Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacNut

macrumors Core
Original poster
Jan 4, 2002
22,991
9,969
CT
After lobbying by directors including Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, and JJ Abrams, movie studios are negotiating a deal with Kodak that would secure the company's ability to keep producing motion picture film. The Wall Street Journal reports that the agreement is likely to see studios commit to buying from Kodak in set quantities for upcoming years regardless of their plans to actually shoot movies in the format. Kodak is now the sole major provider of movie film following Fujifilm's exit from the market in 2013.

The rise of professional digital cinema cameras from the likes of Arri and RED have hastened Kodak's predicament; the WSJ says sales have fallen 96 percent over the past eight years. But many in the industry hold strong feelings for the declining format. JJ Abrams is shooting Star Wars: Episode VII on film, in contrast to the digital-heavy prequel trilogy, and Colin Trevorrow's Jurassic World will be filmed in both 35mm and 65mm.

Tarantino, too, remains a proponent of shooting film and is also outspoken on his distaste for digital projection. "I believe that digital format represents the death of cinema as I know it," he said at this year's Cannes festival. "Screening in digital format is like turning on the television. That's not what film is about." The Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained director petitioned Bob Weinstein of the Weinstein Company over the Kodak deal himself. "It's a financial commitment, no doubt about it," Weinstein told the WSJ. "But I don't think we could look some of our filmmakers in the eyes if we didn't do it."

Kodak is reportedly now in the stages of arranging formal commitments from studios including Warner Bros, Universal, Paramount, Disney, and Weinstein. New CEO Jeff Clarke expects Kodak to lose money on film production this year and return to profit by 2016, but believes there's more to the deal than the company's bottom line. "A large part of this will be a deeper recognition that film is valuable," he says.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/29/5950215/hollywood-joins-forces-with-kodak-to-keep-movie-film-alive

This won't make James Cameron too happy.
 

jeremysteele

Cancelled
Jul 13, 2011
485
394
So.... they want to record on film - yet it'll still wind up being shown digitally anyways? Is there any actual advantage to that other than a few people noticing slight viewing differences?

(I'm not into video work, just legitimately curious!)
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Original poster
Jan 4, 2002
22,991
9,969
CT
So.... they want to record on film - yet it'll still wind up being shown digitally anyways? Is there any actual advantage to that other than a few people noticing slight viewing differences?

(I'm not into video work, just legitimately curious!)
Film is 24 frames a second. Video is 29.97. There is a movement to bump film to 48 frames. Some people prefer the "film look" that everyone got used to at 24. The real reason they chose that was to save money back in the day. The problem is the higher frame rates have the "soap opera effect" or an un-natural look.

It is the same idea at watching a TV at 120 hz vs 240.
 

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,286
1,292
Film is 24 frames a second. Video is 29.97. There is a movement to bump film to 48 frames. Some people prefer the "film look" that everyone got used to at 24. The real reason they chose that was to save money back in the day. The problem is the higher frame rates have the "soap opera effect" or an un-natural look.

It is the same idea at watching a TV at 120 hz vs 240.

Hmm I heard things a bit different on these topics - 24 frames was the minimum that was comfortable to the eye and thus was used by studios. Previous to that, some films were at various framerates all the way down to the flicker of 15 frames. As for soap opera effect, that is due to generating interpolated frames caused by creating frames to match the previous and the next frame (inserted frames). This can only be done when there are less frames than the TV can produce (60 frames). Whens shooting at higher frame rates there is already an apparent improvement of sharpness that for many, is "too sharp" as we are used to 24 frames. Add to this interpolating rather than duplicated frames, we get that soap opera effect even more exaggerated.

I admit I like the look of 24 frames played at 24 frames and also 24 frames played with pulldown (duplicate frames) rather than any interpolated frames. There are many that find the super sharp look appealing and they have that option and the rest of 'us' can enjoy 24 frames. Btw, the idea of interpolating was due to limitations of LCD which was never good at handling motion blur. If you have a good blue ray player and plasma TV you wont usually suffer any challenges seen with LCD based TVs.
 

rei101

macrumors 6502a
Dec 24, 2011
976
1
So.... they want to record on film - yet it'll still wind up being shown digitally anyways? Is there any actual advantage to that other than a few people noticing slight viewing differences?

