis). Of course in Public Enemies this was a stylistic choice, but that's another story. People often confuse this as a flaw with digital, but essentially it is more of a feature. Film can be shot at 360 degrees too, but it just requires that the shutter be removed and you can't monitor the shot. There are several films that used this technique with film, although I can't think of one at the moment.

I'm actually a little heartbroken to hear that Roger's last picture shooting with film may be coming up, but at the same time I'd love to see how Roger works in digital.

[jures80]

Do you mean to say that you will be making the transition to your first digitally shot film, or that you will be leaving film behind?

I only ask because, in my opinion, even with the problems that a projection may have, film still breaths in a way digital hasn't achieved.

[Roger]

Film breathes? Perhaps. For myself, I am starting to see some distinct advantages to shooting digital that outweigh my love of the 'look'of film.

[Patrick Lavalley]

I am wondering if a mechanical shutter has distinct advantages in digital capture over a "digital shutter". It's my understanding that the Arri D21 has a mechanical shutter, but I'm not sure about other cameras. It seems to me that perhaps only the Arri and the Dalsa share mechanical shutters? Maybe the Viper as well?