35mm movies to Blu Ray

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:01:54 GMT, "DAvid" <davideo RemoveThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>I don't think the film manufacturers would be satisfied to continue
>production for the small % who will still be requesting film once digital
>takes hold. Digital is growing in popularity whilst film is declining at an
>ever increasing rate, worlwide.

Don't over estimate the market for digital. True, maybe Kodak will loose
it's interest, but then the factory will be emptied and sold to China,
where they will happily keep outputting film. And with a bit of luck, if
the quality of the stock is good, the ones of us who still like to use
film, will benefit from the lower stockprices.
By the way, did you know that 16mm has a revival over the last few years?
This started when Kodak came with the Vision 2 stocks. Arri released a
brandnew 16mm camera. They wouldn't do that if there was no market, don't
you think? :-)

cheers

-martin-
--
Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

"Martin Heffels" <goofie.DeleteThis@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:0iq513tasensciu6u3kigdfjjnmtb55iil@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:01:54 GMT, "DAvid" <davideo.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>I don't think the film manufacturers would be satisfied to continue
>>production for the small % who will still be requesting film once digital
>>takes hold. Digital is growing in popularity whilst film is declining at
>>an
>>ever increasing rate, worlwide.
>
> Don't over estimate the market for digital. True, maybe Kodak will loose
> it's interest, but then the factory will be emptied and sold to China,
> where they will happily keep outputting film. And with a bit of luck, if
> the quality of the stock is good, the ones of us who still like to use
> film, will benefit from the lower stockprices.
> By the way, did you know that 16mm has a revival over the last few years?
> This started when Kodak came with the Vision 2 stocks. Arri released a
> brandnew 16mm camera. They wouldn't do that if there was no market, don't
> you think? :-)
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
> --
> Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

I did hear something about 16mm making some sort of a revival but let's be
real Martin, whether we like it or not, the cost of a Sony Z1 1080i HD
camera, together with HD tapes or discs already out performs 16mm not only
in cost but quality as well. I believe it will be only a flash in the pan
for enthusiasts some of whom probably work for Kodak.
For what it's worth, I have shot in 16mm and just about every format of
video, and I can assure you personally, despite my very early protestations
about moving away from film, video has been a blessing for my business and
industry.

DAVO
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

I don't even understand the motivation for people to constantly drone
on and on about how film is dying. All I can guess, assuming that
they don't work for Sony or JVC or Panasonic, is that deep-down they
feel insecure by the fact that they are shooting on video and react by
finding ways to either put down film or talk about its demise and the
future ascendency of video shooters over film cinematographers, I
don't know.

We are only now starting to see digital cameras that come close to
matching the quality of 35mm color negative, the gold standard, in
terms of frame rates, resolution, color depth, sensitivity, and
exposure latitude. And these cameras have a lot of downsides to them
too, being new to the market. Either they are limited to 2K or HD,
which is not full 35mm resolution, or they are limited in frame rates,
or they are limited in sensitivity (the Arri-D20, for example, is only
roughly a 200 ASA camera), or they involve recording massive amounts
of data (as in the case of the 4K cameras). And the best of them in
terms of exposure latitude (like the Panavision Genesis, which has a
fast and slow pixel row in each color in order to handle overexposure
detail) still doesn't quite match color negative exposure latitude.

But my point is that all the elements are just starting to fall into
place, some seven years after the intro of the first 24P HD camera,
the Sony F900, that caused so many people to say that "film is dead".

But look at the productions that typically use 35mm film: theatrical
features, dramatic TV shows, and commercials. Digital cinematography
barely makes up maybe 10% of those types of productions. Out of a
couple of hundred theatrical releases per year, discounting
documentaries, only a handful are shot digitally. Most high-end
commercials are still shot on 35mm. I just completed shooting my
first TV series, for HBO, and all of their dramatic programming is
shot on 35mm.

And as for 35mm not being adequate for 1080P broadcast, total absolute
nonsense -- I've spent this week color-correcting 35mm-to-HD material
for HBO and the sharpness is staggering, too much in fact sometimes --
we may have to go in and soften some shots to be more flattering to
the actors. What's more questionable is 1080P being adequate for
cinema release, not 35mm being adequate for 1080P release. There are
currently some 1080P-shot movies in the theaters (Zodiak, Reign Over
Me, The Lookout) and while they look nice, there is a slight softness
to them.

