As an old person who grew up trying to avoid lousy movie theaters, I have no desire to revisit the days of analog video and audio. It's a weird kind of nostalgia for a worse experience.
"We had really bad gate weave, where everything was shaking. There was dust all over the damn print. And these are things that I like."
As an old person who grew up trying to avoid lousy movie theaters, I have no desire to revisit the days of analog video and audio. It's a weird kind of nostalgia for a worse experience.
There's this documentary called Side by Side which came out in 2012. It's actually free on Youtube and if anyone hasn't seen it I highly recommend it. It's about digital vs film, and you have...
There's this documentary called Side by Side which came out in 2012. It's actually free on Youtube and if anyone hasn't seen it I highly recommend it. It's about digital vs film, and you have filmmakers that are really pro digital like David Fincher and Steven Soderbergh, and ones that are anti-digital like Wally Pfister and Chris Nolan. It's a really interesting documentary.
They get into the film projection part of it (around the 54 minute part) and even Pfister said that he liked digital projection. Scorsese talks about film prints and the different ways they're projected are part of the film. But Soderbergh really hates it, he said it was depressing to watch a film print. It's not sharp, it's shaky, it's dirty. Lucas also talks about how much he hates it.
I actually had a ticket to watch Oppenheimer projected in 70mm (not IMAX) but the projector broke down apparently the previous showtime so they had to show a digital version of it (I walked out since I already saw a digital IMAX version of the film).
I don't think I've ever seen a movie projected on film at the theater. Looking back, I really wish I saw Dunkirk in 70mm, and that's why I'm trying to watch Oppenheimer in that way as well. I know it's not gonna look great, and I know there are so many problems with it especially since no one really knows how to operate these anymore. But, I don't know, I wanna experience it.
I guess I can understand wanting to putter around once in a Model T, but I wouldn't want to take one on the highway. Nolan seems to have deliberately created a situation where IMAX is pushed to...
But, I don't know, I wanna experience it.
I guess I can understand wanting to putter around once in a Model T, but I wouldn't want to take one on the highway. Nolan seems to have deliberately created a situation where IMAX is pushed to (and perhaps beyond) its limit. I wouldn't want to pay for that experience.
Last time I had a film at the theater, it got hung and literally burned the film. This was Jarhead, so not a huge deal but was crazy that even at that point it wasn't digital.
Last time I had a film at the theater, it got hung and literally burned the film. This was Jarhead, so not a huge deal but was crazy that even at that point it wasn't digital.
I have. A new copy is awesome and has that cinema feel with little to no imperfections. A not so new copy have the charming scratches. Old copies are deplorable, sometimes the film tears while...
I don't think I've ever seen a movie projected on film at the theater
I have. A new copy is awesome and has that cinema feel with little to no imperfections. A not so new copy have the charming scratches. Old copies are deplorable, sometimes the film tears while you're watching it and you get to see it burning in that classic image.
I'd say it's worth it, the fact that you are watching the result of an entirely psychical and optical process makes a lot of difference. The cadence of the projector and slight imprecisions reminds you that you are watching a film. It is dreamlike in a way digital is not intended to be.
All I can think is that with Oppenheimer, this might actually add to the experience if the timing is just right. Joking aside, I can see how it can influence the experience and add to the charm as...
sometimes the film tears while you're watching it and you get to see it burning in that classic image
All I can think is that with Oppenheimer, this might actually add to the experience if the timing is just right.
Joking aside, I can see how it can influence the experience and add to the charm as you put it. I don't know if I've seen a film projected on film rather than digitally, but I can see how those tiny imperfections can create a unique atmosphere. It makes me think of when you watch older movies where only mostly copies with those imperfections are still around. "Clean" and "enhanced" versions can make it feel like there's something missing or off, it definitely changes the atmosphere and makes it feel a little less movie-like.
I guess it depends what you're looking for in a movie. It's sort of the same transition as wax cylinder -> vinyl -> 8-track/cassette -> CD/flac -> compressed mp3s/streaming. Somewhere in there is...
