8mm Forum: Modern Picture Quality

This is topic Modern Picture Quality in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001420

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 09, 2009, 09:03 AM:

Has anyone noticed that DVD's of films made fifty or more years ago often look so much better than DVD's of modern films? The color and detail of most modern films seems to be visibly inferior to films made in the 1940's and 50's, with poor definition and dull washed out colors , as is the camerawork which is more often than not a shaky hand held camera. Is modern film stock that much inferior or does it all come down to the use of HD cameras instead of film. Is good cinematography now a lost art?

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on September 09, 2009, 01:30 PM:

Paul,
As far as I know, film stocks have never been better in terms of grain structure, latitude and color rendition than they are now.
We are witnessing (once again) a format reaching its pinnacle of quality just as video is coming in.
The exception to this is 3-strip Technicolor, which will never be replaced by any technique I can think of.

Any mutedness in color will have to have been a directorial decision, done either in the lab or in the digital internegative. The more 'Technicolor' look is definitely not 'in' right now.

Also, I think one thing is influencing films in this regard: TV. With TV using more film-style shooting techniques and producers increasingly making the films "TV-friendly" because they know it will all end on cable and DVD, there is significant "bleedover" between the two, at least in a good chunk of the market.

The flatter lighting, the moving camera like you see on crime dramas, these things are unfortunately being translated to the big screen; also previously the Steadicam was used for emphasis, not continuously in shot after shot.

(One notable exception is the series "Mad Men." Shot on fine-grain negative and transferred in HiDef, it looks sumptuous, with a great 60es period look.)

Given these elements, HiDef digital production unfortunately wins out, in that because film is looking less and less 'filmic' in a traditional sense, the video doesn't have to struggle that hard to look good by comparison.

If we are lucky, suddenly 'lush' will become a fad, and we will have rich images again. One can hope.

Claus.

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 1337) on September 09, 2009, 01:36 PM:

I definitely notice the difference at the theater viewing old prints against new. The terrible high speed prints that seem to be all the rage these days make for spotty focus and heaps of jitter. I hope they don't author any DVD's from this substandard crap.

Posted by Claus Harding (Member # 702) on September 09, 2009, 01:56 PM:

Damien,

Absolutely, the QC of prints and the speed with which they are struck compromise the quality. Additionally (as we have all complained about one time or another) the increasingly sloppy projection standards all combine to lower the enjoyment and quality of a real film presentation.

Claus.

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on September 10, 2009, 02:39 PM:

Hi Paul, Claus, Damien,

I agree 100% with what has previously been said, plus have a few extra (slightly depressing) observations to add; Claus is dead right on modern raw stocks being better than ever -they are,
stunning imagery is within reach for whomever so desires. Resolution-wise up to 6K is obtainable in 35mm, colour rendition, fine grain, shadow detail and exposure latitude (16 f-stops, anyone? [Big Grin]

) have never been better.

But I suspect -apart from creative descisions- economics also "ruin" the look of many a modern film; production schedules are probably often nowadays pushed to the limit, lighting for a lushious look may not even be possible, because you don´t have the time for it; shots will have to be hand-held or steadicam because you probably didn´t have the time to set the camera up (even for a static shot) any other way...

I found Sylvester Stallone´s commentary on the Rocky Balboa DVD enlightening in this respect, he was surprisingly frank regarding how pushed for time they had been during the shooting, to the point where he (in one shot) would have liked to block the scene more creatively, but racking the focus from foreground to background was all they had time for(!) Kinda gives you an idea... [Roll Eyes]

"video doesn't have to struggle that hard to look good by comparison"
I saw (part of) Michael Mann´s Miami Vice (2006) on TV last week, and could hardly believe my eyes what the night scenes looked like! [Eek!]

To me it looked like a Film School Movie, and I´m definitely not knocking Film Students, it´s just that having images so blatantly screaming "video" at you ruins the illusion of watching a traditional feature film.
To me it just feels lazy doing it like this, when you know they have the money to shoot on film. However the "look" is achieved, at least some resemblance of "film look" is a requirement for me to take a dramatic feature seriously.

