Film vs Digital?

[Michael O'Regan]

Am I too fussy?

I tried to find out whether or not tonights GOLD RUSH at the Southbank was in fact film or digital. I just found out - way too late - that it's in fact a 35mm print. I would definitely have gone along had I known in time.

However, I would not cross the street for any title in digital projection.

How do you guys all stand on this issue?

BTW, This post could be in either the silent or the talkies section.

[LouieD]

Can't people just go out and have fun anymore?

[Michael O'Regan]

Can't people just go out and have fun anymore?

Sure. Dinner and dancing still exist....

[sethb]

I can only speak from a 16mm projectionist's point of view.

But I would take a digitally projected, remastered and restored film (particularly on Blu-ray) over a scratched-up, splicy and dirty 16mm print any day of the week.

In my view, the problem is that many digital projectors now in use do not have the lumen horsepower to properly fill a large screen with light from a long throw. There are such projectors available, but often budget constraints triumph over physics and common sense. SETH

[markfp]

In my view, the problem is that many digital projectors now in use do not have the lumen horsepower to properly fill a large screen with light from a long throw. There are such projectors available, but often budget constraints triumph over physics and common sense. SETH

I agree. The technology is there, but it's a matter of theaters trying to do it on the cheap. Of course, that's nothing new. There are still plenty of 35mm operations that are under-lit.

[azjazzman]

I can only speak from a 16mm projectionist's point of view.

But I would take a digitally projected, remastered and restored film (particularly on Blu-ray) over a scratched-up, splicy and dirty 16mm print any day of the week.

In my view, the problem is that many digital projectors now in use do not have the lumen horsepower to properly fill a large screen with light from a long throw. There are such projectors available, but often budget constraints triumph over physics and common sense. SETH

I think you have hit on the key point...there are all sorts of different levels of digital projection, just as there are many different levels of film projection.

I have been to digital screenings at the Motion Picture Academy that could not have been distinguished from 35mm (the only give-away is that the print looks TOO clean...no projection wear at all).

Conversely, I have seen 35mm projected from a portable projector with an insufficient light source that made the film look as dim as 8mm.

So, there is no one right answer here.

But, you gotta love that weirdo chick Roberta in Cinemania that would try to assault the projectionist when it turned out the theater was running digital.

[Michael O'Regan]

There are still plenty of 35mm operations that are under-lit.

Actually, that's quite true.

[Jack Theakston]

There's also big difference between a DVD being projected in a venue and D-Cinema being projected from a hard drive on a 2k or 4k projector.

[Michael O'Regan]

There's also big difference between a DVD being projected in a venue and D-Cinema being projected from a hard drive on a 2k or 4k projector.

Quite right, but if it ain't film, I ain't paying to watch it....EVER

[azjazzman]

There's also big difference between a DVD being projected in a venue and D-Cinema being projected from a hard drive on a 2k or 4k projector.

Quite right, but if it ain't film, I ain't paying to watch it....EVER

Well, like it or not, digital is replacing film, and within the next 5-10 years you won't have a film choice at your local cinema.

[Michael O'Regan]

There's also big difference between a DVD being projected in a venue and D-Cinema being projected from a hard drive on a 2k or 4k projector.

Quite right, but if it ain't film, I ain't paying to watch it....EVER

Well, like it or not, digital is replacing film, and within the next 5-10 years you won't have a film choice at your local cinema.

It won't be a problem, believe me

[sethb]

There's also big difference between a DVD being projected in a venue and D-Cinema being projected from a hard drive on a 2k or 4k projector.

Very true, but like I said, I can only speak from a 16mm point of view and a relatively small screen.

I set up a digital projection system for our local library. With a 4000 lumen SVGA projector, I got a beautiful 8-foot wide picture at a 30-foot throw that rivaled anything I could have done with a 16mm machine. Sure, it wouldn't do the job for Radio City Music Hall, but for audiences of 200 or less and a screen that's no more than 10-12 foot wide , I think digital via DVD is perfectly fine, if not superior to film, especially with one of the newer DVD players that can "upscale" the output from 480p to 720p or 1040p or whatever it is. SETH

[boblipton]

Am I too fussy?

I tried to find out whether or not tonights GOLD RUSH at the Southbank was in fact film or digital. I just found out - way too late - that it's in fact a 35mm print. I would definitely have gone along had I known in time.

However, I would not cross the street for any title in digital projection.

How do you guys all stand on this issue?

