Warner Bros. doing digital transfers

**Nigel** · March 9th, 2005, 01:30 AM

Guys Guys Guys....Bring it back to the thread. This is a great one and it would suck if it had to get locked because of name calling.

Stay on task.

Good Luck
PS--I am off to a conecrt but I will comment on the prior posts a bit more when I have time.

**jb_617** · March 9th, 2005, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Peter_G:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jb.:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter_G:
What did I miss?

A first class education.

[ March 08, 2005 04:20 AM: Message edited by: jb. ]<hr /></blockquote>"Obfusticated" isn't a word, JB. I think what you meant to say was "obfuscated".[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Ooops! Yes, I meant obfuscated, typing too fast there I think. Still, I don't feel that a minor spelling mistake invalidates my argument that Miker is misrepresenting the truth, or that you didn't follow my thread, or that some of your posts leave a lot to be desired in the sentence construction. Spelling mistakes are forgivable, but misleading the reader is not. Since you know what ?to obfuscate? means (You, of course, did not just type my misspelling into dictionary.com and run with the suggestion) then why did you do it? It's a cardinal sin. Strunk, Fowler, et al would not be happy. [img]wink.gif[/img]

Anyway, to reel this "last fat slag left at the disco" of a thread back onto the point, film and video are two similar, but not identical ways of capturing and image. The very fact that video manufacturers and users are striving to emulate the ?film look? is prima facia evidence for me that film is still the technically superior of the two.

Now, since this has once again become a video v film debate, let me make my standpoint perfectly clear. I like both film and video. I am in neither camp as far as which one should be used. This is a low-budget filmmakers forum and it is to be expected that the overwhelming majority of people will be shooting video, as it is cheaper and more convenient. However, to truly progress as a technician and an artist in the cinema profession, one must master both video and film. To simply write-off film as ?too expensive? and list its flaws, of which there are many, is in my opinion, shortsighted. There are many flaws with video also which the champions of that medium rarely address.

Miker, from what I can infer from his posts, is not a fan of film. He seems to constantly deride the quality of projection that he sees in the cinema, the necessity to electronically capture film for post-production special effects, the fact that film negatives and prints will decline in quality over time, and the fact that there is a delay between when a film opens in another country and when it is screened in the UK. These are all valid points, but I do not think that any one of them shows that HD formats will supersede film in the near or mid-future. I will address these points:

The quality of cinema projection is indeed poor. However, this is not the fault of 35mm film stock, it is the fault of the cinema owners.

All the special effects in the world will not make a good film (Pearl Harbour anyone?). I accept that it can be very helpful in such applications such as rig-removal, etc, creating scenes that otherwise would be impossible (Lord Of The Rings springs to mind), and for touching up badly shot scenes. But again, this is hardly overcoming a limitation of the film stock. The camera and capture medium do not yet exist that can rival 35mm stock. It is close, but not there yet. That is not to say that it shouldn?t be done, rather that reports of the death of film have been greatly exaggerated. Call me when it can rival 65mm or 70mm, then we?ll talk.

Film degradation is a problem. Many older stocks do not age well and there is a serious need to re-master prints. However, all media degrades. Again, not really the fault of 35mm stock, the laws of physics respect no man.

As far as the time taken to strike prints and ship them to different countries goes. I do not mind this problem. Sure, a film could be compressed and streamed over the Internet to every cinema that wants to show it. It could open on the same day worldwide and nobody would have to wait. This misses one fundamental point. Marketing. Once a film has opened (usually in the US first) there is a delay of a few weeks or a couple of months before it opens in the UK. This will probably not go away by using HD or other electronic projection formats. Film companies usually have the principle actors involved complete a press tour; they visit different countries, talk to the press and fans, and attend Premiere screenings, etc. This is good for the film as it generates word of mouth interest and gives some free advertising. A film that opens everywhere at the same time would not have this and I think that it would be a bad thing.

Now, sadly, we must turn our attention to the question of censorship as this has once again raised its ugly head. I have been both the victim and instigator or personal attacks on this forum and it doesn?t bother me either way. Anyone who has waded through the sea of sludge that is the ?Mac-Mini? thread will know what I am talking about. This is a forum, a place for the free exchange of ideas and opinions and I believe that this should be preserved. Personally, I have no problem with Nigel being the moderator of this board; he and I seem to broadly agree on many subjects. However, I would not be happy to see anyone whose opinion that I did not agree with excluded from the debate. I think that to write:
??it would suck if it had to get locked because of name calling.?
Is not helpful. What Nigel means is ?I will lock this thread if I continue to read posts that I do not agree with or like the tone of.? That may seem harsh, but the message is the same in both cases. One should never hide behind the passive voice and imply that the decision is out of one?s hands when it is not. This is a departure from the truth. To take this line of reasoning to its logical extreme: All posts with external links must be deleted as they could cause offence, links to pictures or the posting of pictures should be stopped, any thread or post that does not neutrally deal with the technical aspects of film must be deleted, differing opinions should be directed neutrally to a hypothetical ?speaker? (as in the House of Commons) so that offence can not be caused, topics dealing with subjective matter, such as the reviewing of films, should be deleted.

This is, of course, ridiculous. So is the other extreme of total freedom of action and speech. It is a fine line to walk and I respect Nigel for being willing to do it. But I must once again register my protest at the veiled threats. To use a personal insult in the cause of a debate is childish, but we all do it. I am not perfect and neither is anyone else. I have met several of the people from this board and have, without exception, found them to be very nice people with a passion for filmmaking. Yes, we may argue, name-call, and swear at each other on this forum, but I believe that this is healthy. No real offence is caused or intended. Anyone who makes the decision to participate in an online forum should know what he or she is getting into, if they don?t and they are offended, they will quickly leave. While this is not the ideal, I can offer no other remedy to the situation. There are many regular posters here, I think at some point we have all rubbed each other up the wrong way, yet we all come back. Does this not mean something?

Peter_G and I may be bantering on this thread but so what? In other threads we have agreed. I am not insulted by his opinion, however it is expressed, and I would hope that he is not insulted by me. All topics here should be taken with a light heart and a jocular sensibility; I believe I have said something similar to that before.

I may not be the best person in the world to defend freedom of expression so I will leave it to a more eloquent man than I. Apologies for cutting some of this out but it is a rather dated quote dealing with the censorship of books attacking religion. It?s message, however, still rings true:

"? are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold,
and what we may buy? ? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826).

**sn-films** · March 9th, 2005, 02:05 PM

Getting back to the original topic, I found an interesting whitepaper that talks about 4K film scanning.

"Evolution of Resolution"
http://www.cintel.co.uk/technology/technology.htm

Its written by a company that is trying to sell you a product, so you may want to take some of these claims with a grain of salt. It makes for an interesting read for any techno-philes who have made it this far into this discussion thread.

Here are a few highlights that I found interesting in the paper:

1) Yes, 4K scanning does NOT capture all of the detail of original 35mm film.

2) Some image resolution (detail) is lost during the various film print stages of post-production and again due to the quality of the lens on the final projector. In the end, the audience never sees the full resolution of the original 35mm film when they go to the cinema. In some cases, the resolution can be less than 2K!

3) With digital projection there is an opportunity to present full 4K resolution from 35mm film. Since resolution can be lost during the print stages, digital 4K projections would offer higher resolution in the cinema.

4) "While some are suggesting that HD capture may replace film at the camera acquisition stage, Cintel believes that to do so would be a dangerous move in limiting the future quality of images for the large screen."

5) "...the way forward is to shoot film, scan 4K, save the archive effectively with lossless compression."

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting document that provides quantitative numbers in support of many of the arguments listed above.

**Nigel** · March 10th, 2005, 12:16 AM

I have no problem with things getting heated and a free and open exchange of thoughts and opinions. But when it starts to look like a childish back and forth of name calling then it doesn't help anyone.

Please, don't call it censorship. To me it is more like pruning away material that is not relevant to the thread. That is all.

Good Luck

**Nigel** · March 10th, 2005, 12:26 AM

Now, back to the topic...

MatJimMood pointed out some very interesting things. The fact is that electronic gathering has a big problem. Lack of true randomness. A CCD/CMOS will always capture the same thing. The pixels never move shift or change. Film on the other hand is wholly unique in each frame. Every frame is infinatly different from the one before it and the one after. That is something digital can never do. I feel that like the randomness of the cones and rods in you eye we all see the world in a random way. Hence why I see Red in a way that no one else will.

Make sense??

Good Luck

**jb_617** · March 10th, 2005, 10:05 AM

I think Nigel nailed it with that one. To read more about how amazing the human eye is, go here.

Here's just one fascinating paragraph:

"This random arrangement is not at all what we expected," said Prof Williams. "If you were to design a digital camera, you'd never choose a random geometry like this. Yet it turns out that that's what the most sophisticated imaging device in the world - the human eye - uses."

And full marks to Nigel for keeping up with his scientific reading, the randomness of receptor cell arrangement is the eye is a really recent discovery (1999 -- which trust me is really recent for a new discovery to be widely accepted). The technique that was used to gather the data is truly groundbreaking. It makes the Hubble Space Telescope look like a toy.

---------------------

I love the smell of science in the morning.

**Nigel** · March 10th, 2005, 03:21 PM

JB--

While I did understand the randomness of the human eye. The comparison to film came whilst I was drunk at a bar talking about looking at a sunset and never being able to capture it exactly the way anyone sees it.

I have used the randomness concept since then and it has always been a good way to fend off the CCD/CMOS crowd.

Do an expiriment. Take your friends and family and ask them to point out what Coke Can red is. They will all come up with something different.

Good Luck

**jb_617** · March 10th, 2005, 03:48 PM

If I had a penny for every good idea that came to me while I was drunk in a bar, I would be able to pay my bar tab.

---------------------

Free your mind.

**peter_g** · March 11th, 2005, 12:54 AM

Hence why I see Red in a way that no one else will.

Make sense??

When I was about six or seven years old, I theorised/fantasized that everyone has a different way of perceiving colour - What I see as orange another person might see as what I see as purple and so forth. This doesn?t stand up very well to my adult cynicism, because we know that there is a relationship between colours and that colour exists in a linear order or spectrum dictated by wavelength. Then again, it?s possible that the permutation of the basic component colours (Red, Green, Blue) varies from individual to individual. A third, infinitely more wacky possibility is that rather then another person experiencing orange as I experience purple, he sees something that is entirely outside of my cognizance. I don't think this is a particularly constructive post, but I like to share these things.

This does make me think about the nature of colour, though. Colour is merely a human perception or understanding of light energy. Colour is our uniquely human way of perceiving the varying light waves. There are some ?colours? that we cannot see but some animals can (ultraviolet and infrared). I would speculate that these animals experience ultraviolet and infrared light in a unique way that we cannot understand and do not have an equivalent of.

**jb_617** · March 11th, 2005, 09:18 AM

Interestingly enough, women have a far superior colour perception than men and are able to "standardise" colours much better. Believe it or not, most car manufacturers employ only women to assess the colour consistency of batches of new cars as they found that men have a lesser ability to grade and distinguish between similar shades of colour. Yet most Cinematographers, lighting directors, and editors are men. And we all sit around and bitch about bad picture quality in films.

---------------------

Rock on Sisters, rock on.

Thread: Warner Bros. doing digital transfers

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions