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

Re:Yeah. That's the problem with digital

[OneFix]

I was under the impression that IMAX was just 70mm run sideways.

No, as this link shows, it is actually 3 times bigger than 70mm film ... however, the film runs at such a high speed that signifigant part of the film is "wasted" on the camera spin-up and to keep the cameras small enough to lug around, they only get 15 minutes of film per reel.

This as well as a few other reasons is why most IMAX films are under an hour long and feature little or no scripted characters (documentary films). Why documentary...because you can't really get a dolphin to perform better for a different take...

For insight into IMAX film making, try one of the many IMAX DVDs with commentary...one of the best to decribe the unique IMAX film making process is Super Speedway: Mach II Edition ...

The IMAX film format is actually the best quality you can find for dvd transfers.

Like it or not, anything that lucas used on EP2 will not compare to the film quality of IMAX!!!

Render unto Digital that which is Digital...

[Chasing Amy]

...and render unto 35mm that which is analogue.

What you noticed is actually the *opposite* of what is generally the case regarding *AotC*. Mo0st likely, if the digital projections looked worse in some way--more blurry, less saturated, etc.--than the film projections, then this is entirely the fault of the digital projector or some other element in the theater being set wrong. It's probably that the digital projector's settings were not all adjusted optimally, since the tech is so new. Hell, my local multiplex often sets their standard film projctors sub-optimally, and that tech is ancient...

The fact is, assuming the digital projector is set up correctly, *AotC* will look better on a digital screen because it is an entirely digital movie. The masters are digital, and when you see a digitally projected version, it should be as pristine as the masters (or nearly so, if resolution has to be adjusted). If you see a standard 35mm print of the film, you're seeing a digital->analogue conversion which willn not be as crisp and vibrant.

This is not true of showing most films, though, because most are primarily shot on film and not digital--even films with a lot of digital effects everywhere are generally primarily film. This has the advantage that a 35mm print has a far superior resolution than even the special custom digital camera which Sony made for George Lucas to shoot his digital movies with. 35mm film also has much greater sensitivity to a broader spectrum of colors than current digital cameras will allow--50 years of development on the color film stock front has produced some amazing things. So, while there is generational loss in th analogue->analogue transfer from master to new print, it hardly matters since the resolution is so vastly greater than the resolution of digital, and since the color spectrum is wider than current digital video camera sensitivities. This is why people like film critic Roger Ebert, and even me, can't stand digital projection for 35mm movies--even with my 20/100 vision, I can see the inferior resolution and color saturation of a film that was intended for 35mm when it's projected digitally on a very big screen.

So, naturally, it would seem that all-digital films like the new *SW* movies and digital animation like *Shrek* should best be viewed on digital projectors, while movies which are primarily 35mm are bet viewed on a traditional 35mm projector. And the fact is, until digital technology makes resolutions and color spectra approaching that of 35mm film possible both on the shooting and the projecting ends, I don't believe digital should be adopted as the standard.

Don't get me wrong--the time will come to go digital. But until its resolutions and color sensitivities can truly rival 35mm, that time is not now.

As an aside, here's film critic Roger Ebert's take--he's an outspoken critic of current digital projection for films shot on 35mm, but he shows an even-handedness when it comes to allowing that digital films naturally look better on digital projectors: http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr- star15.html http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2002/0 5/051001.html

The fact is, except for all-digital special effects films like the *SW* movies, the current push for digital is coming out of economic penny-pinching rather than better quality. There was a time when Hollywood was interested in greater quality and experimented with impressive 70mm filmstocks and 48fps speed. 35mm and 24fps stuck around because it's cheaper, albeit less visually stunning. And now digital, which has 1/5 to 1/7 the resolution and less color sensitivity at the moment, is chomping at the bit. For all-digital special effects flicks likw *SW* and *Shrek*, naturally it makes sense since rendering isn't yet done at very high resolutions (compred to 35mm). For other films, it doesn't, especially when projected on a rally impressive screen where the resolution, saturation, and intensity will be exposed for their inferiority.

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. :-)

Is digital better?

[mosch]

Digital projection in it's current incarnation, DLP, is terrible. Theoretically the color depth should be fine, the spec is for 45 bits of color, though AoTC demonstrated well that apparently they don't use all those bits, because at least at the theatre I was at, the blacks weren't very black.

The real problem is the incredibly shitty resolution, 1280x1024. 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 20 million pixels, a wee bit more than digital. Watch a slow pan of a detailed scene carefully (the waterfall scene would work), and you'll actually see everything moving pixel by pixel.

Oddly enough, the digital projector should be able to get an equivalent or better contrast ratio than film. 35mm film is generally specced to get about 1000:1, but the Barco DLP Projectors can get up to 1250:1.

The storal of the ,mory is that contrary to popular opinion, adding the word 'digital' to a technology does not make it better.