So yes, film is dying, digital is on the rise, but the production
world of TODAY and the immediate TOMORROW uses a lot of film! It
doesn't really matter than maybe in ten years or more, the majority of
productions may be shot digitally. We work in the here and now, not
in the future, and film is still a major player.

And no, I don't work for Kodak, and I shoot 1080P digital and 35mm
film all the time.

David Mullen, ASC
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

"DAvid" <davideo.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> I accept your loyalty to film over video.

Hmm. I didn't read the previous post as an expression of loyalty, I
think it was a statement of fact.

Can digital outperform film? Sure! Will 1080p outperform 35mm film? No
way, you need much higher resolution for that.

--
Fredrik Sandström
fsandstr.DeleteThis@abo.fi
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

"DAvid" <davideo RemoveThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:uaGQh.9057$M.6480@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Martin Heffels" <goofie RemoveThis @flikken.net> wrote in message
> news:0iq513tasensciu6u3kigdfjjnmtb55iil@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:01:54 GMT, "DAvid" <davideo RemoveThis @bigpond.net.au>
wrote:
> >
> >>I don't think the film manufacturers would be satisfied to continue
> >>production for the small % who will still be requesting film once
digital
> >>takes hold. Digital is growing in popularity whilst film is declining at
> >>an
> >>ever increasing rate, worlwide.
> >
> > Don't over estimate the market for digital. True, maybe Kodak will loose
> > it's interest, but then the factory will be emptied and sold to China,
> > where they will happily keep outputting film. And with a bit of luck, if
> > the quality of the stock is good, the ones of us who still like to use
> > film, will benefit from the lower stockprices.
> > By the way, did you know that 16mm has a revival over the last few
years?
> > This started when Kodak came with the Vision 2 stocks. Arri released a
> > brandnew 16mm camera. They wouldn't do that if there was no market,
don't
> > you think? :-)
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > -martin-
> > --
> > Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk
>
> I did hear something about 16mm making some sort of a revival but let's be
> real Martin, whether we like it or not, the cost of a Sony Z1 1080i HD
> camera, together with HD tapes or discs already out performs 16mm not only
> in cost but quality as well. I believe it will be only a flash in the pan
> for enthusiasts some of whom probably work for Kodak.
> For what it's worth, I have shot in 16mm and just about every format of
> video, and I can assure you personally, despite my very early
protestations
> about moving away from film, video has been a blessing for my business and
> industry.

I think everyone accepts that cinematic distribution and projection will
eventually move to digital, and acquisition will inevitably go that way
too - the only question is how long it will take. I understand that people
are still shooting 65mm, although I imagine that'll be the first to fall by
the wayside, but there is still an enormous amount of 35mm gear and
technology around, and I don't think it'll vanish overnight.

While I've worked mainly in video, I have done the odd TVC and music vid
shot on Super 16 and 35mm, and what has always struck me from a
post-production perspective is not the resolution of film, but rather its
latitude and the manner in which film deals with highlight and shadow, and
the effect that has on the mix of colours and textures in a scene.

I don't doubt that video of whatever format will eventually be able to
emulate this aspect, but I haven't seen it yet.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

DAvid wrote:
> 1080P.
>> Most efx work for feature films are done at 2K, which is slightly
>> higher in resolution than 1080P (2048 versus 1920) and 2K is
>> considered to be working in half-resolution because 4K scanning
>> resolves 35mm more accurately. See this article:
>> http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/video_digital_cinemas_special/index.html
>>
>> David Mullen, ASC
>> Los Angeles
>>
> Thanks for the response and that web site David. Some years back I predicted
> the future of Cinema was digital and was blasted for saying it and what are
> we seeing now? Film is dead whether you like it or not. Remember the early
> days of television when everything was 16mm? Then along came U-matic, 2",
> 1". That was the end for 16mm everywhere and the same will happen to 35mm.
> When digital still cameras were first available, the 35mm and indeed format
> camera owners were so very critical of it. Now, look at those same people
> running around with top end digitals SLRs and the pictures they are capable
> of will blow even the best of format cameras away let alone 35mm.
> I know as I'm sure you do also, the future of Cinema is digital and it will
> continue to get better and better whereas film reached it's best performance
> years ago and cannot advance further due to the limitations of optics.
>
> DAVO
>
>
You are sadly mistaken if you think digital SLR's can top a large-format
camera. Check out this very well researched and recent article on the
digital vs film arguments (there are many links from there):