With some movies there obviously was neither time nor money, and it was shoot on video or there wouldn´t have been any movie at all. Fine, I understand, I´ll forget about what it looks like and focus on the story.

It used to be, some fifteen years ago, that people began shooting for TV using DigiBeta video, and then tweaked the hell out of the material to make it look like film, and it looked okay. But there you have a case of people working hard to achieve a look and probably spending more time and care than they would have had to on film, to get this look.

"Is good cinematography now a lost art?" No, but it´s an endangered species [Wink]

because it needs some time, money, respect and integrity. Instead of respected artisans and craftsmen (and women, obviously) the makers of todays movie images are sometimes treated (and viewed) as merely suppliers of raw materials to be digitized and "manhandled" in postproduction. Yesteryear, most of what you wanted to wind up on the screen, you had to get right on the day of shooting.

Cheers
Lars

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on September 10, 2009, 03:16 PM:

The thing is will most people even notice?

When I sit in a movie theater, my eyes keep drifting over to the right looking for lines, and the little blemishes in the picture draw my attention.

Most people aren't paying that much attention, and if you maintain the supply of gratuitous violence and enticing body parts they'll be fine without things like picture quality and you know...dialog and plot.

Who really complained when they took all those single screen cinemas and chopped them into twins and quads? How much worse is an inferior print than a tiny screen?

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on September 10, 2009, 04:18 PM:

I think it is a bit unfair to say that all modern films are inferior. There are some great
cinematographers out there Roger Deakins, Seamus Mcgarvey, Vittorio Storaro.
And there have been some greats- Jack Cardif, Douglas Slocombe.....
Film stocks have transformed in recent times. Older films had much slower speeds and had to light the hell out of it to get a decent image. Technicolor cameras were so large that it was almost impossible to move the camera . This dictated the style of a lot of older films. Projection in general has vastly improved also.
At the end of the day it is a good story that counts.....

Cheers, Stuart

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on September 11, 2009, 06:31 AM:

Sorry, can't agree with the end of that last one. If a good story is all that counts just read a book or watch some TV drama.

Film is primarily a visual medium.

There's a lot more to cinema than a good story.

A large contributer to the enjoyment of any film is how it looks.

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on September 11, 2009, 07:13 AM:

I'm not saying that a good story is all there is to it,
Cinema is not just a visual medium. The other 50% is the sound.
Wizard of Oz mute?
The point I was making that just because it is old dosn't necessarily make it good. There was a lot of crap made and some of it ended up on 8mm!

Stuart

Posted by Ricky Daniels (Member # 95) on September 11, 2009, 12:24 PM:

Stuart,

Sorry to disagree with your comment... 'Projection in general has vastly improved also'

The Multiplex cinema experience of today is nothing compared to the showman style of film presentation enjoyed by cinema audiences of the past.

Cinema technology has improved beyond our wildest dreams however film 'presentations' generally stink.

Best,
Rick

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on September 11, 2009, 01:14 PM:

Cinema is PRIMARILY a visual medium. I can't agree with the 50% sound importance. What about the whole silent era?
But, I guess we all have our opinions.
[Big Grin]

Posted by Stuart Fyvie (Member # 38) on September 11, 2009, 03:27 PM:

Well....they were never really silent, they would have music even if it was a piano....

And as to Cinema standards in General the technical quality has improved
but the showmanship has gone, especially with all the automation. [Big Grin]

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on September 11, 2009, 04:23 PM:

Quite right, but, they all work just as well without the piano or other musical track is my point. PRIMARILY (emphasis on this word) visual.

[Wink]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on September 11, 2009, 05:50 PM:

Stange [Roll Eyes]

I cant remember anything about film and sound quality from the past I guess I never really thought about it back then, prints these days do vary in quality some like eg "King Kong 2005" are outstanding both in picture and Dolby Digital or DTS, good "quality" sound can really add to the movie experience. Sadly for many the days of presentation are long gone.. curtains, coloured lighting, overture, intermission and so on. One downside with todays automation is that for the most part there is no one keeping an eye on things, eg slight adjustment on the focus or checking the sound levels in the cinema's that type of thing, these days its all down to keeping costs down with minimum staff with minimum training with minimum pay and that in turn effects the presentation. Luckily where I work many of those problems dont apply and as such we dont get complaints [Smile]

oh! I was told recently that a couple of young kids out here on holiday from Glasgow mentioned to the staff after the movie that we made the best Popcorn... EVER [Wink]

Graham.

