How Movies Are Shot On Film In The Digital Era
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2024
- SONATA Media - FREE Trial of great royalty free music: sonata.media/?...
In this video I thought I’d do a bit of a deep dive into why some productions still choose to shoot on film over using digital cameras and outline the whole process of how film is shot, from pre-production and production all the way to it’s post production workflow.
MERCH:
Official IDC Merch: www.indepthcine.shop/
SOCIALS:
Instagram: / indepthcine
Patreon: / indepthcine
IDC Website: www.indepthcine.com/
My Website: www.graykotze.com/
Discord: / discord
GEAR:
CZcams Gear I Use: kit.co/InDepthCine/youtube-gear
Editing Software I Use: bit.ly/41oeH2x
Music I Use: bit.ly/3qCRt7u
Stock Footage: bit.ly/3jZHBC0
Cinematography Gear I Use: kit.co/InDepthCine/cinematogr...
MUSIC:
Falcxne - 'Puddles'
Rizik - 'A Bridge To Mend'
Falcxne - 'No One Left'
Chill Winston - 'The Truth'
Hackslash - 'Before You Go'
I Am Alex - 'Bonfire'
Falcxne - 'Patios'
0:00 Introduction
0:43 Why Shoot On Film?
2:47 Pre-Production
5:20 Sonata Media
6:24 Production
9:18 Post-Production
DISCLAIMER: Some links in this description are affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with these links I may receive a small commission without an additional charge to you.
Thank you for supporting my channel so I can continue to provide you with free videos! - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Sonata 30 Day Free Trial: bit.ly/3I4rAFF
What’s your favourite modern movie shot on film?
The beat you used in this video in the beginning actually was used by one of my favorite artists
Justin Stone ft Adrian Stresow “NoMe”
Hey, great to see somebody appreciating the Apichatpong Weerasethakuls films! He once gave me a ticket to one of his screenings and I had a short chat with him. He is a very nice person and his team very friendly.
I also remember that you once took inspiration for a short you filmed from one of the Romanian movies of the new-realist wave there. It’s nice to see not so well known, artistic cinema being given a place here in this channel! Keep it up!
you guys need to check your filtered words
my comments and replies gets auto deleted for some reason
my fave film to be shot on film will be either Call Me By Your Name or Last Night in Soho.
For me, it's got to be Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'.
I worked in film in the 90's and 00's and practically every project was shot on film. The set was super focused and quiet, set ups took ages and sometimes there were only 2 takes. At the end of the shoot, the short ends and loaded full rolls always mysteriously disappeared in the direction of camera department juniors making their own short films! I do hope film endures as it has such magical qualities that digital has however clever, just can't emulate. There's also that excitement or blind terror that occurs when waiting for the film to be processed and cleared as ok from the lab.
Technically digital cannot match film at present. Most people who watch films in a cinema are actually watching 2k files that are upscaled to 4K and they do not look that good.
35mm film has a resolution of about 8k minimum.
Yes, who doesn’t want blind terror when they have thousands of dollars and years of their lives wrapped-up in a film production?
@@bighands69 lol. Ok dude.
@@bighands69 5.6k if I recall correct
@@jc-px8ox
Nope.
The bare minimum for pixel scanning to capture what is considered of a good enough level of detail for a solid film image is 8k.
Until we have 8k projectors and 8k content to test that in a theatre we have no way of knowing for sure.
This video leaves out a fundamentally important part of the whole journey: Finding and choosing the right lab, and working closely with them during produciton. Cant stress how crucially important that can be.
There really are only a few labs left, all of them do good work. There should be no “journey” to the quality of a lab in 2022.
@@CinemaRepository Well, you're mistaken. If you're a cinderblock of a production company like Warner, for example, what you say holds true. If you're an artist or a small production with a music video or ad, not so much. They all do good work, yes - but still, one might be better suited for particular needs than another. Its not all same same.
@@runinair12 What labs do bad work in 2022? Have you used them? I have.
@@CinemaRepository I was going to say, to my knowledge there's literally two UK labs left - Kodac(I-Dallies) and Cinelab. Are there any others?
