Have people forgotten what film looks like?

David G. Smith said:
Then there is this BL2 package, starting bid, $1000.00, Buy it now price, $2000.00.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Arriflex-BL2-35mm-Camera-Package-Arri-BLII-/330849561250?_trksid=p2047675.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222002%26algo%3DSIC.FIT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D13899%26meid%3D4587058490872406535%26pid%3D100011%26prg%3D1095%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D271127395663%26

Funny thing is, I noted that there are have not been any bids for either camera.
Click to expand...

Aside from the film cost, I think an almost 40 lbs camera is tough for some to take.
 
The picture of that camera on ebay is striking. It is helping me understand something. I look at that and I go NO WAY but others see a beautifully machined 40lb magical cinema making machine.

It reminds me of an old Harley or something. Lots of people ride them but they're heavy and the technology is 100 years old. I never could understand it. Why, when you can get a bike with modern suspension, twice as fast, handles like a dream... a race bike, right out of the box, would you ever want to ride an old Harley? It kind of answers itself.. because they like them.

So cool... have fun, ride what you like. If you want to shoot on an old Arri, great. Enjoy it!
 
The BL's were tanks--classic Prussian engineering. Built to the point of overbuilt, which is why they tended to be so heavy. I'd think it would be hard for anyone who only knows the obsolence chain of digital technology to fathom that a WWII Arri II could deliver the same quality of image as any modern film camera. The coaxial magazine wasn't the most ideal for certain applications such as Steadicam, since the film displaced from one side of the mag to the other (for those who have only done Steadicam with digital cameras, imagine what that does to your operating to have a 4lb mass slide sideways 4-5" over the course of a shot). And the viewfinding wasn't exactly stellar. But it got the job done. Even the followup cameras from Arri, the 535 and 535B were still "monsters". It wasn't until Arri bought Moviecam and merged the best of both company's designs together that the last great 35mm sound film cameras emerged: the Arricam and Arricam LT, followed by the 235 (lightweight MOS camera, responsible for the amazing handheld work in "Children of Men") and the 416 (modern, sleek 16mm camera). Beautiful cameras, now mostly headed towards museum status.
 
Here's the sample from that Arriflex BL2....

Hate to say it...but it looks a lot like my DVX100b footage. :thumbsup:
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
LOL. Stretch it to a 50+ ft screen and see which one falls apart faster ;)
Click to expand...

That's without merit. I've seen 60D footage projected from a SD DVD on a standard size screen at a local theater and it looked just fine. I was very surprised. I also don't find this footage to be that impressive, which I think is a testament to the post production process more than the use of 35mm film.
 
Gary Huff said:
That's without merit. I've seen 60D footage projected from a SD DVD on a standard size screen at a local theater and it looked just fine. I was very surprised. I also don't find this footage to be that impressive, which I think is a testament to the post production process more than the use of 35mm film.
Click to expand...

I dont find the footage impressive either. Ive shot Super 8 footage that IMO looks better. But the reality is that SD DVX footage wont hold up as well on a big screen as 35mm. It simply cant. The science just isnt there unless you think 35mm can only resolve 480p? LMAO
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
IBut the reality is that SD DVX footage wont hold up as well on a big screen as 35mm. It simply cant. The science just isnt there unless you think 35mm can only resolve 480p? LMAO
Click to expand...

Well, that would be the case if the digital intermediate was scanned at SD resolution and then exported back out to film, wouldn't it? Just because it starts out on 35mm doesn't guarantee quality all the way through. Plus, 35mm film is an analog format, which means that degradation of the physical film itself can result in a loss of resolution, so what film stock are we talking about here? I bet there's some old, damaged film stock that wouldn't resolve much more.

Besides, we're looking at a specific example, shot on 35mm film stock, that looks like it's not resolving a heck of a lot. If it doesn't look that good as a Vimeo HD file, what makes you think it will somehow magically get better if projected? That would depend on an entirely film-drive post process, which is not the case from the description.

Frankly, Matthew, while I appreciate that you have an opinion on the matter, I would be willing to bet money that you could be fooled by an entirely digital production.
 