Posted by Patrick Walsh (Member # 637) on September 11, 2009, 11:00 PM:

I thought this may be on some interest
Patrick

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on September 12, 2009, 02:22 AM:

Nicely put, there; Why try to emulate film when you can have the real thing? [Smile]

Cheers
Lars

Posted by Michael O'Regan (Member # 938) on September 12, 2009, 03:20 AM:

Yes, I agree. That sums it up nicely for the plastic disc collectors!!

[Razz]

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on September 12, 2009, 03:45 AM:

I think actually film´s going to be with us for quite some time, for various reasons. But not least the archival qualities, all producers are now aware that a lot of money can still be wrung out of 40+ year old tv-series, movies, etc, but they better be shot on film if they´re going to look good on BlueRay. Therefore, the same applies to what you shoot TODAY; do it on film and you´ll have actual physical high resolution images that can be converted into any future format.

Cheers
Lars

Posted by Damien Taylor (Member # 1337) on September 12, 2009, 05:16 AM:

Gee, I hate to play pass the blame, but I work my ass off making sure my presentation is perfect every time. It can be downright emarrasing to pull off a perfect preshow changeover only to have the first 200 feet of reel 2 tinted yellow merely because it's not cost effective to have someone actually check the prints prior to shipping. This kind of lab flaw is the exception, but it does happen. Please don't tar all projectionists with the same brush, some of us are still trying, but sadly we are also the exception [Frown]

Posted by Lars Pettersson (Member # 762) on September 12, 2009, 05:24 AM:

I take my hat off to all discerning projectionists, your work does not go unnoticed [Smile]

Cheers
Lars

Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on September 12, 2009, 05:34 PM:

Theatrical is, at most times, shot for video release. It didn't use to be this way. You look at the old early cinemascope films, and when shown on TV, they had to "pan and scan" back and forth to show both people.

Why?

Because it was shot for the cinema, not TV. This changed later on, of course, where even the widest scope films of today are rather easily placed on DVD as a full screen image.

Posted by Steven J Kirk (Member # 1135) on September 12, 2009, 05:58 PM:

Mind you, I think things can change. If the 42 inch flat screen TV becomes the average and 'normal' screen size, then 'films' will be composed for that, which has got to be an improvement over the smaller TVs of the past. Recently I have been watching the blu-ray remastering of Star Trek the original series on VP at about 75 inch diagonal. Visually it is SO colourful and full of close-ups! I guess the average TV at the time was 21 inch, and color was a new thing.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on September 12, 2009, 10:23 PM:

During the 60s in the UK when "Star Trek" came out most people I knew at the time were lucky to have B/W never mind colour, cant remember anyone owning a colour set even up to the early 70s. TVs in those days were regarded as a luxury item, not very reliable and expensive to fix... still remember the old "wack" on the side to get it to go. Out here in NZ it was not till the 80s that we bought our first colour TV.

Home entertainment has never been so good and affordable to the masses, lately we bought a Panasonic Plasma 42inch and even with a standard DVD looks and sounds really good, I think 1.85:1 ratio will become the norm.

So where does that leave the poor old Cinema's [Roll Eyes]

before DVD and everything else, going to the movies was special, it was the only place to go to to watch a film that was bigger than the box in the corner, also films in those days were not released for transmission for a quite a while... how things have changed.

As for being a projectionist the two other people I work with do take their job serious and try to make it special, just last Thursday our young part timer showed a birthday group around and gave the kids each a strip of film, everyone including himself really enjoyed it and also gave him a sense of pride in his projection work as well.

I do hope cinema's and film projection will continue for a some time yet and in time we will see an improvement in presentation and general print quality so hopefully that will get more people back to the cinema and enjoy a night out away from their big TV.

Graham.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2