Nekochan Net

Official Chat Channel: #nekochan // irc.nekochan.net
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:36 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Forum rules


Any posts concerning pirated software or offering to buy/sell/trade commercial software are subject to removal.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Film scanning / printing
Unread postPosted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 182
Location: M.E
For people working in Film scanning/printing ...etc.
what kind of equipment you use , what's your feedback about it ?

we're considering Arri Laser for printing , anyone using it , happy with it ?

any thoughts about pro's and con's of laser film printing vs. traditional printing ?

p.s posting in this forum since there's no film related one


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:44 am
Posts: 772
Location: Germany -> UK -> Germany...
you should post questions like these at creativecow, highend2d or similar. doesn't discreet have some FFI discussion boards?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Film
Unread postPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:07 am
Posts: 4226
Location: Rosario / Santa Fe / Rep├║blica Argentina
Hello Moe29;

ARRILASER and ARRISCAN are both part of one of the world's highest quality Digital Intermediate System, and I think you can't be dissapointed buying that. As far as I know, ARRILASER supports 4K/10-bit data, so, the high image quality is insured, along with a nice subjective resolution and dynamic range because the tri-laser printing.

On the ARRISCAN side, you'll get a 35mm native resolution CMOS sensor, with LED backlite array, etc., 2K/4K oversampling and all the rest. I don't know how it will look compared to any Rank Cintel, but has to be great.

Just to add, if you really have a trained eye, maybe you'll notice the difference between optically printed film, and digitally printed film... If I were to choose, I could choose any day to only use digital film prints for those visual effect scenes where it can't be avoided... but to my own eyes, those digital printings are looking with less contrast relation compared to any good camera take under similiar situations, using the same film stock (either Kodak 5245, Kodak Vision2 100, or Fuji 64 and Fuji 125)

Seems that all the recently produced movies using almost exclusively digital intermediate/printing are with the same problem: lower spatial resolution (resulting on a subjectively littler scene field), lower luminance dynamic range (resulting on less brilliant images, as if they were printed at some kind of plastic and not celluloyd), and lower contrast relation... compared to any traditional shot of 35mm camera optically printed (and never digitized on the production chain)... I really really can take notice when a movie was digitally printed on about 75% of cases or more...
Anyway, I'm not an insider of the movie industry, so, it is just my 'aficionado' oppinion! ;)
But if I just could take the choose, I really could want to see more 'only-optical/chemical-film-production' movies! :P

_________________
Oh!, let me write that!

https://www.facebook.com/GeekTronix
https://geekli.st/GeekTronixShop
https://www.rebelmouse.com/GeekTronixShop/
http://twitter.com/GeekTronixShop
http://www.youtube.com/GeekTronixStream


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
Unread postPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 182
Location: M.E
GIJoe wrote:
you should post questions like these at creativecow, highend2d or similar.

are these questions against the forum's policy ?

I have seen the kind of questions being asked in highend2d.com and I think the users here have much more experience
Quote:
doesn't discreet have some FFI discussion boards?

though this question isn't discreet related but I don't know of such public boards , do you know if it exists ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Film
Unread postPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 182
Location: M.E
GeneratriX wrote:
Hello Moe29;

ARRILASER and ARRISCAN are both part of one of the world's highest quality Digital Intermediate System, and I think you can't be dissapointed buying that. As far as I know, ARRILASER supports 4K/10-bit data, so, the high image quality is insured, along with a nice subjective resolution and dynamic range because the tri-laser printing.


Hello GeneratriX
thanks for your reply , I understand I won't be disappointed I have used Arrilaser before , and the image quality was very good
I was mainly looking forward to know what people who actually use it think about it's usage , issues they have with if any


Quote:
Just to add, if you really have a trained eye, maybe you'll notice the difference between optically printed film, and digitally printed film... If I were to choose, I could choose any day to only use digital film prints for those visual effect scenes where it can't be avoided... but to my own eyes, those digital printings are looking with less contrast relation compared to any good camera take under similiar situations, using the same film stock (either Kodak 5245, Kodak Vision2 100, or Fuji 64 and Fuji 125)


Actually I feel the laser printed film seems to be too crisp , too colorful than usual

Quote:
Seems that all the recently produced movies using almost exclusively digital intermediate/printing are with the same problem:


yeah , digital intermediate is becoming the new hype , useful as it sounds , I wonder if we'll just get used to the look of the films , people seems to be getting used to the look of digital transimition , with mpeg quality :(

Quote:
Anyway, I'm not an insider of the movie industry, so, it is just my 'aficionado' oppinion! ;)

But if I just could take the choose, I really could want to see more 'only-optical/chemical-film-production' movies! :P


don't you wish!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Film
Unread postPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:07 am
Posts: 4226
Location: Rosario / Santa Fe / Rep├║blica Argentina
Moe29 wrote:
don't you wish!


Oh yup!; Lately seems that those inspired scripts of yesterday are becoming replaced only by visual effects and post, and to my own eyes, the digital cinema does not translate so perfectly as the optically exposed chemical support the glamour and emotions of the cinema...

...a few days ago I've seen a post of somebody writing about some Ridley Scott's declarations about the film:

Ridley Scott: "FILM IS DEAD"

Evan Kubota wrote:
The simple fact is that film looks *better* for movies. Ridley Scott is blowing smoke out of his ass, in the typical 'video is in so I'll switch' mentality that some directors have been infected with. It's kind of sad to hear that from a director whose best films (Blade Runner, Alien) depended so heavily on the look of film. Imagine Blade Runner without the grainy, classic look of film - it'd be pristine digital garbage.


...And I guess these guy describes almost perfectly my feelings about the relation between image quality and art... not always a pristine image means a better masterpiece! ;)

_________________
Oh!, let me write that!

https://www.facebook.com/GeekTronix
https://geekli.st/GeekTronixShop
https://www.rebelmouse.com/GeekTronixShop/
http://twitter.com/GeekTronixShop
http://www.youtube.com/GeekTronixStream


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group