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Derek
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

> It's my understanding (read it somewhere) that a human's field of view is
> close to 16:9, hence the reason for choosing that aspect ratio over
> others. Of course it may have been advertising hype used around the time
> of the introduction of WS TVs but it seems like a plausible explanation.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

That's part of the reason, but I think the main one is that 16:9 is
half-way between 1:1.37 and 1:2.39 so the black-bars aren't too large on
Citizen Kane or on Lord Of The Rings. (This thread has prompted some
fascinating and informative responses which I'm enjoying, but the fact that
the original poster has never considered what academy-ratio films would look
like on a 1:2.35 television certainly says something about his appreciation
for cinema (he's probably the type that avoids black&white and subtitled
films, too.)
With his "cinema is dead, because I said so and there can be no other
opinions but mine and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" attitude,
I'm seriously tempted to killfile him and just read the replies.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

On Apr 4, 12:39 pm, davi....DeleteThis@earthlink.net wrote:
> I don't even understand the motivation for people to constantly drone
> on and on about how film is dying. All I can guess, assuming that
> they don't work for Sony or JVC or Panasonic, is that deep-down they
> feel insecure by the fact that they are shooting on video and react by
> finding ways to either put down film or talk about its demise and the
> future ascendency of video shooters over film cinematographers, I
> don't know.
>
> We are only now starting to see digital cameras that come close to
> matching the quality of 35mm color negative, the gold standard, in
> terms of frame rates, resolution, color depth, sensitivity, and
> exposure latitude. And these cameras have a lot of downsides to them
> too, being new to the market. Either they are limited to 2K or HD,
> which is not full 35mm resolution, or they are limited in frame rates,
> or they are limited in sensitivity (the Arri-D20, for example, is only
> roughly a 200 ASA camera), or they involve recording massive amounts
> of data (as in the case of the 4K cameras). And the best of them in
> terms of exposure latitude (like the Panavision Genesis, which has a
> fast and slow pixel row in each color in order to handle overexposure
> detail) still doesn't quite match color negative exposure latitude.
>
> But my point is that all the elements are just starting to fall into
> place, some seven years after the intro of the first 24P HD camera,
> the Sony F900, that caused so many people to say that "film is dead".
>
> But look at the productions that typically use 35mm film: theatrical
> features, dramatic TV shows, and commercials. Digital cinematography
> barely makes up maybe 10% of those types of productions. Out of a
> couple of hundred theatrical releases per year, discounting
> documentaries, only a handful are shot digitally. Most high-end
> commercials are still shot on 35mm. I just completed shooting my
> first TV series, for HBO, and all of their dramatic programming is
> shot on 35mm.
>
> And as for 35mm not being adequate for 1080P broadcast, total absolute
> nonsense -- I've spent this week color-correcting 35mm-to-HD material
> for HBO and the sharpness is staggering, too much in fact sometimes --
> we may have to go in and soften some shots to be more flattering to
> the actors. What's more questionable is 1080P being adequate for
> cinema release, not 35mm being adequate for 1080P release. There are
> currently some 1080P-shot movies in the theaters (Zodiak, Reign Over
> Me, The Lookout) and while they look nice, there is a slight softness
> to them.
>
> So yes, film is dying, digital is on the rise, but the production
> world of TODAY and the immediate TOMORROW uses a lot of film! It
> doesn't really matter than maybe in ten years or more, the majority of
> productions may be shot digitally. We work in the here and now, not
> in the future, and film is still a major player.
>
> And no, I don't work for Kodak, and I shoot 1080P digital and 35mm
> film all the time.
> David Mullen, ASC

David,

Thanks, as always, for your exceptional insights and insider
knowledge.

Are you at liberty to tell us about the HBO series you're doing?

I can add that "ROME" (from HBO [Super35 IINM]) is about as stunning
as anything I've seen in HDTV (digital cable or HD-DVD).

