Are Digital Movies Really Better than Analog?

Beatlebum asks: "I have watched two digital presentations of AOTC, the first at AMC1000 San Francisco and the second at the Metreon S.F. I did notice a few digital artifacts; however, what bothered me most was the lack of clarity of the colors. Many scenes seemed to be very slightly foggy. I expected the colors to be clear, crisp and rich. The Matrix Reloaded trailer looked significantly better in this regard. Am I crazy or did anyone else notice the same thing? I'm especially interested in hearing from those of you that have seen both analog and digital versions."

Comments

How far we've come

[ptomblin]

3 years ago I was working on a project that took film, scanned it at 4kx3k resolution with laser scanners, did digital post production at that resolution, and then printed it back on film at 4kx3k resolution. The powers that be at this company canned the project, even though it's still the best in its class, because it was expensive and slow compared to the lower resolution competition. People who care about quality, like the people doing post production on all three Lord of the Rings movies, are still using our software even though we pretty much abandoned them.

3 years later, I'm back at the same company, and now we're working on a way of delivering digital movies to theatres, and presenting those movies on the screens. Guess what the resolution for the first generation is? 1280x1024. A resolution I consider barely adequate on a 17 inch monitor, and wouldn't even put on a 21 inch monitor, and they've going to blow it up to a huge theatre screen. Yuck.

Re:Render unto Digital that which is Digital...

[Chasing Amy]

> It is my understanding that for some time, feature films have edited digitally. Not like they digitized
> it, came up with an EDL, the used the EDL to cut the film, but rather that they digitize it, edit it, the
> print back to film.

No, it is not the standard practise to digitize the film and then edit the digital copy and then print it back to 35mm. This has been done, but is not the norm last time I looked, being reserved for almost-all-digital-effects films. Most films will thankfully never fit this bill, focusing on story content rather than special effects--Ithink this has been Lucas' downfall with his prequels; he focuses on the digital effects to the detriment of the dialogue, acting, and all the rest that goes into a great film.

Aside from which, film can be digitized at a higher resolution than current digital cameras can capture, since specialty equipment has been developed for years to do just that.

> I don't know what exactly was done for star wars.

*AotC* was filmed with a special digital camera made by Sony especially for George Lucas--state of the digital art. Then the rendered scenes and characters and the digital film of the live actors were all edited together and then special effects where the live actors interact with the digital characters and scenery were added to that. The resulting "masters" are completely digital, and have been at every step of the process; IIRC the "masters" of *AotC* and *PM* are digitally preserved across a bunch of magneto-optical, optical, and magnetic media, redundantly, for posterity.

> But a lot of digital work isn't done at the highest quality possible.

Absolutely true. To cut costs, rendering is typically done at only a quarter or a half of film's full resolution. The result is usually not noticeably inferior, since that's still a decenmt resolution and if done well will look good even when printed back to 35mm. However, there are many exceptions--like Gladiator. Its digital elements, like the Coliseum background and its digital audience, looked very poor to people with a discerning eye when projected at theaters--muddy, indistinct, undersaturated, and not matching up seamlessly with the action in the foreground. It was all the more noticeable in the action sequences which were shot deliberately at a lower FPS (I think offhand 18fps) in order to produce that famous "tearing" effect during some fight sequences. And, a lot of films with lower-quality digital effects just look *awful* when projected onto a really huge theater screen, even if the effects were done really well and would have looked pristine on a smaller theater screen like you find at your average multiplex.

At any rate, yeah, digital effects are typically done at far less than full 35mm resolution. It makes me long for the days of special effects artists who'd spend weeks on a single detailed model... Today, the same effect is usually done digitally, with the loss of a "real" object and its associated weight and presence. Digital characters and effects often look less realistic precisely because they lack weight and mass, or don't seem to be effected by gravity, or other things which would just "be there" if they were being done with highly detailed real-world special effects artists at the helm instead of CGI artists.

> I think that film is a much more flexible medium for the forseable future, but most people don't work in a way to take advantage of it.

You're right in general terms. A whole lot of movies are using lower-res digital effects, or not using their 35mm capabilities to their utmost. But then again, I think we have to look to those few films that really do transcend anything digital has to offer today. Look at a truly great, well-shot film like *American Beauty*. Its cinematographer has had 50 years of experience behind a 35mm camera, and it shows--no scene is shot poorly, the lighting is so perfect as to generally not be noticed, and the effects that different film stocks and camera settings have have been used to great advantage. Digital (except of course in the scenes where a consumer-level DVcam was used to show the kids' use of that camera) would never have produced that richness and texture--things would have looked, well, more ordinary. In addition, while digital special effects had to be used for some scenes for obvious reason--the rose petals flying from Mena Suvari's chest, e.g.--most things were done with good old-fashioned "real" effects. The scene in the steamy bathroom between Spacey and Suvari, for example, used real steam and real lighting effects. Theoretically, digital effects could have been used to produce steamy fog and lighting effects--but it ouldn't have looked so real and so striking as when done with the real thing.

Let's also not forget that film just has a "look" of its own, distinct from either digital processes or "real life." That look of film is what we're more or less used to seeing on the big screen and even on the small screen when it comes to movies. It's stylized in a soft, "natural" way, due in great measure to the lighting required when working with film. Digital film seems to me more harsh and less forgiving, showing off every blemish and making things look like harsh reality rather than the escapism of a film. This can be used to great effect, as in the boot-camp war movie *Tigerland*, which was shot on digital and looks the better for it because the harshness and "reality look" of digital matches the harshness and eality of the situation. But in most cases, that "harsh" look would be far less welcome. Even George Lucas has gone to great lengths to make his digital movies "look" like they were shot on film. Ironic.

> Starwars would have been one film that should have though.

I do miss the old *Star Wars* movies. First off, because as much attention was paid to dialogue and character development and acting as was paid to the special effects. I think this is Lucas' biggest problem with his latest films. But I also miss that the special effects were "real," done with very elaborateloy detailed life-size models of aliens and real people inside costumes--because they have a weight and real presence, and little unintentional movements which make them look natural and real. You don't get unintentional movements with digital effcts, and consequently they often look unrealistic, and they always lack realistic responses to gravity since weight is very complex and doesn't usually figure into digital effects yet except as a "guesstimate" by some animators. Before digital effects can look realistic, gravity and mass will have to be accurately modelled for digital elements instead of guessed at by an animator.

just my opinions though. :-)