What makes Film Look like Film?

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

And this is typical 35mm film look which i like very much,its not about lights ,not about sound here,but how camera renders movement ,theres also shallow depth of field ,it looks better for human eye because we see with shallow depth of field all the time,thats how eyes works and this picture is more natural for us than everything in focus shots.
http://vimeo.com/8177988

I disagree on several of the points... but in particular the 'shallow depth of field'. While it is true that the eye, when focused on a 'near' object to the exclusion of all else, there is a 'shallow depth of field'... but the deal is, as soon as the eye moves away from that 'point of focus', perhaps on a tree in the background, crack in the wall, whatever, that now becomse 'sharp'... that's the way the human visual perception apparatus works.

So, 'shallow depth of field' is not really to 'simulate' the eye but to maintain the eye being captured on a particular point, and render visual information that is not desire in 'soft' focus or 'blur'... it is a mechanism to force the viewer's eye to what you want them to see, or concentrate on.

The same could be said for any compositional device, framing, lighting, or whatever. The whole set up is to 'encourage'... force is perhaps too strong... the viewer to give attention to what the filmmaker wants in the shot to be the center of attention, or important information.

Hence shallow depth of field 'works' if the filmmaker wants the garbage bin in the background to not be really the point of 'focus' for the viewer, when the talent is standing at some distance from the garbage bin... On the other hand if the
'bad guy' is hiding in the bin, ready to spring on the actor... perhaps a deep focus allows the viewer to see not only the victim, but the bad guy... with out resort to late 60's move and zoom 'action' style... or even a cheezy rack focus...

 

[JonathanLB]

When you use shallow depth of field properly, it's obviously a great storytelling tool. I just have a lot of problems and gripes when I think it's used poorly, which is often. I'm not an idiot, and neither is everyone else in the audience, so please don't force me to look at one person if I prefer to look at someone else. Like a shot where you obstruct me from seeing the other person's reaction by having everything else out of focus and looking like crap, so now even though I personally think and can see that the other person is just as important in their reaction and giving a great performance, you just ruined it because you now make me look at the only thing in focus.

Prison Break was guilty of that a lot. While I absolutely love the show, I wouldn't hire that DP if he was the last one on earth. I think he sucks. The shot selection was often terrible, the grain on some of the shots was brutal, and the lack of understanding of when to throw things out of focus was obviously his decision as there are too many directors to blame them. That kind of hackneyed style drives me insane. And what a great show, one of my absolute favorites. I hate to complain about anything.

 

[deltoidjohn]

This is not true. There are many top cinematographers shooting digital as well as film. They're just tools of the trade - some films would probably benefit more from the look of film, others would benefit more from the look of digital. It's part of your responsibility as a cinematographer to know the strengths and weaknesses of both and utilize them to your advantage in crafting the aesthetics of the film itself. It is NOT your responsibility to weigh the pros and cons once, and forever stick with a mentality that one is better than the other and never change it.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Film looks like 'film' not because of the actual medium, but because of the talent of the people using it. I said film, rather than video, is used by the best in the business and that was a generalisation, but if you look not only at recent years and you consider the whole history of film vs video over the past few dacades, then it is a very accurate generalisation to make.

Recently we've seen that if those same directors use digital, they can still create something that's just as good as if they had used film, because they are still making informed decisions with lighting, composition, etc. It's just that they decided to use digital for whatever reason - workflow, cost, style, etc.

And for those using Avatar as an example of 'the film look' shot with digital, then you obivously do not understand what people talk about when they say 'the film look.' Avatar, while groundbreaking, does not exemplify 'the film look' at all. It is shot on digital, and looks digital - because the director chose it to look that way.

 

[deltoidjohn]

??? really ???

It's a generalisation, yes, but relatively accurate.

The pendulum is starting to swing the other way and eventually digital will become the standard, but if you look at every indy/low scale feature film and short film ever made (from festival films right down to student/hobbyist films) compared to every major feature film and short film shot in the past 25 years, I think you'd find the higher-budget productions would have a much, much greater percentage which were shot of 35mm film.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Prison Break was guilty of that a lot. While I absolutely love the show, I wouldn't hire that DP if he was the last one on earth. I think he sucks. The shot selection was often terrible, the grain on some of the shots was brutal, and the lack of understanding of when to throw things out of focus was obviously his decision as there are too many directors to blame them. That kind of hackneyed style drives me insane. And what a great show, one of my absolute favorites. I hate to complain about anything.