BTW, This post could be in either the silent or the talkies section.

If I give you a knife can I watch you cut off your nose?

Bob

[missdupont]

I prefer film to digital too. The blacks aren't as black or as well defined in digital, and you don't get the color gradation in black and white like you do in film. Effects look fake to me in digital, they're so obvious, I much prefer effects in film, especially those in the camera effects from the 1920s from Buster, etc., which look much more lifelike. Digital makes everything much too bright, and people seem to be making old films pretty, especially Technicolor, when they weren't intended to be that way. GWTW was made pretty and pastel, and Selznick did not want that look in the film. Digital is hard looking while film is much softer.

[azjazzman]

I prefer film to digital too. The blacks aren't as black or as well defined in digital, and you don't get the color gradation in black and white like you do in film. Effects look fake to me in digital, they're so obvious, I much prefer effects in film, especially those in the camera effects from the 1920s from Buster, etc., which look much more lifelike. Digital makes everything much too bright, and people seem to be making old films pretty, especially Technicolor, when they weren't intended to be that way. GWTW was made pretty and pastel, and Selznick did not want that look in the film. Digital is hard looking while film is much softer.

Digital does not inherently have the qualities you have ascribed to it. If there is enough enough information processed and the right settings used, digital has the capability of producing exact copies.

The bright colors in GWTW were also present in the film prints screened in theaters during the last reissue. That was a choice made, not because digital has those qualities.

I once saw a demonstration of a digital file made from a nitrate print. It had all of the soft, shimmering visual beauty that the nitrate had.

Here is a good piece about the digital restoration of THE WAY OF THE STRONG by Leonard Maltin that talks about some of the work that can be done to make digital and 35mm indistinguishable from one another.

http://leonardmaltin.net/August09Journal.htm

[Brooksie]

By coincidence I've just read an article that touches on this - I've posted it in another thread - viewtopic.php?p=45830#45830 (the original is at http://www.nfsa.gov.au/blog/2011/01/02/ ... g-picture/).

[missdupont]

Digital does not inherently have the qualities you have ascribed to it. If there is enough enough information processed and the right settings used, digital has the capability of producing exact copies.

The bright colors in GWTW were also present in the film prints screened in theaters during the last reissue. That was a choice made, not because digital has those qualities.

I once saw a demonstration of a digital file made from a nitrate print. It had all of the soft, shimmering visual beauty that the nitrate had.

Digital DOES have these qualities, which I know from experience working in the Disney trailer department and hearing and talking with the trailer editors and executives in our department/at vendors who finished all of the trailers/telecined the TV spots/promos/product reels, etc. We spoke of these qualities every day, both with the digital elements they were provided or created, or with the digital masters they created for presentation in theatres, etc. Black is very difficult to render correctly digitally, that was one of their bugaboos in finishing product, and I'm speaking of experienced, respected professionals, some with Academy sci/tech awards to their credit.

[Michael O'Regan]

If I give you a knife can I watch you cut off your nose?

Bob

I have attended one digital screening and I felt like I was watching a "pretend" film in a "pretend" cinema, with some kid running a DVD player.

I'm not just ranting.

Would you like to tell me why I should want to cut off my nose? I can watch as many DVDs as I want to free of charge in my own home.
I currently go to the cinema on avarage once or twice a year.

[azjazzman]

Digital DOES have these qualities, which I know from experience working in the Disney trailer department and hearing and talking with the trailer editors and executives in our department/at vendors who finished all of the trailers/telecined the TV spots/promos/product reels, etc. We spoke of these qualities every day, both with the digital elements they were provided or created, or with the digital masters they created for presentation in theatres, etc. Black is very difficult to render correctly digitally, that was one of their bugaboos in finishing product, and I'm speaking of experienced, respected professionals, some with Academy sci/tech awards to their credit.

It is untrue that digital cannot render a true black. The lack of a true black that you are describing is a function of the display technology, not the digital file itself. Digital black, as represented by zeros in the data stream, is 100% black. If you play back a digital file on a CRT or some other display capable of rendering true black, you get exactly that.

Video projectors used in the past have some degree of light leakage, but that is now changing. Advances in display/projector technologies (including auto-iris mechanisms that will block all light, allowing for a true black) are already eliminating some of these issues and in the coming years that will continue.

[sethb]

In addition to the artistic arguments regarding "film vs. digital," I believe there is another important factor to be considered.

