5 ms·

> "There's a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film." Can be simulated by shooting at the same frame rate (24 fps) plus some post-proc

by jewel 12y ago

> "There's a magic to the grain and the color quality that you get with film." Can be simulated by shooting at the same frame rate (24 fps) plus some post-processing? It probably wouldn't be simple to write an accurate simulation, and it could be quite GPU intensive to process, but I imagine it's possible to get results from a digital camera that are indistinguishable from those using film.

devindotcom 12y ago
They're distinguishable. They've been shooting at 24FPS digital for a long time now, and digital post processing has been standard for decades. It really is difficult to say what sets film apart, but it's generally agreed among cinematographers digital and analog that the filmic quality is pretty unique to the film itself, though of course it can be faked fairly well.
- ricardobeat 12y ago
  It used to be latitude / dynamic range, but digital sensors have already matched and surpassed film on that. I'm sure what the previous commenter said can be done (simulating film to a point where a movie director wouldn't be able to tell). It's different from analog vs digital audio, video has always been time-sliced so it's perfectly possible to recreate the exact same light.
devindotcom 12y ago
just occurred to me I wrote an article a while back that touches on some of this stuff, if you're interested in the history around 24, film & tv, etc: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/
cclogg 12y ago
I find it's still really noticeable in the skin tones and highlights. You can find lots of comparisons online; once you see film beside digital, the difference can be pretty huge. Some people in Hollywood still really care about it... one recent example: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creating_an_Edgy_Anti_Comedy_Look_for_Tammy.htm http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creatin... “It’s like we’ve forgotten how great film looks when you see it in comparison,” Alsobrook remarks. “We looked at each other, and it was a done deal. There was no question we were going to shoot film. It has a rich, creamy look to it that you just can’t get any other way.” One instance where it's very obvious to me was 300 vs its sequel 300: Rise of an Empire. I tried to find 2 similar images: 300 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete_experience_blu-ray/large/large_300_blu-ray3.jpg http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete... 300 sequel http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5NDQyMTE@._V1__SX1857_SY901_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5Ban... So basically I think digital is getting there but it still has a little ways to go in matching the perceived quality.
- ars 12y ago
  Which is which? The sequel photo looks a bit better.
  - cclogg 12y ago
    Darn, looks like I can't edit my post anymore, and HN formatting screwed it up lol. First link is for 300, second one is for the sequel. I guess it is quite subjective, but what makes the second one look better to you? For me the first one, whilst chalked with noise/grain, has a much better rendition of the skin-tone, along with detail in the highlights, and the depth of the reflection in her eyes. I guess it's hard to describe really, but that's kind of why I would side towards the first image.
    - ars 12y ago
      > what makes the second one look better to you? The main thing is the noise on her skin - it makes it look very artificial. Like it's not an actual person. On her cheek it almost looks like she has beard stubble. The background of the first one also looks like a pointillist painting instead of the real world. (Although I might not notice it in motion.) I'm not a fan of the skin color either since real people don't look like that. To me it looks cold and artificial, like I'm looking at a painted robot instead of a person. I do wonder how much of this is film vs digital, as opposed to post processing. Film might not be able to stop grain, but I don't think it needs to look like that for the color. It suspect it was over sharpened and over contrasted in post.
      - cclogg 12y ago
        Yeah I suspect you are right about post-processing. Good to read your points though, thanks for the response!
- bane 12y ago
  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-09/news/0703100027_1_blue-screen-shot-film http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-09/news/070310002... Although high-def video most often is used for blue screen shoots, director Zack Snyder and Fong shot on film. "We wanted the film grain to show," Fong said.
gchpaco 12y ago
There's important differences in color response, although a lot of the most modern films have very similar color response to digital (because the one was designed to mimic the other, obviously). The grain is also difficult to mimic precisely; film, being an analog medium, has sometimes superficially higher resolution than a lot of digital sensors but this is because it degrades continuously (whereas digital tends to be superb until you reach the handful of pixels range). This is all, of course, in the context of color films. Black and white films are particularly difficult to mimic with digital, partly due to spectrum rendition issues that are difficult to recreate in post processing, partly due to very different grain structure (B&W grain is generally sharper than the dye clouds you get with color films), and it must be admitted partly due to romanticism on the part of film partisans.
abruzzi 12y ago
I don't know how much has changed since I was doing it, but in the past there was a noticeable difference in dynamic range between digital sensors and film. This was less of an issue for stills since you compose each shot, but with film, especially if you are shooting cinema verité style, you have to especially careful in uncontrolled environments of shadows and light sources to make sure you don't lose info. I'll add that I think that convenience and workflow is the #1 reason for the change. The cost of film and processing in all but small independent productions is a minuscule part of the budget.
sanoli 12y ago
If you could get indistinguishable results, studios would have done it to many of their movies already. I haven't been to a movie theather for the past 4 years or so (kids), so I don't know what it's like now, but back then you could definitely tell. Film was still superior and if they could simulate it I'm pretty sure they would.
hcarvalhoalves 12y ago
With digital capture, color response is predictable, so you get accurate but boring images straight out of camera. Highly saturated colors, highlights and shadows can also clip because you don't have enough bits, so there's less room for error. With film, color response varies by film, ISO rating, light source and exposure [1], so each one has a very particular character ("Kodachrome look", "Provia look", etc.). Also, analog media isn't prone to clipping, so you can get deep reds, deep blues, detailed highlights/shadows and still have the rest of the scene perfectly exposed without a lot of work. It's hard to achieve the same characteristics with digital in post-processing because the limitation is at the capture step. It's like trying to fix a dull audio recording - no amount of work in post can bring up a frequency if the mic hasn't captured it. [1] http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/e55.pdf http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs...

