Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[David Mullen ASC]

Exactly. I find shooting digitally allows for much greater creative spontaneity on set, and for all sorts of soulful chemistry to develop. You're not waiting for a lab to develop the image - you're responding more viscerally to the final image right there on the set. I'm absolutely sure about that. More magic happens when capturing digitally.

If that were true, then on average, digitally-shot movies would be better than film-shot movies. I have yet to see evidence of that. It may be true for certain directors and DP's that they work better in an all-digital environment, but I wouldn't make any sweeping generalization that digital shooting leads to "more magic" happening. Sometimes the greatest art has come from the most crude and simple tools, sometimes from very difficult-to-use equipment. Sometimes not. An IMAX camera is much harder to use than a DV handycam but that doesn't mean that more "magic" comes from using the DV handycam.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

I'm begining to think some people think art and sience are mutually exclusive.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Time for me to repeat my tag line: Science enables stories. Stories drive science

Technology and art are collaborative, not combative

Graeme

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm begining to think some people think art and sience are mutually exclusive.

They aren't... but I think some people are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Wesley Scoggins]

Yea, but a lot of the community here at Reduser are big tech-hounds, that love showing up here just to hear about what's on the horizon.

I am sure there are a lot of people here who just like reading about what the camera can do, and just love gadgets, even though they don't fancy themselves a "filmmaker".

So on this point, I would think you were correct, there are people who think the cart is the important part, and could care less about the horse, why their horse goes hungry, they are stenciling awesome racing flames on their side of their cart, they don't even have a horse, the horse can go to the glue factory and they wouldn't shed a tear, while there are others who do nothing but comb their horse with a fine brush and that expensive conditioner you can only get at the Vet's place, and have never even loaded anything in their cart, much less had to repair it's axle with duct tape and gorilla glue.

 

[Sarah C.]

"With my eyes I understand, in my soul I find inspiration, through my science I make art."

~s

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Well said Sarah.

Graeme

 

[Peter Strietmann]

"With my eyes I understand, in my soul I find inspiration, through my science I make art."

~s

Good one Sarah, is that your quote?

 

[Mark Pugh]

If that were true, then on average, digitally-shot movies would be better than film-shot movies. I have yet to see evidence of that.

Sure. I'm speaking personally.
I guess I find shooting digitally liberating, because so much of the tech is transparent, and immediate, rather than taking place off in the lab at a later time.
So I can push the limits with flaring light down the lens, for example, by knowing precisely what I'm getting "on the neg".

 

[Teague Kennedy]

If that were true, then on average, digitally-shot movies would be better than film-shot movies. I have yet to see evidence of that. It may be true for certain directors and DP's that they work better in an all-digital environment, but I wouldn't make any sweeping generalization that digital shooting leads to "more magic" happening. Sometimes the greatest art has come from the most crude and simple tools, sometimes from very difficult-to-use equipment. Sometimes not. An IMAX camera is much harder to use than a DV handycam but that doesn't mean that more "magic" comes from using the DV handycam.

True, but I'm terrible at shooting film, and I think very good with video/HD/RED. So it sure makes it more likely for me to create "more magic!!" :yesnod:

 

[Gabe Conroy]

If that were true, then on average, digitally-shot movies would be better than film-shot movies. I have yet to see evidence of that. It may be true for certain directors and DP's that they work better in an all-digital environment, but I wouldn't make any sweeping generalization that digital shooting leads to "more magic" happening. Sometimes the greatest art has come from the most crude and simple tools, sometimes from very difficult-to-use equipment. Sometimes not. An IMAX camera is much harder to use than a DV handycam but that doesn't mean that more "magic" comes from using the DV handycam.

While it's true you can't make sweeping generalizations, I think there's a good point to be made about digital offering a unique opportunity for capturing spontaneity that film may not be able to...28 Days Later made good use of XL1's to get the deserted London shots which would've been impossible with film. Many documentaries capture moments on digital that they couldn't have on film.

It's also worth noting that there's a statistical bias as to talent and shooting on film vs. digital that's independent of actual merit.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Have you never seen a Frederick Wiseman documentary? I mean, how did we get so many great cinema verite documentaries in the 1960's if film was unable to capture spontaneity? Not to mention all the Vietnam War newsreel photography? And it's "impossible" to shoot deserted streets on film? Really?

Is there some sort of cultural amnesia going on, that people have forgotten decades worth of low-budget underground and independent cinema shot on film, on the streets, no permits, in available light, real people, real events, improv acting, etc.? Decades of documentaries shot on film?

Sure, it's easier and cheaper now on video, but impossible to do on film? Despite historic evidence to the contrary?

 

[Deanan]

I'm begining to think some people think art and sience are mutually exclusive.

That's why I like being at RED. For many of us it's necessity to be as into the art as the science from Jim to Jarred to Graeme and on.

I've been at other companies where this was not true and that's why Red is a rare opportunity.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Have you never seen a Frederick Wiseman documentary? I mean, how did we get so many great cinema verite documentaries in the 1960's if film was unable to capture spontaneity? Not to mention all the Vietnam War newsreel photography? And it's "impossible" to shoot deserted streets on film? Really?

Is there some sort of cultural amnesia going on, that people have forgotten decades worth of low-budget underground and independent cinema shot on film, on the streets, no permits, in available light, real people, real events, improv acting, etc.? Decades of documentaries shot on film?

Sure, it's easier and cheaper now on video, but impossible to do on film? Despite historic evidence to the contrary?

I've been shooting both film and video since the sixties and one thing I know for sure, even though it is a psuedo-scientific ascessment, I will never sell my Arri and I will also never sell my Red.

My son is taking a photography class in school now and they are making him shoot with film. I tried to make him use my Leica 3g, he did not want it, went with the newer nikon f2 instead, lazy.

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

Have you never seen a Frederick Wiseman documentary? I mean, how did we get so many great cinema verite documentaries in the 1960's if film was unable to capture spontaneity? Not to mention all the Vietnam War newsreel photography? And it's "impossible" to shoot deserted streets on film? Really?

Is there some sort of cultural amnesia going on, that people have forgotten decades worth of low-budget underground and independent cinema shot on film, on the streets, no permits, in available light, real people, real events, improv acting, etc.? Decades of documentaries shot on film?

Sure, it's easier and cheaper now on video, but impossible to do on film? Despite historic evidence to the contrary?

John Cassavetes, just to mention one iconic filmmaker who did just that about 30 years ago

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Red now has a film shot on their FIRST generation camera, with an Oscar... :claps:

Build 15!!

 

[Gabe Conroy]

Have you never seen a Frederick Wiseman documentary? I mean, how did we get so many great cinema verite documentaries in the 1960's if film was unable to capture spontaneity? Not to mention all the Vietnam War newsreel photography? And it's "impossible" to shoot deserted streets on film? Really?

Is there some sort of cultural amnesia going on, that people have forgotten decades worth of low-budget underground and independent cinema shot on film, on the streets, no permits, in available light, real people, real events, improv acting, etc.? Decades of documentaries shot on film?

Sure, it's easier and cheaper now on video, but impossible to do on film? Despite historic evidence to the contrary?

Of course it's not impossible in general. But that doesn't mean there aren't specific instances when it's impossible. That was my point.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

Robert Capa and Bresson may be worth mentioning as well. Aparrently Mr Capa was not a necessairly a technocrat but he brought the cold reality of war to many peoples' lives.

 

[Eisen Feuer]

AVOID THE FOLLOWING POST AT ALL COSTS - INSIGHT INCOMING FROM SOME YOUNG NOBODY

I might remind some of the guys who have been doing this for 20+ years and say "film's going nowhere for a long time"—

...remember there's a generation right behind you (aka me) who are growing up with DI and have zero nostalgia for film. Even if in 20 years the aged director wants to do film, he may do so in the fierce opposition of the young talent beneath him, or those controlling the budget may bar it as the digital workflow gets a free ride on Moore's Law toward the future of economic efficiency.

Film will soon go the way of the woodburning stove, hand-drawn animation, and the muzzle-loader. They all do their jobs better today than when they were first invented, and are part of every day life for many around the world. But when faced with the new 'soulless' alternative, it may be our wallets, not our nostalgic inclinations that make the decision.

Make no mistake I like film, loved working with it—but if I were to get a darkroom today, it'd be a hobby. I wouldn't expect to make anything competitive with it, nor would I expect anyone to share in my love of the medium. Some of you higher-ups have the privilege of shooting in film, and paying someone else to deal with it. You go home, play with the kids, you've specialized, your day is done. For me, I deal with everything from the first idea to the final export. For me, film isn't even an option.

 

[Peter Strietmann]

AVOID THE FOLLOWING POST AT ALL COSTS - INSIGHT INCOMING FROM SOME YOUNG NOBODY

Film will soon go the way of the woodburning stove, hand-drawn animation, and the muzzle-loader. They all do their jobs better today than when they were first invented, and are part of every day life for many around the world. .[/U]

Just produced and wrapped a cell animation this week. Not sure if that is quite dead. They said in the latter part of the 1800s that painting was dead because of photography, looks like that was a bit premature.

I agree it is expensive but it looks so good.