I guess it depends what you're looking for in a movie. It's sort of the same transition as wax cylinder -> vinyl -> 8-track/cassette -> CD/flac -> compressed mp3s/streaming.
Somewhere in there is a "perfect" version of a song, but the definition of "perfect" will change for each person. In theory, that would be the uncompressed digital version (CD/flac), as each of the other versions introduce artifacts and noise, but some people will feel that is too clean and sterile. On the other hand, there are certainly people who like the hiss and pop of vinyl, or the muffled whine on a cassette. And then there are even people who can't tell the difference between a 128 kbps mp3 and the CD version.
There are always going to be people who insist on doing something a specific way, but if they can't explain why it's the best way other than "it's the way we've always done it", then it's probably not the best. It's not like 70 mm film is the "original" way of doing film. It was improved over several decades to get to where it is today. Similarly with music recording, no one insists that wax cylinders are the best, but for some reason a large number of people have decided that vinyl is the "best" way of listening to music.
I saw Oppenheimer projected on 35mm last night and it was quite an experience. To me it's like listening to music on Vinyl. I don't buy into the audiophile nonsense about vinyl having better sound...
I saw Oppenheimer projected on 35mm last night and it was quite an experience.
To me it's like listening to music on Vinyl. I don't buy into the audiophile nonsense about vinyl having better sound quality than digital "because it's analog". If you want pure sound quality, nothing will beat lossless digital music played with a good DAC and amp. What makes vinyl fun is the physicality of the experience (pulling a big plastic disc out of a cardbord sleeve adorned with art), and the flaws inherent to the older technology.
Seeing Oppenheimer on 35mm gave me a lot of that same satisfaction. This isn't how I would want to see most movies, buit it's fun for the occasional film where the flaws of analog projection are an intended part of the experience. And it's something I'm willing to pay extra for when the movie justifies it (hint hint, cinema operators... I hate that i basically need to fly to another state if I wanted to see this on either 70mm format).
I know it's not gonna look great, and I know there are so many problems with it especially since no one really knows how to operate these anymore.
A 70mm IMAX projection will look objectively great on a giant screen, assuming nothing goes wrong with the projector or film reel. That's a 15 perf 70mm film cell, giving it four times the surface area of standard 35mm. The effective resolving power of 35mm is typically in the range of 2k-5k. For comparison, Most digital projection in the last 15 years has been 2k, including pre-Laser digital IMAX (hence the slang LieMAX among cinephiles). The resolving power of 70mm IMAX is often stated as being equivalent to 16k. Though it should be noted that analog and digital photography cannot easily be compared so directly.
In high school, from like 2010 to 2013, I worked as a projectionist at a budget movie theater in town. It was a lot of fun but also caused a lot of problems, partly because we were using old old...
In high school, from like 2010 to 2013, I worked as a projectionist at a budget movie theater in town. It was a lot of fun but also caused a lot of problems, partly because we were using old old equipment and film we got from other theaters, but also because of inherent issues with the medium. I'm not sure that the headache is worth whatever differences there are that are noticeable.
I think the most interesting take from that documentary wasn't so much in the look or feel with film vs digital, but how it effects the shooting process. With digital they can just do retakes...
I think the most interesting take from that documentary wasn't so much in the look or feel with film vs digital, but how it effects the shooting process. With digital they can just do retakes forever and fix everything in post, which can be great in some cases, but with film it seems like everyone have to step up their game a bit more and be better prepared for a scene. And all that might influence the end result. Having unlimited possibilities isn't always best for creativity and art.
As for film projection, I don't care that much. I saw The Hateful Eight in 70mm and it was fine, but not a transcending experience compared to anything else. I might catch Oppenheimer in 70mm if possible, but I am sure a regular digital projection will be fine as well.
I saw both Hateful Eight and Oppenheimer, the film projection for the former worked better imo (western). I'm thinking back now that many movies I have seen on tv or streaming were shot on film...
