TENET - General Information/Discussion/Speculation

An original action espionage film releasing in IMAX on July 17, 2020.
Posts: 1594
Joined: December 2016
Sure, if you ignore all characteristics that make film unique and special then we’re almost there. Panavision made a camera that is capable of capturing 8K images.
We can obsess about the Ks but not even the best DPs care that much. Roger Deakins deliberately decided not to use something like the Alexa 65 because it looked too clean, while the standard Alexa produced more textured images.

Posts: 1042
Joined: January 2016
Location: DE
You can always put that shit back in though. A digital image graded to look like film is pretty much indistinguishable from the real deal.

Posts: 1594
Joined: December 2016
Even if that’s true to some extent, I personally don’t like that idea. If you want the look of film and can afford it then there’s no reason to fake it. If you’re on a tight budget or you don’t have access to film then fine. And it’s not just about the look of it but it’s a different experience.

Posts: 110
Joined: November 2018
AhmadAli95 wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 4:09 pm
Sure, if you ignore all characteristics that make film unique and special then we’re almost there. Panavision made a camera that is capable of capturing 8K images.
We can obsess about the Ks but not even the best DPs care that much. Roger Deakins deliberately decided not to use something like the Alexa 65 because it looked too clean, while the standard Alexa produced more textured images.
i was under the impression he didnt use the 65 in 2049 because he hadnt tested it properly, and the lens selection was a bit poor back then, he used the LF for 1917 though, and while i myself am not a techie either, im just stating that its very possible that IMAX will be surpassed by digital in terms of pure image quality, now the argument can be made for aesthetics, but thats a completly different one, and one i can get behind, i work part time in an authorized Red rental, but if you ask me what i preffer i`ll not hesitate to say i like the Arri cameras more, purely for aesthetic reasons

Posts: 45
Joined: August 2019
Dobson wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 4:24 pm
A digital image graded to look like film is pretty much indistinguishable from the real deal.
No.

When digital tries to be film, it is even worse. I had to stop watching stranger things on netflix because they artificially added grain and it looked rediculous. The grain structure is inherent in a film stock and it changes with every cell, 24 times a second.

As you can see people in 2019 are aspiring to digitally emulate the look of a 1959 movie.

Every once in a while someone claims they will get there and digital enthusiasts get their hopes up. There was a guy who said he had found a way to make digital look like film and that he was confident to convince Nolan.

These guys get free publicity and disappear.

You can talk to any established name in cinematography world and he'll tell you that getting the film look with digital is pseudoscience.

This 31" reference monitor costs £30,000 and yet you can see color artifacts with close up. And this is the best of digital. In terms of pure image quality, digital cinema will never look that good.

https://youtu.be/7Ee74qdPcmY?t=313

Reason? There is no real color there. It produces all colors artifically.

So, why don't we see these color artifacts? That's because our marvelous brain compensate for these artifacts by color correction and additional processing (think of it like upscaling in modern TVs).

In fact, the reason you find higher resolution images more pleasing is because your brain doesn't have to upscale those images that much. Our photochemical eyes see everything in 576 MP so there is a lot of 'upscaling' involved even if you are watching an 8K picture.

In case of photochemical film ,the dye colors, grain, silver particles are trapped in transparent 3D emulsion. Shining light through them will always look more natural and organic. There is real color involved afterall.

All this and I have not even scratched the surface. Most people here will google stuff for knowledge. What they don't know is that Google results reflect the opinions monopolized by the electronic companies.

As an example google 'physical vs digital keyboard'. The first result you'll see says that on screen keyboards are actually better than real keyboards.

https://litreactor.com/columns/onscreen ... -keyboards

:lol:

Posts: 54100
Joined: May 2010
Dobson wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 4:24 pm
You can always put that shit back in though. A digital image graded to look like film is pretty much indistinguishable from the real deal.
Not really. That’s like saying digital photography can easily become analog through various apps and edits - it’s never the same.

