What is the benefit of projecting a modern movie on 35 or 70mm film?

August 18, 2016 11:24 AM

I get how a digital restoration of an older film might destroy aspects of a 35/70mm film's look (grain and sharpness in particular) but if a film has already gone through a digital intermediate process shouldn't the DCP look just like the source the director/colorists were working with? What is the benefit of printing back to 35mm and projecting that? Ignoring aberrations like scratches, flicker or cigarette burns is there a difference in color, sharpness, anything of that sort which would make projecting on film preferable?
posted by dr handsome to Media & Arts (11 answers total)

Theaters' film projection equipment may be superior to their digital projection equipment?
posted by agentofselection at 11:39 AM on August 18, 2016

I know nothing about commercial projection, but it may be that certain theaters don't have digital projection systems compatible with the restrictions management on certain movies, so they send film instead.

And of course, there are still movies shot on film, and I'm pretty sure 35mm film is higher resolution than 4K video.
posted by cnc at 11:48 AM on August 18, 2016

Response by poster: That's something my research vaguely alluded to, that with digital projection the theater owner is more likely to assume that projection is a push button operation and won't put in the effort to maintain and calibrate their equipment. But if I go to a place like MoMA and they're showing a 4K DCP doesn't it stand to reason there's going to be a trained projectionist there to make sure the image looks as good as it can?

Why, then, would a film-goers insist on 35mm (for a digitally timed movie that is) even at places that are likely to show us the 4K scan (the same exact image that's been printed down onto film, no?) in the best possible light? I get the arguments for 35mm archival but for the film-goer it all seems null.
posted by dr handsome at 11:49 AM on August 18, 2016

Best answer: "Film projection purists" are either confused on engaged in an affectation. For the most part, as you say, they seem to have confused *shooting* on film, which creates the beloved organic "film look" that is still difficult to reproduce on video, with projecting on film. The projection will look basically the same, except the physical film stock will decay and develop flaws as it ages.

Even Wes Anderson, probably the most "film-y" director working today, has stated digital projection is superior.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:59 AM on August 18, 2016

there are still movies shot on film, and I'm pretty sure 35mm film is higher resolution than 4K video.

It is, if scanned at maximum size, but resolution is not the be-all end-all of visual quality. And no one is literally cutting film today. Any movie shot on film is being scanned, edited (usually at 2k) on a computer, and then printed back to film.
posted by drjimmy11 at 12:00 PM on August 18, 2016

Best answer: Having 35mm prints available makes it more possible for rep houses to maintain their film projectors for those movies originally shot for that format. Maybe just around the margins, but it's not a trivial concern.
posted by praemunire at 12:05 PM on August 18, 2016

Best answer: I'm not certain at this exact time but for a while a DI was higher resolution than projection options. And there was a period where many theaters could not afford a digital projector, this has likely changed. I think 8k (we're now talking close to petabytes for a lot of footage) is possible to use in the production cycle but unlikely to be a release option so going from 8k to 65mm could be an option for spectaculars like the Hateful Eight.
posted by sammyo at 12:08 PM on August 18, 2016

There's quality loss with every conversion step. Scanning loses something, printing back to film loses something.
posted by gregr at 12:19 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]

"Film projection purists" are either confused on engaged in an affectation.

I … have to disagree with that. DCP has been improving lately, but seeing DCP is a different experience than seeing film. Primarily the difference is in maximum brightness, and there's a related difference in contrast and black level. Depending on the quality of the digital mastering there can be a difference in the way motion is projected (most noticeable in sideways pans). And finally, resolution is a mixed bag, where it's possible a well calibrated digital setup could out-resolve film, but many DCP setups aren't well calibrated. The brightness and resolution of DCP vary wildly in practice, so I think part of the difference with film projection is that there are still (a dwindling number of) film projectionists who care about what they're doing. To some degree "film" is a proxy for "people who care."

We pretty regularly see movies at the AFI Silver Theatre, and even there we have found DCP there to be distracting while film is … film. They're better with their DCP than, say, the megaplex downtown, so if the only option is DCP we'll take it, but if there's film to be seen, that's where we'll be.
posted by fedward at 12:47 PM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to, but most restorations are screened in DCP these days. I prefer 35mm overall and do believe there is a warmth and feeling in the projection, but money-wise I don't think its worth it. I know Janus was printing 35mm of their restorations, but it may be because a lot of repertory theaters didn't have DCP projection until fairly recently.
posted by mattsweaters at 2:08 PM on August 18, 2016

Best answer: I would never argue that a 35mm print is "superior" to a standard (2K) DCP of the same source. At the same time, I wouldn't argue with someone who finds it preferable. The DCP will have better fidelity to the digital source materials, but there's still a little bit of a harshness to digital projection, a digital edginess, that I sometimes find distracting, at least when I'm sitting close to the screen. A 35mm film print, even taken from a DI, can smooth out that edge and be more visually pleasing.

As far as differences in color go, a lot of effort goes into modeling the color characteristics of 35mm film stock to make sure that the color of the release prints and the color of the DCP match both match exactly (or close to exactly) the color that the director and DP are seeing during post-production. So that shouldn't be an issue. But there can be calibration issues, or incorrect settings, inside the projector that throw the color off. (A filmmaker once told me he saw his movie at three different venues at Sundance and was distressed that the color was different at each one.) You don't have that same problem with 35mm, where the color is baked in to the medium itself — although of course that color can change over time, and that's a huge problem with many existing prints of a certain vintage.
posted by Mothlight at 4:51 PM on August 19, 2016