I saw both Hateful Eight and Oppenheimer, the film projection for the former worked better imo (western). I'm thinking back now that many movies I have seen on tv or streaming were shot on film but then scanned, and they look great. So I could get in the camp of shooting the movie on film and then screening digitally, film does have a look for sure, and its still there when digitized.
The roadshow actually came to my city and I missed it. I have heard mixed things and it is very dependent on the way it's projected. These guys I used to watch talked about it, and one of them saw...
I saw The Hateful Eight in 70mm and it was fine, but not a transcending experience compared to anything else.
The roadshow actually came to my city and I missed it. I have heard mixed things and it is very dependent on the way it's projected. These guys I used to watch talked about it, and one of them saw it twice and the first time apparently it was perfect and then the second time there were so many issues with it.
That's definitely a positive about digital projection where it's consistent and you know you're gonna get a clear image.
From the filming perspective Corridor Crew recently covered in camera effects comparing Watchmen and Obi-Wan, and how they both captured the blue glows from respective characters/objects. The...
From the filming perspective Corridor Crew recently covered in camera effects comparing Watchmen and Obi-Wan, and how they both captured the blue glows from respective characters/objects. The technique on set was very similar but the end result seemed to be mainly influenced by the filming method.
I'm very lucky to have a local IMAX 70mm screen theater. Just booked tickets today that had to be almost 2 weeks out, although after hearing this news, maybe that's a good thing. Hopefully the...
I'm very lucky to have a local IMAX 70mm screen theater. Just booked tickets today that had to be almost 2 weeks out, although after hearing this news, maybe that's a good thing. Hopefully the projectionists figure it out by then and the viewing goes smoothly! :)
As someone who hasn't had a positive theater experience in many years and doesn't go to the theater any more, I don't really see one format being superior to the other. My experiences in theaters...
As someone who hasn't had a positive theater experience in many years and doesn't go to the theater any more, I don't really see one format being superior to the other. My experiences in theaters are largely negative and it started in the early digital 3D era. I would try to watch films in 2D and the projector was really dark maybe because they weren't swapping equipment out between 2D and 3D. Also many times the sound is unbearably loud. So in the end I think from a viewer perspective I couldn't care less what format they shoot in because it ultimately comes down to how much skill and care the theater staff has in presenting the film. The reasons that ultimately drove me away from going to theater were all around the various local theater's inability to show a film without technical difficulties.
Great video, very informative. I can't say I agree with the video-maker's preference for analogue media - unless it fits very well with the themes of the media. It's disappointing to see my...
Great video, very informative. I can't say I agree with the video-maker's preference for analogue media - unless it fits very well with the themes of the media.
It's disappointing to see my experience seeing Oppenheimer was more common than I thought. My showing on Thursday night had issues. The visuals cut out about halfway through the film and it took them about 10 minutes to get it up and running again, apparently due to the projector overheating. The right third of the screen also flickered a bit, especially on brighter scenes, but I'm not sure if this was Oppenheimer specific. There were also a few spots of the IMAX screen that were dirty or damaged which was a bit distracting as well. The film was still a fantastic experience despite these problems. I too am still digesting my thoughts on it as a whole but at the least it's certainly a visual masterpiece.
As an old person who grew up trying to avoid lousy movie theaters, I have no desire to revisit the days of analog video and audio. It's a weird kind of nostalgia for a worse experience.
There's this documentary called Side by Side which came out in 2012. It's actually free on Youtube and if anyone hasn't seen it I highly recommend it. It's about digital vs film, and you have filmmakers that are really pro digital like David Fincher and Steven Soderbergh, and ones that are anti-digital like Wally Pfister and Chris Nolan. It's a really interesting documentary.
They get into the film projection part of it (around the 54 minute part) and even Pfister said that he liked digital projection. Scorsese talks about film prints and the different ways they're projected are part of the film. But Soderbergh really hates it, he said it was depressing to watch a film print. It's not sharp, it's shaky, it's dirty. Lucas also talks about how much he hates it.