@@Razzer666 Yea only two in the UK, 7 state side and a few in central europe.
I would like to know more about the different characteristics of 16mm vs 35mm film or any other film stock, like what unique textures do each bring, like more grain, less grain, what the grain looks like for different film stocks and does shooting on film give the footage a more natural look compared to digital, and also how the film industry changed or stayed the same throughout the 120yrs of Filmmaking and what do you think will be the future of Filmmaking.
That would be a great video!
Yes, I agree
@@quickfilmmakingtips2870 Yes definitely, I would really to know the history of Filmmaking where it's been and the future of it and how it can evolve or has Filmmakers evolved it so much that there's no innovation will the industry standard for be 24fps or will it change to a higher frame rate.
+++
The channel Analog Resurgence may be of interest to you. Though his focus is primarily film photography, he has quite a few videos on film cinematography as well.
Having worked as a 2nd and 1st AC myself for a good 20 years now, I really enjoy your videos and recommend them on a regular basis to young people just starting in the Camera Department. Thanks for your amazing work!
I really miss working on film.
shooting on 16mm film with an anamorphic lense is to die for.
I shot my first film on 16mm last year.. the director had his own sr3 and it was a blast to shoot with it.. sadly there's no other crazy directors here for that want to shoot on film..
love your work as always!
It's really difficult to find information on filmmaking on super 16mm or 35 mm
Same! My DP had her own Aaton A-Minima. It was a really useful decision to shoot S16, and the cost really isn’t as prohibitive as people think.
Its not about crazy its about money
The actual huge costs were in post production back in the film days. Getting a film actually shot on film 'in the can' wasn't as expensive as one might think (there's tricks and schemes you were able to do to get free film), but the roadblock was the expense for post production if you ask me. It was the most frustrating part. I actually still own a used Frezzolini LW16 news camera with 12-120 Angenieux zoom lens from the 70's (similar to the CP16) that I bought for $1200 back in the mid 90's, which was a bargain, but a pain to load and use at times. I had the mickey mouse ear magazines and I remember spending a half hour in a dark closet a few times trying to unscrew the lid on the magazine to retrieve the exposed film.
The images that 'cheap' 16mm camera produced was astonishing.
@@simpleetfunky7062 Hit up my channel “cinema repository” all about shooting on film.
One quality of film, probably kept it popular for so long, is it's halation especially in the red layer, and it's lower softer resolution especially in the red sensitive layer again, coupled with how grain structure helps break up very low contrast high frequency detail.
This has a beautifying effect on faces and for long time would give a more flattering look to actors than HD digital video.
And film does still have a "out of the box" quality to it's color where it basically grades itself to give a pleasant color rendition.
Interesting. Can you explain a bit more why the color red looks better on film? Is it more saturated and rich?
@@Pantano63
The chemical process of producing colors in film has a far greater detail than digital has. So while digital can do very high contrast ratios it cannot have the subtle differences that film has when it comes to color.
In the real world you will see that many things have color differences. You can have two shades of a color even though they look similar your eyes can pick the differences.
Someday there maybe digital processes that can surpass film but we are not there yet.
@@bighands69 Do you have any kind of studies or information that prove that film has better colour? Everything I've ever found or heard that was an actual study with empirical evidence showed that something like the Arri Alexa is better than film in every technical way.
@@TechnoBabble
The reason why digital gets used is all down to handling costs and ease of use. I could go through a mountain of specifications in regards to the chemical process of film but I tend to find when doing that on comment sections that people are not really interested.
@@bighands69 So that's a no I assume? I asked for a study on the colour specifically. If it were so obviously better than there would be a completely irrefutable study done that shows that... unfortunately for your weird hatred of digital, that's not the case. I'll gladly be proven wrong if you can show any sort of empirical evidence to support your claims though.
As someone who's primarily only shot digital and wants to make it out there is a cinematographer, shooting on film is something that's daunting yet exciting. I'm hoping to learn to shoot some film next semester or on my internship in the Spring! Great video!