Posts: 45
Joined: August 2019
If you want to get a good laugh, check out old Red forums. They are full of digital enthusiasts throwing bulls**t numbers that IMAX film will be surpassed soon. Guess what it never happened.
Nicolaslabra wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 3:23 pm
film reached its peak with IMAX.
It's the other way around. IMAX reached its peak right at the beginning with their large format film.

It has been downhill since then. Forget about those ridiculous dual 4K projectors. Forget about their plans to sell home theatres. Forget about all the money thet wasted on VR. Now they've come up with IMAX enhanced. So all you have to do is subscribe to Fandango Now or whatever and Voila! IMAX in your living room.

I personally can't wait for IMAX on my iPhone :lol:

Posts: 1042
Joined: January 2016
Location: DE
blackColumn wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 1:49 am
You can talk to any established name in cinematography world and he'll tell you that getting the film look with digital is pseudoscience.
no, it's the exact opposite:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html
regarding resolution:
http://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/

stop spreading bullshit
blackColumn wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 1:49 am
This 31" reference monitor costs £30,000 and yet you can see color artifacts with close up. And this is the best of digital. In terms of pure image quality, digital cinema will never look that good.

https://youtu.be/7Ee74qdPcmY?t=313
You're seeing artifacts in that video because it's filmed off the monitor, which generates these artifacts in the first place (moiré patterns). Of course you wouldn't be able to see them in person because there are none.
blackColumn wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 1:49 am
Reason? There is no real color there. It produces all colors artifically.
You're a troll
Image
m4st4 wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 4:57 am
Not really. That’s like saying digital photography can easily become analog through various apps and edits - it’s never the same.
If done properly the difference is small enough to become pretty much invisible when viewing footage that has been graded accordingly (see the links I posted above).

Posts: 1594
Joined: December 2016
Nicolaslabra wrote:
August 16th, 2019, 8:38 pm
i was under the impression he didnt use the 65 in 2049 because he hadnt tested it properly, and the lens selection was a bit poor back then, he used the LF for 1917 though, and while i myself am not a techie either, im just stating that its very possible that IMAX will be surpassed by digital in terms of pure image quality, now the argument can be made for aesthetics, but thats a completly different one, and one i can get behind, i work part time in an authorized Red rental, but if you ask me what i preffer i`ll not hesitate to say i like the Arri cameras more, purely for aesthetic reasons
I precisely remember him mentioning texture somewhere in an interview or on his forum. And he said LF was appropriate for that specific project (1917).

The conversation has shifted from which is better to try and understand that different directors and different projects demand different tools. Both mediums should be available for filmmakers and they get to choose.

I personally love both and I'd love the chance to work with both mediums.

Posts: 45
Joined: August 2019
Me : X is not healthy.

You : Stop spreading misinformation. X has cancer.

Me : Like I said, X is not healthy.

Moire patterns don't occur on photochemical film.

Thanks for the own goal.

In television and digital photography, a pattern on an object being photographed can interfere with the shape of the light sensors to generate unwanted artifacts.

Moiré patterns are commonly seen on television screens when a person is wearing a shirt or jacket of a particular weave or pattern, such as a houndstooth jacket. This is due to interlaced scanning in televisions and non-film cameras, referred to as interline twitter. As the person moves about, the moiré pattern is quite noticeable. Because of this, newscasters and other professionals who appear on TV regularly are instructed to avoid clothing which could cause the effect.

Meme is really a blessing for anyone who wants to understand complicated matters in a simple way because it is not just you, even scientists use technical languaguage and jargon to obfuscate things. Now that Moire patters has been dealt with let me come to Steve Yedlin.

Steve Yedlin is an instrument player. He has an electric Violin, plays it and says, "That's how an electric Violin sounds like. Wanna know how an acoustic Violin sounds like? Okay now listen carefully and tell me if you hear any difference."

Steve Yedlin then starts playing his electric Violin again.

"No difference".

You asking me to look at two images on my digital device and tell if I see any difference reminds me of Steve Yedlin, the great electric Violin player.

:lol:

No one ever used a film print to demonstrate the difference between the two. :oops:

(Pretty sure your best arguments are gone and I have not even laid the best cards on the table yet)

Post Reply