The Impact of Digital Technology on Cinematography

[Joe Richardson]

Hi there!

I'm currently conducting a research project at university on the above topic. The topic is aimed at cinematographers, gaffers etc. At the moment most of the research is secondary, so I'd love to hear your thoughts/opinions on the subject. Thanks in advance!


In terms of digital technology, with recent advances in technology where do you believe this is leading Cinematography, and how it affects the way we approach our work?

Are there any new technologies that are interested to you and would like to work/or have worked with?

Has technology changed the way things are done for you as a Cinematographer? Were there any adoptions you needed to make? Do you believe the role of the cinematographer has lost it's power?

For those experienced with shooting on photochemical film and have transitioned to digital, is there anything you have struggled with/haven't gotten used to when shooting digitally?

 

[Matt Hutchinson]

The DI process has changed the look of films, dramatically in some cases, over the last decade or so. While someone like Andrew Lesnie sits in on the grading process on films like THE HOBBIT, a large number of DPs are not so lucky, and some lament how much the DI process can change the look of the film.

I remember Jaminski in AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER saying something like "These days you only need to get it in focus and the director can get the look he wants in post". He was being somewhat flippant, but he went onto say that while he has input over the post process, many DPs don't have that in their contracts.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes and no -- you can radically muck-up the look in post, but you can't really change the angle of the key light on a face, for example, or make a hard shadow into a soft shadow, at least not change it realistically or affordably in a D.I. session. In other words, to a large degree, the lighting still has to be right for the scene and the actor's face. It certainly can be ruined though if the contrast or exposure is altered badly in post.

If I want a room to be lit like a Vermeer, I still have to light it that way, it has to be art directed that way, etc. I can't take any shot lit in any manner and make it look that way in post.

So the art of lighting in a fundamental way still hasn't changed in terms of creating a look using light, shadow, and color. What has changed are the techniques in getting there mainly due to the higher sensitivity of the camera and the greater flexibility in adjusting color and contrast in post.

What has really changed is that I don't fear low-light situations so much any more -- I don't have to hit a minimum level for, let's say, 500 ASA film pushed one-stop to 1000 ASA... now I have the option of going to 1600 ASA, 2000 ASA or higher depending on the camera. That gives me a greater level of flexibility in location shooting and allows some new creative opportunities for lighting with very dim sources. A face can be lit by the glow from an iPhone screen now, for example... I don't have to hide a light behind one. In fact, now the opposite problem has occurred, you can't get away with the iPhone being off, it has to work during the shot because the interactive light from it.

The D.I. process has created more "looks" for movies, or made it easier to get looks like skip-bleach processing, but that is applicable to film or digital images, it's not unique to digital cinematography.

I don't believe the cinematographer has "lost his power" so to speak, not when there are even more technologies that have to be mastered now in the filmmaking process, but I do believe it is easier to achieve a basic level of competence in image-making, to achieve a basic professional level of quality, so to that extent, there is a lower bar to entry than before -- but the best cinematography will still be generated by a limited number of extremely talented people, just as in art in general. What has happened is that the bottom to middle has been raised, but the highest achievements in art will still be limited by the talent of the individual and therefore has little to do with technology.

 

[Paul Dean]

…What has really changed is that I don't fear low-light situations so much any more... now I have the option of going to 1600 ASA, 2000 ASA or higher depending on the camera. That gives me a greater level of flexibility in location shooting and allows some new creative opportunities for lighting ... .

F.Y.I. This is the subject of a series of free online workshops by Richard Cadena called “New Trends in Production.” The description of the second workshop, “Lighten Up: Doing More with Less without Compromise” starts: “A new generation of smaller & brighter lights that consume less power have resulted in new and more cost effective lighting techniques. To this, add the greater light sensitivity and contrast range of HD camera systems and it is possible for just about anyone to produce feature production values on a tight budget.” Here the flyer:

They look to be really interesting workshops. For those of you not familiar with Richard Cadena, in addition to writing Electricity for the Entertainment Electrician & Technician, he also wrote Automated Lighting: The Art and Science of Moving Light. He is the founder of the Academy of Production Technology and the technical editor of PLASA. This will be one of the first times one of his workshops will be streamed for the general public. Log onto bit.ly/nptwkshps for details.

Paul Dean

 

[PatrickFaith]

> In terms of digital technology, with recent advances in technology where do you believe this is leading Cinematography, and how it affects the way we approach our work?
I think digital cinematography is at a starting point, digital shot movies like "adventures of tin tin (motion capture/performance capture)" and the hobbit (mixed vfx) are done by a relatively small group of major houses who are leading the pack, but most people are simulating old tape and film processes in digital at this point.

>Has technology changed the way things are done for you as a Cinematographer? Were there any adoptions you needed to make? Do you believe the role of the cinematographer has lost it's power?
I believe long term the vfx supervisor will lead the cinematography while working with the director. Digital cinematographers will not be purely "camera" guys, but responsible for the entire look and feel of the movie, from previs to final grading.

>For those experienced with shooting on photochemical film and have transitioned to digital, is there anything you have struggled with/haven't gotten used to when shooting digitally?
I think there is still a struggle for the digital look to be "authentic" and produce a connection to movie goer in the same way as was had in film's like "wild strawberries (old Bergman film)".

 

[paulherrin]

as far as 'the look' is concerned i'm looking for the convergence (as in collaboration, not necessarily one person) of the cinematographer/vfx-sup/lighter/colorist and on-set tools to augment reality (i.e. mixed virtual lighting).

btw, do you have a flexible research method/methodology or are you looking for line by line answers to your 'survey'?

if you haven't checked it out already - 'side by side' offers a great overview and some solid quotes from established directors/cinematographers you can certainly use.

 

[Dominik Muench]

Hey Joe

I did a similar project for my doctorate a couple of years ago where I interviewed several ACS Cinematographers (Don McAlpine amongst others) on the impact of digital and HD on their work, you can watch the doco here: http://inside-hd.com/ if any of the material could be helpful to your research let me know and I can provide you with the proper files.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

>Has technology changed the way things are done for you as a Cinematographer? Were there any adoptions you needed to make? Do you believe the role of the cinematographer has lost it's power?
I believe long term the vfx supervisor will lead the cinematography while working with the director. Digital cinematographers will not be purely "camera" guys, but responsible for the entire look and feel of the movie, from previs to final grading.
.

I don't really believe that, not if the project hardly has any vfx in it. You don't generally don't need a vfx supervisor to be involved in a typical dramatic dialogue scene that has no effects needs, but you still need a camera person to light and shoot it. Cinematographers already are responsible for the look from pre-production through final grading, have been for almost the whole history of the art form.

 

[Phil Holland]

I haven't been working as a cinematographer my whole career, but over the last 14 years I've witness some tremendous shifts.

Mainly:

- the time and money saved by shooting digital (no waiting for dailies or purchasing film stock)
- the eventual introduction and adoption of Digital Intermediate (and how quickly DI tools have developed and grown).
- the birth and evolution of digital delivery and the guarantee of a somewhat consistent look at theaters and in the home.
- film scanners
- laser recorders
- tremendous media saturation throughout the web.
- the transition to HD.
- amazing advancements in motion control.
- amazing advancements in motion capture.
- the development and implementation of a virtual camera.
- full 3D animatics.
- the considerable drop in price for digital storage space.
- visual effects transforming into a tool where anything is actually possible. (which only has recently happened in the last few years).
- advancements in computer controlled lighting.
- teleconferencing and web based communication. (put cell phones in there too)

I've been very fortunate to work on the bleeding edge for most of my career. Seeing how VFX, software, hardware, cameras, and other tools developed along the way has been a bit of an adrenaline fix. I love it all. Motion pictures and technological advancement go hand in hand. But there have been tremendous hurdles transitioning from film. Both technology and business related. Certainly not all positive.

While not pretty and very time consuming at the initial stages, most of the digital developments have drastically sped up every aspect of creating a motion picture.

I believe right now we are seeing the biggest part of the transition from film to digital as UHD standards are just being finalized and viewers will be able to experience cinema quality within their homes. The introduction of high quality laser projectors are going to change the face of the theatrical experience as well.

We are right now in truly uncharted territory in nearly every aspect of the industry. We have a general image of the landscape over the next 10 years. I think eventually once we have more user interactive surfaces found in homes and commercial spaces we'll see the need for a new type of cinematography. There are motion based billboards today, but soon you'll be able to learn how to cook your meal on the same counter you are chopping your veggies on and that virtual kitchen helper may follow you around the house to assist with other things. I believe with the size and scale of UHD based displays we're going to see the evolution of "digital windows" to an outside world that might be prettier than what's outside your apartment window today. I think all of this is going to lead to a hunger for quality content.

Cinematography has also impacted the gaming experience. We just in the last few years have seen more cinematic designed games. I think this concept will only progress and that line between a game and motion picture may get very blurry.