Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Jun 9, 2017 3:01:30 GMT
My local theater played a newly restored version of The Godfather on Wednesday, and so I jumped at the chance to see it on the big screen. I think the last time I watched it from beginning to end was sometime in the late '80s. I was overdue for a repeat.
It was great as always, though I do dislike how swift Michael's attitude changes from "It's my family, not me" to the cold-blooded, power-exuding persona he takes after his father is shot.
It was apparently a new restoration, but the restoration didn't impress me (not that I know a damn thing about film restoration). For one, I didn't see a showing of the film. I saw a digitized version of the film. There were times when I felt the actors moved in a digital way than in a film way. I don't know how to put it. I've noticed across many films that people move differently on digital and video than they do on film. It's like there are motions that happen too quickly or that are too jerky, whereas with film, everything is smooth and fluid. It's probably just my imagination, but I see it, and it always ruins the atmosphere.
Another thing is that I felt that the brightness was too low. This isn't the first time I've felt this way. LA LA LAND, another film shot on film but projected digitally, also felt too dark. I'm either imagining things, or there's an issue not being compensated for at theaters in my area.
Finally, I have a question about grain. When I've watched films projected by a real film projector in the past, I don't recall ever seeing a lot of grain in the image, but The Godfather had some instances of very noticeable grain. It got me to thinking. Is this a product of the digitization process? When you show a film film (as opposed to a digital film) naturally, does the grain look the same way as it does when digitized?
I'm not complaining about the grain, mind you. And I do have a rudimentary understanding of why films have grain in the first place, but I'm just wondering if film grain projected from film is the same as film grain produced by a digital version of the film.
Overall, it was great, and if you get a chance to see any older film in a theater, I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Jun 9, 2017 16:09:07 GMT
I would have liked to have seen the restored edition of The Godfather. It's a great film.
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 9, 2017 18:21:21 GMT
My local theater played a newly restored version of The Godfather on Wednesday, and so I jumped at the chance to see it on the big screen. I think the last time I watched it from beginning to end was sometime in the late '80s. I was overdue for a repeat. It was great as always, though I do dislike how swift Michael's attitude changes from "It's my family, not me" to the cold-blooded, power-exuding persona he takes after his father is shot. It was apparently a new restoration, but the restoration didn't impress me (not that I know a damn thing about film restoration). For one, I didn't see a showing of the film. I saw a digitized version of the film. There were times when I felt the actors moved in a digital way than in a film way. I don't know how to put it. I've noticed across many films that people move differently on digital and video than they do on film. It's like there are motions that happen too quickly or that are too jerky, whereas with film, everything is smooth and fluid. It's probably just my imagination, but I see it, and it always ruins the atmosphere. Another thing is that I felt that the brightness was too low. This isn't the first time I've felt this way. LA LA LAND, another film shot on film but projected digitally, also felt too dark. I'm either imagining things, or there's an issue not being compensated for at theaters in my area. Finally, I have a question about grain. When I've watched films projected by a real film projector in the past, I don't recall ever seeing a lot of grain in the image, but The Godfather had some instances of very noticeable grain. It got me to thinking. Is this a product of the digitization process? When you show a film film (as opposed to a digital film) naturally, does the grain look the same way as it does when digitized? I'm not complaining about the grain, mind you. And I do have a rudimentary understanding of why films have grain in the first place, but I'm just wondering if film grain projected from film is the same as film grain produced by a digital version of the film. Overall, it was great, and if you get a chance to see any older film in a theater, I highly recommend it. The restoration is copyrighted 2007 even though it was not released until 2008. I saw it last Sunday - the TCM presentation - and it looked and sounded great to me. According to the Wikipedia article: "Work began in November 2008 by repairing the negatives so they could go through a digital scanner to produce high resolution 4K files. If a negative were damaged and discolored, work was done digitally to restore it to its original look. After a year and a half of working on the restoration, the project was complete. Paramount called the finished product The Godfather: The Coppola Restoration and released it to the public on September 23, 2008 on both DVD and Blu-ray Disc.Dave Kehr of the New York Times believed the restoration brought back the "golden glow of their original theatrical screenings". As a whole, the restoration of the film was well received by critics and Coppola."
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Jun 10, 2017 3:56:01 GMT
I had watched The Godfather on Blu-Ray up to the horse-head scene a few months ago while searching for certain kinds of film music. I thought it looked great, though that was only on a 32" 720P TV screen.
I did notice a few shots here and there in the theatrical version that looked like they had been enlarged.
Overall, I enjoyed the experience. Probably when you know about a restoration, you tend to look for flaws rather than just enjoy the experience.