I love the medium of film as much as anyone else. But the hard fact is that nitrate film and even a lot of safety film is fragile, chemically unstable and has a finite shelf life, even under optimum storage conditions. Furthermore, even a pristine negative or print can only be copied a certain number of times before it wears out. And we all know what copies of copies look like.

On the other hand, a digital version of a film is capable of making an INFINITE number of PERFECT copies. While the shelf life of a commercially pressed DVD is presently unknown, it seems to me that it should be at least as durable as a reel of film, if not more so, since it does not deteriorate with repeated showings as film does. Besides, even if the original storage media wears out, there can always be other "original" copies available. And if the storage media becomes obsolete (think Betamax and floppy disks), the coded information could always be transferred to new storage technology and preserved.

Let's also remember that there have been more than a few vault fires, resulting in the loss of the original negative of "Citizen Kane" and a good amount of Fox product, among others. Also, a few studios routinely junked a fair number of old negatives and prints because they did not want to pay storage costs. Ever wonder where a lot of those early two-strip Technicolor segments are? They were trashed in the 1950's because the studios did not want to pay Technicolor to store the material, which was deemed to have no value. That's why a lot of this material only exists in black and white today, to the extent that it exists at all.

But once a film is restored and digitally scanned, I believe the storage space and costs would be almost nil, especially compared to cans and cans of film. Less storage costs might translate to more films preserved and more money spent on reissues (well, I can dream, can't I?).

Anyway, it seems to me that while we should certainly avail ourselves of the original nitrate/safety film stock for as long as we possibly can, the digitized versions present the best possible chance for the ultimate survival of all of this material.

If I have a choice between watching a digital version of a movie, or not watching it at all because the nitrate film has decomposed to dust, I think I'd go for the digital version. SETH

[sc1957]

I prefer film to digital too. The blacks aren't as black or as well defined in digital, and you don't get the color gradation in black and white like you do in film. Effects look fake to me in digital

I'm reminded of the early days of music CDs, when it was said that, if you colored the outside rim of a CD with green marker, it would sound "more lifelike." You could even buy stretchy green rings to put on all your CDs.

Maybe that's all that digital movies need.

[boblipton]

If I give you a knife can I watch you cut off your nose?

Bob

I have attended one digital screening and I felt like I was watching a "pretend" film in a "pretend" cinema, with some kid running a DVD player.

I'm not just ranting.

Would you like to tell me why I should want to cut off my nose? I can watch as many DVDs as I want to free of charge in my own home.
I currently go to the cinema on avarage once or twice a year.

Then you were dealing with people who don't know how to project digital nor how to present it for the audience.

Movies, particularly classic movies, are designed to be seen in a theater with an audience. I am sure you can download the 1933 KING KONG and watch it on your Ipod screen if you wish, but you won't see the ape towering over you, nor hear and feel the audience's excitement.

Given the issues of decomposition and loss, you are not going to get a perfect image of old movies under any circumstances. If you are content with the further degradation of the movie experience, that's up to you. I would rather see a silent film off a pristine 35mm. print pulled off the perfectly preserved lavender dupe at the Radio City Music Hall with Gaylord Carter at the organ and the house filled with an appreciative audience, but the opportunities for that are poor and getting worse every year. I take what I can get ad say 'thank you' when I remember and don't take pride in my exquisite insistence on what I can't get.

Bob

[Daniel Eagan]

On the other hand, a digital version of a film is capable of making an INFINITE number of PERFECT copies. While the shelf life of a commercially pressed DVD is presently unknown, it seems to me that it should be at least as durable as a reel of film, if not more so, since it does not deteriorate with repeated showings as film does. Besides, even if the original storage media wears out, there can always be other "original" copies available. And if the storage media becomes obsolete (think Betamax and floppy disks), the coded information could always be transferred to new storage technology and preserved.

Wish I could be as optimistic as you about the shelf life of digital materials. Properly stored, film lasts a long time. Witness new discoveries of Melies titles. At the last Orphan Symposium, a Sheffield archivst showed films from the late 1890s that were rediscovered in 2004.

On the other hand, try opening a Quicktime file from ten or fifteen years ago.

In fact, the archivists I eavesdrop on are always bemoaning the impermanence of digital data. Even more daunting is the rapid obsolescence of digital formats.

[sethb]

Dan, I agree that the "shelf life" of DVD's is unknown at this point, and projected estimates of permanence vary greatly. But I would think the ability to make an infinite number of perfect digital copies (which is not possible with movie film) trumps other considerations.