I’ve been into film photography and cinematography for a while, yet got a lots of new things from your video!
Although I would have appreciated if you had also added the color timer segment
Thanks for this video, it was very insightful to the way a crew works with film. Though I most likely will not be in a situation of dealing with film on set any time soon, this was still a valueable and interesting topic. Keep up the great work!
Been waiting for this for so long!
Great Video as always.
I currently work in post at Fotokem. This is an absolutely wonderful introduction and overview to film workflow. Great Work.
Just discovered your channel yesterday!! Great content and very useful. Great work. You are a great teacher mate!!
keep it on! Cheers from catalonia
Thank you so much for the video! I've always wanted to know about the process; your video is very helpful and very easy to understand.
so cool! have been dreaming about making a film on film and i haven’t been able to find any other video on the topic except for yours when i searched. thank you for the great video!!
Awesome! Thanks. I love your other types of videos but this one was full of tips and information that is very hard to find easily without working on a set.
Even more important is the ability to archive the original. Digital is now archived on a dedicated Kodak film emulsion
I am a 100 percent still film photographer & I have been using film for 25 years.
B&W film will always be around, because it is a very pragmatic process & in 2020, Hollywood renewed a motion-picture film stock deal with Kodak.
This "resurgence" might be marketing or popular culture's need to make news, because motion-picture film & still-photography film along with its chemistry was always around.
The only issue is the film speeds available & if you know how to push or pull film, you can achieve the aesthetics of film speeds that are discontinued or hard to find.
We will always have this tangible aspect of Photography (even the early motion-pictures used to say, "Photographed By").
Good content, thank you for making this about film!
Don’t forget that motion picture film and still film are two vastly different products, not even made in the same factory in some cases.
@@CinemaRepository there are a few
This is something I've always been wondering for years. Thank you for this video!
I love this, I have your channel on every time i am prepping gear
Good narrative video about the subject. I was fortunate enough to be born in a family involved in feature film production. Since i was a child, i was involved in filmmaking (more than 20 feature films). The amount of discipline & aesthetics one can experience working with film stock & analogue technology is unparallel to any other medium and it's coming from someone who worked with almost every digital camera type, codec and NLE program.
one of the few videos on youtube about motion picture film production, that is actually accurate! thank you!
Brilliant video mate, instructive as always! Thank you!
Thank you for the process breakdown. I worked on a set with an arriflex camera and always wondered how the film was converted to digital.
Perhaps worth mentioning the "Video Assist". That's not just a monitor that records, that is now a job on set.
This was an extremely interesting video. I've always wondered how film stocks worked. You explained that and more, thank you.
Great video! There’s so much to learn about shooting on film, but sadly it isn’t always easy to find info about. Hope you keep making this type of videos 🙏🏽
Such an amazing episode was looking for this information since a long time!
Thanks for this Pure Gold Content, In Depth Cine Crew!! Much Luv
You do great work bro! Thanks so much for all the information.
Very useful video! I think it would be interesting if you made the same video but about the process back in pre-digital times.
Been waiting for this
Great as always man!
This is easily my new favorite channel!!!
As someone who likes digital and film but has a love of film stock, this is an interesting subject to talk about. Thanks!
this is so informative! thank you for this video :)
Very helpful, thanks for this
Well done and really good explained. Thank you.
Another great insight into the craft. Thanks for the video.
this is SO HELPFUL. thank you!!!
Great video man!✌🏼
Wasn't expectig so much info, but it was all very fascinating to me!
Such an amazing video! 💕💕
"Been waiting for the "shoot on film" episode, and you've delivered. Thank you for this!
Thank you 😊 such a great short overview about this topic!
How about older movies shot, edited and published on film? Why is there look so special and different from film nowdays shoot on film? Is there people still doing everything on film? From shooting, to editing to postproduction, to screeening or publishing?
such an informative vidoe, thank you!
Great video! Loved it!
I photograph on film and I love it. This is a great video. Super enlightening. Thank you. I have to say though, I am not sure I agree that post-processing film is faster than digital.