by jewel 12y ago

devindotcom 12y ago

They're distinguishable. They've been shooting at 24FPS digital for a long time now, and digital post processing has been standard for decades. It really is difficult to say what sets film apart, but it's generally agreed among cinematographers digital and analog that the filmic quality is pretty unique to the film itself, though of course it can be faked fairly well.

ricardobeat 12y ago
It used to be latitude / dynamic range, but digital sensors have already matched and surpassed film on that. I'm sure what the previous commenter said can be done (simulating film to a point where a movie director wouldn't be able to tell). It's different from analog vs digital audio, video has always been time-sliced so it's perfectly possible to recreate the exact same light.

devindotcom 12y ago

just occurred to me I wrote an article a while back that touches on some of this stuff, if you're interested in the history around 24, film & tv, etc: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/08/frame-wars/

cclogg 12y ago

I find it's still really noticeable in the skin tones and highlights. You can find lots of comparisons online; once you see film beside digital, the difference can be pretty huge. Some people in Hollywood still really care about it... one recent example: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creating_an_Edgy_Anti_Comedy_Look_for_Tammy.htm http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Creatin... “It’s like we’ve forgotten how great film looks when you see it in comparison,” Alsobrook remarks. “We looked at each other, and it was a done deal. There was no question we were going to shoot film. It has a rich, creamy look to it that you just can’t get any other way.” One instance where it's very obvious to me was 300 vs its sequel 300: Rise of an Empire. I tried to find 2 similar images: 300 http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete_experience_blu-ray/large/large_300_blu-ray3.jpg http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews46/300_the_complete... 300 sequel http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5NDQyMTE@._V1__SX1857_SY901_.jpg http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQwMTk3MTU3OV5BMl5Ban... So basically I think digital is getting there but it still has a little ways to go in matching the perceived quality.

ars 12y ago
Which is which? The sequel photo looks a bit better.
- cclogg 12y ago
  Darn, looks like I can't edit my post anymore, and HN formatting screwed it up lol. First link is for 300, second one is for the sequel. I guess it is quite subjective, but what makes the second one look better to you? For me the first one, whilst chalked with noise/grain, has a much better rendition of the skin-tone, along with detail in the highlights, and the depth of the reflection in her eyes. I guess it's hard to describe really, but that's kind of why I would side towards the first image.
  - ars 12y ago
    > what makes the second one look better to you? The main thing is the noise on her skin - it makes it look very artificial. Like it's not an actual person. On her cheek it almost looks like she has beard stubble. The background of the first one also looks like a pointillist painting instead of the real world. (Although I might not notice it in motion.) I'm not a fan of the skin color either since real people don't look like that. To me it looks cold and artificial, like I'm looking at a painted robot instead of a person. I do wonder how much of this is film vs digital, as opposed to post processing. Film might not be able to stop grain, but I don't think it needs to look like that for the color. It suspect it was over sharpened and over contrasted in post.
    - cclogg 12y ago
      Yeah I suspect you are right about post-processing. Good to read your points though, thanks for the response!
bane 12y ago
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-09/news/0703100027_1_blue-screen-shot-film http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-03-09/news/070310002... Although high-def video most often is used for blue screen shoots, director Zack Snyder and Fong shot on film. "We wanted the film grain to show," Fong said.

gchpaco 12y ago

There's important differences in color response, although a lot of the most modern films have very similar color response to digital (because the one was designed to mimic the other, obviously). The grain is also difficult to mimic precisely; film, being an analog medium, has sometimes superficially higher resolution than a lot of digital sensors but this is because it degrades continuously (whereas digital tends to be superb until you reach the handful of pixels range). This is all, of course, in the context of color films. Black and white films are particularly difficult to mimic with digital, partly due to spectrum rendition issues that are difficult to recreate in post processing, partly due to very different grain structure (B&W grain is generally sharper than the dye clouds you get with color films), and it must be admitted partly due to romanticism on the part of film partisans.

abruzzi 12y ago

I don't know how much has changed since I was doing it, but in the past there was a noticeable difference in dynamic range between digital sensors and film. This was less of an issue for stills since you compose each shot, but with film, especially if you are shooting cinema verité style, you have to especially careful in uncontrolled environments of shadows and light sources to make sure you don't lose info. I'll add that I think that convenience and workflow is the #1 reason for the change. The cost of film and processing in all but small independent productions is a minuscule part of the budget.

sanoli 12y ago

If you could get indistinguishable results, studios would have done it to many of their movies already. I haven't been to a movie theather for the past 4 years or so (kids), so I don't know what it's like now, but back then you could definitely tell. Film was still superior and if they could simulate it I'm pretty sure they would.

hcarvalhoalves 12y ago

With digital capture, color response is predictable, so you get accurate but boring images straight out of camera. Highly saturated colors, highlights and shadows can also clip because you don't have enough bits, so there's less room for error. With film, color response varies by film, ISO rating, light source and exposure [1], so each one has a very particular character ("Kodachrome look", "Provia look", etc.). Also, analog media isn't prone to clipping, so you can get deep reds, deep blues, detailed highlights/shadows and still have the rest of the scene perfectly exposed without a lot of work. It's hard to achieve the same characteristics with digital in post-processing because the limitation is at the capture step. It's like trying to fix a dull audio recording - no amount of work in post can bring up a frequency if the mic hasn't captured it. [1] http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e55/e55.pdf http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs...