DP Steve Yedlin with a 35mm film/Arri Alexa comparison

This is a bit technical but as a pro photographer with more than a passing interesting in cinematography, I found this video fascinating.

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DisplayPrepDemo.html

One minor point that I zeroed in on is that the film used here was rated at EI 400. These are pretty low light situations, and with a 35mm still camera I think I'd be struggling to get good exposures under some of these conditions. Does this have something to do with the type of shutter on movie cameras and the way that shutter lets in light? Maybe Vidiot can shed some light. I'm acquainted with a couple of indie cinematographers via mutual friends, and I've been meaning to sit down and have a conversation with them about this and various other technical matters.

 

This is indeed fascinating.

Like the DP here, I too had noticed that even a lot of movies shot on film these days have taken on a more "digital" look and felt it probably had a lot to do with modern post-production processes and how the film is prepped for viewing. Interesting to hear an experienced cinematographer's thoughts on that.

I only watched the test once so far, but I don't think I could confidently point out what was shot on 35mm film vs. the Alexa.

 

Yeah, that's a great test and it has been discussed at length in several other Cinematography and Post forums around the net. I'm glad to say I spotted which was which, but I could only tell about halfway through when they hit some clipped whites. Film has a way of handling highlights a little more gracefully than digital. But I'm a big, big fan of the Alexa and I've always preferred to work on Alexa projects compared to anything else out there, assuming it's shot well.

It is true that modern projects like Jurassic World, Star Wars, SPECTRE, and even the recent Hail Caesar were all shot on film, but there's so many digital VFX going on I think the lines blur between what looks like film and what looks like digital. And everything is generally color-corrected and post-processed in digital... with rare exceptions, like the 70mm release of Hateful 8 (shot on 65mm and photochemically timed at Fotokem/Burbank).

 

In the end titles, it says the digital was shot at 800 but "compensated" with a 2x ND.
The "Primo Close Focus" 17.5mm is f/1.9. The video sensor size is comparable to 35mm movie frame.
If the film was shot at 24 fps, 24 fps x 180° shutter = 1/48 second (could be less, or faster "shutter speed", that Arri film shutter goes as narrow as 11.5°) But the Arri XT video camera does not have a 24 fps frame rate, but 30/48/60/90/120. It would have been nice to specify what was what for that.
Most shots had actual daylight. I don't think the light level was a problem.

I am a bit more interested in how the video camera was set, because there's not enough info listed in the video, and I haven't read anything about this video. He said he processed it after shooting for the film look, I think.
I also wonder whether he had to eliminate any film flaws - dust, etc.
Motion blur or distortion between the two is not really shown or mentioned. The Arri video camera has a "rolling shutter" which can be set from 5° to 356°, and a "rolling shutter" can have a visible slanting effect in fast motion scenes.

Not nitpicking, just curious. I think he made his point about the tonality. If the point to make was that video can look like film. But I saw the very slightly blown highlights on my screen too (maybe I was watching because of Vidiot's note, maybe not). It could have been interesting to show a less processed closer to "video look" version too.

 

Thanks, I appreciate the explanation. I agree there was plenty of light in the daylight shots, but there was one inside in the dark and one outside at night that made me wonder. Those two have pretty low light. I've got some EI 800 movie film sold by Cinestill for use in 35mm still cameras, and I plan to shoot a test roll under different indoor lighting conditions, so I'm starting to think about how to light the scenes I want to shoot.

I was looking for blown highlights and didn't notice anything egregious in my initial viewing, but I'm going to go back and watch again. I noticed some blocking up in the blacks, but I chalked that up to digital compression for web viewing.

 

I've always thought it has to do with processing and the stock properties itself. For years it seems that they try to make film itself more like digital to be attractive to productions and take away from the inherent properties.
And as mentioned above even when they shoot on film it matters little because it will be processed to death. TFA could have been 4K produced and it wouldn't have made a difference.
What would is shooting on older stock and processing completely in the old domain to generate an IP and only then scan that for your DCP.
But I'm a crazy person who would draw much enjoyment from seeing my own film shown digitally complete with reel change markers.

 

You are mistaken -- the Alexa XT does have 24.00fps and 23.98fps available. The only limitations on frame rates are maximums, since the data rates can only go so far. You can generally go from 0.750fps-60.000fps on most of the Alexas. The big Alexa 65 can only do 20fps-28fps with the current software. Manual here:

http://focus24.tv/media/manuals/ARRI_ALEXA_User-Manual_SUP_11.0.pdf

I wouldn't call the Alexa's the "Arri video camera," since they're styled for cinema production. It'd be fair to just call it a digital camera, but to me, "video" is used more for live broadcast cameras like those used for sports and so on -- not the same market. Those are generally at 29.97fps (and higher for slo-mo).

You lose too much quality, plus it takes lots of time -- I'd guess at least 24 hours for an OCN -> IP -> digital scan per reel. And it'd cost a lot of money. An IP was $2 per foot in the 1990s, so basically one 2000' IP is about $5000... and you still have to color time it. What you're proposing is extremely practical and does not look good.

The other problem is that there are not many labs left that can do this kind of work. I think there are zero motion picture labs left in NYC, one in Maryland, one in Burbank, and one in Toronto. That doesn't give you a lot of choices.

To me, all you get when you go down with a contact print from OCN to IP is a softer picture and shading problems, plus non-linear changes in color. You're a lot better off sticking with the O-negative. And I would argue even if you shoot digitally, it's really all about the lighting and the exposure; whether it's on film or digital almost does not matter these days.

 

You're right (of course), I was looking at the spec sheet online.
https://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/cameras/camera_details/alexa-xt/subsection/technical_data/
That leads to a JPG (why) with a more specific table which does say "Maximum frame rates" and I missed that.
And I realized I should have written "digital" or "digital capture" instead of "video".

 

What is clear from the demo is that the differences between well-lit digital and film are very close, and they have been for some time. I can recall doing an HD pilot for a sitcom right around 1999 or 2000 or so, and we looked at the pictures at Technicolor and said "****, film is gonna go down the drain." It took about another decade, but it happened.