Jump to content


Photo

high definition video v 65mm


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 grantsmith

grantsmith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 10 November 2006 - 05:41 PM

Hello,

I've been reading the red forum with interest (and some amusement).

While I don't think large budget production will be effected by the new breed of High-Definition cameras to a great extent it seems inevitable that over the next 10 or so years, with greater quality video cameras coming out 35mm will be used less and less.

During the 50s when television became a threat to cinema, cinema responded with widescreen, 3d etc.

Do you think that as video starts to become a real threat to 35mm that the industry will respond with increased use of 65mm?

While the cost of format is very important for lower budget films, for block-busters the use of 65mm can't be that much of an issue, can it?

Is the use of 65mm a major increase in quality over 35mm. And is it viable that this format is an option to allow film to survive.

I remember seeing a 70mm print of 2001 and being in awe of the sharpness and quality.

I certainly don't want to start up another red-forum type endless arguement and have no interest in speculation about fututre video cameras. I only really want to know opinions as to if there is a possibility of a resurgance in 65mm film.

thanks

Edited by grantsmith, 10 November 2006 - 05:43 PM.

  • 0

#2 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3070 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 November 2006 - 05:52 PM

65mm is a lot more expensive to buy, shoot and process. There is a limited range of cameras and lenses available. Most productions would find it prohibitively expensive, but the reason that even big budget films don't use it is that most cinemas can only project 35mm prints, so all that lovely resolution is lost...

Bear in mind that HD is not a 'threat to the industry' only to the film manufacturers.

Besides that, does the general public know or care what a film was shot on as long as it looks good?
  • 0

#3 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 November 2006 - 06:03 PM

I personally think 65mm is more doomed than 35mm.

The trouble with analogue technology is that it's not advancing anywhere near as quickly as digital. This goes for all analogue technology, not just film. All be it analogue is still better, it's only a matter of time.

(Having said that... I've seen some examples of the latest digital and they are becoming less noisy than film already)

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 10 November 2006 - 06:05 PM.

  • 0

#4 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 November 2006 - 06:49 PM

In short no I don't think 65mm will be the theater's response to the Tivo and DVD era.

Why? Because 99% of the population can't tell the difference between a film shot on a Varicam and 65mm film stock.

They will notice things like: Size of Screen, Quality of Sound and new experiences like 3D. (Yes I say new because Red/Blue 3D was stupid and doesn't count. You're thinking too much like an artist and not enough like a businessman. The theaters are out to rent seats in order to sell food, and pictures quality has rarely sold seats.
  • 0

#5 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 November 2006 - 06:53 PM

Like I mentioned already in the other thread, I was at Arri in Munich today and they said that they plan to offer 65mm camera, stock and processing for the price of 35mm in order to encourage people to use 65mm at least for some CGI shots where the extra resolution will come in handy. They say the difference is still noticeable when you scan it and record it to 35mm. And of course they'll be more than happy if people start using 65mm for whole films.
  • 0

#6 Francesco Bonomo

Francesco Bonomo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • currently in Rome, Italy

Posted 10 November 2006 - 07:04 PM

it seems inevitable that over the next 10 or so years, with greater quality video cameras coming out 35mm will be used less and less.


I heard the same thing 10 years ago.

Do you think that as video starts to become a real threat to 35mm that the industry will respond with increased use of 65mm?


I'd love to see an increase in the use of 65mm, but I don't think it's going to happen for the reasons expressed in this thread and in the "ASC 65mm/35mm/4k Projection Demo".

I don't consider myself to be against all things digital, but I can't really see "video" (digital acquisition) as a threat to film: there's no need to worry for the survival of what is simply a tool in our hands, but we must be sure to have the right tools and not sacrifice anything we already have just for the sake of an advance in technology. As Richard Crudo, ASC wrote a few months ago:

"we need a universally interoperable system of color management. we need a a digital printer-light capability. we need cameras that are durable, smaller, lighter, unencumbered by cables, and engineered to do the same thing every time out."
  • 0

#7 Mark Wilson

Mark Wilson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 November 2006 - 01:16 AM

I heard the same thing 10 years ago.

Actually 2006 marks the 50th anniversary of the famous Banner Headline in Variety "Film is Dead!"
This prediction was prompted by the introduction of the first Ampex "2 inch quad" videotape recorder, the size of two refrigerators sitting side-by-side, which was really only good for time-shifting network programs. Editing was only possible by cutting up the tape the way you would with film, except that unlike film, you couldn't actually see what you were cutting!

Strangely enough, 50 years on, film is not only not dead, it hasn't even applied for its free bus pass yet :D
  • 0

#8 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 11 November 2006 - 09:22 PM

There has already been a steady increase in feature films being blown up to or filmed for IMAX presentations, such as Matrix: Reloaded, Revolutions, Star Wars Episode 2, Apollo 13, Fantasia 2000, Spiderman 2, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, The Lion King, and more. So there is a market for people who want to see larger higher-quality presentation formats and it is growing. Around the world there are 70mm festivals and theaters that specialize in 70mm screenings. There are people out there that can tell the difference and will spend their money to see it.
  • 0

#9 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 November 2006 - 12:05 AM

And for every one of them there are unfortunately several million who wouldn't mind watching it on YouTube. Imax will never become an economically viable distribution method. Why? Because it's an "Experience". That's their branding, they understand that. People go to it like they would a special performance, or something you go out of your way to see. People went before there were even traditional dramatic narratives being projected. Everybody who has seen some of their first 3D movies knows they aren't going for the quality of the cinema, they go because it's something special. I think it'll remain that way though. Mass distrubtion is where the money is, and that's where the effort is going to be directed. How do you make it for less? and How do you sell it to more people?

