Have people forgotten what film looks like?

[Matthew W Phillips]

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

Thanks, hscully, for restoring some order to this thread and putting yourself out there instead of just talking trash.

I downloaded the 800+MB clip of the F55 because I didnt want compression to be an issue. To be honest, I wasnt impressed. However, I wont talk trash but I will state why.

First off, the shots, technical wise, were great. Camera was steady and everything was composed proper so it wasnt a technical issue. Footage wise, my problems were this:
Although the footage was clean with no noticeable noise, the colors were very desaturated to my eyes. The highlights looked hard in some places, especially when the man was on the bed. His brown skin showed up the harsh highlights and it looked bad to me. The greens in the field area looked very unorganic and flat. The fire in the background in the fireplace scene looked lifeless and dull. I personally feel film renders foilage, fire, and skin better than digital. Thats just my opinion though.

As far as your screengrabs, funny enough is I thought your first screengrab looked better than anything in the video you showed me as a benchmark. And I do like the AF100 from what Ive seen of it. I havent shot with it but on Cine.com, I am always the first one to say "if you must shoot digital on a budget, shoot on the AF100." I think the AF100 yields the best digital footage ive seen of any cam except te Alexa. I like AF100 footage better than RED. I know the resolution junkies laugh at that but resolution isnt everything and I think thats where film and digital guys look at things different. Or at least thats what it seems like.

I think your grabs were as good as that camera is capable of. And that is a compliment to you. All a DP can do is maximize what they have and I think you did that based on your grabs so kudos and much respect.

To be fair, Ill post a screen grab of an old Super 8 short I made a few years ago. I felt I maximized everything I could do with that Elmo 1012S-XL S8 camera with a fixed lens. It was grainy but Super 8 is grainy. The skin tone came out kindof orange but I like the organic look to the room. Then again, maybe I just like the retro look.

 

[Gary Huff]

But you lose all credibility with me when you imply that 35mm would only have 480 lines of resolving power.

Except you left out the part where I gave specific examples where that could be the case.

And who would shoot 35, scan it at SD, and film out from that? Its such an unlikely scenario and wasteful at that.

Not a film out, sure, but Star Trek: The Next Generation was all mastered at standard definition even though it was 35mm.

Like I said, Ive looked at prints that have not had digital in the chain and you cant fake that look.

I would mostly agree that without a digital intermediate you are more likely to get a specific look, but seriously, that's way dead. There's almost always a DI now, and you can make film look digital and vice versa. I think the idea of wanting to mimic film stock is also dying, which is why to you its easier to tell.

Show me color depth like that or keep your snarky comments to yourself.

Okay, what do you mean explicitly by "color depth"? Are you talking about gradations between colors? Are you saying that there are colors in the image you posted that couldn't be captured by a digital sensor? And once you've clarified what you mean by "depth" (remember, be as specific as possible), then please tell me what the exact limitations of, say, a Blackmagic Cinema Camera shooting in Raw, would be that would not allow that same element.

Once again, the proof is in the abundance of disparaging comments against film and lack of visual evidence in favor of digital. lulz

I think for you the only "proof" would be for someone to somehow show a clip that you would be adamant was shot on film that turned out to have an entirely digital chain.

 

[Gary Huff]

I know the resolution junkies laugh at that but resolution isnt everything and I think thats where film and digital guys look at things different. Or at least thats what it seems like.

Ironic coming from some one who would "lose all credibility with me" because of a comment about the possible scenarios where 35mm could have the resolving power of SD.

The skin tone came out kindof orange but I like the organic look to the room. Then again, maybe I just like the retro look.

I think you just like the "retro" look. BTW, what do you mean by "organic" exactly? I see this term tossed around all the time and I have no idea if it actually has any meaning.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

Ironic coming from some one who would "lose all credibility with me" because of a comment about the possible scenarios where 35mm could have the resolving power of SD.



I think you just like the "retro" look. BTW, what do you mean by "organic" exactly? I see this term tossed around all the time and I have no idea if it actually has any meaning.

Words dont really have any meaning anyway. I assume you know this to be true. All a word is is a description of something one wants to express. But one can only communicate one's ideas and hope the other person understands. Sadly, many arguments happen due to misunderstandings and Im sure thats what is going on in this thread.