(I'm not into video work, just legitimately curious!)

In digital you have pixels, in film not. Even when you digitize a film later, the texture is different, less crispy but is had more body. That is why digital cameras are always increasing the resolution to achieve that "body".

Is the same thing from vinyl to CD.

Then, the film captures the color differently, reflections look different, lighting too, shadows too.

The point is that many people are used to film texture. Probably in 15 to 20 years everybody will be using digital for sure. Imagine the resolution and technologies we will be using by then.
 

needfx

Suspended
Aug 10, 2010
3,931
4,247
macrumors apparently
would pay to see Tarantino & Rodriguez debate over merits and setbacks of film vs digital :rolleyes:



cool move by the directors & studios of this caliber to proactively secure a future for film as an artistic medium.
 

Nermal

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 7, 2002
20,573
3,872
New Zealand
Hmm I heard things a bit different on these topics - 24 frames was the minimum that was comfortable to the eye and thus was used by studios.

I'd heard that 24 (1.5 feet per second) was chosen as it was the lowest framerate that made the audio tracks not sound "muddy".

JJ Abrams is shooting Star Wars: Episode VII on film, in contrast to the digital-heavy prequel trilogy

Apparently the prequels were shot in 1920x1080 and will therefore never see a 4k release. 35 mm still has heaps of detail - I've heard that even 8 mm has a noticeable improvement when scanned at 1080 instead of 720, so 35 mm will probably go up to 6k or more. I know that 10k scanners exist...
 
Last edited:

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,286
1,292
I'd heard that 24 (1.5 feet per second) was chosen as it was the lowest framerate that made the audio tracks not sound "muddy".

In the early days, there was no standards. You are correct that 24 fps became a standard for talking movies. Previous to sound, anywhere from 18-26 fps was used and if I recall correctly, 22-26 or 28 fps was popular just before sound came in. So in short, yes it seems audio helped standardize the frame rate.
 

localoid

macrumors 68020
Feb 20, 2007
2,447
1,739
America's Third World
I'd heard that 24 (1.5 feet per second) was chosen as it was the lowest framerate that made the audio tracks not sound "muddy". ...

"Muddy" is a term used in audio, but "muddy" sound wasn't the problem. "Muddy" sound is something totally different. The very noticeable problem with film running <24 FPS was "wow and flutter".

"Wow and flutter" is type of audio distortion that was noticeable at frame rates below 24. Wow and flutter = small variations in speed. Human ears hear wow and flutter as small fluctuations in the pitch of the sound -- flutter refers to the rapid fluctuations in pitch and wow refers to the slower ones.

Wow and flutter, example, below (with really big "wow" at the end.)

 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,456
4,310
Whens shooting at higher frame rates there is already an apparent improvement of sharpness that for many, is "too sharp" as we are used to 24 frames. Add to this interpolating rather than duplicated frames, we get that soap opera effect even more exaggerated.

I admit I like the look of 24 frames played at 24 frames and also 24 frames played with pulldown (duplicate frames) rather than any interpolated frames. There are many that find the super sharp look appealing and they have that option and the rest of 'us' can enjoy 24 frames. Btw, the idea of interpolating was due to limitations of LCD which was never good at handling motion blur. If you have a good blue ray player and plasma TV you wont usually suffer any challenges seen with LCD based TVs.
>24fps looks unnatural because motion blur is missing.
People are used to motion blur because of old films, there is no rational advantage to shooting 24fps.

----------

In digital you have pixels, in film not. Even when you digitize a film later, the texture is different, less crispy but is had more body. That is why digital cameras are always increasing the resolution to achieve that "body".
With more "body" you mean more dynamic range.
Digital videography is still in it's infancy, but the newer digital cameras now equal film in dynamic range.

----------

Then, the film captures the color differently, reflections look different, lighting too, shadows too.
yep. Dynamic range ;)
Also noise grain looks different different at high iso.

----------

35 mm still has heaps of detail - I've heard that even 8 mm has a noticeable improvement when scanned at 1080 instead of 720, so 35 mm will probably go up to 6k or more. I know that 10k scanners exist...
this is correct. 35mm is still ahead of digital. One frame equals ~ 18megpix!!
But arri alexas do shoot up to 8k now.

