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 :)

Quentin Tarantino on Leaving the Film Business Because of Digital Projection (Video)

Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister manage to be film proponents and yet remain rational and mature about it. Tarantino can do what he wants, but the criticism is because his comments sound a wee bit like a temper tantrum. One doesn't need to be a master filmmaker to recognize that and call it out.
 
Bruce Allen said:
1. Let's see some links to your films where you have JUST ONE SCENE that beats, say, a Christoph Waltz scene in Inglorious Basterds. Or shut up about his directing prowess.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not. I want to make it clear that I was quoting Quentin when I wrote, "as bad as Death Proof." Those were his words :) I agree that the scene you mention in Inglorious Bastards is amazing as are many others.

As far as film projection goes I agree that it's beautiful when done well, but it's often not done well (dim bulbs, out of focus, beat up prints, etc). The largest theater here just upgraded from film projection to all digital and it's a huge improvement in quality. The small screens are 2k and the large screens are 4k. The difference is night and day. I haven't seen "lieMAX" and I haven't been to the Arclight in probably 8 years so I haven't a clue what the quality is there now.

Bruce Allen said:
2. Let's see one film shot on RED with skin tones as good as those in Tarantino's films.
Click to expand...

For me wanting to shoot RED vs. film is more about workflow and affordability than it is about skin tones. Two things Quentin doesn't have to worry about so much.

Bruce Allen said:
But I mean Red just announced their 4K distribution platform based on Rec.709... which has a terrible gamut compared to film. This is the "better future" ?!
Click to expand...

That's apparently not true:

Stuart English said:
Don't read a .RED codec color gamut limitation into the REC709 spec. It's just reflecting the specificied gamma and gamut for Ultra HD displays ....
Click to expand...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...MAX-Comments&p=1109954&viewfull=1#post1109954
 
Okay, if we're talking about shooting film, I get it. That filmic feel, photochemical response to the light, etc, etc you name it. But regarding digital projection? Are you sure, Mr. Tarantino? Why don't you want all of us to watch constantly pristine 2K/4K digital copies of your movies everywhere in the world like it was day one, instead of tired old reels of second print film that look like crap. Yep, I said it. Last time I was watching film projection it looked worse than 2K.
 
I don't quite get all the fuss over "FILM" anymore. With R3D, You can make whatever look you want. This is exactly why so many "Big" budget productions have gone RED, they have researched the products and it was evident to them that R3D gave them the best latitude for achieving the look they wanted. Im sure this opinion varies, but I have to agree with most people here that know RED the best! You can create the same look and better with the R3D.

Film is ALMOST dead in my opinion. The death and bankruptcy of KODAK FILM and others is a HUGE sign of where "film" is headed. FOX Studios actually publicly said they were not doing anything using film anymore that they produce and thats saying something there, no??
 
Dan Frenkel said:
I don't quite get all the fuss over "FILM" anymore. With R3D, You can make whatever look you want. This is exactly why so many "Big" budget productions have gone RED, they have researched the products and it was evident to them that R3D gave them the best latitude for achieving the look they wanted. Im sure this opinion varies, but I have to agree with most people here that know RED the best! You can create the same look and better with the R3D.
Click to expand...

Well, no, you can't. R3D is just a record of what the sensor sees. If the sensor doesn't see the difference between two colors, or gets clipped, no manner of tweaking will bring it out in post. Just like if you shoot under bad sodium vapor lights, you can't just tweak it back into perfect color.

For reference: look at the total absence of natural-looking skin tones in RED movies.

I saw Life of Pi last night and knew that it was not shot on RED and likely shot on Alexa (or possibly F65 or film and then post-converted were my other guesses) due just to the subtle beautiful skin tones. Same with Skyfall - most of it was muted Alexa tobacco color but there were a couple of scenes that I fear could simply not have been done with RED. I hope that Dragon changes this.

Alex Kiritz said:
I don't believe that is true. That is what the home REDRay model designed for connecting to large 4k lcd tvs is capable of outputting. The .RED file format stores more information. As soon as you set up a projector in your house which will most likely be a $10k REDRay projector you loose that limitation.
Click to expand...

OK, but seriously why limit it to 709 ever? The vast majority of HDTVs made currently can go way beyond 709. I'm sure that every 4K device will be way beyond 709.

I'll bet that you could find a common standard easily that is way beyond Rec.709 and closer to DCI or Adobe RGB.

I don't have much in a 4K content standard that doesn't expand the color gamut at the same time from horrible video levels. All that will result in is something like the current situation - where we are supposed to author content to look good at this lame standard... but then most of the consumer display devices just ignore it and deliver more saturated colors, but in a completely uncontrolled way.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Surely he can afford to use 35mm ? even if no one else can? or is it the projectors that pose the problem?
 
I'm glad I watched the video because many of the comments in this thread do not seem like accurate descriptions of what he said or lack the proper context. Not bashing anyone - just saying it's best to watch the video if you wish to understand what Tarantino means. You will most definitely get the wrong idea if you don't.
 
Arnold F. said:
I'm glad I watched the video because many of the comments in this thread do not seem like accurate descriptions of what he said or lack the proper context. Not bashing anyone - just saying it's best to watch the video if you wish to understand what Tarantino means. You will most definitely get the wrong idea if you don't.
Click to expand...

Actually, I agree. The impression I got from the articles I saw was different than what I got from watching the whole hour long interview (which I just finished).

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/video/directors-full-uncensored-interview-394778
 
Arnold F. said:
I'm glad I watched the video because many of the comments in this thread do not seem like accurate descriptions of what he said or lack the proper context. Not bashing anyone - just saying it's best to watch the video if you wish to understand what Tarantino means. You will most definitely get the wrong idea if you don't.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Watching a snippet of this video would potentially give the wrong impression. You need to watch the entire video, just did myself on Friday last week. Either way, the man has a mind that works in many different ways and whether its a novel or a film or a tv series (BTW HBO still shoots its series on film, ie TRUE BLOOD for example) Tarantino's work and legacy will be what he wants it to be and he's earned that right by now.
 
i am not sure i understand the film vs digital debate....sounds like what was going on 10 years ago in the stills world....
i can understand if someone prefers a pure analog workflow...capture to final print...and i don't think that even possible anymore...i mean it is but who does that?
so if there is any scanning involved it is digital anyway and why not just shoot digital at that point? which is what everybody is finding out.... i don't think ridley scott really cares what he shoot with as long as he gets the story told....and at this point there in no reason NOT to get the story told with digital....if someone HAS to shoot film, great, no problem but damning the whole digital thing sounds a little weird to me....

as for film history, i think tarantino has written some of the best scenes in the last 20 years (walker, hopper in true romance is probably my favorite) but he is not on my personal top list of directors and neither are the films he directed....just my opinion.....
the idea that he wants to do epic 6 hour HBO things because he prefers to write like he did for kill bill does not sound good to me at all...i thought kill bill was not very good and the fact that was drawn out over 2 movies made it worse....and i really, really like long movies.....
anyway, all this is personal preference and regardless, he has definitely left his mark on the industry over the last decades and i hope he will continue to make film....and hopefully digital will catch up to his standards...
 
Leaving out what kinds of movies Tarantino makes and whether you like them or not, I think most reasonable people would question the rationale of leaving film-making because you don't like digital projection (which he is explicit about), and I feel like I can see that in the faces of the other interviewees present at the discussion. It does seem a little eccentric and emotional.

I think you could make more of argument of leaving film-making because you don't like shooting digital (which he also mentions), but you still leave yourself open to the rhetorical questions about where in the evolution of photography (and printmaking) you draw the line. Do you say daguerrotype is photography and photo-negatives are not? Do you say bellows cameras is photography and the Leica M3 is not? Do you say darkroom work is real and Photoshop is not?