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Jun 10, 2017 13:53:33 GMT
Spider just gave the answer to the dark look question I was about to give. Even TV shows like West wing film using much less light today, a trend started by Gordon Willis.
As to digital v film, the same distinction exist in music. Digital music gives you sharper sound but washes out some of the tone color , the harmonic overtones, and you sometimes end up with a sound that is dry and over precise, a real disservice to many performances. This is such a problem that there are vinyl clubs that meet to play vinyl recordings.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Jun 10, 2017 23:53:01 GMT
Great movie. Thanks for sharing your experience with us.
|
|
tucotherat
Sophomore
@tucotherat
Posts: 262
Likes: 15
|
Post by tucotherat on Jun 11, 2017 3:09:09 GMT
"It's probably just my imagination, but I see it, and it always ruins the atmosphere."
No, it is not your imagination.
Also, many times with these, ehem, "restorations", the pretentious AHOLES who do them decided that they want to "improve" the movie and make editing changes and/or adding effects, etc. Aholes.
Regarding the grain, sounds like they did a shitty job of digitizing, unless they did it on purpose which is even worse.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Jun 13, 2017 4:01:30 GMT
"It's probably just my imagination, but I see it, and it always ruins the atmosphere."
No, it is not your imagination.
Also, many times with these, ehem, "restorations", the pretentious AHOLES who do them decided that they want to "improve" the movie and make editing changes and/or adding effects, etc. Aholes.
Regarding the grain, sounds like they did a shitty job of digitizing, unless they did it on purpose which is even worse.
Yeah, I heard an interview the other day with the producer from La La Land Records who produced their "Wonder Woman" soundtrack. He talked about how the originals were mono but he wanted to make them stereo. He had ideas of how the music could go across the speakers. I wanted to yell at him for re-composing the music. If it was mono originally, it needed to stay mono for archival purposes.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Jun 13, 2017 4:07:43 GMT
Finally, I have a question about grain. When I've watched films projected by a real film projector in the past, I don't recall ever seeing a lot of grain in the image, but The Godfather had some instances of very noticeable grain. It got me to thinking. Is this a product of the digitization process? When you show a film film (as opposed to a digital film) naturally, does the grain look the same way as it does when digitized? I'm not complaining about the grain, mind you. And I do have a rudimentary understanding of why films have grain in the first place, but I'm just wondering if film grain projected from film is the same as film grain produced by a digital version of the film. So glad that you've brought up the digital/grain issue. One of the reasons I hate digital is because of what it does to film grains (which for the record only exist when a film is shot on film). When shot digitally, there are no grains. On cellulloid, film grains are applied randomly frame-by-frame, so that when the film is projected (as film), there's a subtle modulation to it as the frames flow through the projector - an added element that creates a more abstract and poetic quality to the viewing experience. HOWEVER. When films shot on film are digitized, those modulating grains are frozen in pixels, which removes that wonderful modulating experience and makes the film seem too real, even frozen. I hate it. To answer your question, When you show a film film (as opposed to a digital film) naturally, does the grain look the same way as it does when digitized?, the answer is no. Absolutely not. If you saw a film shot on film that was projected as film, undigitized, you would (perhaps unconsciously) notice that the grains do modulate, shift, and dance, and are so much more beautiful than frozen pixels that in my opinion take the art out of the film making and viewing experience. And just one comment about THE GODFATHER being dark: that was one the first films using film stocks that had very high ASA ratings, which meant they needed less light to shoot, so less light was often used; also, cinematographer Gordon Willis was a leader in shooting color films with less light, making them look more stylistically "noirish." I haven't seen the film in a digital presentation, but I imagine it would seem dark (the film version itself was dark). I doubt I would like the digitized version at all. As for LA LA LAND being dark, I haven't seen all of it yet (only the opening on tv with my DGA screener), so I can't comment on your experience with that. I'm really surprised it was shot on film, but, as I said, digitizing it (which is how all films are distributed now), would, I imagine, diminish the visual beauty of the film. If you have other questions, please ask. I'm so glad to know that I'm not alone in seeing the difference between real film and "digital" film on the big screen. Thanks for your response. It was very informative. I saw a Blu-Ray of the first 25 minutes of The Godfather a few months ago on my TV, and I didn't notice any dimly lit images (and the very first scene is very dark). It could be the difference in projection. A TV is giving an image light very differently than a film projector. Maybe a backlit image isn't as dark as a front lit image? It doesn't matter overall. I'm really more curious than anything. Still a great film, and I'm glad I saw it in a theatrical setting.
|
|