Hollywood to keep film (Kodak) alive.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by MacNut, Jul 29, 2014.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Mr_Brightside_@ macrumors 68020

    Mr_Brightside_@

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    The 6ix
    #2
  3. jeremysteele macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    #3
    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!)
     
  4. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #4
    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.
     
  5. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #5
    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.
     
  6. rei101 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    #6
    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.
     
  7. needfx macrumors 68040

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #7
    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.
     
  8. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #8
    "Blade Runner" shot in film is stunning on Blu-Ray. Movies shot in digital definitely have a less natural Loki.
     
  9. Nermal, Aug 29, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2014

    Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #9
    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".

    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...
     
  10. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. kazmac macrumors 601

    kazmac

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2010
    Location:
    Stuck in an early 70s giallo
  12. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #12
    "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.)

     
  13. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #13
    Fascinating thread; I hadn't known much of this, thus, reading the thread has been extraordinarily interesting.
     
  14. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #14
    >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, ...
     
  15. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Meister, Sep 1, 2014
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2014

    Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #16
    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/
     
  17. phrehdd macrumors 68040

    phrehdd

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2008
    #17
    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.
     
  18. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #19
    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.
     
  20. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #20
    I bet some of the Hollywood's "A" list players would have kept Polaroid alive! Doh!
    :eek::D






    Too soon?
     

Share This Page