I think there is some middle ground here.
The thing about digital projection is that you can't just do a 'bench' test and say that such and such a projector is capable of a certain level of black. That is the trap that folks are falling into now (including certain filmmakers and dvd archivists). THEY see the 'bench' test quality in the studio. And, my remark about digitally shot movies is self-explanatory. Film still is a superior "negative" than a digitally shot movie. I agree with Clint Eastwood, Christopher Nolan, Janusz Kaminski and many others there.
Digital photography right now is like digital audio was in the early CD days - it's the bright shiny object where folks are fooled by the supposed "flawlessness" of digital (no hiss, no film scratches etc), but, fail to see or hear the flatness of the sound/picture. Yes, an actor digitally photographed outdoors in a brightly lit scene looks amazingly sharp and crisp, but, put that same actor in a film noirish shadows, and the gauzy grey garbage ruins the image.
Unfortunately, we on the consumer end see gauzy grey garbage when projected in a movie theater. Like I said, I live in L.A., and I go to the Arclight, the Cinematheque, the Grove and to private studo screenings. If this theoretical "proper black level" projector you claim exists, I would have seen it by now.
Conversely, those same theaters have still functioning 70mm and 35mm film projectors. They run revival screenings of prints made BEFORE everything including film prints went through a Digital Intermediate. And, yes, you can see real BLACK in those older pre-DI prints!
reply
share
Mr. Bug
11 years ago
Black level is not affected by the choice of digital or film origination. When projecting digitally the projector alone is responsible for how gray black looks (and the room, of course, which affects digital and analogue the same way). When projecting film the quality of the print and the projector decide. Grey garbage is due to projection issues, not whether it's shot on film or digital cameras. Modern digital cameras are superior to film in sensitivity so they see more into the shadows than film. Film used to be superior for highlight detail. That will soon be over with new sensors with more dynamic range than film. Whether film is superior for colour rendition is debatable. Different systems, different results. Spatial resolution of 35mm is not superior to digital cameras anymore. For that you need modern 65mm which goes beyond 4K.
For every Nolan/Pfister sticking to film there is a Soderbergh/Deakins opting for digital. Great results (and horrible ones) are possible with either system. The man behind the camera counts much more than the camera itself.
The bottleneck lies with digital projection for large screens where good blacks are not yet feasible.
I see superb blacks and shadow detail every day from my digital projector. Gray garbage does not exist for me unless the director wanted me to see gray garbage. The price I pay is the size of the screen which can't go beyond 4-5 m wide for now.
reply
share
gortx
11 years ago
Soderbergh (as fine a filmmaker as he is) is all about getting films made - I've never seen him say digital is better on an aesthetic level, he just likes the ease of use (like Robert Rodriguez et al). Deakens, I fear, has gone over to the dark side because he can only perceive the "bench test" in the editing room. SKYFALL looked like grey garbage in 4K at the Arclight.
If you are happy sitting in your house watching 3-5 meter screens, that's great. Some of us like to see movies on the biggest 30 to 50 FOOT screen available -- and, with actual blacks.
reply
share
Mr. Bug
11 years ago
Arclight seems to be a *beep* cinema then. I regularly see digital projection on big screens with sufficient black levels (e.g. not grey garbage). At least as good as the prints we used to have in this regard, and superior in other regards. Digital projectors will improve, the masters are fine.
Film will be gone within 5 years. Digital sensors will be better in all regards then. So watch your prints while you can. I don't miss them. They used to be mostly poor where I live.
reply
share
gortx
11 years ago
The Arclight is considered one of the premiere houses in America. Like I said, I live in L.A.. I've been to every major theater, including private studio screenings. If non-grey garbage digital projectors existed - I would have seen it by now. Conversely, because of where I live I can still see FILM prints on FILM projectors made before DI's with far far far superior shadow detail - and true blacks.
If Mr. Bug is happy looking at tiny home screens, then, have fun. Digital projection still doesn't satisfy on the big screen. I saw MUD just this week in 4K - gauzy grey garbage. One might even say the shadows looked "Muddy"!
Like digital audio, there was always the promise that "one day" digital would sound superior to analogue with CDs. Many engineers and music artists say that DVD Audio does just that. Unfortunately, DVD-A accounts for what, 0.001% of the music market? 0.000001%? And, even then, it's all moot, since "kids these days" almost exclusively listen to MP3's which aren't even as good as CDs. I fear that Digital projection will follow the same route once the general public gets used to watching grey garbage - why spend the money for anything better if they will fork over $12 for crappy visuals?
My final thoughts to Mr.Bug: I saw SAMSARA in 4K and THE MASTER in 70MM at the same theater within a few days of each other. Both brand new movies shot on 70mm. There was no comparison. THE MASTER looked much more lifelike and realistic - and with genuine black level.
reply
share
Mr. Bug
11 years ago
Are you a screen size fetishist? A 4m screen is not tiny. Size is less relevant than viewing angle. 20m screens are useless if people sit so far away that they can't even resolve 1080p, much less 4K (as most people do).
Tell me, how did the master look much more lifelike and realistic? Because of the black level? Because of shadow detail? Anything else?
And black level in cinemas is also often compromised by silly exit lights, affecting prints and digital.
The black level of prints CAN be about 2-3 times lower than from digital cinema projectors. That's relevant. Cheap mass prints are not much better, though. But it does get much better than this. I'm used to 10 times lower black level and more.
Does the Arclight have a Sony 4K projector? A Barco? A Christie? The bigger the screen the worse the black level with digital. Maybe a smaller screen in another cinema would suit you better? Prints are not coming back.
The black level issue is pretty irrelevant for bright scenes. It matters for dark scenes. So how is "The Master" much more lifelike and realistic in bright scenes?
Finally, film is not really aiming for lifelike and realistic in the first place. An often heard argument against digital cameras is that they are too realistic while film with its artifacts and limitations shows another more dreamlike world, different from reality.
reply
share