Just watched "Once Upon a Time in the West"(1968) and "Bridge on the River Kwai"(1957)... both 'deep focus' for the most part. In the case of Sergio Leone, his style would have Close Ups on the actor's face, but because he was using a 2.35 screen, he would have stuff in the background. Now in some shots the background was 'soft', but not so soft that it was 'fuzz', but in others, it is pretty darn 'sharp'...

In the case of "River Kwai", most shots had fairly deep DoF, but again, for the Close Ups the DoF was deeper than what seems to be the current 'pop' trend.

 

[Postmaster]

Just look at "O Brother, Where Art Thou" - typical Roger Deakins deep focus - wide lens look, and video like, brutal blown out highlights in almost every shot.

Still looks like film.

There is one thing I try to wrap my head around for a while and can´t nail it.

Take a DVD of your favorite Hollywood - shot on 35mm - blockbuster.
Play it on your computer and speed it up a bit. Instantly looks like a cheap making of , shot with a consumer camcorder. Same light, set design, DOF and all. Same happens with those 120 hz TVs.

What is even more weird, this did not happen on two of my favorite Woody Allen films. "Radio Days" and "Sweet and Lowdown". For some strange reason the seem to be immune against that "speed it up and get the video look" thing. Can someone please try this on a 120 hz TV?

I really wonder what happens here.


Thanks, Frank

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Latitude and dynamic range are two different things in my mind. Sure the latitude of digital and film are getting similar, but I'd like to see a test of dynamic range. Dynamic range, to me, is the amount you can pull or push the image before it falls apart. Great filmstocks can be pushed or pulled about two stops before the image falls apart. On DSLR's and other video cameras, I see the grain becoming insane around 1/2-1 stop in post adjustment... my .02.

RedOne is the only camera that does not suffer so horribly, as the raw data is in tact.

 

[Postmaster]

Even on HDCAM SR, if you push it 1/2-1 stops in post you see the ugly 8x8 pixel MPEG4 compression artefacts.

Frank

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Latitude and dynamic range are two different things in my mind. Sure the latitude of digital and film are getting similar, but I'd like to see a test of dynamic range. Dynamic range, to me, is the amount you can pull or push the image before it falls apart. Great filmstocks can be pushed or pulled about two stops before the image falls apart. On DSLR's and other video cameras, I see the grain becoming insane around 1/2-1 stop in post adjustment... my .02.

RedOne is the only camera that does not suffer so horribly, as the raw data is in tact.

Don't you on a RED have a 12 bit R, G, B, that is 48 bit output? That will always give you a 'smoother' transition through the 4096 values that a 12 representation can give.

Now, since I've never really looked at the RED, out of my price range even for renting... but what is the noise of the system that would knock down that high bit depth a bit...

But In any case, I'll bet it is deeper than any current prosumer camera, especially if it is using a lossy compression... Something like 8-bits, knocked down for 'human vision' characteristics, such that R and B are way down, and Green is sufficient for carrying the day.

Even if it is 10 bits, that's still a 1024 representation, and more than the 8-bits, that is 256 of ordinary mortals' equipment...

With the deeper bit depth, the multiplication to achieve a 'push' will result in less round off error, which gives rise to the banding artifact.

Also, 'multiplication' will also enhance 'edges' of the compression block edge artifacts.

This of course is based on using RAW vs. say JPG still photo images... I presume similar reasoning is 'good' for the sequence of stills called movies...

When you think about it, the spatial and digitizing depth of 'movies' is way below current still standards, for 'prosumer' equipment... so one would expect certain 'losses'...

 

[JonathanLB]

Hmm

Hmm

I think it was well put that in general film has been used by the best in the business, and video has been the realm of a lot of amateurs.

That being said, RED looks just as good as film if not better. I personally prefer the look, but at the same time I really can't tell the difference either. Sitting in an auditorium watching a gorgeous film projected in 4K at my local Regal L.A. Live Cinema, whether it's shot on some form of HD like the RED or shot on film, they look perfect to me, because they are professional, high-end productions.