Thanks man . It was really helpfull 👍
Great video, very insightful about how films are shooted and produced.
Great effort 👌 you answered my questions
really interesting ! Thanks a lot !
Just bought a super 16 Arri BL the other day! This is so cool to see. Excited!
Great programme. Thank you.
Thanks for this video, I learned a lot.
Such a great channel this 💖
Amazing video! Would love to see a video on how bnw films were processed from filming to post.
Thanks for the video!
Someone who draws can draw on a tablet with a stylus, or on paper with pen or pencil (or chalk or...), or draw on paper and scan for digital editing, or draw on tablet and print out to include an item in a paper collage and so on. Similar range of options with music and with photography and film. It's not always about the finished product; it can just be fun and a learning experience to mix things up.
I'd love to see a video on the process of a fully analog movie without any digitalization involved!
Every Quetin & Nolan's movies are edited in software and then optically cut on films as per the edited result.
Sadly nobody edits on film anymore. The last big studio film to do so was the Indiana Jones 4 in 2012. They did for secrecy reasons. The process of no digitization is very simple. There are dozens of books and countless videos about “the photochemical process” related to motion picture film. Sadly the cost is exorbitant, which is why nobody does it. Scanning and recording out, creates a much better product.
Hey man, great content, your accent is so SA!
nice trip down memory lane, I have subscribed for more content dealing with film and cinema
Awesome video! I learn a lot from your videos thank you soo much! I would love to know more about the actual shooting process on film and especially how the director sees what it is shooting or how the focus puller is working since they can't see the footage ? Do they are any sort of digital video transmission while shooting ? It seems so complicated to me to understand the workflow concretely..
There is usually a video tap, which acts like a monitor for digital cameras. The difference is, it's mostly used for framing and playback, so you can't light just by looking at the video tap because the video quality is pretty bad. You'd have to rely on light meters. Focus pullers have to rely on markers, but some experienced pullers can judge distance just by eye
Focus pullers use tape measure to measure from the focal plane on the camera to the actor or object being shot. All cameras have a focal plane mark to measure from. Then it's a matter of pulling the focus by looking at the marks on the lens. In the days of film, directors weren't 100 percent sure how their film would look until it was processed by the lab and focus pullers can only pray everything was in focus. If you watch old sitcoms (or even some movies) shot on film now remastered in HD, you'll see a lot of out of focus shots (probably because they move so fast during production).
thank you for your explanation ! it makes way more sens now ! I can’t imagine how stressing it it must have been ! but so interesting tho
@@DyenamicFilms if you watch Magnolia (1999), a lot of the shots filmed on a longer lens are slightly out of focus, but still noticeable. Imagine how they reacted when they saw the dailies. I would’ve fired the 1st AC cause it kept happening LMAO
Good video, I have always been interested in how they edit the film imax like oppenhiemer and before this video there was none so good video man
I get my 50D processed by Neg-Lab in Sydney and over-scanned in 6k at memory lab in Melbourne. Great combo.
It was very useful and informative. Thank you. Now I was looking for information about the films to be set up in DaVinci
Great work !
Love this!
I'm no pro, but I've heard people say that pro cinematographers don't adjust aperture for exposure as much as they do for DoF, as an artistic choice. I was under the impression they will adjust the brightness levels of their lights, add fill/neg, and/or add/subtract ND filters before they would change the aperture for the sake of exposure adjustments. Am I mistaken?
Great video, though. Really cool to learn this process!
I think he meant that they adjust aperture on digital camera to preview exposure. Main (film) camera keeps aperture DoP want for artistic reason.
Yes, this is absolutely true... in theory...
You can't always have the exact aperture that you want, but it's true that we're gonna try to stay at the aperture that's right for the mood and storytelling. Now, depending on the budget and the type of lighting required, you might not have access to lights that are bright enough to, for example, keep a lens fairly closed during a night scene.
This is why many indie films and videoclips on a smaller budgets use visual elements that are naturally cinematic for free, hence the endless scenes of rain-over-neon-lights with bokeh, and so on.
People often think that bokeh is "more cinematic" when starting out. The truth is, it's just easier to deal when you're on a tight budget, because if you keep the lenses open, the set design doesn't have to be nearly as precise as if you want to shoot with everything in focus. It's not hard at all to hide certain aspects of the set design, or even to blur people in the background who haven't been asked to be extras, with shallow DOF.
However, if can become a cheap trick rather quickly and you get over the "wow" factor of bokeh quickly as well.
Lastly, people do not thing that we do aperture pull as well as focus pulls - even tho aperture pull are far less used, it's totally possible to do them on professional lenses where the focus won't ever be affected. For instance, if you transition from a dark to a bright room, which transition is almost always covered with a white gradient because it's extremely hard to do, you could pull if off "eye-like" with the right aperture pull.
You can also do a number of effects such as gorgeously smooth and controlled fade-to-black, the old school way, or POV of a character opening their eyes by putting a cardboard cutout in front of the lens, etc
Aperture can be used for so much more than controlling exposure, and it's not really an exposure control tool in the first place. Even still photographers of a high level would not touch the aperture to expose, but they have the major advantage of being able to change the shutter angle at will, which we can't without creating unnatural blur!
@@jas_bataille I appreciate the in-depth response! Must be nice those who do stills to be able to change the shutter lol. People always talk about the exposure triangle in cinema, and I'm like, No--the triangle there is ISO, light levels, and audience size lol
I always enjoy and learn from your videos and they are always very well explained and shown with your presentation in the perfect speech tempo and terminology, with images.
Just wanted to ask, if you're doing a video on "shot on film" movies, could you please show related cameras onscreen? For example, in one of your videos where you were talking about The Shining (or some other movie on film), the onscreen graphics were showing Arri Alexa, when it was probably Arriflex or Panavision. I don't think its a big problem and you mean to just show a camera to explain your point, but it makes things connected and consistent with the theme.
I have a request, if you like, would you please do an Essay on how movies were graded before digital grading, because I'd like to learn the Print Grading process, or whatever it's called and if it's still possible today. I know older films were made to be graded that way and new ones are made with higher dynamic range and detail for digital grading, but if we were to get older stocks to get them graded like before, or even new ones, thank you!
I always wondered why Cinestill photographic film has blue labels for Daylight and Red for Tungsten. I learned here that it's an industry standard. Thanks!
I would like to point out that usually people say film is more expensive but if you want to get the most dynamic range on digital you need to spend more time on post correcting and grading and those are extra work hours need to be paid. People need to take that into account when comparing because we always focus on the money spent on the camera, acquiring the footage and getting it to an editing machine. But a film is a complete process and making the budget by only considering the shooting costs and not the post costs is useless.
Very well put.
As shown in this video, post correcting and grading does not go away just because you shoot on film. Changes are still made for both mediums. Therefore, the actual shooting cost remains as the swaying factor. Film also has unique costs and challenges which digital does not have in post, such developing the film, scanning it into a digital medium (kind of ironic) and taking extra steps to safely store the physical film.
@@soccerboyluke Yes, you do that. But the grading isn't really necessary because film already has a look. On digital you convert to rec709 and you are not gonna keep it that way. The Walking Dead is a good example of film without grading showed directly to the audience.
@@familygonzcartwright I think that having the ability to easily change between looks on digital is preferable. Any good director will be looking at every frame of their project, no matter if it was shot digitally or on film. So isn't having greater creative freedom better? Also, for every Walking Dead, you'll also have several digital films without grading like The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, etc.
@@soccerboyluke the walking dead is shot on film. What I mean is that you can have a project on film showed exactly as it comes from the film scan. But you can also grade it like Nolan or Spielberg do. On digital, you will never see a project without a grade. I was surprised when I watched a outtake video of Sex Education where they compared the scene with the bloopers and you could see how heavy the grade was for a very casual looking show. And also, those films, are they really shot digitally without a grade because it looks real? Or is it because of the video tape look? What I mean with all of this is that while most directors who shoot on film like to grade it, there are some who don't (Tarantino only grades the digital files of his shot on film movies to make them look exactly as the film prints he's made from the original negative and those are tweaks necessary because the scanner doesn't render color like film can and he needs to adjust, not because the footage looks bad and needs a grade), and they can because it actually looks good. On digital footage, everyone grades it. Even a show like Only Murders in the building which is like a sitcom with crimes on it is graded (and not really good because skin tones look yellow).