To me, organic is the look of something that is alive and has a quality that, although the image is technically 2d, you can see depth like its not just a flat image but a portal to a real area. Its like the difference between looking at a medieval piece of church art and a Renaissance piece. The latter incorporated the idea of depth and the former was theme based and looked like a flat image. Both are technically flat but one tricks your mind a bit. When I personally talk about color "depth" I am not referring to bits per pixel like some do. I find it utterly unfair and bias to always compare digital vs film in digital terms. To narrow film down to pixels and bits is to lose the entire point of the debate. Imagine if we debated which language was better between English and German but we used English concepts as a benchmark. Doesnt seem like a very fair way to compare.

Of course, the issue of the resolving power of film is impossible to determine anyway. Some believe that film's digital equivalent resolving power is limited only to the optical capabilities of the scanner being used and that the scanner, not the film, is the bottleneck. I do know that Fuji gave claims a few years back that max. resolving of their film was on the order of 8k for 35mm. But who can know if indeed the optics of the scanner are the limiting factor?

 

[hscully]

Although the footage was clean with no noticeable noise, the colors were very desaturated to my eyes. The highlights looked hard in some places, especially when the man was on the bed. His brown skin showed up the harsh highlights and it looked bad to me. The greens in the field area looked very unorganic and flat. The fire in the background in the fireplace scene looked lifeless and dull. I personally feel film renders foilage, fire, and skin better than digital. Thats just my opinion though.

Yeah, that short is a demo for that camera so they had a lot of different looks. The one on the beach had a sort of 70s film look to me. I'm not sure what they did in grading either but I think they just wanted to show as much as possible of what the camera could do.

The Sonys seem to have more desaturated color to me generally but I've always liked that. I think a good look at modern highlight handling in that video is where she is leaning into the window, actually anything in that coffee shop, the highlights look impeccable to me.

Thanks for saying nice stuff about my grabs. I like that camera a lot. Also for comparison, the colors are much more saturated in the Panasonic than on Sonys in my view. I think that color in film has a really spectacular quality and I think that it does set a standard to which digital cameras aspire, but it's not the only thing. The possibilities in post are extremely broad.

From your grab from your short, I see that you have a predilection for some of the things in film that make it very different from digital. That's cool. I acted in a feature length film that was shot completely on 16 mm B&W. I was surprised at the choice but when you look at, after being on set and seeing all the light we used, it it really has a different quality that is grainy and the light vignettes and rolls off very quickly and the blacks are like india ink. It would take a lot to get that look from digital but that's what he was going for, and it really was something different and lovely. It worked well with the story.

I think that digital is creating a new aesthetic, different from film, and one I find very beautiful. I just wanted to point up some examples of that.. you know, stuff that doesn't really aspire to look like film, but is beautiful and expressive in it's own way.

 

[jambredz]

I have never shot film nor do I think either format should die . I'm a simple fellow that just likes good looking movies . ...but I have to say that these film stocks Look DAMN good and skin tones look amazing (even with youtube nasty compression). I've never seen digital look like this....nor am I claiming it should look like this. I like both as long as they are pretty and make a good story (7d shooter here).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5CkXgcafB0

 

[hscully]

thanks for sharing that, jambredz. Kodak 5219 is really something. That green grass into the shadows where the boxer is sitting is crazy nice. Then when they windowed it, you could see that all that detail was maintained. Jeez... that's something. Plus the highlights, right from the opening shot, with the white highlights on the black boxer's skin were beautiful, that and the color is splendid. You can't argue with that!

BTW, I really liked the ATL stuff you shot on the FS700. That was pretty rich for digital

 

[jambredz]

For real hscully...its sad (but understandable) that economics is the main driving factor nowadays. Why would anyone want an image like that to die? As MUCH as i love the Alexa (and I do), It looks different than this...beautiful, but different. Both formats should be able to co exist and I hope film does not die out.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

Thanks for saying nice stuff about my grabs. I like that camera a lot. Also for comparison, the colors are much more saturated in the Panasonic than on Sonys in my view. I think that color in film has a really spectacular quality and I think that it does set a standard to which digital cameras aspire, but it's not the only thing. The possibilities in post are extremely broad.

Yes. A DP friend of mine have argued about the Panny vs Sony thing. I dont shoot either but I always bust his chops and say the Pannys look better and more cine like. I love the saturation that is possible with Pannys because it has almost an old Agfa film look. Im not much of a fan of the modern desatch look. He, on the other hand, is totally in Sonys camp and thinks their stuff looks better and more natural. That debate is definitely a matter of taste and cannot be proven either way. Im sure resolution tests and charts can be shot to determine who has DR edge and all of that but in the end people watch movies, not charts.

From your grab from your short, I see that you have a predilection for some of the things in film that make it very different from digital. That's cool. I acted in a feature length film that was shot completely on 16 mm B&W. I was surprised at the choice but when you look at, after being on set and seeing all the light we used, it it really has a different quality that is grainy and the light vignettes and rolls off very quickly and the blacks are like india ink. It would take a lot to get that look from digital but that's what he was going for, and it really was something different and lovely. It worked well with the story.

This is true. I have less of a care about ultra clean footage and more of a care about chasing a certain aesthetic. As I may have mentioned earlier in this thread, I only do narrative work. So my goal is to create something that takes you out of where you are at and puts you some place imaginary. I love Super 8 film, personally, and would shoot nothing else if it werent for the fact that I need to blow up work for the bigger screens. I feel it has the most unique and un-copyable (is that a word?) look of any format. Its very "retro" looking in the sense that it makes many think of a time gone by. I prefer to see it at timeless. My short had some neat juxtapositions in that he is talking on a cell phone at one point and using a computer but the film looks like WWII era. I think thats neat.

I think that digital is creating a new aesthetic, different from film, and one I find very beautiful. I just wanted to point up some examples of that.. you know, stuff that doesn't really aspire to look like film, but is beautiful and expressive in it's own way.

That's why I liked your post. It wasnt digital footage that was attempting to look like film. It was footage that had its own aesthetic. Funny thing is, the youngr generation will grow up in digital and in the future, if something should supplant digital technology, the old timers then will lament the "glory days" of digital.

I think part of my issue is that Ive been brainwashed by over 100 years of celluloid. Everything in my whole life until recently is film. All the old movies and shows my parents and grandparents watched were shot on film. However, I can admit Im brainwashed and happily so.

 

[Gary Huff]

To me, organic is the look of something that is alive and has a quality that, although the image is technically 2d, you can see depth like its not just a flat image but a portal to a real area.

Well, that's something. "Looking alive" is a curious way of putting it that doesn't seem to have much meaning, but a image that looks like it has depth beyond the 2D screen it's being shown on is something that can be done regardless of the acquisition format. I don't see what, technically, 35mm has that would give it a look of depth more than digital.

Its like the difference between looking at a medieval piece of church art and a Renaissance piece.

Not quite a good analogy, very different art styles from different periods and/or artists. A better analogy would be like saying you prefer medieval religious iconography and that no Renaissance artist could ever hope to duplicate that look. Well, you'd probably be wrong. They probably could duplicate if they had an interest in doing so, but it was a different time then and they had different desires in how to express their art.

I personally talk about color "depth" I am not referring to bits per pixel like some do. I find it utterly unfair and bias to always compare digital vs film in digital terms. To narrow film down to pixels and bits is to lose the entire point of the debate. Imagine if we debated which language was better between English and German but we used English concepts as a benchmark. Doesnt seem like a very fair way to compare.

Okay, but you used "color depth" as an explicit criticism when showing off a still from something that had nothing else going for it. So what did you mean specifically when talking about the depth of color? I gave you several things it could be, which you didn't even address, none of which had anything to really do with the term as it means in digital. Simply avoiding giving me an exact definition tells me you more than likely just tossed the term out there without actually knowing what you meant by it.

I do know that Fuji gave claims a few years back that max. resolving of their film was on the order of 8k for 35mm. But who can know if indeed the optics of the scanner are the limiting factor?

I've seen a whitepaper (wish I could find it and link to it, but I'm kind of lazy right now) that claimed that certain stock could resolve incredibly high, like up to 11k, and that 4k was chosen as a happy medium because it gets you most of the way there with the majority of stocks and doesn't take forever to scan.

 

[GrahamH]

>>Thanks, hscully, for restoring some order to this thread and putting yourself out there instead of just talking trash.

Interesting opinion you have of the folks that are taking the time to respond, and to understand WTF you are talking about. Particularly with regard to the screenshot you posted.

I, too, was "WTF?" when I saw that. Just saying....

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

Well, that's something. "Looking alive" is a curious way of putting it that doesn't seem to have much meaning, but a image that looks like it has depth beyond the 2D screen it's being shown on is something that can be done regardless of the acquisition format. I don't see what, technically, 35mm has that would give it a look of depth more than digital.



Not quite a good analogy, very different art styles from different periods and/or artists. A better analogy would be like saying you prefer medieval religious iconography and that no Renaissance artist could ever hope to duplicate that look. Well, you'd probably be wrong. They probably could duplicate if they had an interest in doing so, but it was a different time then and they had different desires in how to express their art.



Okay, but you used "color depth" as an explicit criticism when showing off a still from something that had nothing else going for it. So what did you mean specifically when talking about the depth of color? I gave you several things it could be, which you didn't even address, none of which had anything to really do with the term as it means in digital. Simply avoiding giving me an exact definition tells me you more than likely just tossed the term out there without actually knowing what you meant by it.



I've seen a whitepaper (wish I could find it and link to it, but I'm kind of lazy right now) that claimed that certain stock could resolve incredibly high, like up to 11k, and that 4k was chosen as a happy medium because it gets you most of the way there with the majority of stocks and doesn't take forever to scan.

What do you want me to say, Gary? I like film, you dont. I put up screenshots for you to tear apart, you stay sae talking about how anything you shoot is better but put up nothing. I dont have to explain anything to you but I try to do my best to explain what I see. If it doesnt have meaning to you, thats your problem. However, I am not the first person the notice an "organic" look. Maybe thats a poor choice of words, I dont know. I speak in generalities sometime because I thought all of this was obvious. Apparently it isnt.

Here is the best I can explain it:
Film has soft highlight roll off
Film has practically limitless amounts of color variation and extremely small differences between color
Film has physical grain and physical layers so therefore it will have an appearance of a deeper image. Film IS 3d, even if the depth is shallow (physical depth, not DOF)
Film captures light directly without computational assistance or voltage interpretations (ie, it doesnt approximate)
Film has a look that doesnt look like any particular time period but still manages to associate one with other films from other time periods (yes stocks are different but there are unifying qualities that are familiar)
Film tends to look better "raw" By raw, I mean compare reversal shot and projected vs raw digital files with no CC. The raw tends to look what some would call "flat" or "without interesting contrast/saturation properties" The reversal will look gorgeous if shot decently well

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

Which screenshot? The first of second? My screenshot (the second) was Super 8 so I think its ridiculous to expect sharp results from it.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

deleted.

 

[Gary Huff]

I put up screenshots for you to tear apart, you stay sae talking about how anything you shoot is better but put up nothing.

When have I said that what I shoot is better? I haven't said that once. So what are you talking about?

I dont have to explain anything to you but I try to do my best to explain what I see.

Frankly, Matthew, this is the constant refrain of people who like to toss around technical explanations for why something is better than something else when they don't actually know what they're talking about. I'd avoid falling into that stereotype in the future if I were you.

If it doesnt have meaning to you, thats your problem.

"Oh, but the Red Epic 5k image is just alive with texture and has a depth of color that is unparalleled in the resolving power of a different kind of color space that is simply unmatched by anything that 35mm can hope to achieve."

What I just said was complete bullshit on every level. But if it doesn't have any meaning to you, I guess that's your problem.

However, I am not the first person the notice an "organic" look.

Yes, people toss around "organic". From what I can tell, it means: "It looks like the movies I was used to seeing growing up in cheap theaters with poor projection, VHS tape, and basic cable showings." I strongly suspect that this is where people have the idea that 35mm isn't "sharp" comes from. It's simply a "back in my day, times were better" kind of thoughts, which has no basis in anything except someone's pleasant memories. Certainly not viable for an honest discussion of the strengths/weakness of a technical format.

Film has soft highlight roll off

Yes, being an analog medium in which all information is at least atttempted to be recorded instead of just thrown away (as in digital), this is one of the benefits, and one that digital hasn't quite cracked yet. But it's coming.

Film has practically limitless amounts of color variation and extremely small differences between color

At this point I would say that it's technically true, but not in any sense that someone could legitimately see.

Film has physical grain and physical layers so therefore it will have an appearance of a deeper image. Film IS 3d, even if the depth is shallow (physical depth, not DOF)

This makes no sense, so you'll have to explain it. Film is a flat physical object strip. What do you mean by "physical layers"?

Film captures light directly without computational assistance or voltage interpretations (ie, it doesnt approximate)

Not sure what this has to do with anything other than being an analog format once again. But again, digital can get so close that the differences would require instrumentation to detect.

Film has a look that doesnt look like any particular time period but still manages to associate one with other films from other time periods (yes stocks are different but there are unifying qualities that are familiar)

This seems to be really stretching for a point. We don't have enough time with primarily digital productions to make this call, but I see no reason why this still won't hold true.

