Going to be hard to answer your questions / comments, hanshotfirst1138, without everything getting all jumbled up with quotes and all
Instead I will just italicize your pertinent questions and comments and respond as best I can:
4K maybe, but 2K? Isn't that less than the full resolution of 35mm? GOOD 35mm, anyway?Yes, 2K is less than the full *potential* resolution of "good" 35mm, but greater than what 35mm is capable of when actually projected. In a hypothetical perfect 35mm projection scenario where it was possible to build a 35mm projector free from any judder, flicker, or mechanical issues, with perfect registration and perfect optics, yes, 35mm projection would be better than 2K. However, such a projector does not exist nor has one ever existed. That's why I pointed out that study from about a decade ago. The test involved 1st generation premium prints projected through state of the art projectors, and still the resolution maxed out at about 800 lines. With standard prints passed through standard theatrical projectors, they were lucky to end up with something like 600 lines. And that is just resolution we are talking about. I've ignored such issues as judder, flicker, and film damage.
But wouldn't that be an issue which depended on the projector as well?Precisely, which is why I linked to the study. Unfortunately, even the best motion picture projectors degrade image quality drastically over what you would get when projecting a still image. It's the motion of the film through the gate that kills picture quality.
Although it proved too costly to mass-produce, weren't people like Douglas Trumball experimenting with higher frame rates as far back as the 1970s?Yes indeed, as well as a company called MaxiVision (which Roger Ebert heralded for a while). They attempted to solve the projection problems I outlined by increasing frame rates as well as ensuring rock-solid frame by frame stability as the film passed through the projector. Both systems performed well, but neither ever found any kind of industry adoption.
Well aren't you a lucky "OH GODZILLA! WHAT TERRIBLE LANGUAGE!"?I would say so
But I work in the industry, as a film composer and post-production sound designer / mixer. I also consult for a company called Panamorph, which makes anamorphic lenses for home theater projectors. Panamorph is working on a process for increased color bit depth and higher resolution for Blu-ray, and I was at the HPA event to discuss this with the studios and post-production experts. I'm lucky because even though I was there for work, this stuff fascinates the heck out of me and I enjoyed the talks
Again though, there haven't been projectors made with the technology since then which can bring about solutions to this problem?Yes, but all prototypes like Trumbull's system that never got off the ground. The film projectors in use up until a very short time ago weren't that much different from those used in the 30s (which is why you could still project an old b/w movie in a current theater).
It does seem then that 35mm was created with a lot of foresight. I don't know, maybe you're right, I just think that I'd rather see The Third Man projected in 35mm before I die. Plus, to be fair, countless films haven't had DCPs made either, and it'd be a costly process to make them for a lot of films. I don't know, maybe I just can't see Ansel Adams hunch over Photoshop and like film grain :p.You are pointing out a real problem - what happens when someone wants to watch an old movie in a movie theater and the studio never bothered to preserve the film digitally? Or even at home for that matter? It's all a question of economics - the studios don't want to spend the money to preserve EVERY film.
On the other hand, if the studio went through the time and trouble to create a DCP of The Third Man using original elements, it would still look better projected than a pristine 35mm print of the same film.
To bring this discussion back around to Toho and Godzilla films, it was exactly this kind of projection judder and motion distortion that the FX artists could count on to hide the wires supporting Godzilla's tail, Rodan's wings, etc. It's interesting that now in the digital age you can see the wires and seams that much more clearly. The increased resolution and picture detail of digital cuts both ways
Yeah, but nostalgia for "well-loved" film prints aside, wouldn't that also depend on the print? I mean, if you had a brand new film print, wouldn't that be a distinctly different thing than a ragged one which has kicked around for God-know how many years? You are also quite right to point out that it depends on the quality of the digital remaster itself too. I can see a studio splurging on a new pristine print of Casablanca or The Maltese Falcon. A 60-year old monster movie with potential audience of a cult following at best? Probably not.This is what I meant by a good point
You made points previously about older films not being preserved, and how the art of the presentation was getting lost. All good points.
And of course, the better the condition of the print, the better it will look. The projection process is actually the weak link.
I've always heard the opposite, that things like 2K are actually not even the full resolution of 35mm. As regard Blu-ray, I have been to a few screenings where they just projected the Blu-ray or a DVD on the screen because there wasn't a DCP or the studios have simply stopped making film prints altogether, and I can't help but wonder what the point is. If they're simply going to project a disc, why don't I just stay at home and watch that?As I mentioned before, you are correct that 35mm is a high resolution medium. It's when you project it that things all go to hell. There are also things like MTF and optics that limit resolution, not to mention the limits of what the human eye can perceive. For example, to see the benefits of 4K projection over 2K, you need to be closer than 2X the screen height. That is REALLY close to the screen. Beyond that point, our eyes can't make out differences in detail anyway.
As to why go to the theater to watch a disc, the answer is the communal experience plus the sheer enormity of the screen. But don't worry, Hollywood is working on technology that will make theater going a higher quality experience than what you are getting now in the theater or at home (namely High Dynamic Range capture and projection, greater color bit depth + a wider color gamut, and object based audio mixing, a la Dolby Atmos). I saw some demos of this stuff and it is pretty cool.
Really? That is interesting, because I remember reading that when they tried to do the digital 4K for Lawrence of Arabia, that the 4K which had served for many 35mm restorations wasn't sufficient. However gorgeous the digital restoration looked, I must admit I'd kill for the chance to see Lawrence of Arabia or 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm.Once again, this is true (4K not sufficient to capture all of the resolution of 70mm), but once again we are also talking about what is actually on the film frame vs. what you see when it is projected. As Howard Hall pointed out, much of the extra resolution of 70mm is lost when you actually project it, and why the 4K scan looked better. So, a 4K digital projection of 70mm Lawrence of Arabia will look better than actual the original 70mm print because of - once again - projection issues. However, one could scan Lawrence of Arabia at 8K and wring every last bit of resolution out of the film frame. An 8K digital presentation would be the ultimate - BUT - you would need to be sitting within 1 picture height of the screen to see the extra detail. It's always in the difference between the theoretical and the practical.
Hey, maybe I'm just stuck on the whole "magic of celluloid" nonsense and I'm just hanging on to something outdated. But I won't lie and say there are many films which I'd dearly love to see projected on celluloid which I will now probably never get the chance to, and IMO, that is a bit sad. I admit that listening to lots of interviews with Tarantino, Anderson, Kermode, Spielberg, and Nolan might've colored my views slightly .My goal is not to talk you out of your love of celluloid, but just to let you know that things aren't all that bad when it comes to digital
And you make an excellent point that if no one takes the trouble to preserve all of these films in a high quality format, we may never get to see them projected (or otherwise) again.
Speaking of those interviews, I have listened to most of them myself. And, if you check, you will see that most are a few years old or more. That's how quickly the technology is changing. Digital of 4 years ago doesn't stand up to digital of today. And once you see what High Dynamic Range has in store for us, you will realize that the digital of today won't stand up to what's coming either. But that's all to the good
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:45 pm