8mm Forum: Curious about the new releases

This is topic Curious about the new releases in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=009189

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on May 25, 2014, 03:55 PM:

I wonder ... When CHC and/or Reel Image talk of True Lies for example, do they always use a 35mm or would some of these be digital to start with? Captain America, was the master a digital source or 35mm?

Because I don't want to buy a digital Super 8 film

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on May 26, 2014, 03:14 PM:

Vidar,

Steve says the two titles you mentioned are from 35mm. I don't know of any Super 8mm releases from a digital source. I can think of a few that had analog video sources, though. Castle Films' last 200 footer, The Tall Ships, and Universal 8's Disco Beaver from Outer Space used negatives that were made from a video master.

Doug

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on May 26, 2014, 04:41 PM:

Vidar, digital film out is a very costly process so I doubt it would be a viable option.

However if you're wondering about what it was shot on. Captain America was a digitally shot movie. With the excpetion of the newsreel portions. Everything else was shot on the Arrive Alexa.

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on May 26, 2014, 05:04 PM:

So thats digital to film,to negative, to film bar a few small shots !!!

Might even be another negative in there after digital ?

Best Mark.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on May 26, 2014, 05:41 PM:

I apologize for going off topic here....

Ernie, the Arri Alexa was was used in only two sequences in Captain America. Those were the underwater scenes with the sub and the present day NY sequence. The majority of the film was shot using the Panavision Genesis digital camera system.

So....yes, CA: The First Avenger is basically a digitally (and excellently) shot movie released on celluloid.

Doug

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on May 26, 2014, 05:54 PM:

I have worked on 7 feature films in the last 2 years and they were all shot using digital cameras. One film was shot with the monster Panavision cameras but I was told it was being transferred to digital for release. Also, the director was watching the recently shot scenes immediately on a digital replay system to see if reshoots were necessary. It was very cool because I also got to peek at it and see what I will look like on the big screen when the film is released this October.

Posted by Maurizio Di Cintio (Member # 144) on May 26, 2014, 06:20 PM:

Wow, Pasquale - great news!!! What's the title of this motion picture???

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on May 26, 2014, 07:11 PM:

Doug. Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was mostly Arri Alexa. My mistake.

And Pat sounds really cool!

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on May 26, 2014, 07:20 PM:

I thought First Avenger was shot mostly film. On imdb it states the negative format was 35mm. The new CA was shot all digital for sure. Was watching 3 Days to Kill and it was just awful. Blown out exteriors and funny looking faces with odd colors. The one thing that gives away a digital camera is the faces and I can't stand it. I like my faces to look natural in a normal movie.

Most films these days goes through a Digital Intermediate process except for Christopher Nolan's films. But it must at some point to get a DCP. Not sure about Quentin Tarantino.

Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on May 26, 2014, 07:38 PM:

The Dark Knight films were edited on Avid.

Tarantino uses Avid as well. Though I'm sure he's not happy about it.

Though they were shot on film for sure.

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on May 26, 2014, 10:14 PM:

Getting back on topic, I believe the latest CHC Bond extract is from 35mm source material. I know Magoo Meets Frankenstein from The Reel Image is from a 35mm IB Tech print.

I was surprised a while back to discover that most of Derann's releases were from 16mm, albeit low-contrast prints rather than standard contrast projection prints.

Doug

Posted by Barry Attwood (Member # 100) on May 27, 2014, 03:17 AM:

I think most of Derann's extract from classic features came from 16mm (I know the "Oklahoma" extract was definitely) and some of there features "First Men In The Moon" was. and that turned out to be an excellent 8mm print, although there later extracts were taken off 35mm ("Gladiator" - "Pearl Harbor" etc.)

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 28, 2014, 12:32 PM:

I wonder what the source material was for the Kemspki scope feature releases, as they have SUCH great contrast, sharpness as well as low grain to them.

Posted by Pete Richards (Member # 2203) on May 28, 2014, 06:51 PM:

Larry, there is no reason for faces to look mis-coloured when shot on digital. None at all. The colourist (that's me!) is responsible for skintones, and the gamut and dynamic range is just as wide on the later digital cameras as it was on film.
There have been some appaling jobs done on skintones on BD releases, both from film and digital masters (The Star Wars trilogy is an example of horrible skintones).

If you didn't mind the faces in CA, then that is the proof in the pudding, the first Captain America was shot completely digitally, I was on-set for two days, and they were using the Panavision Genesis rigs.
As stated in this thread the Arri Alexa was used for the underwater sequences.
So Vidar, wherever it is sourced from, you would be getting a "digital Super 8 film" I'm afraid.

http://www.panavision.com/marvels-latest-superhero-captain-america-first-avenger

Posted by Barry Attwood (Member # 100) on May 28, 2014, 11:53 PM:

Osi,

Most of the Kempski releases came from 35mm, as these were from original print sources supplied to them from the various original releasing companies.

[ May 29, 2014, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Barry Attwood ]

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 29, 2014, 01:23 PM:

Thanks Barry, I always assumed, but never knew for a fact. You look at those prints and your still amazed.

This might be slightly off the topic, but did Kempski "edit" his releases for content at times? I have a "Logans Run" print that has the nudity edited out of it, and it wasn't done before the film was printed, I wonder if that was done by Kempski, or by someone who, well, couldn't tolerate the "sex shop" scene and such.

I ask as it sounds like some other people who own that print also don't have the nudity in they're prints of this title.

[Smile]

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on May 29, 2014, 01:32 PM:

So effectively really any new releases of up to date bits will, even if from a 35mm source will be from an origional digital source.

Having seen 16mm from 1080p digital I thought it looked film like, in fact better than a lot of film, but as I say still looked filmie.

I would think the best bet in that sense now then would be Digital straight to a Super 8mm possitive print.

Best Mark.

Posted by Barry Attwood (Member # 100) on May 29, 2014, 11:51 PM:

Osi,

'Logan's Run' might have been from the German cut of the film, and the nude scenes may have already been edited out, that's all I can think of.

Posted by Rob Young. (Member # 131) on May 30, 2014, 03:15 AM:

Quote;

"So effectively really any new releases of up to date bits will, even if from a 35mm source will be from an original digital source."

Exactly!

Posted by Mark Todd (Member # 96) on May 30, 2014, 04:44 AM:

Well I suppose " Don`t Knock it Until You`ve Tried it " as Frankie Howard apparently used to say.

I think as I`ve mentioned before HD straight to 8mm possitive stock is probably the best option now.

Is there already a super 8 camera that can film optical sound onto super 8 as it takes the picture.

Or could one be adapted ? There are 400 feet can options already I think.

You can effectively have any film you want then and most serious collectors have a projector with optical onboard.

Best Mark.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on May 30, 2014, 05:00 AM:

But you lose the film feel ... I know I will see the jerkyness of the digital picture. It's hurts my head on TV, DVD, Blu-Ray and "cinema"

I would rather have old films re-released from proper 35mm or 16mm. New movies kinda suck anyway

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on May 31, 2014, 12:38 PM:

I must say that we are becoming the "dinosaurs" of this modern age, as the average person wouldn't know a digital projection or film presentation from a hole in the ground ....

"ooooh, pretty colors, pretty colors ..." (cue moronic clapping)

I almost feel like a traitor, in a way, as, when my current project gets "green-lit" (fingers crossed on that, but at least I'm in talks with the actress for the project!) ...

I will go for digital filming which once all edited together, my hope is to have film prints struck, but I fear that, though the actual film grain will help, I may run into what Larry was talking about (was it larry?), where faces ect., just do not look natural.

It's all about costs for me. Unlike the golden years of Hollywood or big budget Hollywood projects of today, unless you have the budget behind you, you just can't afford to waste countless dollars on some actor or actress constantly flubbing they're lines and wasting precious film.

[ June 02, 2014, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Osi Osgood ]

Posted by David Ollerearnshaw (Member # 3296) on May 31, 2014, 01:01 PM:

Totally agree with Vidar on the digital look. I don't like it.

Just watched a demo of 4k on a curved Samsung. I didn't like it, really clinical look.

I also not too bothered about the more modern films. Most I find boring poor editing too fast cutting and the like. Done to make them look better.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on May 31, 2014, 03:39 PM:

I have no idea why I don't like digital, I just don't. I feel no pleasure at all with this medium. I cannot deny its advantages but it is not for me. Nothing can beat the pleasure of watching a reel film. As long as I will be able to shoot and project films, I will.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on May 31, 2014, 04:21 PM:

The deadness of the picture, the sterile feeling and the awful jerkyness. If you see a panning shot on digital, try to see the straight lines (doorways, poles, fences and so on) ... They have a terrible movement. I also saw this in Odeon in London, where close ups of Harrison Fords face in Enders Game, when he turns, there seem to miss a frame or so, stutters and I hate that

Becoming more and more distant to enjoying videos (I did for a long time, until I saw Super 8 films again) ... Now I am analog and I don't think there's any turning back for me. I actually feel a bit sick when watching videos now, so I'll stick with film

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2