8mm Forum: Will Hd Eclipse Film?

»	8mm Forum » General Yak » Will Hd Eclipse Film? (Page 1)

UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Will Hd Eclipse Film?

Stewart John Boyle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 170
From: Glasgow,Scotland
Registered: Oct 2009

posted November 29, 2009 11:15 AM

Hi All,
The question is, will HD eclipse Film?..Your Comments are appreciated.
Regards
Stewart

| IP: Logged

Douglas Meltzer
Moderator

Posts: 4554
From: New York, NY, USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 29, 2009 11:28 AM

Stewart,

Are you referring to HDs effect on our hobby or its use in motion picture production?

Doug

--------------------
I think there's room for just one more film.....

| IP: Logged

Stewart John Boyle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 170
From: Glasgow,Scotland
Registered: Oct 2009

posted November 29, 2009 11:43 AM

Your right Doug, perhaps it was a poorly phrased question. [Smile]

I meant to ask will Hd Camera equipment ever produce more pixels per inch than say 70mm film stock..? hope this is slightly more understandable.
Regards
Stewart

--------------------
I`ve, seen things you people wouldn`t believe,

| IP: Logged

Steven J Kirk
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 873
From: Southern England
Registered: Apr 2008

posted November 29, 2009 12:02 PM

Does anyone know what the Lucasfilm cameras were for the Star Wars prequels? Some say 4K and some 8k... that I've read. It is said that 4k across the frame is equal to 35mm. That is, 4k x 3k in height meaning 12 megapixel. Rule of thumb. Though we all know there are other factors like light level for instance, digital not photographing as well in the dark as film.

--------------------
VistaVision
Motion Picture High-Fidelity

| IP: Logged

Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003

posted November 29, 2009 12:20 PM

Stewart, I'll admit your original post did get me a bit worked up! Will HD eclipse film? Film IS high definition. Electronic versions of film have only tried to emulate real film of various definitions...

HD photography? Well, every day I film (or record people's voices) and believe you me, the last thing most people want infront of a camera is HIGGGGGGGHHHHHHH DEFINITION!!!!!!!!

What any person wants infront of a camera is to be seen they way they want others to see them...

What any person wants infront of a microphone is to be be heard the way they want others to hear them...

That involves using tools which, generally, emphasise what the performer wants...and what the overall person in charge wants the production to look like.

HD cameras have existed for years...the real shame is that few people these days really know how to manipulate them...

| IP: Logged

Larry Arpin
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 953
From: Sunland, CA, USA
Registered: Dec 2006

posted November 29, 2009 12:28 PM

HD has pretty much taken over all the TV shows. There are a few, like LOST, is shot on 35mm. Some on 16mm. The RED camera is used quite a lot now. This was used on DISTRICT 9. Some say they couldn't tell but it was obvious to me it was shot digitally.

What bothers me most is when the camera starts panning, which is most of the time nowadays, and that is a dead give away that it was shot digitally. I did see a test on a Panasonic camera that came close to recreating the natural blur of a pan, but the image still screams digital.

I'm sure some time down the road film will be replaced by digital cameras. It is also the filmmakers. Although, Christopher Nolan may shoot the next Batman film entirely on Imax, which would be cool.

| IP: Logged

Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003

posted November 29, 2009 12:41 PM

My opinion...HD (video)...simply another tool to be placed in the hands of craftsmen and, likewise, fools....

| IP: Logged

Stewart John Boyle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 170
From: Glasgow,Scotland
Registered: Oct 2009

posted November 29, 2009 12:56 PM

Rob im completely on your side [Wink]

..it was a rehtorical question, but something we may have to face 5 years from now.Great to see such passionate debate.
Larry you couldn`t have put it better..pan shots are the giveaway for Digitally shot frames.. always sluggish..always lacking in clarity
Regards
Stewart

--------------------
I`ve, seen things you people wouldn`t believe,

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted November 29, 2009 01:18 PM

Well if you went back in time with a generator, Video projectors, HD camera`s etc they would I suspect have bitten your hands off if they could have done all the other infrastructure etc etc.

Its what does the job, if Tesla or someone gifted such as him had come up with an electronic gizmo to emulate filming/showing I`m sure they would have run with it.

For us on here its a hobby thing, but for the business it what does it well and ecconomically and I can see digital will be all the way before too long. Its the way things go, and after all its about loads of other things within the film too, not just what its being shown on.

There`s plenty of crap bern commited on to celluloid after all.

99.9999% or poeple just want to watch end enjoy the drama or film.

My other half watches alot of stuff on her netbook with a 3-4 inch pitcure and enjoys it as its more about the audio and whats being done etc.