I'm not a film fanboy at all, and I sometimes say harsh things just because I like to be a contrarian and really get annoyed by film fanboys. It's the past, and digital is the future, so there is nothing wrong with 35mm film, it looks great when done properly, why shouldn't it? But I don't personally have any desire to work with film because it's the last thing I want to be worried about, whether our film negative is going to get damaged in the lab or have to deal with film grain or a video assist or any other nonsense like that. I love shooting with the RED, where it looks amazing, we transfer to the computer on a RAID backup right away with a good DIT there watching it, and we can catch mistakes or errors so fast.

I don't dislike film really as there's nothing to dislike inherently about it, it has worked for 100 years, but at the same time I don't see any reason to go back to using film when we have cameras like the RED One and they're only getting better. Mainly I just want to tell my story and as an indie filmmaker, digital saves me money but gives me the same look that I desire. I also don't agree that there is a "film look" at all, but only a "professional movie look" and that doesn't depend on what you shoot with but how you shoot. You can make a lousy film shooting 35mm and a lousy film shooting digital, so to split hairs over which medium is better seems misplaced to me. I'm sure if we shot film and we had the budget for that, it would look great and I'd be perfectly happy with it just as I was the RED. It's kind of a non-argument to me and that's what makes it an argument with some fanboys, because they will insist, "Well different tools for different jobs, sometimes you want the 'film look'" -- I don't even really understand what is meant by that. The grain? Is that what I am supposed to want? If I do want that, I'll add it in post honestly, it doesn't need to be filmed that way. Other than that, I don't know what the film look is because I see a beautiful movie and whether it's HD or 35mm doesn't look any different to me at all.

What I object to adamantly is film projection. Whether you shoot on film or on HD, I hate film projection. Hate, hate, hate. It looks like crap. Sure, it's ok for the first few days, maybe, not even then sometimes. But I go see a movie that's two weeks old and shown on a film projector and suddenly it looks awful, it has cigarette burns on it, it has dust and grain molecules everywhere, it basically looks like someone wiped their butt with the film stock. That really bothers me as a viewer. That's where I draw the line, I won't go to theaters where they don't project digitally now because I demand perfection in the image and I don't want to see stuff ruining what the DP and the director shot any more than I want sound problems to ruin what I know took a team of people a long time to put together.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What I object to adamantly is film projection. Whether you shoot on film or on HD, I hate film projection. Hate, hate, hate. It looks like crap. Sure, it's ok for the first few days, maybe, not even then sometimes. But I go see a movie that's two weeks old and shown on a film projector and suddenly it looks awful, it has cigarette burns on it, it has dust and grain molecules everywhere, it basically looks like someone wiped their butt with the film stock.

When I was young the only movies I could afford to go to, were in 25-50 cent movie houses. In those olden days, they would show 'non' porn in such theaters... but they were pretty much of the same caliber or less as Roger Corman... I saw "Fistful of Dolloars'(1964), and the rest of the trilogy a number of times... To get a 'feel'... you have to watch the "Death Proof"(2007), and "Planet Terror"(2007), because Tarantino and Rodriquez 'created' the feel of films that had been run through the projector a million times, and passed around for a number of years... (especially that stupid 'coming attractions' sequence... boy did that bring back wafts of stale cigarette stench, piss and vomited beer...)


I've never seen similar 'junked' up presentations in the modern one movie per entry multiplex type setups...

And need I mention it... at those prices for movie houses that only empted out at about 4 AM, 50 cents was a cheep hotel room, as well...

So, for whatever the current degradation is for films seen in current theaters, they were far worse in the olden days... In fact, even in 'mainstream' theaters a movie would have limited runs in a particular city, then move to a new venue... none of this stinking 'mega' distribution for the first weeks of a film's release... The Wiki article on Tom Laughlin credits him to some extent with this 'wide' opening week... But by the time a film got to 'Podunk' it was pretty well worn...

 

[David G. Smith]

I am the exact opposite. I can not stand digital projection, especially of a movie originated on film. I learned this lesson with "No Country For Old Men" the Coen brothers movie, shot by master cinematographer Roger Deakins. I went to see it just before the 2008 Academy Awards and the only place it was showing in my town was in a chain theatre that had converted to digital projection. I HATED IT. While i liked the movie, I have seen enough of the work of Roger Deakins to know that I had been cheated, image wise. Then after the movie deservedly won the Best Picture Oscar, it was re-released, and showed locally in a theatre as a projected print. There is no comparison. First, the projected image of the film print was at least twice as large as the digital projected movie and second, you could finally see all of the subtle gradation, between light and shadow that a master like Roger Deakins was able to capture on film. The digital image had no shadow, or highlight detail, and exhibited the latitude of what it was, a digital video projected image. Once I saw the projected film print, I was convinced that the current state of digital projection is nowhere near good enough to replace film.

