Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

F**k the Numbers (Geoff Boyle)

i do love this and the comparisons and the argument taken about composition makes the image and the passion from which its told. that aside he contradicts himself when talking of the sound of music, shoot on 65mm scanned at 8K and projected in 4k and its absolutely stunning. isn't this exactly what the premise of reds oversampling is all about? i cat argue with Mr. Boyle, at all, i'm not an expert, far from it. but its aways interesting when someone argues against something only to quote the counter argument to support their side.
 
Geoff’s overall point is a good one. Sometimes we can get too caught up in the technical minutia. Cinematography by its very nature is technical but obviously it is the artistic component that leads to the amazing cinematography he refers to. Film and digital acquisition will always be unique mediums and both have strengths and weaknesses but both have potential to make an audience react emotionally and it’s all about the craft and care put into the storytelling. To that extent, I agree with Geoff, screw the numbers. If you can move an audience to the desired emotion, you have accomplished something and the audience doesn’t care how you got there. The important thing is you knew how to get there, hence the marriage of the technician and the artist.
 
I say...

If you can, know the numbers, then manipulate the numbers, and then fuck the numbers if you care to.

A truly great film seen on VHS tape is better then a truly poor film seen projected on 70mm.

:)
 
Geoff helped me a lot when we were prepping 3D Amazing Spiderman. He is a wealth of knowledge. I have disagreed with him many times but what he is saying here is totally correct. We use tools that are appropriate for the story, for the visuals. Large format can be limiting vis-a-vis depth of field.
We should shoot what is right for the project: format, lenses, cameras. Matty laBatique who is both a friend and an amazing DP uses both 35mm film and 16mm film as well as Red cameras on different projects because of what the story and visual concept calls for.
65mm film is not "better" than Vistavision or Monstro VV or 16mm film or even Super 8.
Many of us get caught up (me included) in the technical and the equipment of it all.

We need to service the story and the director visually. That's it.
 
Geoff is a very bright guy who does good work, and I agree 100% with his conclusions.
 
Thanks for sharing, Adam. I really enjoyed that.

I agree with all of what he said, even though he obviously contradicted himself. A few points which I think all of you picked up on:

1. Painting isn't photography.

2. Numbers matter for the engineers that make our equipment, and they matter to the people who create images.

3. The audience does not need to worry about numbers, because the engineers and the DP and the color timer have already done the worrying (and hopefully they worried rightly).

(Bonus point because it just popped into my head): Fuck orange on teal. Fuck it straight to hell.

Peter, I agree with your sentiment in general. But I would like to suggest, as a non-DP, that some formats (pick your favourite) would never be inappropriate solutions. For example, if The Golden Girls was shot on 35mm, would it lose anything? Would soap operas lose anything if they were shot on 35mm? Just playing devil's advocate here.
 
"We make compromise after compromise after compromise."

When have we ever not had to compromise? Everything he says abut the importance of the picture is true and makes sense. It's the visual equivalent of the old adage about the importance of story over everything.

But, he wanders off into the diatribe about "pixels and numbers" as if they are irrelevant. However articulate and moving, it still sounds like the lament of a nostalgic old guy. (and I say that with all due respect for "old guys" - being one myself).
 
Unfortunately our industry has grown too fast for its own good. That impacted the level of skill in general and, consequently, allowed not so honest marketing techniques for uneducated consumer to become effective. As a result we see producers, and the creatives following the suit to keep working, fall for the simplest of the baits- PRICE, resolution numbers, frame rates, etc... Some of their "catch phrases" would be laughed at and ridiculed as little as 12 years ago.....In a way I see some creatives got corrupted ... I think that is what Geoff meant.
Having said that- setting standards like minimum 4K 10 bit acquisition and REC2020 display would go a long way in restoring some order to this "wild, wild West". This way the creatives would not need to worry about the compliance and go back to...well....creating ;-) Do it once, do it right and forget it!!!
 
Pretty cool and timely take on the creative side of production. Thank you for sharing this.
 
Yah. Look at a modern scan of Wizard of Oz or Gone with the Wind which were released in 1939. Then look at any other technology from 1939 . . . then tell me that movie images have come close to keeping pace with the any of them.

I have always maintained that the downward pricing pressure in movie production has retarded technological growth and image quality. Compromise is a fact of life in the corporate world of Hollywood where "good enough" is their battle cry. I am rarely impressed with any new camera gizmo these days. The one exception is the drone based platform which has had an impressive run in the last 5 years. To get 6K in the air 5 years ago was next to impossible. Now any regular peasant can do it next day via Amazon Prime ;-)
 
This "Fuck the numbers" is totally biased. It's like saying we don't care about the technical aspect of a car because what's important is the landscape.


RED is all about being disruptive. Not to be the standard way of doing it. So it's difficult for them to become the standard because they would loose their core ideology. But this disruptive attitude, is now fading away either by their choices, their ambitious vision for the company (partner with Panavision, big directors, less Indies,...) or because they where(badly) copied by the main stream camera manufacturer (small modular body).

Numbers have been a battle horse for RED as they where convinced that 4k should be the theater standard to replace 35mm print. Thanks to them.




Pat

PS: I love my 6k Dragon for the possibility it offers no other camera do. (6k R3D on my mid 2012 Macbookpro)
 
I think the basic point is: The size, cost and therefor accessibility of camera technology has been the disruptive element in the last 50 years. Not image quality.
That said, here is a hipster travel lifestyle Vlog shot in 1966 on a travel friendly 2K camera that didn't batteries or firmware updates ;-)


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top