I actually had a ticket to watch Oppenheimer projected in 70mm (not IMAX) but the projector broke down apparently the previous showtime so they had to show a digital version of it (I walked out since I already saw a digital IMAX version of the film).
I don't think I've ever seen a movie projected on film at the theater. Looking back, I really wish I saw Dunkirk in 70mm, and that's why I'm trying to watch Oppenheimer in that way as well. I know it's not gonna look great, and I know there are so many problems with it especially since no one really knows how to operate these anymore. But, I don't know, I wanna experience it.
I guess I can understand wanting to putter around once in a Model T, but I wouldn't want to take one on the highway. Nolan seems to have deliberately created a situation where IMAX is pushed to (and perhaps beyond) its limit. I wouldn't want to pay for that experience.
Last time I had a film at the theater, it got hung and literally burned the film. This was Jarhead, so not a huge deal but was crazy that even at that point it wasn't digital.
I have. A new copy is awesome and has that cinema feel with little to no imperfections. A not so new copy have the charming scratches. Old copies are deplorable, sometimes the film tears while you're watching it and you get to see it burning in that classic image.
I'd say it's worth it, the fact that you are watching the result of an entirely psychical and optical process makes a lot of difference. The cadence of the projector and slight imprecisions reminds you that you are watching a film. It is dreamlike in a way digital is not intended to be.
All I can think is that with Oppenheimer, this might actually add to the experience if the timing is just right.
Joking aside, I can see how it can influence the experience and add to the charm as you put it. I don't know if I've seen a film projected on film rather than digitally, but I can see how those tiny imperfections can create a unique atmosphere. It makes me think of when you watch older movies where only mostly copies with those imperfections are still around. "Clean" and "enhanced" versions can make it feel like there's something missing or off, it definitely changes the atmosphere and makes it feel a little less movie-like.
I guess it depends what you're looking for in a movie. It's sort of the same transition as wax cylinder -> vinyl -> 8-track/cassette -> CD/flac -> compressed mp3s/streaming.
Somewhere in there is a "perfect" version of a song, but the definition of "perfect" will change for each person. In theory, that would be the uncompressed digital version (CD/flac), as each of the other versions introduce artifacts and noise, but some people will feel that is too clean and sterile. On the other hand, there are certainly people who like the hiss and pop of vinyl, or the muffled whine on a cassette. And then there are even people who can't tell the difference between a 128 kbps mp3 and the CD version.
There are always going to be people who insist on doing something a specific way, but if they can't explain why it's the best way other than "it's the way we've always done it", then it's probably not the best. It's not like 70 mm film is the "original" way of doing film. It was improved over several decades to get to where it is today. Similarly with music recording, no one insists that wax cylinders are the best, but for some reason a large number of people have decided that vinyl is the "best" way of listening to music.
I saw Oppenheimer projected on 35mm last night and it was quite an experience.
To me it's like listening to music on Vinyl. I don't buy into the audiophile nonsense about vinyl having better sound quality than digital "because it's analog". If you want pure sound quality, nothing will beat lossless digital music played with a good DAC and amp. What makes vinyl fun is the physicality of the experience (pulling a big plastic disc out of a cardbord sleeve adorned with art), and the flaws inherent to the older technology.
Seeing Oppenheimer on 35mm gave me a lot of that same satisfaction. This isn't how I would want to see most movies, buit it's fun for the occasional film where the flaws of analog projection are an intended part of the experience. And it's something I'm willing to pay extra for when the movie justifies it (hint hint, cinema operators... I hate that i basically need to fly to another state if I wanted to see this on either 70mm format).
