Ahh the whole digital vs film debate. Ive seen film to blu transfers look better than digital to blu transfers. If something is shot in 4k digitally its stuck at 4k resolution...one day when we are up to 20k screens the old digital films will look bad. At least with film it can be scanned (when certains studios can be arsed) to at least look its best in higher definition formats. In a way it makes film a bit more future proof. And sometimes its not just film that contributes to the final look...what lens being used can be down to how soft a image is.

I think there's so many people that think film is dead because it's so hard to see a good print these days. If it was a common thing I don't think you would see nearly as many people arguing for digital. I don't know the specifics... but I feel like the DI-process really killed film. There has to be major resolution loss there, again I don't know the specifics, I just know that there's been a huge difference in quality of prints since the DI process has become the norm.
The only reason I vouch for film is because i'm fortunate enough to live by some art houses that take it seriously, and project really good quality, old prints. I don't think this is very common though.

Honestly, I was even watching Ferris Bueller's Day off at a midnight screening one night. There's just something about film, the second that projector started I instantly felt like I was in a different world.

That being said, I've never seen a 4K projection, and despite what a lot of people think 4K projections are very rare. There's a theater near my showing that new samsara movie in 4K, that will be really interesting to see.

To be honest In the comercial theaters I do not know what camera was used to do a film when i see the film. I do not know if the camera was digital or film, if there was digital intermediate or not. a few things i can see is if it was shoot on 16mm due to gross grain, if it was shoot anamorphic due to oval bokeh and horizontal flares, if it is being projected on digital or film. And i dont think the today movies copies are bad. the big studios would not release a bad film copy to comercial theaters.

In the indie / art theaters sometimes i can see the difference. I saw a film projected on 35mm film but it was shoot on a hdv camcorder and i could see the digital look on it.

The A-minima wasn't used exclusively on this, either. There's nothing "cheeky" about what Anderson & Yeoman are up to here. Also nothing cheap, or even cheerful, in the least. It's gorgeous, melancholic, owing more to Powell & Pressburger than Ken Loach, but with hints of that too. (Wes has no reason to "try to make 16 look like 35", he's not like the people on boards like these trying desperately to make their chosen tool to look like something it isn't.)

@goanna, I think that is the case for the majority of people, it seems like art houses are only in big cities. I haven't heard of the evening sun, thanks for sharing it I'll definitely check it out. That is interesting about the artist. I wonder why they did it that way. I guess my point is that most people that compare film to digital only see film that is projected digitally or has gone through a digital process, which i think degrades the final image.

I go back and forth on the DI-process. It can definitely be used as a creative tool. But I think too many people use it hoooorrrriibbbllyyy. I've seen too many orange faces and neon blue backgrounds. That seems to be the trend these days. Whenever you watch an older film shot movie the skin tones are so spot on and perfect (except if it's really stylized like the godfather or something like a bleach bypass process).

I have to agree with @jeffharriger, and disagree with @apefos. I love the grain of super 16 and I think super 16 has a look that cannot be reproduced digitally. Actually, I would say it's harder to reproduce the super16 look than it is to reproduce the 35 look because it goes beyond resolution, it has a charcter.

And yes, there are plenty of bad prints being used in commercial theaters. Once a studio sends out a print it's out of their hands. And a lot of theaters don't take great care of prints (knowledgeable projectionists are also a dying breed). For example, I watched a screening of super 8 that was so bad (horribly scratched, audio messed up) the theater gave us a refund.

There's a reason that wes anderson is shooting 16mm, Terrance mallik is shooting 35mm and avoided the DI process for as long as he could, and the biggest blockbuster of the summer was shot in 35 and Imax. (speaking of Batman, I'm not sure about this last one but Wally Pfiszter also hates the DI process and did the first two completely photochemically) These are some of the most important filmmakers of our time, I don't think they're being snobbish or nosthalgic, I just think they've had the pleasure of seeing great prints done under great conditions for most of their life.

I plan to check out The Master in glorious 70mm. THAT should be special.

http://www.themasterfilm.com/

I have not read the Fuji link and the topic of the thread seems to be more about 35mm vs 2k digital and 4k digital as well as IMAX for projection. It also seems we are limiting the discussion to 2D, which is fine by me since I have a lot more experience watching it.

