Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,361 visits to this link)
17,292 topics in this forum
-
- 1.2k replies
- 464k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.6m views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 700 replies
- 307.5k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 756.2k views
-
- 22 replies
- 786 views
-
- 7 replies
- 792 views
-
- 42 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 7 replies
- 360 views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.4k views
-
- 82 replies
- 8.1k views
-
- 127 replies
- 59.9k views
-
- 121 replies
- 64.4k views
-
- 96 replies
- 75.9k views
-
- 19 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 13 replies
- 6.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 291 views
-
- 0 replies
- 347 views
-
- 0 replies
- 356 views
-
- 5 replies
- 778 views
-
- 314 replies
- 149.1k views
-
- 12 replies
- 5.8k views
-
- 51 replies
- 4k views
-
- 30 replies
- 33.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 352 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13.4k views
-
- 45 replies
- 12.9k views
-
- 13 replies
- 734 views
-
- 6 replies
- 2.2k views
-
- 2 replies
- 768 views
-
- 7 replies
- 593 views
-
- 7 replies
- 3.2k views
-
- 560 replies
- 261.5k views
-
- 18 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 508 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 57 replies
- 19.4k views
-
- 60 replies
- 19.9k views
-
- 3 replies
- 949 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.8k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
There are so many variables when it comes to how you're viewing the film images. Negative film has wide dynamic range and soft highlight rolloff. Positive film has much more limited dynamic range and pretty hard highlight rolloff. Faster film tends to be grainier. Filmmakers with a big budget would be choosing their film stock for aesthetic/style reasons. Imagine shooting Taxi Driver on the same technicolor low-grain film stocks that were used for The Sound of Music. Bright saturated colors would have been terrible for Taxi Driver. Scorcese chose less gritty films than some others might, but Travis Bickle lives in a relatively desaturated/dark world and that's for the best. Filmmakers with low budgets were likely to choose the cheapest film stock they could and some even used the leftovers that weren't exposed from the productions of others. Or in the case of John Waters, whatever film he could steal. Next, as you said, for these classic films, you aren't necessarily looking at scans from the master negatives. You might be looking at scans of the release prints. They didn't always save the masters. It could even be a second or third-generation print. Then to add to that, the way the film gets transferred matters. Did they scan the original negatives or a print? How was it scanned? Was the film being scanned perfectly flat? What compression was used on the scanned image? Was it scanned or telecine? If telecine, which projector lens was used during the telecine process? As far as the lenses, razor sharp lenses have been available for a long time, including in the 50's, and including wide angles. Lots of vintage wide angles are a little softer in the corners, but they can be very crisp in the center... but fashion applied in many eras of film, just as it applies now. For some of the softer images, especially close-ups, they might have been using a net filter, made more complicated by the net filter potentially being mounted behind the lens instead of in front. https://www.provideocoalition.com/the-secret-life-of-behind-the-lens-nets/ I'm sure I'm forgetting more things too. Like almost anything going through an analog to digital process, there are about a bazillion variables to consider along the way. -
Great posts, sticky this! Your contribution here @kye is priceless and a fine example for everyone, myself included : ) It's always a pleasure to read your thoughts! :- ) Keep going… I’m linking to it elsewhere, BTW ; -) Food for my trainee students. : D
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Famously, the greases that Leica used in their old lenses would evaporate and deposit on lens elements over time. It can be cleaned, but the danger of evaporation/depositing is real! -
Now I have mostly progressed my GX85 Super-16mm "conversion" I am turning back to a more generalised look at film and The Aesthetic as it pertains to cinema. My next step is to convert my S16 emulation into a 35mm emulation, which shouldn't be that hard as it's the same stuff but just using more of it, so turning down the grain and backing off the softening and size of halation and bloom etc. In order to get my bearings I've collected a bunch of frame grabs from cinema over the decades, and some fascinating things have emerged. Observation One: Film doesn't look like it's gotten cleaner and sharper This is what people say, but when scrolling through the references, you can find things like this from 1952's Bend of the River: and then things like this from 1994s Speed: Obviously you need to be smart about things, so both these shots are likely to be locked off, focus wouldn't be missed, lit naturally and exposed properly, etc. There are lots of shots from Speed that are soft, but it's an action movie so lots of them are probably motion blurred or the action was impacting how well that frame was focused etc. Luckily, License to Kill from 1989 will get us back to safe ground with some nice sharp images: But how are these images possible all the way back then? One thing that comes to mind is that when consulting Kodaks excellent Chronology of Film page, you see that the negative stocks started off as very low sensitivity and increased over time, so it's like comparing the high-ISO of todays cameras to the native ISOs of past cameras. Observation Two: Images look like they've gotten less worse The further back you go, the more you find shots that should be sharp but just aren't. The example above from 1952 was a real outlier, as most of the images from that time looked more like these from 1955s A Bad Day at Black Rock: I suspect the quality of the lenses. All the above looked like wider shots, so maybe that lens wasn't so good (wider lenses are harder to make). Maybe it wasn't at its sharpest F-stop. A lot of the sharpest images across the frame grabs I looked at were close-ups, and I suspect back then a 50mm at it's sharpest aperture and focus distance was a lot better than a wider lens at whatever F-stop and focus distance was required for the scene. Check out these grabs from 1955's The Seven Year Itch: Monroe was at her height of popularity so there's no way she's getting the beat-up lenses from the rental company or a camera team that doesn't know what they're doing. I can't think of any reason these two particular images would be softer than the technology at the time would have allowed. By 1971 things seemed to have gotten a lot more consistent with Diamonds Are Forever: Then if we fast forward to the last few years, we get films like 2024s Trap, which looks quite sharp and even approaching a digital look: but still has films over-emphasis of high-contrast edges: and it's a similar case with 2023's Poor Things which can look quite sharp: but on wides it still has that film look: and it's only when the lenses get crazy that the edges start looking more vintage again: Anyway, lots of food for thought, but it's almost like the sweet spot of film has remained relatively similar in performance but has gotten drastically wider as you can now get images that are that sharp and clean in much less light and across a vastly wider range of lens focal lengths and apertures. Another variable is that prior to digital projection, the final image had to go through many more layers of film than it has to now. Back in the day the image pipeline was something like: negative → interpositive → internegative → release print, rather than just negative -> scan, and it's not like our projection lenses haven't gotten better now too! Let me know if you can think of any more variables that I didn't mention, but it's like we're looking at lenses get better and film be useful in more situations, rather than it get "better".
-
