Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Most interesting thing I didn't see at NAB

ding ding ding... Jeff Killgroe for the win.


No offense to the Sanjin, I truly love his post, especially back in the day when he seemed to come on here a bit inebriated... good times, good times.

Like Jeff said pwned is translation for you just "owned" somebody (notice how the "o" key is right next to the "p" key).


I must say though, Sanjin recovered quickly, responding and complementing you on what you posted and did (he does know how to turn on the charm).
 
JD Holloway said:
"24P is nowhere near the resolution of 35mm film, and if you put it side by side with anamorphic it's off the charts."

I don't even know where to begin with that ridiculous, unqualified statement.
Many are so misguided in some areas while so gifted in others.
I suppose I have to count myself among them.
Click to expand...

Well, I wonder if he possibly meant "1080P" instead of 24P ... if so, his statement would make perfect sense and be in line with what Jim has been saying here all along. Though, not sure about the anamorphic part -- didn't think shooting anamorphic changed the resolution drastically.

Anyway, even if he really said 24p and meant it, let's cut Wally some slack ... you don't always need to know the technical verbiage to be a great cinematographer. Which he clearly is.

Anthony
 
AnthonyFlores said:
Well, I wonder if he possibly meant "1080P" instead of 24P ... if so, his statement would make perfect sense and be in line with what Jim has been saying here all along.
Though, not sure about the anamorphic part -- didn't think shooting anamorphic changed the resolution drastically. Anyway, even if he really said 24p and meant it, let's cut Wally some slack ... you don't always need to know the technical verbiage to be a great cinematographer. Which he clearly is.
Anthony
Click to expand...

The problem is film is when its DI'ed (2K) and transferred to positive and projected, 95% of theaters in the world resolve less than 800 lines resolution...4K scan to print will perform marginally better.
If you want to shoot and project reversal stock or contact print and project, that's better again. 4K scan with 4K digital projection best case scenario. Get rid of projected film, its transfer and its many issues. That being said, projected celluloid (sorry for the anachronism) does have that "look" when done well.

Wally is clearly a great DP, I would never want to denigrate him, but maybe hes a little myopic "downstream" from his work on set.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
It's a term originally from the gaming subculture. If you "pwn" or have "pwned" someone, it means you have mopped the floor with your little bitch opponent.
Click to expand...

i laughed so hard at this. - if any of you want some more insight into the kids lingo these days, watch a few episodes of pure pwnage.. haha
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
(Quoting Wally Pfister) Film has an enormous amount of exposure latitude and dynamic range, which gives us infinite creative ability in creating images. I can underexpose it by 3 stops and overexpose it by 5 stops within the same frame and see the entire spectrum on the screen. That's simply not possible in any digital format I've seen. Every digital camera is trying hard to emulate 35mm film, and there's a reason for that.
Click to expand...

I think those are very wise words. Matthew Libatique said essentially the same thing a couple of weeks ago in an ASC podcast interview about his experience shooting The Black Swan in Super 16mm. He was very down on shooting digital in general, and essentially said that if you gathered together a hundred top cinematographers and asked them "what camera would you rather shoot with, regardless of cost," they would universally pick film.

As a longtime colorist, my opinion is that the best thing you can say about film is that it's very forgiving in difficult exposure situations. For example, about four years ago, I worked on a major studio project (that I won't name) where the 1st assistant called me in a panic to tell me that they had accidentally shot the scene for hours with a 45 degree shutter, instead of the normal mode. As a result, everything was underexposed quite a bit. It was a night shoot, one of the most costly and complex shoot days on the whole project, and they were terrified it would look horrible in dailies.

As luck would have it, we still had the range to bring everything up and preserve the image. The director's only comment was, "hey, it looks kinda grainy," but the DP assured him that it would be fixed in the DI. Weeks later, we were able to grain-reduce these shots and saved it all, and not a single person noticed when it went to theaters or home video.

I'm not convinced a shot that was photographed this dark would've survived on any digital camera (including Alexa, Panavision, Red, or Sony). On film, we were able to salvage it.

But the economic reality is that film isn't viable for a lot of projects these days, mostly due to time and money. Nonetheless, I think film is still important as a visual example of what all digital cameras need to aim for in terms of what the absolute image quality needs to be.


JD Holloway said:
My wife and I saw Inception in a "Major" theater in Toronto. It was the worst projection I have EVER seen. Worse than any standard def. high compression download on P2P.
Click to expand...
It looked fine in LA (on film). Check out the Blu-ray and see what you think. It's a beautifully-shot film, and I see why it won the Oscar for Best Cinematography. To me, Inception and Social Network were the best-looking films I saw in all of 2010, and they couldn't be more different in terms of looks, lighting choices, or mediums. My opinion is that the pictures had much more to do with the lenses, the lighting, and the creative decisions in color correction -- not the cameras being used.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
It's a term originally from the gaming subculture. If you "pwn" or have "pwned" someone, it means you have mopped the floor with your little bitch opponent.
Click to expand...

Wow that "pwned" is sure a mean little word.

Jeff Kilgroe said:
Post of the month right there.

Nice to see you again this week, Daren. I would've loved to cruise around the show floor with you and Colin some more if I had given myself more time at NAB this year.
Click to expand...

It was great seeing you as well Jeff. Colin and I may not have been that fun to hang with though as we were busy most of the time getting interviews and show footage for the FinnerKnowsBest NAB 2011 video. Colin is busy editing it all up so it should be out shortly.

Oh ya so I flew home from Vegas late last night and the plane almost was unable to land due to a storm. Woke up this morning to just over a foot of snow. Yep Canada, you never know what your gonna get.

cheers
Daren
 
@Marc Wielage:

Interesting point about the underexposure recovery!

Hypothetical/semantic rebuttal:

Had they been shooting Red - anyone watching the image would have noticed the mistake being made, if not from the picture being so dark, then from it being so staccato.

I'm sure this aspect of digital production also bothers many who find their work under constant scrutiny and nitpicking by people who are clueless too (the advent of pseudo wysiwyg from video village)

PS, finner - the original rebuttal was side splitting.
 
Michael McLaughlin said:
No offense to the Sanjin, I truly love his post, especially back in the day when he seemed to come on here a bit inebriated... good times, good times.

Like Jeff said pwned is translation for you just "owned" somebody (notice how the "o" key is right next to the "p" key).


I must say though, Sanjin recovered quickly, responding and complementing you on what you posted and did (he does know how to turn on the charm).
Click to expand...

Michael,

don't worry I like Finner.

Also Jeff would need more time anyway to get why I wrote what I wrote (read more about it in the tread posts above...) he he hehe hehe he...
 
Marc Wielage said:
It looked fine in LA (on film). Check out the Blu-ray and see what you think. It's a beautifully-shot film, and I see why it won the Oscar for Best Cinematography. To me, Inception and Social Network were the best-looking films I saw in all of 2010, and they couldn't be more different in terms of looks, lighting choices, or mediums. My opinion is that the pictures had much more to do with the lenses, the lighting, and the creative decisions in color correction -- not the cameras being used.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that that the film looks fantastic when projected properly. I will own it in HD as soon as its available.
I saw "Social Network" in the theater digitally projected. It looked good, if more muted...no doubt by choice.
I did not say to myself, "Jeez-Louise, I want a film projection" or "This was so-obviously captured digitally" (though I knew it was).
Yes, lensing, art-direction, lighting and CC have everything to do with the look of a project and its feel....oh ya sound!
I just want to get what I paid for when I go to the cinema.
 
this thread kinda took a detour.. but the first post was great. I never even throught about it.
 
I only did 2 "film" jobs last year. Both were 1 day commercials. The industry has flipped on its head.
Very soon it will become difficult to get film processed, like 8mm did and 16mm has become.
It will also be more expensive and have poorer Q.C.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Finner,

thanks for the info story and those amazing photos, my favorite is below.

Also you are totally right what you've said about film...

Then looking forward to watch the new finnerknowsbest.com NAB gear report clips.
Click to expand...

Thanks Sanjin, I just enjoy having fun with you. Colin is busy editing up our FinnerKnowsBest NAB footage so we should have that out shortly.

cheers
Daren
 
The original post is a really interesting observation - and this NAB 2-11 really marks a moment. Film may not be wholly supplanted by film producers, at least not entirely, for narrative filmmaking. But for all other applications, it appears to be EOL. Kinda takes your breath away, really, on a number of levels...
 
I mentioned this in a post on a different thread but I feel that the ability of sensors to exponential increase in dynamic range over time will be it's final triumph over film.
 
Mark Holmes said:
And that is EXACTLY why I wait for BluRay release and watch my movies at home, 95% of the time. I have a modest home theater set-up - PS3, 5.1 Surround, Mitsubishi HC4000 DLP 1080p projector going to a 96" screen - about $2500 invested. It is a much better experience than going to the local AMC theater. The last time I went, it was projected 35mm film, scratched to hell, such a soft picture that I questioned that it was in focus, and sound set so high it hurt my ears. My friends, who attend more regularly, thought it all was great and saw no problems. For my money, I much prefer the experience I have at home.
Click to expand...

.. you can shoot on film, or digital.. but until its encoded to highly lossy YUV data stream, pressed onto a cd and played on a crap TV with intelligent resampling and frame interpolation, with a fag hanging out your mouth, a cup of tea and a brick (just in case) ..I find it all hard to watch
 
conrad gaunt said:
.. you can shoot on film, or digital.. but until its encoded to highly lossy YUV data stream, pressed onto a cd and played on a crap TV with intelligent resampling and frame interpolation, with a fag hanging out your mouth, a cup of tea and a brick (just in case) ..I find it all hard to watch
Click to expand...


on a crazy color shifted LCDs or Plasmas - (Best Buy setting)
 
Marc Wielage said:
As a longtime colorist, my opinion is that the best thing you can say about film is that it's very forgiving in difficult exposure situations. For example, about four years ago, I worked on a major studio project (that I won't name) where the 1st assistant called me in a panic to tell me that they had accidentally shot the scene for hours with a 45 degree shutter, instead of the normal mode. As a result, everything was underexposed quite a bit.

...

I'm not convinced a shot that was photographed this dark would've survived on any digital camera (including Alexa, Panavision, Red, or Sony). On film, we were able to salvage it.
Click to expand...

Accidental 45 degree shutter is a two stop underexposure. If you take RED as an example, and assume it's normally exposed for ISO 320, using 45 degree shutter would mean the exact same as exposing for ISO 1280. Totally salvageable.
 
I'm quite glad of the observation.

It seems that companies are finally pushing in the right direction. I don't mean I'm not sad to see film cameras become obsolete, I still have a great appreciation for the media, but I do like the fact that most companies coming round to the fact of going digital. Instead of claiming that digital film is just a bunch of nerdish weirdos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top