If I am going to watch digital in a theater, I either make sure that I will be watching it on a 4K projector or accept that I am there primarily as a social event as opposed to, to enjoy the visual experience of the film. 4K digital projectors look noticeably better than 2K ones, even with 2K prints. If want to think of a similar experience that many can more easily verify from their own background, think about watching a DVD on a high quality HD CRT vs an SD CRT of similar size. Both are rated to be able to handle the resolution of the source content, yet the one that is able to exceed it still produces a noticeably better image (though there may be a million reasons for that).

To be clear - I am not saying that the reason for the 4K digital projectors exceeding the image quality of the 2K ones is purely down to resolution. I would have to test far more extensively to be sure of that. What I am saying is that, whether it be a question of tighter tolerances, superior converters or whatever else, the results currently projected in theaters with 4K projectors exceed those of the ones with 2K projectors, speaking only from my own personal experience. The difference is of sufficient import to me that I have generally pre-checked the projector ever since 4K PROJECTORS BECAME AVAILABLE FROM sony in the greater L.A. area.

Why is this so important if we are talking about film vs digital or about film vs a digital intermediate of film etc.? Because we should limit the discussion to film projection vs 4k projection (regardless of source format) because everything looks worse on a 2K projector on a big screen. If you are using a 2K projection, then you can poetentially see the pixels on a big enough screen in the closer rows - and those are seats that people pay money for. If you watch the same thing on your smaller screen at home, you generally would not sit close enough to the screen to see the pixels (assuming that we are talking about a 2K or Blu-Ray 1080P).

I saw The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises in a complex that uses 4K and IMAX. The Dark Knight Rises came from a combination of IMAX and 35mm material and was shown in IMAX. I sat the center of the theater so I could not give you as clear a read on deficiencies etc. as if I were closer. It was interesting to note how much the film took advantage of the IMAX ratio in so many shots. The film really should be seen that way for that reason alone, rather than for resolution ones. With that said, the image quality was really good. It made me wish that The Avengers had been a 4K as opposed to 2K digital affair ( I am talking about the digital intermediate since I know variety of resolutions and formats were used).

Watching Batman TDKR in IMAX was one of my two favorite expereiences in terms of image quality this year. The other was watching Man & Beast (or Man Or Beast since I can never remember which comes between) on a 4K at the Canon C500 screening on Sunset earlier this summer.

In other words, I enjoyed film, I enjoyed 4K digital intermediate and i did not enjoy 2K digital as much. My experiences were not controlled - this was not empirical testing. But if you go back to the first Zacuto shootout and look at resolution test, you will see that you can get way more out of a 35mm to 4k than a 35mm to 2k scan. And the 2k scan was already doing a lot better than 5DMkII and 7D (which is of course important for The Avengers, which used some Canon DSLRs in a minority of scenes).

The only time I see 2K digital projection look better than 35mm projection is whenthere are problems on the 35mm side (like a damaged print).

Guys, it is simple as hell.

Production of film in big amounts will be over soon (still available for big studios).

All film projectors will be removed and replaced either with 2K or 4K digital ones.

In few years theaters won't using HDDs for films transportations, but will be connected to secure network.

(Well, I don't understand all about VBR's and lens adapters, but I swim in this situation every day...)

• In production? Yes. Soon being 3-5 years. But not until shot (1) safety and (2) consistency and (3) repairability of these production assets exceeds shooting production on film. Currently, you can consistently fix most anything shot on film. When you have stars flying around the world between projects, and sets built up and torn down daily, digital is still not as "safe" production asset as shooting on film. You can tell, as it's still "news" when another production switches to RED or others. When it's no longer news, then there is only 3-4 years left of film productions.

• In post? Yes. It's 98 percent there now. Even the biggest long term A list hold out are now cutting digital.

• In D.I.? Yes. It's 98 percent there now.

• In theater release? It's not close. Currently, the money numbers still don't add up. The "return on investment" is still not close to any real business reality yet. The digital projectors (and their bulbs) installed in public theaters now are all still funded by projector companies and distributors, trying to gain market share for the eventual "28k+28k" conversion. (Estimated 28k theaters in USA + 28k theaters across the rest of the world. Making about 56k total public theater screens.)