I also agree that many types of storage media (perhaps even books) eventually become obsolete, making it difficult to continue to store data in the same form. [For example, when the master tapes of the Fred Astaire 1960's TV specials were located in the 1990's, there was no video player in existence that could play them back -- I believe that one had to be custom rebuilt from the original Ampex specifications in order to do a DVD transfer.] In that regard, we're fortunate that 35/16mm has remained the basic industry standard for so long.

But the solution to the obsolescence issue is to have the technical ability to transfer the images or data from one medium to another, and without any degradation of quality. Digital seems to provide the best capability to do that at this time. SETH

[Michael O'Regan]

If I have a choice between watching a digital version of a movie, or not watching it at all because the nitrate film has decomposed to dust, I think I'd go for the digital version

In this particular circumstance I would agree with you. However, my original thoughts were with titles of which perfectly acceptable film prints are available.

[Michael O'Regan]

....watch it on your Ipod screen if you wish,...

Come now....you're putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned anything of the sort.

[azjazzman]

Wish I could be as optimistic as you about the shelf life of digital materials. Properly stored, film lasts a long time. Witness new discoveries of Melies titles. At the last Orphan Symposium, a Sheffield archivst showed films from the late 1890s that were rediscovered in 2004.

On the other hand, try opening a Quicktime file from ten or fifteen years ago.

In fact, the archivists I eavesdrop on are always bemoaning the impermanence of digital data. Even more daunting is the rapid obsolescence of digital formats.

I am always perplexed by this argument. If you want to play a Quicktime file from 10 years ago, all you need is a copy of Quicktime from around the time the file was created. This is a software issue. And compatible software can always be written if it is not readily available.

Digital data is not impermanent. The media that it resides on may have a shelf life, although with new developments in that area, the shelf life will most certainly be extended to hundreds of years.

Even the idea that digital is much more expensive is rather weak, too. When you look at how they arrived at that conclusion you quickly realize that they were not comparing apples to apples.

But, the real point is, the cost for digital will do nothing but come down in the coming years (and dramatically, if history shows us anything) and the cost of photochemical will do nothing but rise.

The dye is cast. Eventually, the film adherents will be like people who collect and restore Model Ts.

And as Jack T. pointed out, it is a mistake to equate DVDs with "digital". DVDs are digital, but digital does not mean DVDs. DVD is a specific, very low resolution application. Digital video is not that limited.

[Jack Theakston]

Many software developers learned the lesson of making their software back-compatible, so a lot of the relatively new formats that are applied towards recent film scans are going to be applied towards future software.

With regard to new movies (and even new restorations), I don't have any problem with seeing them digitally projected. Half of them are shot digitally to begin with, and the rest all go through a digital intermediate (usually woefully low-rez for its own purposes, such as 2k) before being outputted back to film. There is something to be said for a good film presentation, but by that point, what is the difference?

[Brooksie]

Regarding the preservation of digital films - I can only again recommend the article I already posted the link to, plus its hyperlinks. To quote:

So why don't we simply digitise everything?

There are so many answers to this question. For a start, no-one knows how long digital data can be preserved or how much more it will cost. Best estimates for most digital formats are around ten years, while a couple of years ago the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in its seminal report `The Digital Dilemma' estimated that long-term, secure digital preservation would cost about 12 times as much as conventional film preservation

.

That last figure I found quite astounding.

The Academy report referred to is available online at http://www.dmclab.jp/~kaneko/dmcsympo20 ... 081024.pdf).

[azjazzman]

That last figure I found quite astounding.

It's only astounding until you look more closely at how they arrived at that figure and then you quickly realize it is fiction.

Ask yourself this...the motion picture industry is moving rapidly towards digital, and one of the fundamental reasons is that it is more cost efficient than printing and distributing film prints.

And the archives are telling us that to digitize their films would cost 12 times more than photochemical. Does this make sense to you?

Moore's Law, which has now become shorthand for the entire computer industry, holds that capacity will double and cost will be reduced by half every two years. That represents a 400% cost reduction every 24 months.

That report you linked is from 2008 and the data used is from 2006. Things have already changed since then. They used a 2006 figure of $500 per terabyte per year of storage. It is about 1/4th of that now. It will be 1/8th of that in the year 2014.

If you combine that with the fact that photochemical raw materials have and will continue to rise at a steep rate in the foreseeable future, even if you accept the 12 times figure, it is obvious before too long the two will converge...with each going rapidly in opposite directions.