Film tends to look better "raw" By raw, I mean compare reversal shot and projected vs raw digital files with no CC. The raw tends to look what some would call "flat" or "without interesting contrast/saturation properties" The reversal will look gorgeous if shot decently well

Again, another seriously stretched argument here. Who cares what it looks like straight out of the can (or off the memory card)? All that matters is that it retains the maximum amount of information possible. It's going to be processed all to hell in post anyway. Speaking of which, DVDs are filled with plenty of "dailies" footage (for deleted scenes and such) and most of it looks like crap, so what are you referring to anyway?

 

[Gary Huff]

With all due respect, Gary, this is what you think is better than film?

Strawman. What makes you think I think this looks like film? That was from a camera test, so either you're lazy and didn't bother looking through my Vimeo channel for something narrative instead of a camera test, or you weren't aware it was from a camera test and didn't pay attention. For your encore, will you pull a screengrab from one of my 30p corporate pieces that's covered in motion graphics?

For your information, that was shot on a C100 with EOS Standard. If I was trying to get a film look, I wouldn't shoot with the EOS Standard picture style.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

When have I said that what I shoot is better? I haven't said that once. So what are you talking about?



Frankly, Matthew, this is the constant refrain of people who like to toss around technical explanations for why something is better than something else when they don't actually know what they're talking about. I'd avoid falling into that stereotype in the future if I were you.



"Oh, but the Red Epic 5k image is just alive with texture and has a depth of color that is unparalleled in the resolving power of a different kind of color space that is simply unmatched by anything that 35mm can hope to achieve."

What I just said was complete bulls*%t on every level. But if it doesn't have any meaning to you, I guess that's your problem.



Yes, people toss around "organic". From what I can tell, it means: "It looks like the movies I was used to seeing growing up in cheap theaters with poor projection, VHS tape, and basic cable showings." I strongly suspect that this is where people have the idea that 35mm isn't "sharp" comes from. It's simply a "back in my day, times were better" kind of thoughts, which has no basis in anything except someone's pleasant memories. Certainly not viable for an honest discussion of the strengths/weakness of a technical format.



Yes, being an analog medium in which all information is at least atttempted to be recorded instead of just thrown away (as in digital), this is one of the benefits, and one that digital hasn't quite cracked yet. But it's coming.



At this point I would say that it's technically true, but not in any sense that someone could legitimately see.



This makes no sense, so you'll have to explain it. Film is a flat physical object strip. What do you mean by "physical layers"?



Not sure what this has to do with anything other than being an analog format once again. But again, digital can get so close that the differences would require instrumentation to detect.



This seems to be really stretching for a point. We don't have enough time with primarily digital productions to make this call, but I see no reason why this still won't hold true.



Again, another seriously stretched argument here. Who cares what it looks like straight out of the can (or off the memory card)? All that matters is that it retains the maximum amount of information possible. It's going to be processed all to hell in post anyway. Speaking of which, DVDs are filled with plenty of "dailies" footage (for deleted scenes and such) and most of it looks like crap, so what are you referring to anyway?

Dailes are not projections of raw film. They are crude, generally one light quicky scans of film. The poor quality is the scan, not the negative.

The "physical layers" of film are the silver halide and other reagents that make up film before being processed. There is a microscopic depth to this, it isnt technically flat. It may seem insignificant but compared to a sensor that holds data "in abstract concept" only, it may play a role.

 

[Matthew W Phillips]

I must apologize, Gary. I looked back and it was Greg, not you who said they could shoot better. Its late and I get the G names mixed up. Please do forgive me on that accusation.

 

[Gary Huff]

The "physical layers" of film are the silver halide and other reagents that make up film before being processed. There is a microscopic depth to this, it isnt technically flat. It may seem insignificant but compared to a sensor that holds data "in abstract concept" only, it may play a role.

"May play a role" isn't exactly inspiring. I figured that's what you meant by it, but I wanted to be sure. I highly doubt it makes any difference at all that would be detectable by the human eye.

I felt that The Incredibles looked almost 3D on Blu-ray. That is certainly not film stock.

A look of "depth" to the image has everything to do with shot composition and lighting. Nothing at all with the microscopic "layers" that exist in stock.

 

[maranfilms]

Need to go back to school for reading comprehension? In college, I learned to actually pay attention to what people write.

Gary. I looked back and it was Greg, not you who said they could shoot better. Its late and I get the G names mixed up.

Mathew, in one breath you make snarky comments to the poster, then two pages later, you do the exact same thing. It's one thing to debate, but another to throw out rude comments. It may be late, but that's no excuse to contradict yourself.

I can't see how anyone would get irritated by someone saying their digital footage looks like film, honestly, who gives a rats ass what people say.

I have a serious question, Are you a first year film student?