If he says he hates digital acquisition I'll take him at his word. I think it's a little eccentric but a dislike of digital is not unheard of.
 
Bruce,

I absolutely respect everything you are saying, however I think you defending your opinion versus others', and some of the things that I have read under your comments just don't seem to hold water, at least for myself and the information I've been reading.

Stuart from RED is quoted saying that the Rec 709 color gamut outputting from the RedRay is "stated 12-bit 4:2:2 or 8 bit 4:4:4 output spec is actually the technical spec of the HDMI 1.4 standard at 4K and Ultra HD resolution...

... the actual .RED codec performance exceeds that."

RedRay isn't limited to Rec 709. It's a technical aspect based from current consumer technology. They are prepared to go further, especially with the Crimson Projector.

"However in our CRIMSON projector, where we have an internal REDRAY player and full control over the signal path, the HDMI 1.4 specs for bit rate and frame rate and color gamut are not limitations, so we can use the full capabilities of the .RED file specifcation." -Stuart English

And with the REDCODE raw codec, anyone can make skintones look any way they want. That's one of the reasons I've embraced RED so much. I've been editing, coloring and conforming R3D footage since 2006 and must say that the ability and knowledge I've gained over the last few years regarding color science and skintones has been remarkable. I have the ability to make the histogram, luminance, and color values push any way I want, with no hesitation and very little comprises. I'm still confused when people claim that RED footage doesn't have great skin tones. Where are they seeing these images? I've certainly haven't produced any images like those in awhile, unless I purposely desaturated the images.

Mark Toia is one of the most talented people on this forum, and I'd be dead wrong if I said he hasn't gotten the most out of his RED images...



Bruce Allen said:
Well, no, you can't. R3D is just a record of what the sensor sees. If the sensor doesn't see the difference between two colors, or gets clipped, no manner of tweaking will bring it out in post. Just like if you shoot under bad sodium vapor lights, you can't just tweak it back into perfect color.

For reference: look at the total absence of natural-looking skin tones in RED movies.

I saw Life of Pi last night and knew that it was not shot on RED and likely shot on Alexa (or possibly F65 or film and then post-converted were my other guesses) due just to the subtle beautiful skin tones. Same with Skyfall - most of it was muted Alexa tobacco color but there were a couple of scenes that I fear could simply not have been done with RED. I hope that Dragon changes this.



OK, but seriously why limit it to 709 ever? The vast majority of HDTVs made currently can go way beyond 709. I'm sure that every 4K device will be way beyond 709.

I'll bet that you could find a common standard easily that is way beyond Rec.709 and closer to DCI or Adobe RGB.

I don't have much in a 4K content standard that doesn't expand the color gamut at the same time from horrible video levels. All that will result in is something like the current situation - where we are supposed to author content to look good at this lame standard... but then most of the consumer display devices just ignore it and deliver more saturated colors, but in a completely uncontrolled way.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...
 
we are still all entitled to our opinions correct?

We are still viewers of his movies are we not?

then don't we get the opportunity to have our own opinions on his movies we paid to see.

What do you expect this is a forum about digital cinema acquisition.

No one is attacking films quality, so why continue your campaign against skin tones here(which I'm sure everyone has read by this point), why bring it up? this is not about the prevalence of digital over film or the inherent qualities of each.

It is about one in a list of many outlandish and bravado based comments from Tarantino, the man is a whirlwind of passion and opinions, and I assume we all(of a certain age) worshiped him at one time or another, it just seems he needs to take a step back and let others direct his work as some of my favorite projects of his were completed this way.

Honestly when you talk and attend as many interviews and media circuits as Tarantino then yes you bring this on yourself, and I'm sorry but every single person on earth can question advise or criticize an others opinion, doesn't make them right. Especially when it comes to art, the perspectives of philistines can be incredibly enlightening and to cut yourself off from that resource is pure ignorance in my opinion. So no we don't have to be Peter Jackson or David Fincher to contradict his opinions statements or body of work, that would be a backwards elitist way of thinking.

Obviously we should all pay respect to our elders and forebears, but we should also respect and listen to the students and future masters of tomorrow, plus the thoughts of your potential or long time viewers should be invaluable.

So understand this is not about a camera it's about a filmmakers choice, to go digital, as well as built up feelings towards a very popularized and polarizing director.

peace a passion respectively, not everything is an us and them situation, redusers are humans to you know if you prick us do we not bleed... now that I think about it yes you, even you, if you, are, here and have a post, you are a part of... gasp, reduser! just messing around man, sorry.

don't take this stuff so seriously, hard to construe a person's meaning or viewpoint each and every time from text alone, and enjoy life it's short! (not saying you weren't)

I think I'm taking a break from forums for a bit.... people .... people all seem to be going more and more crowd crazy these days, perhaps it's all the new and eclectic camera offerings, or it's just that end of the world stuff.

See you in another world!
 
Stephen Matthews said:
Especially when it comes to art, the perspectives of philistines can be incredibly enlightening and to cut yourself off from that resource is pure ignorance in my opinion. So no we don't have to be Peter Jackson or David Fincher to contradict his opinions statements or body of work, that would be a backwards elitist way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Steven is clearly right about this. Watch the rest of the interview. The host asks a couple questions about notes and I got the impression that most of these elite Directors are not above taking notes from a wide variety of places, not just from other film makers who they consider their equal. In fact some point to that as part of their formula for success. If you get so full of yourself that you believe most people are incapable of questioning your opinions, then who do you turn to? How do you keep from riding your own train over a ledge?

Admit it; we all have some one or more people whose advise we treasure and will follow on all manner of things, whether or not they are expert on any of them. That kind of trust and humility is important I think.
 
Bob Gundu said:
Eeek. Ang Lee's admission of letting a composer go was speaking about a close friend of mine. I won't say who but I'm sure you can figure it out.
Click to expand...

If I had to hear my embarassing story told in public, I would be grateful if it were told with half as much class. It's strange to say it but man, your friend is kinda lucky. ;-)
 
As usual so much of this and of that, and it is perfectly oaky, we each have our opinions, but unfortunately this is no longer to soon be a matter of opinion, but a matter of Progress, "ADAPT or be GONE" same as Kodak, and many others, FILM is no longer, meaning that no one is producing it, so the little that is left will be gone soon, and when that happens there will no longer be not even the Nostalgia ones to make, and as far as Digital it is here to stay, and moving faster then ever in to every movie tetaher around the world.

I have talked to many Big time Industry players, some of which were Directors too, and they said, NO WAY, I'l never shoot Digital, yet here they are shooting RED, and Alexa too for that matter, and no longer do they want to be victim of Film on set and the entire post work as well as Distribution.


If Quentin chooses so, good on him, I bet He will come back one day and shoot Digital... Mark this thread and then come back to it when He does... No matter how much money you have, or how badly you want to make a movie on Film, if they are no longer channels to distribute Film, you might as well produce for the few Old Vintage MOvie Teathers or for your own home if you like it so much, for me I am so very happy FILM is at LAST to be so very soon GONE FOR EVER!!!

We each have our own likes and dislikes, this are mines, and I don't like film for more then one reason, one being the quality I no longer enjoy, the other the amount of WAIST it produces, but they are more, this are however the strongest reason I don't like it, never DID, ever since I started shooting 4k Digital, which happened to be on RED, it was actually supposed to be on Dalsa... ;)

Either way, Thanks Quentin for your great films and even for those not so great, if you make more I'll see them, if you don't have a great POST Film life... If you change you mind, we'll offer you the best Digital technology you can have, acquisition to Projection, right here at RED... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top