This conviction was further reinforced by that sham of a "Test" that was the Zacuto Shootout. Now, most folks on this board, and elsewhere, are convinced the Zacuto Shootout proved that consumer and pro-sumer grade video DSLRs are just as good as 35mm film. BULLSH*T! What that "Test" really demonstrated is that film, when transferred to, and projected as a digital image, is of no higher quality than the images produced by consumer and pro-sumer grade video DSLRs. If they really wanted to do a proper test, they should have compared the digitally projected video DSLR footage to film projected as film. There would have been absolutely no question as to which is superior. Of course, Zacuto doesn't sale any equipment that is meant for film production. Oh well.

I also don't buy this BS that a film print looks like sh*t after a few days. Yeah, back in the day, when local theaters ended up with very used prints, that may have been an issue. However, the vast majority of first run cinemas in the US have been consolidated into either regional or national chains, who have introduced quality control processes, that, in my experience, has all but eliminated the trashed print phenomenon. Of course, if you spend most of you time in the local $buck-fifty bargain theatre then you are on you own.

What I think that this argument boils down to is that digital video is NOT film. It does not have to be. The current state of pro-sumer HD cameras are at a level that an enterprising filmmaker can use them to tell fictional narrative stories as well as those stories could be told using film. When using pro-sumer HD cameras, this enterprising filmmaker should not even think about how his/her images compare to images that could have been made using film, but should concentrate on making the best images that the camera he/she has chosen can make, in support of their story.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I agree.

The following is about the shootout part one

About Zacuto... that test was just for latitude i understand, however they did not explain how the Kodak and Fuji were taken DOWN to video. Film can go through a lot to get from 35mm negative (developed normal? There are ways to stretch dynamic range based on exposure and processing!!!!) Then it has to be scanned, which setting those 'transfer lights' on an ArriScanner can also effect the latitude... then it has to be transcoded DOWN to 720p which I think is what they said the footage was. That can effect highlights as well. I don't know what the workflow was.

Of course, the DSLR's had a colorist making the best out of them... straight from the video, so there really isn't a doubt to the workflow as I have with the film, which includes a possible and unexplained three extra variables which are unaccounted for.

Also, to say they (Zacuto) are not bias is a joke! Sure Zacuto does not sell the DSLR's, as stated in the test video, but for F#$K sake those guys make everything under the sun for those rigs. I don't remember the last time I saw Zacuto pushing accessories for an Arri 435. Click on their website and the top of the internet browser has the title "DSLR & Film camera accessories."

Just take a look at their most current home page:

What is the common element?

So when Zacuto says they are not biased because they don't sell DSLR cameras, I almost laughed out loud and closed the screen. I'm not saying their test is propaganda or a complete lie, but any opinions given in a Zacuto produced shoot-out must be taken into consideration. I always follow the money trail. What would you expect from a Panavision shoot-out?

The people doing the test was also no surprise...it just happened to be the same usual suspects... Robert Primes (awesome DP btw), Shane Hurlbert, and... Phillip Bloom, the DSLR poster child, aren't necessarily the most unbiased group considering their already stated love for DSLR's. What did you expect? All of them have already shot many shorts and tests with them. I didn't think they suddenly would change their tune... and for some, like Bloom, DSLR's have been their recent meat and potatoes. I was happy to see Stephen Goldblatt (another great DP) in the room for a quick bit at what looked like AFI's screening room, although we only heard a sound clip or two from Stephen... mainly out of context.

I think all those guys are very knowledgeable and talented in their own right... but the praise and results were no surprise from a group of the same 3-4 people who have been repeatedly the most outspoken and banner waving big names to the 'revolution', so they call it. Not to mention all of them previously involved with Zacuto.

This was just a latitude test, I understand. I don't think film and video cameras are nearly as far apart as they used to be. As far as film and DSLR video in my experience, that test is a little optimistic for DSLR's although not by a terrible amount. I think the optimized amount of latitude one can achieve with celluloid film is best taken advantage of in the exposure, development, and transfer stages of the process... not in a transcoded 720p file of ProRes codec after the fact. Was this taken into account? I don't know. My gut says 'no'. It was probably shot 'normal', processed 'normal', transfered 'normal', transcoded to 720p and then manipulated by a colorist for the shootout. With the amount of information hidden in celluloid highlights and shadows (mainly highlights), I bet film, under better care through the entire process, could whoop the living hell out of those consumer cameras.

End Rant.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

And let's not forget the industry Professional post house doing the CC, curves, and keys. This isn't shoot -> FCP... this is if you have a post budget to follow your footage through proper and professional workflows. How many people shooting to DSLR's are paying for industry colorists? Or using Cineform? Or having professionals pull the greenscreen key? An entire day of colorist work would be more expensive than a 7d!

Those DSLR results are very optimal. Very.

 

[RyanT]

Once I saw the projected film print, I was convinced that the current state of digital projection is nowhere near good enough to replace film.

This is only funny because of this.

"Traditional film projection seems to only be getting worse from year to year. Perhaps it is the age of the projectors, the lack of experienced lab. timers or the lack of traditional projectionists but, regardless of which, I am sold on digital projection." - Roger Deakins

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1121&p=6009

Either of these things all that matters is the person behind it. If they don't know what they're doing, be it with a camera or a projector, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Homunculus]

very good post ryan. i agree ofcourse zacuto has huge stakes in the dslr market and want to see it flourish. either way there wasn't a single test where dslr beat film in those tests except maybe the super low light 500,000 iso test or whatever it was. but then again keep in mind these are 2000$ dslr. put a Red in there and everything will get that much closer

 

[G.P.]

oh boy, now you got me started... Zacoto's demo was BS and I completely agree with the above statements. This was FAR from a direct comparison what-so-ever. The people who they are directly targeting are the people looking to buy all the gizmos that they sell directly FOR THOSE CAMERAS. I cought myself wanting to throw my $2000 MacBook Pro because I was so mad at the BS that they were putting out there. That wasn't a test, it was a product pitch.

Film will always be best for projection, I have yet to see one digital projector that comes close to replicating the look of film on the large screen. I saw toy story 3D in digital projection and it was horrible! I would have rather watched it on a home HD3D monitor than in the theater, it was so washed out and bland and low resolution. And this is with some of the best digital projectors being used now from LowesAMC.

Film projection is the BEST no matter if you shot digital or film theres just no quality control with these digital projectors. By the time the light hits the screen it looks like Sh*t.

 

[JonathanLB]

Lol

Lol

Haha, wow... no way! Film projection is just terrible.

Many studies indicate that the comparative quality of the average 35mm print is actually about equal to 720p at best, so what an HVX200 can shoot. That's what it looks like. That's why when you see a DVD projected on a good projection screen, it actually looks surprisingly passable even though DVD is crap quality for a big screen. When I saw some MiniDV tapes put up on a good screen at the LA Film School, I was really shocked how good they looked. Definitely not the quality of a real HD projection, but I expected it to be terrible and it was actually pretty good. Relatively speaking, considering my expectations.

A 4K digital projection system is far superior to 35mm projection, there's really no comparison at all. Every auditorium at L.A. Live's Regal flagship theater is 4K digital projection, so that's what I'm used to seeing out of digital now. Maybe you guys are watching movies on a Christie 1080p digital projector, and if that's the case I'm sorry because those projectors are truly terrible, way worse than 35mm film. Like if you used to watch The 20, which was the 20 minutes of obnoxious content Regal crammed into the theater before the movie started, they showed all of those on Christie digital projectors and that has forever tainted my opinion of that company. I understand that apparently Christie knows how to make projectors that do not suck, but considering that was my first experience with digital projection and their company, I was disgusted. I could see and count the pixels, that's how bad it was. But modern day digital projection, where they usually use at least a 2K projector, is amazing.

One big reason I stopped going to theaters as much (before the Regal Premiere theater opened up near me last year) is because watching a movie for $12 in 35mm film at a local theater is a much worse experience than just watching it on Blu-ray -- the Blu-ray discs look sharper, richer colors, less grain, and just generally cleaner and crisper. Why should I pay more money for a worse experience AND have to drive to the theater too? That's why I only watched the biggest event films at a theater and just saved the rest for Blu-ray. Now finally there is a theater that matches the quality I would expect for such an expensive ticket.