Personally I and the nippers prefer the impact of the big sreen, nearly always VP now though.

Watched Jason and the Argonauts on my £50 XGA LCD machine 5-1/2feet wide ( DVD ) last night and it was lovely. Then Over The Top to follow.

Best Mark.

| IP: Logged

Stewart John Boyle
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 170
From: Glasgow,Scotland
Registered: Oct 2009

posted November 29, 2009 01:27 PM

Hi Mark, lovely comment,, i remember sleeping at the side of my parents bed and watching The Twilight Zone and WKRP in Cincinatti(excuse the spelling)on a 14 inch black and white TV, Great times thar fuelled my love for `the big screen`
Regards
Stewart

--------------------
I`ve, seen things you people wouldn`t believe,

| IP: Logged

Osi Osgood
Film God

Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005

posted November 29, 2009 02:34 PM

Personally, I believe that HD has already eclipsed film, but perhaps, the better way to phrase the question might be, "will video eclipse film". This already happened in general with movie enthusiasts, (notice that I didn't say "film") as of the early 80's death of the reign of King Super 8.

Time ... it makes all things obselete, given time ...

even humanity!

--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "

| IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted November 29, 2009 03:20 PM

Those later "Star Wars" films shot on video looked pretty awfull when projected on 35mm, there was a grainy on screen look. I remember watching "Revenge of the Sith" yuk! compared with films of the past even the 1977 Star Wars looked much better. I admit I am not up with the play with latest HD cameras and I am sure things will improve.... they might even go back to using film and put some decent colour back in, now that would be a start [Smile]

Graham.

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted November 29, 2009 03:38 PM

Theres a good logic to filming with really top notch actual film to give it that certain something, then from there it goes digital.

There are environmental benifits as well of course.

Some digital can look really amazing after all.

I can`t talk though I am just creeping back to grainey, washed out a bit std 8 silent silents to enjoy with the kids so what can you do etc.

Best Mark.

| IP: Logged

Graham Sinden
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1131
From: Kent, UK
Registered: Aug 2005

posted November 29, 2009 03:46 PM

I think at the end of the day there is a place for digital and another place for film (including super 8)

However going back to the main question I think HD will eclipse film purely because digital HD (and whatever next) is being developed where as film isnt any more (i dont think). Eventually all the cinemas will be digital only. Its the future Im afraid. But at least in my home I can keep film alive and dont intend selling any of it.

Graham S

| IP: Logged

Guy Taylor, Jr.
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 606
From: Galveston, Texas, U.S.A.
Registered: Mar 2007

posted November 29, 2009 04:08 PM

I think 35mm cameras will continue to be used for quite along time. Movie cinemas on the other hand will eventually switch away from 35mm projectors. It only makes since. The cost of film stock comparted to a cheap plastic disc. The shipping cost etc.

After a hurricane damaged our local multiplex; they replaced their 35mm projectors with you guest it.

I still sure that 35mm will out live any of us.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Guy

--------------------
Guy Taylor

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted November 29, 2009 04:25 PM

Thinking about it if dvd and affordable good Video Projection was on the go in the mid 70,s the super 8 film collcting thing as we know it would never have really happened.

Best Mark.

PS if only LPP had been on the go then, and all those lovely fun digest`s etc had got on to it as well.

| IP: Logged

Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006

posted November 29, 2009 07:05 PM

I was about to start ranting (again) about TV's pernicious influence on image quality in features, et.c, et.c, but I won't [Big Grin]

But think of this landscape in the near future:

In the malls, there are only digital projectors or satellite downloads to the screens.
(A few small hardy 35mm rep. houses are still open.)
And then there's us. About 30 years after Super-8 has officially been 'buried', we hang on, with 16mm and some 35mm at home as well.

After the studios trying to beat TV with 'Scope, stereo and size, after HiDef trying to kill film, in the end we have:

TV at the theatres and film at home.... [Roll Eyes]

The world is a strange place when you hang around long enough.

Claus.

--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)

| IP: Logged

Winbert Hutahaean
Film God

Posts: 5468
From: Nouméa, New Caledonia
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 29, 2009 08:02 PM

It is easy for me. Just see what KODAK will do in the next 5 years, considering Kodak is the biggest supply for film stock.

Nowadays, we can see that Kodak had discontinued Kodachrome, next step is most likelyu Ektachrome and so on so forth.

Kodak has moved to digital worlds (if you look at closely their website).

This is not about our fanaticism to film but economic plays its role. Producer will act like what businessmen do in spending their money.

And majority of movies goers now do not really care if films are shot in HD or celluloid, only few of us do.

