1. Due to the increased amount of spam bots on the forum, we are strengthening our defenses. You may experience a CAPTCHA challenge from time to time.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Notification emails are working properly again. Please check your email spam folder and if you see any emails from the Cantina there, make sure to mark them as "Not Spam". This will help a lot to whitelist the emails and to stop them going to spam.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. IMPORTANT! To be able to create new threads and rate posts, you need to have at least 30 posts in The Cantina.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Before posting a new thread, check the list with similar threads that will appear when you start typing the thread's title.
    Dismiss Notice
Spam Control Cantina Notification Emails Create Threads and Rate Posts Similar Threads

film vs. digital techncal question

Discussion in 'General Movie Discussion' started by Cyber Dyne 1000, Mar 14, 2015.

  1. Cyber Dyne 1000

    Cyber Dyne 1000 Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Posts:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    Trophy Points:
    5,777
    Credits:
    2,839
    Ratings:
    +2,371 / 69 / -49
    lets just imagine im shooting star wars ep 7 or the new star trek in hd 5k or more.
    post production is completed and the cgi looks absolutely great.
    so the question is : what if the film was filmed simultaniousely using 8mm film, 16mm, 32mm shot for shot...
    would the cgi used for hd 5k look more realistic on for film than in hd ?
     
    #1 Cyber Dyne 1000, Mar 14, 2015
    • Wise Wise x 1
  2. Darth Lexor Kai

    Darth Lexor Kai General of the Future Folk

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2014
    Posts:
    2,340
    Likes Received:
    4,441
    Trophy Points:
    13,852
    Credits:
    9,075
    Ratings:
    +6,077 / 33 / -8
    it would not look better at all. the HD format would expose the seems of the project. in fact, most HD films with CGI are dulled down to hide the flaws and make it look more realistic. im a huge supporter of using film for most projects.
     
    #2 Darth Lexor Kai, Mar 14, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Cyber Dyne 1000

    Cyber Dyne 1000 Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Posts:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    Trophy Points:
    5,777
    Credits:
    2,839
    Ratings:
    +2,371 / 69 / -49
    thx for the response.
     
    #3 Cyber Dyne 1000, Mar 14, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  4. smoothkaz

    smoothkaz Clone

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2015
    Posts:
    26
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    12
    Credits:
    561
    Ratings:
    +55 / 2 / -0
    Personally, I feel like digital has finally progressed to the point where it is superior to 35mm film. Film does have a certain look to it that people like, but in terms of resolution and accurate image reproduction, digital wins. 70mm is still unrivaled compared to current resolutions though.

    I would take high-res digital over 35mm without a second thought, but your mileage may vary.
     
    #4 smoothkaz, Mar 15, 2015
  5. Rebo

    Rebo Nearsighted Whill Guardian
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    4,603
    Trophy Points:
    14,747
    Credits:
    6,145
    Ratings:
    +7,330 / 99 / -40
    35mm can still produce higher resolution than digital. 35mm produces the equivalent of between 3 million and 12 million pixels depending on how it is shot. 1080p is 2 million. 4k is 8 million. So at its best 35mm still out performs the best digital. 70mm/iMac blows digital away. But digital is catching up.

    To me the problem with digital is finding the proper balance of realism and art. The look of film is not realistic but it is what is expected in a movie. So balancing increased quality while still allowing for artistic license is the trick of shouting a good digital film. Some can do it and some fail. It's like a new art form in itself.
     
    #5 Rebo, Mar 15, 2015
    • Wise Wise x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Posts:
    115
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    1,157
    Credits:
    926
    Ratings:
    +275 / 29 / -12
    Except that resolution is not everything. It's only one factor and truly not all that important when it comes to real world performance.

    You can scan away at 35mm film all you want it's not going to resolve much past 3K if that.

    Many people have tried experiments to see if any normal audience member can tell film from HD in resolution. They can't really.

    Put ROTS on IMAX 3D and it will look awesome. That is the real world test and that was simply HD not today where it's 4, 6 8K etc
     
    #6 Qui-Riv-Brid, Mar 20, 2015
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Rebo

    Rebo Nearsighted Whill Guardian
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    4,603
    Trophy Points:
    14,747
    Credits:
    6,145
    Ratings:
    +7,330 / 99 / -40
    Like I said, it can do more or less resolution but that is not the primary factor in preference. People like the look of film. The grain, the blur, the natural feel. It's just like vinyl vs digital. It's not about numbers it's about preference.

