The Tree of Life

[Reinhold]

i'm pretty sure the print i saw at the sunshine was film. there was a little bit of dust/scratch lines in really bright shots of the sky. if that was malick then i dunno what to make of it.

[JG]

I know people who went to the midnight showing, and their tickets distinctly said "digital," whereas MINE DID NOT.

[Ravi]

This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

Cinemanarchissed, do you know if the Magnolia is showing it in 4K? I know you guys have a Sony 4K projector, but a while back someone who worked there told me that they didn't have some piece of hardware that would allow it to show 4K.

[pete]

my old roommate edited a sequence which, along with about a dozen or so scenes, didn't make it to the final cut. as a result he wasn't credited. he worked for free but dropped out when he couldn't pay rent. malick was getting a lot of free work done via UT professors hooking him up with local talents.
my friend worked on a Tornado sequence.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

I could be experiencing sub-par digital projection but I'm always quite bothered by how frozen the picture feels.  Does frozen express what I want it to?  I like the grain and texture of film.

[matt35mm]

This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

I could be experiencing sub-par digital projection but I'm always quite bothered by how frozen the picture feels.  Does frozen express what I want it to?  I like the grain and texture of film.

I think I know what you're talking about, but I only notice that super frozen quality on films that were shot digitally and projected digitally. Usually films that are shot on film will still retain grain from the negative even when projected digitally, though perhaps less grain because it's not printed again on film. Another difference is the slight wobble you get from a film projection. You can really notice it during the trailer bands or when any text is shown--it's either super stable like you're looking at a computer screen or it'll wobble and flicker slightly.

I know that I saw a film print last night but I'll likely be seeing a 4K digital print when I see it again.

[cinemanarchist]

This film went through a digital intermediate, like most films these days, so I don't see the benefit to seeing it on a 35mm print.

Cinemanarchissed, do you know if the Magnolia is showing it in 4K? I know you guys have a Sony 4K projector, but a while back someone who worked there told me that they didn't have some piece of hardware that would allow it to show 4K.

I'm not at The Mag anymore, but when I was there nobody was putting out 4K content anyways, it's just something theaters were using to excite people...DIGITAL 4K (but everything is presented in 2K.) The flick is opening at The Angelika in Dallas and I don't believe they have 4K projection there and my guess is that it will be a print.

Digital Projection is crisper than film, but it feels inorganic. It's essentially the CD vs. Vinyl arguement. Film feels lived in and to me digital just feels like you're looking through an artificial window, or at worst, at a really huge HD TV. You are correct that most films with a decent budget have a digital intermediate because people aren't editing on film anymore, but that's still no reason to not have film prints.

[Ravi]

You are correct that most films with a decent budget have a digital intermediate because people aren't editing on film anymore, but that's still no reason to not have film prints.

Unless it was graded optically on film (like Christopher Nolan's films), I don't see an absolute need to see a modern film on a print. I do agree that digital projection can have an inorganic feel, but like Matt said, if the movie was shot on film, the DI will retain a lot of that film look, even though the projection itself does give a different feel to the image. Digital projection still has some issues to work out, though.

If you get to see a 4K digital projection you're seeing something very close to what the people in the DI suite saw if the projection is good. You're essentially seeing a scan directly off the camera negatives. A 35mm print from a DI still goes through the internegative/interpositive process, so its kind of the worst of both worlds. If its a 2K scan, a lot of the detail is thrown out in the DI itself, THEN it goes through the generations of making a film print, which loses some more information. Prints aren't made directly off the DI.

[RegularKarate]

It's essentially the CD vs. Vinyl arguement.

Not at all. 
Even the vinyl enthusiasts who knew what they were talking about admitted that digital recording has advanced beyond Vinyl's capabilities.  CD is just not that format.  4K vs film is far from vinyl vs CD.

When I watch a properly projected movie, especially on a 4K projector (The Drafthouse takes care of their shit and doesn't cut back on the lamp), it's unquestionably better than a film print.  It's a crisp, clean version of whatever the filmmakers shot.  If there are intentional imperfections, they come out the way they were intended.

Hearing the pops and seeing the picture jump is a nostalgia thing, it's silly. 

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

Well, I don't think nostalgia is silly and I don't think silliness is a valid point in the conversation.  If cinemanarkissed likes the feel of bearskin on his ass while he watches movies it's legitimate - it's the way he prefers to watch movies.  You sound like a real goddamn capitalist when you say one thing is the best and there's no reason anyone would want anything but the best.

Though all I want is the best personally.  There are some particulars to this issue that I'm not knowledgeable in, but from the conversation and my experiences it's clear there are a variety of factors contributing to my viewing experience.  How common are 4K projectors now, and does my theater care as much about the lamp levels as yours?  Does my Regal projectionist even know what the movie should look like?  It's great to hear that some of you are experiencing high-end digital projection and reporting back on its superior quality, but I bet a lot of us aren't as fortunate.  I equate digital projection with disappointment because I've experienced many image quality disappointments from digital projection.  

So of course as the technology develops and a standard is reached I'd prefer to see the film prints.

[matt35mm]

I really like being able to see both. I go to a lot of movies, and some are digitally projected and some are on film. That's perfect. I don't feel that one is better than the other in all cases. They have different qualities, and as far as my experience of the film is concerned, it becomes a part of it. The flicker, the grain, the little jump when it cuts to the next reel, that's all part of the movie when I'm watching a film print. The crispness, brightness, the stability, that's all part of the digital experience. My way of thinking about cinema is so subjective anyway that I'm more interested in my experience than whatever's objectively better.

I'd like to say that I don't think my enjoyment of seeing a film print has anything to do with nostalgia, though. I just like the quality of it, but it has nothing to do with notions of the past or history of cinema for me. But I love watching good digital projections, too.

Bad digital projections are the worst, though. I'd rather watch a dim, misframed film print than a bad digital projection. Weird compression issues or a low resolution ends up making the image look harsh in a really unattractive way that bothers me.

But really my ideal is to be able to see both film and digital projections, so I'm pretty much living my ideal right now. When it gets to a point where everything except for old movies are screened digitally, I'll be a little sad, just because I want to experience both on a regular basis.

[cinemanarchist]

It is nostalgia, but much of going to the movies is about nostaligia. I also like the thought a film physically aging with time.

I have a Kindle and an iPad, but nothing is ever going to replace a first edition, a shitty copy of The Hardy Boys you found at a garage sale or an original 70mm print of 2001. It makes me feel like an old man (I'm only 30) but 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. That's just me though. Lollipops in my mouth...

[pete]

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.

[Stefen]

Here's a few more clips and quick making-of.

http://content.foxsearchlight.com/inside/node/4857

[adolfwolfli]

I recently saw the 4K digital restoration / projection of Taxi Driver at our favorite local AMC, a particular theater that is a favorite because the quality of image and sound is usually great.  I have to say, it didn't feel "digital" at all to me.  I thought to myself, "this is what this film looked like during the first showing of a brand new print back in 1976, but better."  Really, it was bright, clear, no reel-change color and value shifts – and all the grain was present.  It felt very liquid and cinematic and I was quite impressed.