This one has been the best ever!
Thank you. This was interesting
I thoroughly enjoyed this episode and it was very nostalgic for me. 👍
very informative. thank you very much.
It's all in scanning process. I think scanning slow frame by frame in raw is the best or tif format to preserve highlights and shadows. 😁
Very helpful thank you for the great video. I want to shoot my next movie on Film.
Wonderful video, thanks so much! I still have one questions though: how is image transmission to the village, focus puller etc. handled on analogue sets?
Love this, just watched this and the newest Kodak Vision video you did. As someone who learned photography on film during the digital switchover, I am still itching to shoot something moving on 16 or 35mm film. Its a bummer Kodak Vision is all that's left, as pretty as it is, at least some Fuji 35mm would be nice! (fuji also had my fav still film stocks, Velvia 50 and Fujicolor Press 800 print have AMAZING colors) Maybe some smaller startups will pop-up eventually to make emulations and eventually their own stocks like they have for still film? I know its a lot more expensive but. We can dream.
I find my favorite digital cameras are the ones like the original BMPCC and the Original Arri that just look so filmic right out of the box after a small correction. Its like their sensor IS film. Like you said, ALMOST. I think because there aren't enough people watching films who can tell, you're right 95-99% is good enough but its still not film. This debate is raging with Music Recording and Simulated Mics and Cabinets, forget digital vs analog. Digital vs, um, more digital? I think you do a great job of hitting home "right tool for the right job" mentality which I love. Obviously you have you own preferences but have worked with so many people you understand the professional need of different tools. More videos please!
I've always somehow assumed that if you shot on film, you cut negative to produce the final product. And I couldn't picture how that would be accomplished.
I'm astonished to learn that the original film (purported to have 18K resolution) is only scanned ONCE (typically no more than 4K)--and that final prints (film or DCP) are produced from that initial scan! It makes sense from a practical standpoint (cutting negative has to be a gnarly, labor-intensive process!), but I always assumed that if you shot on film, somehow the rest of the process would mimic film post-production from the old days.
Nicely done video, and very informative.
Wow, great video!
I was always curious about how film worked.I got a decent idea about that in a very short time.Great video!
These videos rock ! I never knew how interested I was in all this until I came across your channel
Top Gun: Maverick is the closest I’ve seen digital coming to replicating film. The Venice is an absolute monster.
its look modern.Just watch Lawrence Of Arabia clip.now thats the real beauty of film
Nope. It looks like digital. The way the highlights and skin tones behave gives it away.
@@Janken_Pro Yeah, that's why everyone was convinced that Knives Out was shot on film until they revealed it wasn't. Go watch Yedlin's Alexa vs 35mm Film video and let me know which camera is which.
It's so sad that here in my country, they stopped using film stock in 2012. I saw that camera rentals here still rent film cameras, but I reckon they buy the stock and develop it internationally. Film just has that certain feeling that shooting digitally doesn't have. I really wish they could sell film stocks here again.
the theaters in my country have completely replaced film projectors as well, which is sad. I'd love it if a few theaters did film projection for special screenings
What country?
@@Pantano63 Philippines
@@markrobert9915 move away
@@slayyyder That's easy for you to say lol
Can you please make video on how they use to record audio while shooting on film stock and how the whole thing got processed?
Very nice! Thanks!
Hey, amazing video. I would love to know more about the _film out_ part of the process
The aspect that doesn't get talked about enough is the adrenaline rush you get the moment the camera motor spools up like a jet engine and the AC yells "SPEED!" What a rush. Part of the whole magic of film making ✨
Hi! Love your videos! there’s one question I still have in my mind, watching bts from Yorgos Lanthimos, what is the workflow now on monitoring the image for the director and focus puller? Thank you!
