Forum - View topic

Answerman - Is It Worth Seeing 35mm Prints of Ghibli Movies?

For something that was supposed to capture real life more closely film ironically resulted in preserving something with less fidelity than modern digital means. Take for instance grain. What's with the nostalgia for grain? If I ever saw grain in my vision, I'd be to the doctor quick. It's even more ironic for anything produced in the last few decades since they're mastered, edited or post-produced with digital technologies.

Oh yeah, I understand that, but that's just a matter of choosing the least bad result. I meant to convey that grain is anti-fidelity as my argument against such sentimental nostalgia for it.

For any 35mm material that old, my concern here would be decay of the film emulsion, sometimes called "vinegar syndrome". After 20 years, I'd expect the image to be decomposed, especially if the print was carelessly stored.

@ fuuma_monou

Oh yeah, I understand that, but that's just a matter of choosing the least bad result. I meant to convey that grain is anti-fidelity as my argument against such sentimental nostalgia for it. The original source image that film is attempting to capture -- the light that comes through the lens from the real life shot or the animation cells themselves don't have any grain (notwithstanding any specific grain SFX in modern movies)

Since I don't go to the theaters often in recent times, I still have vivid memories of old analog projected film. And all I can say is thank goodness theaters have moved to digital projection. That old analog "warmth" just meant dull colors, very dim brightness, smooth and smudgy details rather than sharpness, and graininess and random visible dirt and hairs on screen.

Watching the same movie I saw in the theaters before now on bluray or 4k content on a nice TV or monitor just reminds me of how bad film was. I remember watching the X-files movie (film) in the theater I still remember thinking to myself, man this looks like crap.

For something that was supposed to capture real life more closely film ironically resulted in preserving something with less fidelity than modern digital means. Take for instance grain. What's with the nostalgia for grain? If I ever saw grain in my vision, I'd be to the doctor quick. It's even more ironic for anything produced in the last few decades since they're mastered, edited or post-produced with digital technologies.

Since the question specifically mentioned titles like Mononoke, Ghibli has used digital painting from Mononoke on, so I would say that no, it's not worth any money at all viewing it on film.

Film projection is a different story. I would still argue that the image on a fresh print looks better than digital, especially in IMAX 70mm, but it’s such a nightmare to deal with, there really is less of a need for film today. I work in a movie theater that converted to full digital back in 2012 (the last 35mm show was Battleship). It definitely has its own unique problems. Every once in a blue moon, the computer will freeze, and show’s over. The audio needs constant resetting, or else it will sound very tinny and distorted. Sometimes the system crashes before a show, and the audience is treated to a desktop background before everything is reset.

However, these problems are relatively small compared to the issues with film, like Justin mentioned. I’ll never forget watching Finding Nemo when I was 9, and being distracted by the constant dirt and scratches, just because we saw the movie a month after it came out. A manager where I work says that when he worked at a different theater, someone loaded Star Wars: The Phantom Menace into the projector incorrectly on opening night. The first show played just fine, but every show after had a neon green scratch running along the side. Oops. My film professor used to work at a cinema, and says that when Titanic was playing, they ran the prints so much, they would literally fall apart in the projector, and they had to order new ones from Paramount.

But I love movies, and I love film. I would love to see another show in 35mm (I think the last one I saw was Scream 4) for the novelty alone. The only anime movie I ever saw in 35mm was Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie, but I’ve seen plenty of Miyazaki movies through digital projection, and they look gorgeous.

If it was shot on film, it'll have grain. Getting rid of the grain when making HD masters via DNR (digital noise reduction) more often than not makes the picture look worse.

configspace wrote:

Oh yeah, I understand that, but that's just a matter of choosing the least bad result. I meant to convey that grain is anti-fidelity as my argument against such sentimental nostalgia for it.

As a corollary to the grain thing, I've also never understood the low-framerate fetish. My memory of watching Jurassic Park in '93 is that it was without a doubt the best and most exciting movie I'd ever seen. But with one big blemish on my memory of the event! Some of the big moving shots practically made me feel nauseated, or at the very least like something was very, very wrong with me. Yet now people complain at the lack of this unpleasant effect claiming it makes a movie without it feel less "theatrical" and more "like a soap opera."

Ouran High School Dropout wrote:

For any 35mm material that old, my concern here would be decay of the film emulsion, sometimes called "vinegar syndrome". After 20 years, I'd expect the image to be decomposed, especially if the print was carelessly stored.

Silly me. Vinegar syndrome and dye fading are two separate issues. Should have made that clear.

Vinegar syndrome refers to the chemical breakdown of the acetate (safety film) base, and is named from the odor it gives off. The film base first becomes brittle, then the emulsion (the layer containing the image) separates from the base as the latter shrinks.

Dye fading happens to the emulsion layer. Since the dyes use organic compounds, they are prone to decay. The yellow and cyan dyes fade quicker, rendering the image on a positive print a garish collection of reds, browns, and oranges.

I've handled film with both these conditions. Not pretty.

(I grew up in the age of the iPod though, so I actually prefer the cold, sterile, and mechanical look to things, of which I would prefer the adjectives "sleek, cutting-edge, and stylish.")

@leafy sea dragon

For home use they make LED lights in Warm White as well as the original cool white. While this undercuts the argument about "cold and sterile" I'm sure they will find another excuse to not change and to damn the government for insisting.

@leafy sea dragon

For home use they make LED lights in Warm White as well as the original cool white. While this undercuts the argument about "cold and sterile" I'm sure they will find another excuse to not change and to damn the government for insisting.

For me, this was my childhood! I defy anyone who thinks they had it best.

For me, I got those Warn LED's in my room. Using out a "Cool White" bulb just feels too clinical, I don't like being in hospitals.

Since I don't go to the theaters often in recent times, I still have vivid memories of old analog projected film. And all I can say is thank goodness theaters have moved to digital projection. That old analog "warmth" just meant dull colors, very dim brightness, smooth and smudgy details rather than sharpness, and graininess and random visible dirt and hairs on screen.

Watching the same movie I saw in the theaters before now on bluray or 4k content on a nice TV or monitor just reminds me of how bad film was. I remember watching the X-files movie (film) in the theater I still remember thinking to myself, man this looks like crap.

For something that was supposed to capture real life more closely film ironically resulted in preserving something with less fidelity than modern digital means. Take for instance grain. What's with the nostalgia for grain? If I ever saw grain in my vision, I'd be to the doctor quick. It's even more ironic for anything produced in the last few decades since they're mastered, edited or post-produced with digital technologies.

Since the question specifically mentioned titles like Mononoke, Ghibli has used digital painting from Mononoke on, so I would say that no, it's not worth any money at all viewing it on film.

The so-called "low-framerate" was basically more a limitation film stuck to for a long while, especially when the application of sound became prominent. The real takeaway out of this is the way the retina of the eyes are meant to function, as the trick that made motion picture work the way it did is in how our eyes retained those images long after they've left our vision. This was the foundation of animation itself, going back to the days of the familiar devices like the zoetrope, the praxinoscope or even flipbooks. The German word for animation has been written as "Trickfilm", and in some way, it's the "trick" that film does that we accept, even in low frame rates. That "trick" is sorta leaving us, even if gradually.

As a corollary to the grain thing, I've also never understood the low-framerate fetish. My memory of watching Jurassic Park in '93 is that it was without a doubt the best and most exciting movie I'd ever seen. But with one big blemish on my memory of the event! Some of the big moving shots practically made me feel nauseated, or at the very least like something was very, very wrong with me. Yet now people complain at the lack of this unpleasant effect claiming it makes a movie without it feel less "theatrical" and more "like a soap opera."