I think some people here are confusing the word "inevitable" with "immediately". Film is dead. It was dead before it was invented. We can also herald the end of HD while we're at it, we'll probably find some new fangled holography which will supplant it. When it comes to digital acquisition vs chemical acquisition, digital will eventually win. Eventually the physical limitations of crystal formations will be met and even a perfect film won't be able to match nanotech-sensors in latitude, sensitivity, clarity and resolution. Combined with advanced software algorithms, no aspect of film will be unreproducible. Do you want grain to look exactly like film? Well we can already kind of match that, but if you really want film grain a 3d simulation of crystal formations could be created for each frame and then rendered, photo accurately. The exact response curve of Vision 2 could be mathematically calculated and released as a 4D LUT to introduce temporal shifts to counteract the "perfection" that the sensors were achieving.

However that will really only be a stop gap on the entire thing moving onto a digital set anyway. Why go through all the hastles of trying to fight reality when the whole thing can be shot in VR? Soon thereafter we'll skip all the middleman and just telepathically project the director's intent and vision straight to the audience? Why go through all the hastle of trying to indirectly, subconsciously subvert our audiences when we could directly communicate our ideas?

My point is. Sufficiently advanced software can do anything. It's much much more difficult to coax chemistry to our cause. Therefore I say Inevitable.

- Gavin
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 November 2006 - 02:22 AM

You don't have to predict future technology trends of the following decade -- you only have to decide from current technologies as to the best approach to use for an immediately impending project.

Even if 65mm make a brief resurgence in the next few years, if it's viable at the time the movie is made and delivers the results you want, it doesn't really matter if some future digital technology will exist that rivals 65mm. For all we know, shooting mixed film formats, with a smattering of digital, and putting it all through a D.I. will become the most common methodology for making features in the next couple of years. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter in any practical sense. It's not like the people making 35mm b&w Academy format movies in the 1930's could have done anything with the knowledge that by the mid 1950's, they could be shooting in 65mm color negative.
  • 0

#11 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 12 November 2006 - 03:05 AM

Even in the past, not every theater had a 70mm setup, most didn't. The theaters that did, catered to the people that did care about an enhanced film going experience. The fact is that every year there are more Imax theaters then the year before and there is a market for it. In terms of numbers, far more people watch TV (or youtube) everyday then go to a movie theater. I think part of the whole reason to go to a movie theater is to have an "experience", providing something that people can't get at home.

I think you may be misinformed, Gavin, about the limits of silver halide crystal formation. It is generally known in the science of it that, in finest grain film elumsions that a grain is generally a grouping of 4 or 5 silver halide atoms. It already is a form of nano-technology, just used chemically rather then electronically. There may be ways to reduce the number of atoms in a grain even more. In response to computer emulation of the properties of film, well, why not just use the real thing. Kinda reminds me of when some people thought drum machines would replace real drummers.
  • 0

#12 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 November 2006 - 10:43 AM

However that will really only be a stop gap on the entire thing moving onto a digital set anyway. Why go through all the hastles of trying to fight reality when the whole thing can be shot in VR?


For the same reason we cook or go out to eat rather than connect IV drips.

The art of it is IN the struggle, the fight.

IMO

-Sam
  • 0

#13 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 November 2006 - 11:49 AM

For the same reason we cook or go out to eat rather than connect IV drips.

The art of it is IN the struggle, the fight.

IMO

-Sam

You'd be surprised how many suckers would opt for the IV drip, as long as they were told it was a revolutionary 4K drip.
  • 0

#14 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 16 November 2006 - 11:52 PM

Hi-def still hasn't matched the resolution of 35mm film yet so forget 65mm and there a resurgence in techinscope so the trend seems to be towards sacrificing some resolution for cost savings rather than going for the best resultion avalible. The shear size and wieght of 65mm cameras will keep a lot of current filmmakers from using them because it will limit them to vintage camera moves and then, of course, there is the cost of all that film + increased processing fees+ print costs + limited venues. I saw a couple of 65mm surplus cameras going on ebay relitively cheaply and thought about buying one just to have, but then I thought "Why? When am I EVER gonna use it and where in the Hell am I gonna find lenses, power supplies, matte boxes, filters ect., for it" If Arri wants to encourage use of 65mm, they're in for a Hell of an uphill battle.
  • 0

#15 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 November 2006 - 05:29 AM

"The fact is that every year there are more Imax theaters then the year before and there is a market for it."

The IMAX cinema in my home city of Adelaide, South Australia has closed down. It simply couldn't sustain itself with the number of patrons that were attending. I knew it was a bad sign when they started selling off their merchandise (t-shirts, videos etc) really cheap and stopped selling merchandise altogether. Then later the inevitable happened and the whole cinema closed down. Actually, I have heard that another IMAX cinema in another part of Australia has also closed down....can't recall which state.
  • 0

#16 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 17 November 2006 - 10:50 AM

Mark,

I'm laughing over your mention of quad... not at you- with you. I actually had to use a quad machine in my youth when we were contracted to bump-down a library of 2 inch down to 1 inch. Then, they paid us to knock that down to 3/4 U-matic. All that seems like the stone age, now. Even as all that has turned to dust, film is still film.

My old, navy, Mitchell, rack-over can still take lovely pictures.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

CineLab

CineTape

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

The Slider

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape