Janusz Kaminski: "..I don't have respect for digital media just yet."

[Scott Crawley]

Indeed. There are those who have the clout and desire to retain that control, and Kaminski must surely be one of those. If choosing to remain in the analogue world enables them to hold on then I can't point at their reticence with condemnation. Instead I'll have to look elsewhere for my champion; the person who might set the president that places us firmly at the end of the process.

Times they are a changing .... the Cinematographer no longer has the control of the final image .... Actually the Director must "carry the can" for all these new techniques. The Director must assume all the blame ... that's for sure.

 

[Paul Ellington]

Times they are a changing .... the Cinematographer no longer has the control of the final image .... Actually the Director must "carry the can" for all these new techniques. The Director must assume all the blame ... that's for sure.

The Director should invite the DP to the spotting sessions.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Change in tools calls for change in operational methodology

Change in tools calls for change in operational methodology

I get the "means to an end" argument. If shooting film keeps some "insulation" between the DP's process and the peanut gallery, that's a genuine attraction.

But let's not confuse a roundabout way to retain a bit more control, with the actual genesis of the problem - every Tom, Dick and yahoo with a computer has access to some kind of color grading toolset. That Genie is not bloody likely to go back in the bottle.

The proper fix is for DP's contracts to include paid days in the grading suite during post... - back here on Planet Earth...

My workaround is to take the grading suite to the location (specialty rig to provide proper viewing conditions, toolset, talent in the chair) so the DP has ongoing control over the look, but that is not typically available.

IMHO navigating around the digital pipeline is a short term strategy at best - engage and guide the process to suit your vision.

I call on all of us in camera and post/color/finish to foster a fluid working environment where the DP is the Chief Collaborator - emphasis on both words.

I will now tuck my soapbox away

Cheers - #19

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

It is refreshing that Kodak can't even tell the difference anymore

Hehehe, really look how far Red evolved. Even Kodak is convinced these two or three movies were 35mm projects too

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It seems Kodak's marketing people are as on the ball as their financial strategy guys... Jeebus, that's bad. To my knowledge, two of those films were not shot on film at all, not one single bit of them. Margin Call was all RED One, as has been pointed out, and Offhollywood handled the DI.

 

[Scott Crawley]

It seems Kodak's marketing people are as on the ball as their financial strategy guys... Jeebus, that's bad.

It must be Jameson Delirium... From the going away party.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

It seems Kodak's marketing people are as on the ball as their financial strategy guys... Jeebus, that's bad. To my knowledge, two of those films were not shot on film at all, not one single bit of them. Margin Call was all RED One, as has been pointed out, and Offhollywood handled the DI.

The DI for Margin Call was done at Technicolor - however, OFFHOLYWOOD did provide cameras (RED ONE MX) and the DIT /Red Camera Tech (Keith Putnam) and we also did all of the dialies for the film.

It was COMPLETELY shot on RED ONE MX by the very talented Frank G. DeMarco (who also shot Rabbit Hole on the Red One) - the only exceptions:

1) a couple shots from a 7D used in a car driving shot.
2) There is one ariel shot of One Penn Plaza the film - not sure if that was stock or how it was shot.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Margin Call was by no means shot on film. It was shot on RED ONE MX, in 10 to 12 days. It was well covered in American Cinematographer end of 2011. Good article.

Interestingly, IMDB says that Margin Call was shot on film (Arriflex 435), DSLR (Canon EOS 5D), and Red One MX. [And I thank Mark Pederson for confirming that.]

I'm finding quite a few projects these days are being shot on a bunch of different cameras, due to budgetary and/or logistical issues. I did a fairly decent-sized cable network show a few weeks back that was shot on Red One, EOS-5D, and Sony EXCam. It was a bitch-and-a-half to get them all to match; the Red was by far the best look out of all of them. In some cases, we had to degrade the Red footage to find a place where all the images were on an even keel. Not fun.

The Director should invite the DP to the spotting sessions.

Unfortunately, sometimes there are political problems where the DP is "disinvited" to the color-correction sessions. I've been on projects where the DP was there for the first few days, then leaves to move on to a new project... and then other people seize control of the session and change his or her work. Post supervisors, editors, and producers all fight for what they think is best for the picture. And I've had experiences where at the very end, a studio exec comes in and changes those decisions. It takes a very powerful director with a bullet-proof contract to get total control over issues like color, especially when the project is over-budget and over-schedule.

Another major issue is that often, the DP is not paid to be present at color-correction sessions. I know of few DPs who'd like to sit for a month in a dark room, endlessly tweaking, supervising, and approving final color -- for free. This is changing at the high end of the spectrum, but a lot depends on the DP's position in the hierarchy of showbiz. (Kaminski himself has commented on this in interviews.)

And I know of some major cases where the DP supervised the initial color, and then the director came in, threw it all out, and started over. Many DPs have been roasted in the depths of the Slor on those days, I can tell you.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The DI for Margin Call was done at Technicolor - however, OFFHOLYWOOD did provide cameras (RED ONE MX) and the DIT /Red Camera Tech (Keith Putnam) and we also did all of the dialies for the film.

Whoops... Thanks for the correction, but I knew you guys were involved there.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Film color rendering and especially its gentle rolloff of highlights are still look much better than any kind of digital acquisition.

To confim this just watch and compare the latest movies shot both on the latest film stocks and cine digital camera systems.

Maybe try out with Apple movie trailers about the nominees from the 84th Academy Awards (Oscars)

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/awards/

 

[M Most]

I'm finding quite a few projects these days are being shot on a bunch of different cameras, due to budgetary and/or logistical issues. I did a fairly decent-sized cable network show a few weeks back that was shot on Red One, EOS-5D, and Sony EXCam. It was a bitch-and-a-half to get them all to match.....

Try working on the television show "The River." On any given day - not even any given episode - they used Alexa, XDCam EX, Canons of various types, NX Cam, SI 2K, GoPro, and at least 3 or 4 others. In one day. With each one supplying close to 2 hours of footage. Much of it with no slates. Of course, they still wanted to see the dailies at 9AM the next morning, even though they were shooting in Hawaii and cutting in L.A....

Unfortunately, sometimes there are political problems where the DP is "disinvited" to the color-correction sessions.....And I know of some major cases where the DP supervised the initial color, and then the director came in, threw it all out, and started over.....

That's true, and I find myself a bit conflicted about it. On the one hand, if each craft necessary to create a finished piece is left to do their best work, the finished result is usually more than the sum of its parts. And while as a colorist (and a member of both the camera and editors guilds) I really enjoy and welcome the participation of and collaboration with the cinematographer, and feel that the picture always benefits from that, I also feel that there ultimately needs to be one creative vision that's served by all of the crafts. In television, the vision is almost always that of the executive producer/show runner. In features, it's almost always the director, at least while that director still has the studio's or the financial backer's confidence. If there are decisions to be made, the final word must be in the hands of the ultimate authority, regardless of how it may hurt others' feelings or trample on what they might consider their good work. As in all "team sports" - and filmmaking, to me, is sometimes very analogous to a team sport - there needs to be a head coach or captain, someone who has the overall vision and whom everyone else works to serve. Collaboration is great when it's invited and welcome, but there are times when that won't be the case. And unless you're the director or show runner, you learn to live with it, regardless of the size of your ego.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I also feel that there ultimately needs to be one creative vision that's served by all of the crafts. In television, the vision is almost always that of the executive producer/show runner. In features, it's almost always the director, at least while that director still has the studio's or the financial backer's confidence.

That's the key right there, the final decision should best serve all of the crafts. Based upon the amount of crap I see on television I have to wonder if the majority of television Producers have any appreciation of photography at all. It used to be just the errant auto-focus shots that led me to wonder, but now that we have the wonder of DSLR's in productions we also see a lot more hunting for focus... Not that it serves the story at all.

Feature film isn't safe either. While the feature program itself isn't often plagued by these problems, it is abundant in many of the bonus features. Those are beginning to look of lesser quality than even television. I can't remember the last time I saw a shot in a television show where the fields were inverted, but recently I have seen it in the bonus features of no less than two major studio BluRays, and an equal number of independent documentary features as well. I fear we have reached a new low in terms of technical quality and it seems to be forever sinking. The finger of responsibility seems to be pointing squarely at Producers.

If you are an executive at a distribution company, you have to know that the more diverse your sources of programming, the more rigorous your QC needs to be. From my armchair this point seems lost. I really don't know what to make of it, but it does make one all the more reticent to just let the work go to where any number of ill trained techs might stomp all over it.

 

[Alwyn Kumst]

All the above comments sum it up nicely. It's not the tools it is the talent.

In the days of film I dictated my tools and stocks. Now I sit in an interview and listen to a director telling me we are shooting on 'this camera' because X's movie looked fantastic. Yes sir mr X had 90 days for his movie and you have 12? The camera is not going to give you the same look. You don't tell the painter which brushes to use. The good news will be in time when Mr. Kaminski too will shoot on a digital format and produce something amazing and come to appreciate that you can transfer your skills. Surround yourself with the right team who are still willing to work for the Cinematographer. We all come around eventually.

 

[Arseni Tomkevich]

As producer and guru computer scientist. I have this love and hate relationship with technology. I am very technical but my love for technology eventually becomes the bottleneck of my creativity.

I was able to shot and edit film when I was 10. I understood the process and had little to worry about. I could do it all by myself.

I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to do that with my digital camera now, in fact, any digital camera.

 

[Filip Orlandic]

Film color rendering and especially its gentle rolloff of highlights are still look much better than any kind of digital acquisition.

To confim this just watch and compare the latest movies shot both on the latest film stocks and cine digital camera systems.

Maybe try out with Apple movie trailers about the nominees from the 84th Academy Awards (Oscars)

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/awards/

Sanjin,

I have seen four 35mm and one alexa feature this weekend on the same cinema screen and I could see that Drive was really awful in skin tones and highlights.
Nothing beats 35mm in skin tones, highlights and look.


FEATURES:

War Horse
The Tree of Life
The Skin I Live In
Carnage

Drive


BTW, TGWTDT has really good skin tones which look like 35mm in many moments!

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

drive looked fantastic inmho.
it had so much style!

Sanjin,

I have seen four 35mm and one alexa feature this weekend on the same cinema screen and I could see that Drive was really awful in skin tones and highlights.
Nothing beats 35mm in skin tones, highlights and look.


FEATURES:

War Horse
The Tree of Life
The Skin I Live In
Carnage

Drive


BTW, TGWTDT has really good skin tones which look like 35mm in many moments!

 

[Filip Orlandic]

drive looked fantastic inmho.
it had so much style!

Kaya,

The style and cinematography are remarkable in Drive. I've just seen a huge difference in skin tones comparing to the 35mm features.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

I have to agree that film still utterly shatters digital for the beauty and sublety of its skin tones and the richness and depth of the colour it can capture. One of my favourite examples of this is "The Yards" which just looks phenomenal. Will digital every get there or is it inherent to the technology and something we will have to live with?

 

[Marc Wielage]

Try working on the television show "The River." On any given day - not even any given episode - they used Alexa, XDCam EX, Canons of various types, NX Cam, SI 2K, GoPro, and at least 3 or 4 others. In one day.

Yeah, but at least a show like that is supposed to be dark, grungy, and mysterious, and some of it's surveillance footage, some of it's "found footage," and not that much of it is supposed to be live and dramatic. You can get away with it in that situation.

The problem is when an inexperienced director or producer uses mismatched cameras and wants to know why they look so different. "But it all looked fine on the Avid!" Sure, on a 24" screen at low-res, I don't doubt it.

There seems to be an 3-way inverse relationship between budgets, ignorance, and expectations. Low budgets = great ignorance X high expectations, which makes no sense.

In television, the vision is almost always that of the executive producer/show runner. In features, it's almost always the director, at least while that director still has the studio's or the financial backer's confidence.

True. And yet, I've had shows where the director did come in for X hours to "supervise." The moment he left, the producer would turn to me and say, "OK, throw out everything he just asked for, and let's go back to where we were before he walked in the door." What're you gonna do? Ultimately, the producer is the client, especially if he or she is there every single week to supervise, and the director just does the one episode. Pilots, of course, are different, and in those cases, my experience is that the director does control the look about 75% of the time.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Will digital every get there or is it inherent to the technology and something we will have to live with?

Give the guys at Red couple years more and watch what's gonna happen. Film is obviously considered the gold standard in any serious digital camera company, but digital will get there sooner or later. Lots of images from EPIC that I see already, have very pleasing skin tones, especially in a daylight and when graded (and in some cases lit) properly. At least for me last couple things left are the extended native DR (w/o using HDRx) and a bit better "filmic" color reproduction. As for the global shutter thing, there are 3rd party workarounds already, and I'm sure it only will get better. The "HDRx +3" pictures I see from EPIC and Scarlet are very attractive images to my non-pro eye, I can just imagine when the native DR will get that good. At that point you'd be able to capture all the details in shadows and highlights and then either leave it as it is "in all it's cold digital glory" or play with "the shoulder" and soft rolloff any way you want in post to get that filmic feel (almost like the way they grade and carefully manipulate scanned 35mm negs for years now).