Gary Huff said:
Well, that would be the case if the digital intermediate was scanned at SD resolution and then exported back out to film, wouldn't it? Just because it starts out on 35mm doesn't guarantee quality all the way through. Plus, 35mm film is an analog format, which means that degradation of the physical film itself can result in a loss of resolution, so what film stock are we talking about here? I bet there's some old, damaged film stock that wouldn't resolve much more.

Besides, we're looking at a specific example, shot on 35mm film stock, that looks like it's not resolving a heck of a lot. If it doesn't look that good as a Vimeo HD file, what makes you think it will somehow magically get better if projected? That would depend on an entirely film-drive post process, which is not the case from the description.

Frankly, Matthew, while I appreciate that you have an opinion on the matter, I would be willing to bet money that you could be fooled by an entirely digital production.
Click to expand...

You can believe anything you want. But you lose all credibility with me when you imply that 35mm would only have 480 lines of resolving power. And who would shoot 35, scan it at SD, and film out from that? Its such an unlikely scenario and wasteful at that. Maybe you are fooled by digital productions and maybe I could be but it would take some doing. Like I said, Ive looked at prints that have not had digital in the chain and you cant fake that look. Im more likely to think some film looks like digital than vice-versa. Reason? Because digital IS in the chain so sometimes its hard to notice that film is film.
 
Let me demonstrate with a screenshot. This is a screenshot from a 2k scan by Rob from Cinelab. Look at this color! I have NEVER ever ever seen anything shot digitally that renders this look. Try if you want and if you can do it, I will be your student. Diss the grain if you want but that color is gorgeous. Has the DVX ever made footage like this? If so, dont say it, show it.

s16.jpg
 
Are you talking about the butter soft image, the lack of detail in the shadows, or the horrific noise in the image caused by underexposure? If your saying that it's not possible to get an image that looks as good on a digital camera, then your obviously in the wrong field. In fact It would be easy to nail that image on a digital camera. That looks to be mo more than 6-8 stops. If even. I don't find that image impressive in any way. And that's coming from a film lover
 
From the image you posted above, it is obvious that we look at the world differently, but I wish the best of luck to you. I hope you fully realize all of your filmmaking dreams.
 
Ugh -- I'm a great fan of well-shot film, but that image in reply #94 is about as poor an example as I could ever find -- it's massively underexposed, the grain (look at the sky!) is the size of boulders, and it's not at all sharp -- whether that's due to using fast/pushed/underexposed film or not having the lens quite in focus, I'm not sure.

Not to be snarky, but you're right, I probably couldn't duplicate that look digitally -- almost anything I would use to shoot it would come out looking better. Even the color you like is not at all outside the range of some pretty straightforward grading.

- Greg
 
Its not my footage and I wasnt bragging about the sharpness, lack of grain, or anything else. I can see you all are selective about what you read. Need to go back to school for reading comprehension? In college, I learned to actually pay attention to what people write. I said COLOR. Show me color depth like that or keep your snarky comments to yourself. Lots of opinion and not a single screenshot. :D

I prefer a tighter grained stock like 200t, 250d, and Ive heard good things about 50D but I havent shot it yet. Ive seen far too many t3i/5d shoots to think that deep color is even possible for that. Once again, the proof is in the abundance of disparaging comments against film and lack of visual evidence in favor of digital. lulz
 
Greg Smith said:
Not to be snarky, but you're right, I probably couldn't duplicate that look digitally -- almost anything I would use to shoot it would come out looking better. Even the color you like is not at all outside the range of some pretty straightforward grading.

- Greg
Click to expand...

To be snarky back, show me your work! Dont talk the game pal but show us. Otherwise, leave this conversation to those who actually have something useful to say.
 
Matthew, take a look at this http://vimeo.com/54571154.

This is from Dig, a short put together to demo the new Sony F55. At 2:40 there is a lowlight fireplace scene and at 4:00 there is a night exterior, pretty low light kind of like your frame grab above. If you download it to your machine (over 800MB) it's way better but the vimeo will give you an idea.

I think you'll admit that the color on her face in that street scene is ridiculously good. It is also really clean. This is a good example beautiful digital aquisition. I think so, anyway.

OK, that's the latest 4K camera from Sony but here are some frame grabs (ungraded) from a night exterior I shot with my $4K AF100. Now this is just what I like but I think the colors are good and the noise levels are much lower http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?296305-Web-Series-AF100
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top