4 ms·

Apparently Dune was transferred to film and back again to try and get the look. I'm not sure how much it really mattered in the end- I'm sure there are digital

Apparently Dune was transferred to film and back again to try and get the look. I'm not sure how much it really mattered in the end- I'm sure there are digital methods- but it did work. https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-transferred-to-35mm-film-then-scanned-back-to-digital/ https://ymcinema.com/2021/12/03/dune-was-shot-on-alexa-lf-tr...

drewcoo 5y ago
Digital -> analog -> digital. Is that what made it so dark? DAD cataracts?
dylan604 5y ago
If your highlights have already been clipped because of digital, you're not going to magically get the benefits of film's rolloff. There's a lot more going on with capture in an analog/physical media like film than just grain that most people associate
- devindotcom 5y ago
  Modern digital cinema capture has nearly film-like dynamic range. It's gotten pretty good. Film is the gold standard but it's not always worth the trade-off in cost and complexity. And ultimately a lot of it comes down to good grading, not the DR of the original shot.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    >Modern digital cinema capture has nearly film-like dynamic range. NEARLY is not EQUALs. The dynamic range that you are touting being nearly the same is the specific feature of film that I was refering to on how it handles highlights. It's taken 25 years to get to where we are nearly there, but I understand why some purists still prefer the acquisition on film. However, the nearly is good enough for most but the purists.
    - greedo 5y ago
      You do realize that all this range and depth that purists talk about is just like what audiophiles do when they talk about the "warmth" of a vinyl recording? So film has a huge resolution advantage especially when you use 70MM. Theoretically capable of 16K. Yet by the time you've developed the negs, created interpositives, edited, created masters, created internets, and finally created prints for the theaters, that resolution, that dynamic range, those "highlights" (could you be more vague) get lower and lower. Then you send it to a theater with a crappy projector that's out of calibration, or has a bulb out of spec. Then you get crap. Same with when you have this pristine film scanned for DVD/BluRay/4k whatever.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        I'm talking about the ability to expose what would appear to be overexposed details in clouds while allowing shadows to be exposed to avoid details lost in the blacks. When color corrected, the highlights have the ability to be recovered to see the details back in the clouds. Just an example of a shot. If the exposure was too much for the clouds to be recovered, then the roll off in film looks much cleaner than just the clipping that occurs in digital. Your reply comes off as if I don't know what I'm talking about which just isn't the case. I've already stipulated in a previous comment that modern digital is good enough for most everyone one but purists. So your audiophile comment implies to me you missed some salient details.
        greedo 5y ago
        Modern digital cameras like the Arri Alexa have 14+ stops of dynamic range. That is less than what Kodak says about most film stock.
        dylan604 5y ago
        Man, you're just missing the point. It's about the look of what happens when it reaches the end of that range. It's not how much range it has. For example, I've seen footage shot on a Red (don't remember specific body/chip) of table top food products with fun issues. Specifically, it was a chocolate shake with whipped cream on top. The sensor had issues with the white so that when the exposure was pushed, the white became magenta. The green data was not hitting at the same levels as the red and blue. To get white, the green channel needed to be pushed independantly, but it was already clipped digitally even though the R/B channels were not. Scanning that same image from film would not have exhibited this behavior.
formerly_proven 5y ago
I don't think people know why they "like" or "dislike" a certain look. Take a look at cinematography, it's all "anamorphic this"¹, "24 fps that", "digital is too harsh" etc. The article: > But it gave us the feeling we had been picturing a certain texture that’s painterly but feels timeless…The film has softened the edges of the digital. It gave us something that film acquisition couldn’t give us, and it gave us something that digital acquisition couldn’t give us Cinematography still has clearly a long way to go. It's currently in the "we don't know what perspective is" phase of painting. ¹ anamorphic lenses are, generally speaking, horrible. It's extremely obvious when they're used, which is probably the main reason why there has been a huge anamorphic filmmaking craze going on for a few years.

drewcoo 5y ago

Digital -> analog -> digital. Is that what made it so dark? DAD cataracts?

dylan604 5y ago

If your highlights have already been clipped because of digital, you're not going to magically get the benefits of film's rolloff. There's a lot more going on with capture in an analog/physical media like film than just grain that most people associate

devindotcom 5y ago
Modern digital cinema capture has nearly film-like dynamic range. It's gotten pretty good. Film is the gold standard but it's not always worth the trade-off in cost and complexity. And ultimately a lot of it comes down to good grading, not the DR of the original shot.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >Modern digital cinema capture has nearly film-like dynamic range. NEARLY is not EQUALs. The dynamic range that you are touting being nearly the same is the specific feature of film that I was refering to on how it handles highlights. It's taken 25 years to get to where we are nearly there, but I understand why some purists still prefer the acquisition on film. However, the nearly is good enough for most but the purists.
  - greedo 5y ago
    You do realize that all this range and depth that purists talk about is just like what audiophiles do when they talk about the "warmth" of a vinyl recording? So film has a huge resolution advantage especially when you use 70MM. Theoretically capable of 16K. Yet by the time you've developed the negs, created interpositives, edited, created masters, created internets, and finally created prints for the theaters, that resolution, that dynamic range, those "highlights" (could you be more vague) get lower and lower. Then you send it to a theater with a crappy projector that's out of calibration, or has a bulb out of spec. Then you get crap. Same with when you have this pristine film scanned for DVD/BluRay/4k whatever.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      I'm talking about the ability to expose what would appear to be overexposed details in clouds while allowing shadows to be exposed to avoid details lost in the blacks. When color corrected, the highlights have the ability to be recovered to see the details back in the clouds. Just an example of a shot. If the exposure was too much for the clouds to be recovered, then the roll off in film looks much cleaner than just the clipping that occurs in digital. Your reply comes off as if I don't know what I'm talking about which just isn't the case. I've already stipulated in a previous comment that modern digital is good enough for most everyone one but purists. So your audiophile comment implies to me you missed some salient details.
      - greedo 5y ago
        Modern digital cameras like the Arri Alexa have 14+ stops of dynamic range. That is less than what Kodak says about most film stock.
        dylan604 5y ago
        Man, you're just missing the point. It's about the look of what happens when it reaches the end of that range. It's not how much range it has. For example, I've seen footage shot on a Red (don't remember specific body/chip) of table top food products with fun issues. Specifically, it was a chocolate shake with whipped cream on top. The sensor had issues with the white so that when the exposure was pushed, the white became magenta. The green data was not hitting at the same levels as the red and blue. To get white, the green channel needed to be pushed independantly, but it was already clipped digitally even though the R/B channels were not. Scanning that same image from film would not have exhibited this behavior.

formerly_proven 5y ago

I don't think people know why they "like" or "dislike" a certain look. Take a look at cinematography, it's all "anamorphic this"¹, "24 fps that", "digital is too harsh" etc. The article: > But it gave us the feeling we had been picturing a certain texture that’s painterly but feels timeless…The film has softened the edges of the digital. It gave us something that film acquisition couldn’t give us, and it gave us something that digital acquisition couldn’t give us Cinematography still has clearly a long way to go. It's currently in the "we don't know what perspective is" phase of painting. ¹ anamorphic lenses are, generally speaking, horrible. It's extremely obvious when they're used, which is probably the main reason why there has been a huge anamorphic filmmaking craze going on for a few years.