Tweet
Something that has become a slight issue in film circles is the argument between celluloid vs digital for the negative source for new prints. I would argue for the digital source. The incredible saturation of color, at least one generation or more of grain being eliminated as well as the incredible sharpness of the image being the greatest advantages, as with JAWS demonstrating this brilliantly, ( I have not yet acquired Jurrasic Fart yet, but I am sure that it is just as good). In fact, I do not see a downside. Besides this, even when Hollywood will release a 35mm for some theaters instead of a digital copy, I am sure that they use a digitally sourced negative as well.
-
-
Andec " cleans up " film with digital to produce a new negative . -
Ozzie,
I can’t see the point in producing film prints from a digital source, just buy a digital projector and a 4k disk. This has come up on the forum before. A film forum, based on the love of real film, prints would have to be struck from film negatives or good prints. Having Super 8 prints from digital sources is to my mind distinctly odd.
Also I know that many members re record the soundtracks of their prints from dvds and blu rays. Again I can’t see the point. It seems that we are trying to create a perfect print and if we do that using dvd or blu ray sound and using a digital master for the print it no longer resembles a proper cine film any more, just some over priced film/ digital hybrid. Yuk!Comment
-
You will always have grain, for instance, if you have a print on film, but that element is greatly lessoned and, in just my own opinion, makes the film experience just that much better. I have projection TV as well, but watching film is still watching film, just a higher quality. It makes me proud that the new prints are an upgrade. Don't get me wrong, I am all for the long glorious history of celluloid, but seeing something we love, actually improving instead of remaining stagnant, is quite refreshing! Bear in mind, this is only my opinion. I am sure that silent era film goers, were aghast when color surfaced, and even more aghast when sound, of all things, began to accompany the film experience. This improvement, in my opinion, of using a digital source, is yet another improvement in a long history of improvements, that is allowing film to remain relevant and our super 8 collections are, in my opinion, worth more in the long run, where, without these improvements, archaic and losing value, both monetarily and culturally.Comment
-
"Andec " cleans up " film with digital to produce a new negative" . Dave, please explain what that means and the process used? Thank you
Comment
-
To be honest, the fact that new super 8 releases are still produced is close to miraculous. To quibble on where the source material originates from seems to be nit picking. Let’s face it what film negative material would be available in terms of quality, cost and availability. If a 16mm negative is being sourced cleaned up and then digitally edited to produce a super 8 digest release then thats just part of the process in the current time.Comment
-
Every once in awhile, technology is actually working to our advantage, and this is a case of that. It's taking a film source, digitally cleaning it up, making it pristine, then returning it from digital ... back to film, which is no different than the processes used by the mainstream Hollywood studios, when they prepare to release anything ... Color corrections, digitally improving the image. At least in this regard, it is starting with original celluloid elements, switching to digital, and back to cine! Pretty cool, if you ask me.Comment
-
I agree with Osi - anything that improves the visual and audio quality of the Super 8 print is a plus in my book. That is why many of us take the trouble to redub S8 prints with high quality stereo sound. That is not changing the film in any way, just making the sound closer to that of the original 35mm print. Same with the picture, if digital technology can make the picture quality a little bit closer to the original 35mm picture then why not use it.Comment
-
-
Have to say I agree with Phil and Joe. I enjoy seeing and hearing blu ray projected as it comes, and at a rock bottom price for the content. I can't see why I would spend £100s of pounds having the same content reproduced on to an inferior standard (sorry) on super 8?Comment
-
If done properly, super 8 is surprisingly good. Besides, you go to the movie theater, your seeing digital, sourced from cine, unless you're lucky enough to actually find an ole school theater running cine. Of course one can they're own opinion on the issue, but for me, it's never been about the cost, but if you're into "cheap", that is exactly what you get ... Cheap, and a cheap substitute at that. It's not genuine and no matter how good the 4K is, it's disposable as far as I am concerned. Now, curiously, when it comes to a cgi animated film, I would rather see it from a digital file, and not on film.Last edited by Osi Osgood; November 21, 2021, 02:47 PM.Comment
-
Go tell that to the Cinesea organizers . Some of the past voted on features who won were nothing more than " digital kinescopes " ( Bluray copies of movies transferred to Film ) and even billed as " Roadshow " prints ! Some people have asked , " I thought Cinesea was a celebration of film ? " .
So , you see , it doesn't matter to most , it appears , just how good it looks and sounds if it's film or not .Comment
-
Boy, some of those old kinescopes on super 8 were fairly lousy, but then, they were often reductions from 16mm prints from video resources.Comment
-
Most interesting, I know almost all of the 35mm films I screened at my cinema in the later days of 35mm where made from digital sources, Technicolor Thailand where most of my features where printed came from 2 or 4k digital intermediates.
Comment
-
Digital Intermediate Process - exactly what've been doing in most Hollywood productions since early 2000's til the end of "film" distribution.
So yes, we've been actually fed with "digital" source for at least a decade before digital distribution put in widespread. With the current DCI process means at least one step omitted, film-out process. That should gives better quality overall, as one less "generation loss" at the very least.
Comment
Comment