"In few years theaters won't using HDDs for films transportations, but will be connected to secure network."

Funny. That's exactly what people were saying in 2002 as I sat in the SMPTE DC28 digital cinema committee meetings. And now it's been 10 years. Ah... it's still not close yet. How do you move 450 GB storage per 2k film over a network every Friday to 5000 screens? For a 16 screen theater, that's... 7.2TB... And 4k is 4x that data... This can't be just a global satellite feed pushed to all theaters, as each theater may have different performance rights, start dates, end dates, etc. Even per theater complex, as each complex, which may be "6 screens this week, 4 next week, and 2 screens for the four weeks after that..."

There is also technical nightmares with preparing the proper DCP files for each theater, so they are only playable starting at the right date, and not playable after the end date. I can tell you, even in Hollywood, on film lots, for exec screenings, we get DCP screwed up permissions at least once a week. And we've been in the middle of this for 10 years already! I had this happen at a screening at the Motion Picture Academy Theater that does the Oscars!

I think the more accurate description is, digital projectors will be slowly ADDED over time to public theaters. Why? There is very little motivation for a theater chain to remove their current film projectors. Where are you going to sell the 28,000+28,000? That's 56,000 projectors. Who is going to pay to have them all hauled out of 2nd floot projection booths and hauled away, when theaters are still making money with them now? So some will add digital projection. And most will wait until film distribution absolutely stops. (In many cases, that will equal most non-megaplex theaters never updating, and just going out of business.)

The other issues are bulbs. Digital projection bulbs burn out 4x faster and are still 4x the price of film lamps. The studios will not pay for those, the theater owners will. So do you really think theater owners are in a rush to put in digital projection to their already tight cost of doing business? Remember, the kid running the current projectors is cheap. And the parts for those film projectors are cheap too.

Lastly, who is going to pay for adding all those remaining 27.5k digital projectors going into theaters??? Why would a theater complex want to put in 16x new $70k 4k projectors for 16x screens, and oh, add another $30k for new Dolby Atmos audio systems too, to make the same amount per butt in seat? Plus, replace more expensive bulbs, 4x more often.

For the near future (10-15 years?) if a distributor wants 4000 or 5000 screens in US and 2000-3000 screens around the world on Saturday night, they are making both.

Digital in all theaters? Don't hold your breath... Even at small local theater, at 10+ screenings a weekend, with 100+ butts in seats at each screening, x $10 a ticket, equals... "$10,000+ per weekend screen..." Plus Monday through Thursday revenue too.... Yeah, they will make film prints and ship to those "$10k theaters for a while..." That's just smart business. And that's all that really matters in any business.

Hard to make comparison with workflow when some folks have never been up at 5 Am for years to go onsight with film crew or chopped choruses together on an Otari/Studer Tape machine at half past oh God no ! Not preaching about old shit as it is what it is - but new emulations are just that - if you didn't experience them day in and out - dont be harsh on the old folk that find the (very good) emulations) wanting - they ain't as good but they're damn close - (and after Optimod they're squished to the ends of the Earth:)

Fuji removed AA filter entirely from X-Pro1 camera. In the near future, we will see a video camera without AA filter. This seems like a significant milestone in digital processing.

Good bye, Film.

...there are reasons film is taking so long to be supplanted. Most of them have to do with DR and color accuracy.

I'd posit that there are 1080p rigs that out resolve a lot of mainstream 35mm cinema for resolution though. Here's why: 500T shot Super 35 resolves less than 400 lines (according to Kodak's spec sheet for 500T, which is likely generous). A 1080 rig ought to be able to resolve at least 500 line pairs. Shooting anamorphic probably knocks it back down, but it does the same for film.

The last Zacuto shoot out showed that most of the gear is not up to the color resolution of film yet, but some of it was. The big stumbling block, if I remember right, was the sub sampling for 4:2:0 killing detail. 4:2:2 capable gear did better.

In any case, there's not a lot holding digital back these days. Especially with tools like ptool. And it's still way cheaper than film. The movie you make with the gear you can afford is still better than the one you don't make on gear you can't afford.