    Resolution on RotS may not degrade noticably on a 70mm transfer like imax. But i still prefer the look of a new hope side by side.

    And I'm not anti-digital in any way. It has its uses and can produce a great product. But given a choice, I still prefer film.
     
    #7 Rebo, Mar 20, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Cyber Dyne 1000

    Cyber Dyne 1000 Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Posts:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    Trophy Points:
    5,777
    Credits:
    2,839
    Ratings:
    +2,371 / 69 / -49
    Qui-Riv-Brid good point .
    but even tho im definitely not an expert on every aspect of film i was looking at every format and was thinking that certain films look way more realistic in low definition when it comes to cgi. look at jurrassic park (1993) now in hd and you can see the cgi with extreme hd detail of the low res textures. cgi for j.p. looked better somehow in vhs/dvd because of the cgi & low res quality blend well together .
     
    #8 Cyber Dyne 1000, Mar 20, 2015
  9. Rebo

    Rebo Nearsighted Whill Guardian
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    4,603
    Trophy Points:
    14,747
    Credits:
    6,145
    Ratings:
    +7,330 / 99 / -40
    Its all relative though. You couldn't see the flaws because the overall product was weaker. Like not noticing how the beef on a McDonalds cheeseburger doesn't actually taste like beef. If they served that patty as a steak in a nice restaurant, you'd notice that it tastes like crap. But in a complete sub-par package, the individual beef patty is unremarkable amongst the entire burger.
     
    #9 Rebo, Mar 20, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Suicide Samurai

    Suicide Samurai Rebel General

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    4,677
    Credits:
    1,318
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -3
    Color is also a big perk film still has. Digital is most likely going to surpass film down the road--at least technically--but film will always be around.
     
    #10 Suicide Samurai, Mar 22, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Cyber Dyne 1000

    Cyber Dyne 1000 Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Posts:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    Trophy Points:
    5,777
    Credits:
    2,839
    Ratings:
    +2,371 / 69 / -49
    i hope film will be around for a while :p
     
    #11 Cyber Dyne 1000, Mar 22, 2015
  12. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Rebelscum

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Posts:
    115
    Likes Received:
    121
    Trophy Points:
    1,157
    Credits:
    926
    Ratings:
    +275 / 29 / -12
    Don't quite get your point there but it is preference to make a digital movie with film or video.

    There is nothing "natural" about film anymore than there is about video. At 24fps both have motion blur.

    Digital has all but wiped out vinyl just as HD video had film on the fast track to extinction only being slowed down by the recent deal to keep it going:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap...continue-making-film-supplying-Hollywood.html

    However long that lasts. It's really rather irrelevant as how many movies are actually made on film? Shot yes but actually made on film? VII isn't being made on film. It's shot then straight to the digital realm.

    As for grain itself films are generally far less grainier looking these days then ever that is if they even decide to keep it in post-production. I only recently got 60-inch HDTV so I get to really see grain at home for the first time.

    How large a screen do you need before the grain becomes evident? In today's world with people watching on their watches, tablets, laptops, home monitors etc or even smaller TV's the grain is a non-issue.
     
    #12 Qui-Riv-Brid, Mar 23, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. Rebo

    Rebo Nearsighted Whill Guardian
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Posts:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    4,603
    Trophy Points:
    14,747
    Credits:
    6,145
    Ratings:
    +7,330 / 99 / -40
    I meant film is natural in that it is a chemical process. Light exposing film. Not 1's and 0's.

    Like I said, its a preference. But I think analog still has a stronger following than you imply. There's a reason music aficionados still choose vinyl of digital. And there's a reason that film aficionados choose film over digital. It is not that one is better than the other. They are just different. and many people think there is more artistry in the analog world. You are welcome to have other opinions. Its a subjective choice.

    But this is all in the realm of the enthusiast. Not the average movie goer. Anyone watching movies primarily on their phone should have no say in the matter as they clearly don't care about the value of presentation to begin with. They are concerned with ease of access, not quality of presentation. Now, you say you have a 60 inch TV and prefer digital, then I respect that. Digital clearly has the aspects you prefer in a film. I can understand that. It is definitely more impactful of a format. More overtly dazzling. Film brings other qualities as I mentioned in earlier posts. What you are looking for in an image will justify each individuals preference.
     
    #13 Rebo, Mar 23, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Cyber Dyne 1000

    Cyber Dyne 1000 Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Posts:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    Trophy Points:
    5,777
    Credits:
    2,839
    Ratings:
    +2,371 / 69 / -49
    this conversation brings up the question ; how much money do studios save in distributing/sending the digital "film" in theatres ? they must be saving tons of cash ? in the process it is easier to make more films at cheaper costs but why does it still take more money in the 100 of millions to make hollywoodfilms ?
     
    #14 Cyber Dyne 1000, Mar 24, 2015
  15. Suicide Samurai

    Suicide Samurai Rebel General

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2014
    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    4,677
    Credits:
    1,318
    Ratings:
    +654 / 7 / -3

    Looking it up, a page says 1500-2k per print. From memory, I've heard higher prices, but we'll go with what this page says. There are about 37,000 (domestic, US) movie screens (not theaters) that report box office. Really big movies release in the 3000-4500 screen range, so we're looking at 4.5 million to 9 million, just for copies of the film, not counting shipping. For a smaller film-maker, this can be a big hurdle for getting into film festivals.

    As for digital, this does save a lot of money, but quality concerns still persist.

    To note, IMAX is shot on 70mm film.

    We can hem and haw over what the better format is, and as stated, most people can't tell what is what. Either Vinyl of Digital music, film vs digital capture... Color is the only factor I know of that is really apparent, as film is capturing what is there, while digital is replicating it. However, with the chemical process of developing film, things can and do change.

    Film vs digital is, more than likely, a thing of art and style. A lot of the studios recently promised Kodak to make "x" amount of films per year using film, possibly saving them from bankruptcy.

    As for a budget of a film, a figure I had once heard bandied about was "a 200 Million dollar film could have a 40 million dollar (or higher) ad campaign."

    This appears to have changed in recent times, and a 200 million dollar film could have a 70 million or 100 million dollar campaign. Foreign markets have also driven this up, especially in countries such as China, which only allows 10 US produced films to show a year.



    link to Distribution and print costs.
    http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution1.htm


    links to movie budget:
    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/200-million-rising-hollywood-struggles-721818
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2...marketing-and-distribution-evolved-over-time/
     
    #15 Suicide Samurai, Mar 26, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Great Post Great Post x 1
  16. Cyber Dyne 1000

    Cyber Dyne 1000 Rebel Official

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Posts:
    1,285
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    Trophy Points:
    5,777
    Credits:
    2,839
    Ratings:
    +2,371 / 69 / -49
    good info thank you
     
    #16 Cyber Dyne 1000, Mar 27, 2015
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Darth Lexor Kai

    Film Vs Digital in TFA

    Darth Lexor Kai, Jan 19, 2015, in forum: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,467
    Darth Lexor Kai
    Jan 20, 2015
  2. SWNN Probe

    Lucasfilms VP of Post-Production, Mike Blanchard, Retires After 30 Years

    SWNN Probe, Mar 26, 2024, in forum: SWNN News Feed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,163
    SWNN Probe
    Mar 26, 2024
  3. SWNN Probe

    The Acolyte Trailer Scores 51 Million Views, Lucasfilm Record on Disney Plus

    SWNN Probe, Mar 21, 2024, in forum: SWNN News Feed
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    281
    madcatwoman17
    Mar 23, 2024
  4. SWNN Probe

    UPDATE 2: All Nine Star Wars Saga Films Coming to Theaters On May The Fourth; New Look at The Acolyte Tied To The Phantom Menace Screenings

    SWNN Probe, Mar 19, 2024, in forum: SWNN News Feed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    328
    SWNN Probe
    Mar 19, 2024
  5. SWNN Probe

    Lucasfilm Reveals Name of Mysterious Clone Assassin in The Bad Batch and Two New Clips

    SWNN Probe, Mar 14, 2024, in forum: SWNN News Feed
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    412
    SWNN Probe
    Mar 14, 2024

Share This Page