A 70mm IMAX projection will look objectively great on a giant screen, assuming nothing goes wrong with the projector or film reel. That's a 15 perf 70mm film cell, giving it four times the surface area of standard 35mm. The effective resolving power of 35mm is typically in the range of 2k-5k. For comparison, Most digital projection in the last 15 years has been 2k, including pre-Laser digital IMAX (hence the slang LieMAX among cinephiles). The resolving power of 70mm IMAX is often stated as being equivalent to 16k. Though it should be noted that analog and digital photography cannot easily be compared so directly.
In high school, from like 2010 to 2013, I worked as a projectionist at a budget movie theater in town. It was a lot of fun but also caused a lot of problems, partly because we were using old old equipment and film we got from other theaters, but also because of inherent issues with the medium. I'm not sure that the headache is worth whatever differences there are that are noticeable.
It wasn't until 2013 that most projectors were digital. So I would be surprised if this were true unless you're very young.
So I guess I don't remember seeing one is probably the more apt sentence.
I think the most interesting take from that documentary wasn't so much in the look or feel with film vs digital, but how it effects the shooting process. With digital they can just do retakes forever and fix everything in post, which can be great in some cases, but with film it seems like everyone have to step up their game a bit more and be better prepared for a scene. And all that might influence the end result. Having unlimited possibilities isn't always best for creativity and art.
As for film projection, I don't care that much. I saw The Hateful Eight in 70mm and it was fine, but not a transcending experience compared to anything else. I might catch Oppenheimer in 70mm if possible, but I am sure a regular digital projection will be fine as well.
I saw both Hateful Eight and Oppenheimer, the film projection for the former worked better imo (western). I'm thinking back now that many movies I have seen on tv or streaming were shot on film but then scanned, and they look great. So I could get in the camp of shooting the movie on film and then screening digitally, film does have a look for sure, and its still there when digitized.
The roadshow actually came to my city and I missed it. I have heard mixed things and it is very dependent on the way it's projected. These guys I used to watch talked about it, and one of them saw it twice and the first time apparently it was perfect and then the second time there were so many issues with it.
That's definitely a positive about digital projection where it's consistent and you know you're gonna get a clear image.
From the filming perspective Corridor Crew recently covered in camera effects comparing Watchmen and Obi-Wan, and how they both captured the blue glows from respective characters/objects. The technique on set was very similar but the end result seemed to be mainly influenced by the filming method.
How old are you, I'm 34 and remember film, my mom was manager of a theater, she has like ninja turtles or something on film that she stole
23
I'm very lucky to have a local IMAX 70mm screen theater. Just booked tickets today that had to be almost 2 weeks out, although after hearing this news, maybe that's a good thing. Hopefully the projectionists figure it out by then and the viewing goes smoothly! :)
I'm going to be traveling out of my way to see it (it's only a day trip) so I've got all fingers crossed everything works out well
As someone who hasn't had a positive theater experience in many years and doesn't go to the theater any more, I don't really see one format being superior to the other. My experiences in theaters are largely negative and it started in the early digital 3D era. I would try to watch films in 2D and the projector was really dark maybe because they weren't swapping equipment out between 2D and 3D. Also many times the sound is unbearably loud. So in the end I think from a viewer perspective I couldn't care less what format they shoot in because it ultimately comes down to how much skill and care the theater staff has in presenting the film. The reasons that ultimately drove me away from going to theater were all around the various local theater's inability to show a film without technical difficulties.
Great video, very informative. I can't say I agree with the video-maker's preference for analogue media - unless it fits very well with the themes of the media.
It's disappointing to see my experience seeing Oppenheimer was more common than I thought. My showing on Thursday night had issues. The visuals cut out about halfway through the film and it took them about 10 minutes to get it up and running again, apparently due to the projector overheating. The right third of the screen also flickered a bit, especially on brighter scenes, but I'm not sure if this was Oppenheimer specific. There were also a few spots of the IMAX screen that were dirty or damaged which was a bit distracting as well. The film was still a fantastic experience despite these problems. I too am still digesting my thoughts on it as a whole but at the least it's certainly a visual masterpiece.