Charles
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

I can't really say much, other than I was the co-DP on Season Two of
"Big Love", and that we shoot 4-perf Super-35 framed for 16x9, posted
in HD.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

<davidm2 RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1176348350.534950.176150@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>I can't really say much, other than I was the co-DP on Season Two of
> "Big Love", and that we shoot 4-perf Super-35 framed for 16x9, posted
> in HD.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles

What is 4-perf Super-35 as opposed to normal 35mm? Would I be correct in
assuming it's the same size film (thus the 35mm) but has a larger emulsion
frame, similar in concept to the old Standard 8 and Super 8? Apologies if
it's a dumb question.

DAVO
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

Standard 35mm is 4-perfs tall. "Super-35" means you are exposing
across the Full Aperture, picture extending between the two sprocket
rows, rather than not using the left edge where the soundtrack stripe
goes on the print. Basically 4-perf Super-35 is the same thing as 4-
perf Full or Silent Aperture, which is what Silent Era movies used.
It is a 1.33 : 1 (4x3) negative. But usually Super-35 these days is
used for the extra width, not the extra height.

TV more commonly uses 3-perf Full Aperture these days when shooting in
35mm. By dropping one perf per frame, the shape of the negative is
more widescreen, roughly 1.77 : 1, which perfectly matches 16x9 TV
proportions while saving money. I had assumed that HBO would want to
shoot 3-perf, but they told me that they preferred 4-perf because it
gave them more options to reframe the image vertically in post. Seems
like a waste of money just to be able to occasionally reframe a shot
(which they have never done as far as I know.) You save 25% of the
cost of stock and processing by switching from 4-perf to 3-perf.

The differences between regular 8mm and Super-8 and regular 16mm and
Super-16 are more extreme.

In the case of Super-8, they actually made the sprocket holes smaller
to allow a bigger image (8mm uses the same sprocket holes as 16mm and
35mm, a bit large - this is because regular 8mm rolls are 16mm wide
and you expose one side of the frame than filp the roll over and
expose down the other side, and it gets slit in half in the lab.
Super-8 is already in 8mm-wide rolls, in cartridges for easy loading.)

Super-16 uses 16mm film with no sproket holes on the right side of the
frame, only on one side. This allows the frame to be extended towards
the right edge of the film, making a widescreen image.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

Big LN wrote:
> "DAvid" <davideo RemoveThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>><davidm2 RemoveThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:1176348350.534950.176150@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I can't really say much, other than I was the co-DP on Season Two of
>>>"Big Love", and that we shoot 4-perf Super-35 framed for 16x9, posted
>>>in HD.
>>>
>>>David Mullen, ASC
>>>Los Angeles
>>
>>What is 4-perf Super-35 as opposed to normal 35mm? Would I be correct in
>>assuming it's the same size film (thus the 35mm) but has a larger emulsion
>
>
>>frame, similar in concept to the old Standard 8 and Super 8? Apologies if
>
>
>>it's a dumb question.
>>
>>DAVO
>
>
> Hi DAVO. 4-perf Super 35 is simply the original frame size that was used in
> 35 mm silent films. That is, it is a return to the way the film stock was used
> before the frame size was cropped to allow room for a soundtrack. HTH.
>
> 'Onya

That's correct.
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray 

"TG'sFM" <suvvdj.DeleteThis@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1176366457.450985.71570@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 12, 2:31 pm, "Big LN" <Big....DeleteThis@this.ng> wrote:
>> "DAvid" <davi....DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> ><davi....DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:1176348350.534950.176150@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >>I can't really say much, other than I was the co-DP on Season Two of
>> >> "Big Love", and that we shoot 4-perf Super-35 framed for 16x9, posted
>> >> in HD.
>>
>> >> David Mullen, ASC
>> >> Los Angeles
>>
>> >What is 4-perf Super-35 as opposed to normal 35mm? Would I be correct in
>> >assuming it's the same size film (thus the 35mm) but has a larger
>> >emulsion
>> >frame, similar in concept to the old Standard 8 and Super 8? Apologies
>> >if
>> >it's a dumb question.
>>
>> >DAVO
>>
>> Hi DAVO. 4-perf Super 35 is simply the original frame size that was used
>> in
>> 35 mm silent films. That is, it is a return to the way the film stock was
>> used
>> before the frame size was cropped to allow room for a soundtrack. HTH.
>
> Well explained. You are not only correct, but you should be
> congratulated for not having a go at DAVO for asking such a dumb
> question.

Why would anyone have a go at DAVO?

'Onya
 >> Stay informed about: 35mm movies to Blu Ray