I'd love a little more detail on the film scanning, since it seems like when shooting on film and then editing digitally, you're trading the digital sensor of a camera for the digital sensor of a scanner.
Exactly, why is it a better option filmming and scaninng into digital afterwards for edition than filmming digital at the very beginning? How does the scann work?does it varies the colour and grain? When the big productions swapped cutting-pdx?
I think the best way to make and watch movies today is too shot the movie on celluloid and then seeing it digitally. In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think you probably get a less accurate representation of the filmmakers vision on film , because you get all this stuff that wasn't part of the original image. You are ironically "closer" to the original negative in a digital viewing environment. But on the other hand I do believe that celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large format film like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage repair/removal and advanced color correction.) Also film probably still has the advantage in color depth. 10 bit color is still the highest displays can show. But that will change in the future, Dolby Vision can support 12 bit, but there are no displays that can show it yet. But film is often scanned in 16bit so digital scans probably hold most if not all color information that a negative holds. Display and digital projector technology just isn't advanced enough yet.
(On a quick sidenote I just want to say that digital film restoration is by far the greatest gift the digital revolution has given cinema. Without digital technology so many masterpieces of cinema would probably be gone. Photochemical restoration is truly a limited way to restore a film in comparison. Photochemiclly they would literally try to "clean" the negative physically by rubbing it. Now with digital you scann the negative and then put it back and do the restoration process on the computer. A great example of this is the restoration Criterion did on the Apu trilogy. The negatives where in poor shape to say the least and without digital technology the films would probably be gone to history. Here's a link to a video about the restoration process: czcams.com/video/k5zib042hEs/video.html )
So to sum it up, after the introduction of the digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution and color, but has also given filmmakers more freedom with color grading and displaying films closer to the way it looked on the color-grading monitor. And this loss in resolution and color is a temporary one. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
I agree, the main issue today in post production is still the loss of definition equivalent in 2K & 4K DI from an original 35mm print (around 6.5K). And like you said, on 65mm it's even a bigger gap.
I see the point you’re making and definitely agree on the resolution aspect. But I still prefer seeing a celluloid projection to a digital projection. Even if the film was shot digitally. It definitely comes from an emotional place over a logical place for me. But I like the imperfections that come from making celluloid reels. From the slightly off color to the scratches and grain that build over time.
Although I do still love a high quality digital restoration. I’m lucky that I get both 4K restorations and film projection showings where I live.
I know David Lynch prefers digital projections and workflow for the reasons you were listing.
I just don’t want film projections to disappear.
Great video
7:42 but ISO exposure values vary wildly amongst different digital cameras. You would need to know what the equivalent settings would be to get a matching ISO level with the specific film you're using.
i think professional camera man have the experience or knowledge about what iso fits what film
I don't know whom you want to fool or persuade. With modern sensors and with shooting RAW you get 14 stop flat video and you can grade it any way you like, there is no baked in look, no burned out highlights like on twenty-year old DV video. There is absolutely nothing that digital video misses now compared to film except for global shutter, but some CMOS-based cameras have mechanical film-style shutter, so here you go. 10 years ago - CMOS and rolling shutter and jello and skew and all this. 20 years ago - CCD and vertical light streaks (but global shutter!). 30 years ago - analog video, time base errors, interline twitter and dropouts. But during the last decade or so most of the issues have been resolved. Celluloid can finally die in peace. Damn, it was already good enough for the Episode II, and this was twenty years ago.
Wow super nice and interesting video! Would also love a follow up on how they used to handle the film in the pre digital world! Maybe even with a section about projecting the film in cinemas back then! Loved the scenes about this topic in fight club and inglorious basterds
7:13 I also noticed in some of the behind the scenes stuff for Oppenheimer, they also had black and white checkered tape, which I assume they used to identify the black and white film stock. I imagine if you're shooting a movie entire with black and white film, then color of the tape probably doesn't matter, but when it's mixed with color film, that extra tape color is important.
I Love This Video so much