So, I will say producers will follow their business instinct, Kodak will follow what producers' demand and celluloid will be gone eventually, like or dislike.

regards

--------------------
Winbert

| IP: Logged

Christopher P Quinn
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 210
From: Bedfordshire
Registered: Sep 2008

posted November 29, 2009 08:06 PM

quote:
Hi All,
The question is, will HD eclipse Film?..Your Comments are appreciated.
Regards
Stewart

Hi Stewart,
An ultra hi def of 7680 x 4320 is developed but still 15 - 20 years away from the cinema, and at least 25 - 30 years away from our homes. No TV can cope with it at present and it is too much data to broadcast with current technology. But it will one day be here. And mix this in with the latest 3D and 3D to come and you’ll have the first holodeck!!! But maybe not for us, well me anyway. [Wink]

Chris.

--------------------
Chris Quinn Rides again.

| IP: Logged

Damien Taylor
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 111
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Oct 2008

posted November 29, 2009 08:41 PM

The high speed prints we receive these days aren't worth the PET they are printed on. I would rather see good digital over these bouncy blurry jokes any day. Of course as a result of this, I would get to take home 3 vic 8s [Cool]

| IP: Logged

Mark Todd
Film God

Posts: 3846
From: UK
Registered: Aug 2003

posted November 29, 2009 09:25 PM

Thats a good point, not so much effort being made on film prints imageing.

Also not so much effort being made in many cinema`s to focus 35mm properly.

Last time I went it was a right old out of focus mess, I nipped and asked them to refocus it " yes ok " but they din`t.( or couldn`t ? )

Video projection has a less fussyness to the image in terms of being a bit this way or that on the focus but overall its still quite good.

I rarely go to the cinema now as things look better on my home screen on my cheap LCD, job, also its 30 miles each way plus other costs, + coughers and sneezers, talkers, eaters, etc.

Old Grumpy pants Mark !!!!

When the good lady takes the kids its a good £40 + easily all in so now we often just wait for the dvd to hit around the £5 new instead and bobs your uncle on the LCD proj.

Best Mark.

| IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003

posted November 29, 2009 11:10 PM

Most young people today have never seen a movie projector or a reel of film, and have no clue as to how film projection works. They care little about image quality, and less about acting or story telling. What they want is a 120 minute thrill ride and nothing more. This is the digital generation of today, and they are also the major audience for film production. They do not care if the source is HD or 35mm, and the studios know this and will take the cheapest route with the highest profits - so HD will rule even if it an inferior technology.
I sometimes wonder if things had been different, and digital video had been invented first, whether the invention of 35mm film in 2010, now called 'opto-chemical analog video' would be hailed as the next generation of high definition motion picture technology. [Smile]

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

| IP: Logged

Damien Taylor
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 111
From: Perth, Western Australia
Registered: Oct 2008

posted November 29, 2009 11:37 PM

quote:
Also not so much effort being made in many cinema`s to focus 35mm properly.

The use of a single lens barrel rather than a turret at my cinema discourages "set and forget" focusing. Regardless, on many recent prints Julie and Julia being one of the worst in recent memory, there is just no focus point! 35mm projectors focus in much the same way as smaller gauge machines. It is impossible to properly focus on some of these prints, you get close, but then go right past. You can even focus using the grain, but the image is still blurry.

| IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006

posted November 30, 2009 02:10 AM

We have the same trouble with "Julie and Julia" even with moving it to our smaller screen and the Kinoton it was still hopeless to focus properly on that print. However films like King Kong, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Australia to name a few have been really good. 35mm has been around for over 100 years its entertained millions of people in every country you can think of and it still does. I dont know why we are seeing a drop in quality in some of the prints we recieve, perhaps the movie was shot on video or lab/transfer work "who knows" its certainly not the fault of the 35mm format itself, if it was it would not have been around all this time.

Last week while we were a wee bit quiet I ran the last hour and a half of "Dances with Wolves" the print was dated 1991 and I guess it has not run since then "not polyester" just curious to test screen [Wink]

and see what it was like. I was really surprised the print looked really good as with the sound Dolby Stereo soundtrack "not Digital" it proved one thing there is nothing wrong with 35mm just to add to this, one of the downstairs staff caught me watching this test screeing [Roll Eyes]

in the cinema and commented that it looked better than a many of the prints we get these days.

HD video is not the answer and film is not the problem...but many other factors are.

Graham.

| IP: Logged

Rob Young.
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1633
From: Cheshire, U.K.
Registered: Dec 2003

posted November 30, 2009 07:40 AM

Graham, your last comment, "HD video is not the answer and film is not the problem" is spot on!

| IP: Logged

All times are Central

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2