|
Mescal posted:For some reason I'm fascinated by the boring topics of 1. the history of film formats and technology and 2. film preservation. Does anybody know about good sites (other than Wiki) to read about this stuff? Or documentaries about them, preferably on Netflix streaming? Just PM Bugblatter and ask for his phone number.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Party Boat posted:These Amazing Shadows was supposed to be decent and is apparently on Netflix. These Amazing Shadows led me to ask this question, because unfortunately it's not decent. echoplex posted:Just PM Bugblatter and ask for his phone number. Who?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Who? The most interesting poster in CineD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Bug knows pretty much everything about film stock, lighting, etc on a historical level without losing sight of cinema as a medium (which is depressingly rare). He doesn't post much, I think I might have run him off the forums for not like Ghostbusters
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2013 10:35
|
|
|
That Alan Alda interview is from Keepers of the Frame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytt1eehq_jI Instead of just a clip show, it's hypnotic in the blend of interviews, clips, archival footage. It's from the 1990s, so it doesn't touch upon the new digital technology, but still fascinating. Highlights: Library of Congress archivist showing off the camera negative to The Great Train Robbery, example of nitrate decomposition chewing up a film, and Cinerama in a living room
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
I've read that after about 10' of distance or so, on a 50" screen, the difference between 720p and 1080p sized pixels is smaller than the eye at 20/20 can distinguish. I am sure there are arguments to be made there regarding the space between pixels and etc, etc. Has anyone done the math to determine what size screen and what distance you would require to be able to tell the difference between 2k and 4k digital?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:I've read that after about 10' of distance or so, on a 50" screen, the difference between 720p and 1080p sized pixels is smaller than the eye at 20/20 can distinguish. I am sure there are arguments to be made there regarding the space between pixels and etc, etc. Czech out the HD TV thread's OP in the Inspect Your Gadgets subforum, they have a visual breakdown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
scary ghost dog posted:Czech out the HD TV thread's OP in the Inspect Your Gadgets subforum, they have a visual breakdown. It's a long thread, I hope he can Finnish it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
caiman posted:It's a long thread, I hope he can Finnish it. Yeah I set my phone to autocorrect certain words to more fun homonyms. Language is fun. Here's the TV display distance ratio in graph form from the HDTV thread: 
scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
Hey, that's perfect, thanks! Should be fairly easy to extrapolate theater sized screens, since everything is linear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Does anyone recall a thread that had a critical analysis of Michael Bay's Transformers movies, revealing that they were actually cinema genius in disguise? I tried the search feature, but couldn't find anything, and I can't remember the original poster. The thread was closed a while back but I wanted to re-read and forward to a friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
ratchild13 posted:Does anyone recall a thread that had a critical analysis of Michael Bay's Transformers movies, revealing that they were actually cinema genius in disguise? I tried the search feature, but couldn't find anything, and I can't remember the original poster. The thread was closed a while back but I wanted to re-read and forward to a friend. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3507949
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Thanks! By what wizardry did you find it so quickly? I searched for about 15 minutes before giving up 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
ratchild13 posted:Thanks! By what wizardry did you find it so quickly? I searched for about 15 minutes before giving up I'd previously sent the link to a friend so just searched for that email, which doesn't really generalize into a broader solution for the forums, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Great. Now I might just have to watch the movies to see if this analysis works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:Great. Now I might just have to watch the movies to see if this analysis works. It absolutely does, The only reason I watched Revenge of the Fallen was because of that thread and the analysis really works. It's still a terrible movie that I don't recommend to anyone. The first and third work better in general, and the fact that she wasn't able to finish her analysis of the third film is a crime against critical thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
Mescal fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:It absolutely does, The only reason I watched Revenge of the Fallen was because of that thread and the analysis really works. It's still a terrible movie that I don't recommend to anyone. The first and third work better in general, and the fact that she wasn't able to finish her analysis of the third film is a crime against critical thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
CharlieFoxtrot posted:4K refers to the resolution of the image: Where do 35 and 70mm projections fit into this? I've seen Lawrence in 70 at Ebertfest is why I ask.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Some quick googling pulls up results that generally list good quality 35mm film to have a better picture than a 1080p video. It's a difficult comparison because with film you have the quality of the film itself that's variable plus the quality of the projector. It seems most average theaters (when most still had film projectors) had anywhere from 720p to slightly-better-than 1080p quality. 70mm is nearly the equivalent of 4K (Ultra HD).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Some quick googling pulls up results that generally list good quality 35mm film to have a better picture than a 1080p video. It's a difficult comparison because with film you have the quality of the film itself that's variable plus the quality of the projector. It seems most average theaters (when most still had film projectors) had anywhere from 720p to slightly-better-than 1080p quality. Where did you read this? I'm no expert but I would bet money that 35 could resolve to 4k under good conditions and 70 could do much better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Where did you read this? I'm no expert but I would bet money that 35 could resolve to 4k under good conditions and 70 could do much better. I did say I only did some quick googling and that it greatly depends on the quality of the film stock used. I did see mentions that using the latest generation of 35mm film would easily produce an excellent quality image, probably up to 4K. It really depends on how you classify film grain (since film doesn't have pixels).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
My understanding has always been that 35mm, when projected in the best conditions, has better picture quality than a 4k DCP. The advantage of digital projection is that there's less variation in the quality of the experience, ie. you're less at the mercy of the abilities of the teenage projectionists at the multiplex.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
So I've seen pretty much every Carpenter movie, but not Big Trouble. Is it worth it? I like '80s cheese enough (being as I grew up then), but it doesn't seem very Carpentry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
SaviourX posted:So I've seen pretty much every Carpenter movie, but not Big Trouble. Is it worth it? I like '80s cheese enough (being as I grew up then), but it doesn't seem very Carpentry. Yes. Watch it. Now, if possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Holy poo poo is it worth it. Beats the gently caress out of Ghosts of Mars. Okay I haven't seen Ghosts of Mars. But still.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Big Trouble in Little China is one of the greatest movies ever made. I'm actually not that great of a Carpenter fan otherwise. I wouldn't say it's because Big Trouble is any less "Carpenter-esque" than his other works though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Like, in my head I know that Halloween or The Thing are probably better-made and more important Carpenter, but man, Big Trouble in Little China is one of the greatest film experiences you can have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Yes. Watch it. Now, if possible. Then watch it again with the commentary track.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Big Trouble in Little China is better made than The Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
penismightier posted:Big Trouble in Little China is better made than The Thing. I don't know if I'd agree with that but they are two tonally different films, so much so that comparing them as some kinda either/or seems ridiculous to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Big Trouble in Little China is one of the rare Perfect Movies. I think the chain of Alamo Drafthouses play it once in a while. If it's coming up, it's worth waiting for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Big Trouble in Little China is also the best Kurt Russell movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Not only is it a great movie, it also does some really interesting things with Russell's character and your expectations of him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
DNS posted:My understanding has always been that 35mm, when projected in the best conditions, has better picture quality than a 4k DCP. The advantage of digital projection is that there's less variation in the quality of the experience, ie. you're less at the mercy of the abilities of the teenage projectionists at the multiplex. This is incorrect. While it is possible to get great 4K scans out of great 35mm negative, theatrical projection doesn't even come close. 4K projection blows 35mm projection out of the water. Everyone who has ever seen 4K projection of restored classics has walked away saying they've never seen [insert favorite movie here] look as good. The directors will say the same thing. Extensive testing with resolution charts has shown that in the real world 35mm gives you around 800 "lines" (so, more in the ballpark of 720p, nevermind 1080p or even 2K.) Here's another bit of inside dope: TONS of 4K remasters and restorations have been created by scanning at 4K, downrezzing to 2K, cleaning up, then uprezzing back to 4K. So the 4K digital master is an uprez, and the new 35mm archival film neg master is lasered out from that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
Why does projecting a movie reduce its quality so much?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Here's another bit of inside dope: TONS of 4K remasters and restorations have been created by scanning at 4K, downrezzing to 2K, cleaning up, then uprezzing back to 4K. So the 4K digital master is an uprez, and the new 35mm archival film neg master is lasered out from that. Why do they bother downrezzing to work on it, and then uprezzing back to 4k? Is 4K too unwieldy to work with?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Mescal posted:Why does projecting a movie reduce its quality so much? The biggest loss comes from traditional chemical & optical developing and printing. Web you strike a print off the neg, you lose a generation of quality, like photocopying. And in many cases, theatrical prints were made not directly from the OCN (original camera negative) but from an internegative, itself a copy of a print which was copied from the negative. When you've only got one original original negative as the archival master of a film, you're not going to risk damaging it by printing 3000 theatrical copies off of it. The digital intermediate, a relatively recent innovation, allows you to scan the neg once and use a laser printer to run off your prints from the 2K scans. This is much better than the optical duplication used for most of cinema history. Prints made this way in the last few years often look better than older optically duplicated prints. Bloody Hedgehog posted:Why do they bother downrezzing to work on it, and then uprezzing back to 4k? Is 4K too unwieldy to work with? Yes, of course, it is much easier to work in 2K than in 4K. Also remember that a 2K downrez from 4K will be better than a 2K native scan. Try it if you don't believe me - take a crisp new dollar bill and scan it at 150dpi, then scan it again at 300dpi and downrez that to 150dpi. Now you've got two "identical" 150dpi scans but you'll see that the one that started out at 300dpi is better. And with sufficiently good upscaling hardware/software, you can blow that one back up to 300dpi and it will look better than it does at 150dpi (though of course not as good as the original 300dpi, but that doesn't matter because you'll never be looking at it close enough to tell.) Speaking of which, 4K is certainly more than adequate for any reasonable theatrical configuration you can conceive of except IMAX, and in most seats in the house your average eyes won't see a difference between 2K and 4K. VFX shots for IMAX portions of movies like The Dark Knight and MI4 are typically scanned at 6K, for what that's worth. I can't speak to what happens when the effects vendors get their hands on those scans - for all I know, they downrez them, create the shot, and then filmout from a lower rez render. I know the right people to ask, but just haven't gotten around to chatting them up. Five Cent Deposit fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Extensive testing with resolution charts has shown that in the real world 35mm gives you around 800 "lines" (so, more in the ballpark of 720p, nevermind 1080p or even 2K.) I believe you, but then why does a blu-ray projected in a theater look worse than a great quality 35mm print on the same screen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Also remember that a 2K downrez from 4K will be better than a 2K native scan. Try it if you don't believe me - take a crisp new dollar bill and scan it at 150dpi, then scan it again at 300dpi and downrez that to 150dpi. Now you've got two "identical" 150dpi scans but you'll see that the one that started out at 300dpi is better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 19:22
|
|