I remember even back in the day, 10 years ago, when the first 1080p projectors came out, and they were still really good just really expensive, and the vast majority of people raved about how great the image looked. Then you'd get a few film purists who, as usual, insist that there is some unexplainable "magic" thing about film that "cannot be duplicated" by digital, which is of course entirely untrue. It won't be long until film is essentially never used at all except by hobbyists and a few old-timers who just won't adapt. Still photographers never use film anymore for a variety of reasons, mainly because it's a pain in the ass and digital looks better, but filmmakers for some reason are more traditional and slower to adapt.

It just seems silly to me, I mean to each their own, but the idea of shooting on some optical medium in 2010 is laughable. It's so quaint and archaic I just don't understand the type of personality that would want to go back in time and use an outdated format to capture their images, one that's not very reliable. And worse than that, there is no objectivity, the sky is not blue it's pink to film purists, up is down and left is right. The most ridiculous arguments arise and nobody can convince them otherwise, because there's no rationality to it. Everything from "oh film is a good archival medium" (no, it's actually terrible and degrades badly after a few decades, plenty of proof of that) to "oh film just looks more beautiful" (no, it doesn't, it looks grainier and crappier most of the time). But, whatever, artists are free to choose their own tools no matter how misguided that may be.

 

[PhilJackson]

I remember even back in the day, 10 years ago, when the first 1080p projectors came out, and they were still really good just really expensive, and the vast majority of people raved about how great the image looked. Then you'd get a few film purists who, as usual, insist that there is some unexplainable "magic" thing about film that "cannot be duplicated" by digital, which is of course entirely untrue. It won't be long until film is essentially never used at all except by hobbyists and a few old-timers who just won't adapt. Still photographers never use film anymore for a variety of reasons, mainly because it's a pain in the ass and digital looks better, but filmmakers for some reason are more traditional and slower to adapt.

It just seems silly to me, I mean to each their own, but the idea of shooting on some optical medium in 2010 is laughable. It's so quaint and archaic I just don't understand the type of personality that would want to go back in time and use an outdated format to capture their images, one that's not very reliable. And worse than that, there is no objectivity, the sky is not blue it's pink to film purists, up is down and left is right. The most ridiculous arguments arise and nobody can convince them otherwise, because there's no rationality to it. Everything from "oh film is a good archival medium" (no, it's actually terrible and degrades badly after a few decades, plenty of proof of that) to "oh film just looks more beautiful" (no, it doesn't, it looks grainier and crappier most of the time). But, whatever, artists are free to choose their own tools no matter how misguided that may be.

I think saying never is just setting yourself up for a failed argument. There are still, still photographers shooting on film. Many professionals use both. Just because you shoot on one type of medium doesn't mean you can't shoot on another. There are big films being shot on digital and film. One doesn't have to beat the other.

Also I wouldn't call digital any more reliable than film. How many people have lost digital files due to a failed card or random hard drive crash? Both mediums have their faults and strengths. Your response seems quite one sided. How much experience do you have with shooting film (I'm simply curious)? Also in terms of archiving film is still the safest way. Though you don't simply just store the projected film print in a vault (those prints break down and the dyes fade). You have to take steps to convert it and store it properly. Let's not pretend that digital is any easier to store.

 

[David G. Smith]

This is only funny because of this.

"Traditional film projection seems to only be getting worse from year to year. Perhaps it is the age of the projectors, the lack of experienced lab. timers or the lack of traditional projectionists but, regardless of which, I am sold on digital projection." - Roger Deakins

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1121&p=6009

Either of these things all that matters is the person behind it. If they don't know what they're doing, be it with a camera or a projector, it really doesn't matter.

I haven't seen it. Ok, I will admit I have not seen state of the art 4k projection, However, the digital print of "No Country for Old Men" I referenced was at an Carmike commercial chain theatre and it was horrible. As I noted the highlight and especiall the shadow detail was so just not there, as compared to the projected print that I saw two weeks latter. I will wait and see what happens, but If I am going to see a movie that I know was shot on film, I want to see a projected print.