Eventually there will be more advantages to digital.
I am still glad that Hollywood is keeping film alive, since digital can not quite match the overall quality attained by film.
But times will change, ...
 

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,286
1,292
>24fps looks unnatural because motion blur is missing.
People are used to motion blur because of old films, there is no rational advantage to shooting 24fps.

----------

With more "body" you mean more dynamic range.
Digital videography is still in it's infancy, but the newer digital cameras now equal film in dynamic range.

----------

yep. Dynamic range ;)
Also noise grain looks different different at high iso.

----------

this is correct. 35mm is still ahead of digital. One frame equals ~ 18megpix!!
But arri alexas do shoot up to 8k now.

Eventually there will be more advantages to digital.
I am still glad that Hollywood is keeping film alive, since digital can not quite match the overall quality attained by film.
But times will change, ...

Film shot at 24 fps and played back at 24fps looks good because its a proper presentation. 24 fps played back with interpolated frames will look different. Then again, film has a more organic feel to it than video. We agree at some level its a matter of tastes or what we are used to over the years. My original comment was more about how to play back 24 fps at 24 fps, pulldown and these silly "motion" interpolation venues that some TVs have. I'll stand by my comment that LCDs are simply lacking in some facets of playback and thus must do work arounds.
 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,456
4,310
Film shot at 24 fps and played back at 24fps looks good because its a proper presentation. 24 fps played back with interpolated frames will look different. Then again, film has a more organic feel to it than video. We agree at some level its a matter of tastes or what we are used to over the years. My original comment was more about how to play back 24 fps at 24 fps, pulldown and these silly "motion" interpolation venues that some TVs have. I'll stand by my comment that LCDs are simply lacking in some facets of playback and thus must do work arounds.
I wasn't trying to disagree.
I was trying to explain a bit why 24fps is considered filmic and why film has a more organic feeling.
Eventually digital will be able to reproduce that film-feeling.

Also the quality of the footage seems to be irrelevant for the artistic success of a movie anyway.
For example "Like Crazy" was entirely shot on a canon 7d. ;)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758692/
 
Last edited:

phrehdd

macrumors 601
Oct 25, 2008
4,286
1,292
I wasn't trying to disagree.
I was trying to explain a bit why 24fps is considered filmic and why film has a more organic feeling.
Eventually digital will be able to reproduce that film-feeling.

Also the quality of the footage seems to be irrelevant for the artistic success of a movie anyway.
For example "Like Crazy" was entirely shot on a canon 7d. ;)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758692/

Of your above comments - we agree.

I work at times with Photoshop and with some effort, I can make prints that appear as if they came from film. It usually entails plug ins for emulating film sensitivity curves (Kodachrome, Fuji, etc.) along with a couple of other steps then using a film grain filter. This all lines up with the potential of making video appear like film with a more organic look.
 

samiwas

macrumors 68000
Aug 26, 2006
1,598
3,579
Atlanta, GA
Film is 24 frames a second. Video is 29.97. There is a movement to bump film to 48 frames. Some people prefer the "film look" that everyone got used to at 24. The real reason they chose that was to save money back in the day. The problem is the higher frame rates have the "soap opera effect" or an un-natural look.

It is the same idea at watching a TV at 120 hz vs 240.

I simply cannot stand watching TV at really high frame rates. In fact, I had a friend who got one of those new TVs with the really high frame rate, and while we were watching a football game, I told her we had to turn the effect off. It was killing me. I can't even watch sitcoms like that.

I prefer watching movies, whether shot on film or digitally, at 24fps...max 30(29.97)fps.
 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,456
4,310
Of your above comments - we agree.

I work at times with Photoshop and with some effort, I can make prints that appear as if they came from film. It usually entails plug ins for emulating film sensitivity curves (Kodachrome, Fuji, etc.) along with a couple of other steps then using a film grain filter. This all lines up with the potential of making video appear like film with a more organic look.
what's really sad is that they make it almost impossible for directors to use medium format film!
I think they only got one of those cameras left and they recently used it for 'The Master" with P. S. hoffmann.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.