The Tree of Life

[cinemanarchist]

so fuck your nostalgia argument dude.

I said "lollipops in my mouth," geez! My arguement doesn't have to be yours. Digital will one day (probably pretty damn soon) surpass film in all areas, but I'll still prefer film because that's what the medium started on, that's what I grew up watching and projecting and that's what looks best to my eyes. Tree Of Life looked flawless in the digital format that I saw it in, but it still looked digital and that's not what does it for me. Seeing Che digitally projected was the movie that came the closest to fooling my eyes, but nothing has really come close since.

[Jeremy Blackman]

This seems like a good place to tell this story. I may have told it before.

When I saw Magnolia theatrically for the 8th and final time, toward the end of the credits the film started melting and started on fire. (I wasn't exactly sure what I was seeing at first.) We told someone at the concessions area, and without missing a beat they bolted through that little swinging door and sprinted for the booth. Apparently the projectionist was not projecting.

[Ravi]

For all-digital projects (CG animated movies or movies shot digitally), digital projection is a safe bet. For movies shot on film, if they went through a DI, it doesn't make sense to go film capture-> digital intermediate -> film output. Not that digital projection doesn't have issues, but that's one less filter between you and the image.

I think all or most of the AMCs are outfitted with 4K projectors. How much 4K content they show, I don't know. But now you have the issue of some theaters leaving the 3D polarizing filters on their projectors even for 2D films, making them dimmer.

the thought that most of our art and culture is going to be stored on hard drives from now on kind of bums me the fuck out.

This is a serious concern. With film, as long as its well preserved, you can always shine a light through it and project or scan it. Hard drives can crash or lock up if they sit unused for a while. LTO tape is physically more durable, but the tape might not be readable down the road. Digital files have to be migrated from time to time to whatever the next format is. There's no guarantee that the files we create today will be readable in 20-30 years. For movies shot on film we'll have the camera negatives, though most of them are finished digitally these days. Anyone know if the studios print 35mm yellow-cyan-magenta separations for their digitally-finished films?

[cinemanarchist]

This seems like a good place to tell this story. I may have told it before.

When I saw Magnolia theatrically for the 8th and final time, toward the end of the credits the film started melting and started on fire. (I wasn't exactly sure what I was seeing at first.) We told someone at the concessions area, and without missing a beat they bolted through that little swinging door and sprinted for the booth. Apparently the projectionist was not projecting.

At the Magnolia we had one digital projector, which accounted for 95% of our projection problems. Granted, Landmark Theatres, at least at that time, was not nearly as invested in digital as the major chains, so I'm guessing it stands to reason.

This is a serious concern. With film, as long as its well preserved, you can always shine a light through it and project or scan it. Hard drives can crash or lock up if they sit unused for a while. LTO tape is physically more durable, but the tape might not be readable down the road. Digital files have to be migrated from time to time to whatever the next format is. There's no guarantee that the files we create today will be readable in 20-30 years. For movies shot on film we'll have the camera negatives, though most of them are finished digitally these days. Anyone know if the studios print 35mm yellow-cyan-magenta separations for their digitally-finished films?

Not sure the answer to your question but the possibility terrifies me. Hopefully the film companies have thought all this through, but they were also in charge of the countless films that have been lost over time, so I wouldn't totally count on them.

[RegularKarate]

film is not vinyl
film stock is continuously improving itself, both in projection and in capturing
and even now
it's got ever a slight edge over digital things
in both projection and capturing, to this day

all the resolution talk, that makes no sense. digital image does not win by a landslide - it does certain things better than others, some more noticeable, but digital still has to prove itself in areas

so fuck your nostalgia argument dude.

Let me clear some things up here.

1. I know that film is not vinyl.  That just backs up my claim that "this is like Vinyl vs CD" is an invalid argument.
2. I still like the look of movies shot on film way more than movies shot digitally (obviously, there are exceptions)
3. My point is just what Ravi is saying.  The film is being converted digitally either way, so why put something in the way of getting the most accurate representation of the image? 
4. I realize there are pros and cons to both, my main argument is against the "Fuck digital, it's no good" knee-jerk reaction that some people seem to have.

From what I understand, I'll be seeing Tree of Life tomorrow as a film projection and again next week with digital 4K.

[The Perineum Falcon]

I just want to see the movie. I don't care how it's projected, as long as it's right-side up.

[matt35mm]

I would actually love to watch this movie upside down.

[john]

I would actually love to watch this movie upside down.

How about high?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/fox-searchlight-suggests-you-see-the-tree-of-life,56639/

Proving there are far more reductive ways to see this film than just digitally.

[matt35mm]

I would actually love to watch this movie upside down.

How about high?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/fox-searchlight-suggests-you-see-the-tree-of-life,56639/

Proving there are far more reductive ways to see this film than just digitally.

Yeah I remember reading that. I don't think this would be a very good movie to watch high actually, except for maybe 15 minutes of the movie.

But upside down would be fantastic.

[picolas]

LOVE this clip. it's like penn can't hear himself think.. the camera is just as disoriented/lost in space. buildings as vast, dark boxes/coffins, and penn has nothing to do but build more.. as though malick's dystopia is present day. at least that's what i'm getting from these seconds.

[Pubrick]

Fucking excellent interpretation picolas.

Finally someone is talking about the movie in a way other than technical bullshit which doesn't mean anything.

I think you also just explained The Burial.

[polkablues]

No, I want to hear more about projectors.

[cinemanarchist]

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/big-screen/2011/jun/02/the-projectionst-has-final-cut-ask-terrence-m/

[pete]

3. My point is just what Ravi is saying.  The film is being converted digitally either way, so why put something in the way of getting the most accurate representation of the image? 

From what I understand, I'll be seeing Tree of Life tomorrow as a film projection and again next week with digital 4K.

lets clear this up right now - just because film went through some form of digital process doesn't mean it's MEANT to be projected digitally, or a digital projection is somehow more "accurate" - whatever that means. by the same logic - are none of the digital projections "Accurate" if they came from a celluloid or chemical source at a certain point?

my point is, there is no "right" format in displaying most (not all - I'll give you that) features; you can't simply declare every film that's ever been through DI superior via digital projection. it depends on how the output is handled, and depending on the technician, the amount of shit the studio gives, the time alotted, and the intentions of the colorist/DP - each film is different.

[Ravi]

lets clear this up right now - just because film went through some form of digital process doesn't mean it's MEANT to be projected digitally, or a digital projection is somehow more "accurate" - whatever that means. by the same logic - are none of the digital projections "Accurate" if they came from a celluloid or chemical source at a certain point?

my point is, there is no "right" format in displaying most (not all - I'll give you that) features; you can't simply declare every film that's ever been through DI superior via digital projection. it depends on how the output is handled, and depending on the technician, the amount of shit the studio gives, the time alotted, and the intentions of the colorist/DP - each film is different.

Not quite following you on the bolded part. Most films you see today are shot on film and go through a DI. The colorists and filmmakers work on the look of the film in the digital domain. So going back to film doesn't necessarily add anything.

Digital projection does have some issues. Black levels aren't as good as film, aliasing can be a problem (probably less so on 4K projections). But with film prints, the image still goes through a few optical generations to get to a theater print. Prints aren't struck directly off the DI. They make an interneg off the DI, and make prints off that. Both film and digital can be screwed up by a jackass projectionist, but the process of making a film print inherently has more room for error than compressing the DI down to another digital file for digital projection.