Red and digital projection

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

lol, "organic" look, I have no idea what that means. Sounds like someone has smoked too much weed when they go on and on about the "organic beauty of the flickering image, it's so magical... *sigh*" Man pass me some of that, must be nice.

When I see film I see a lack of sharpness and clarity that is unacceptable to my eyes. When I see digitally shot movies that are then digitally projected I see a movie as it should be seen -- perfectly clear, no artifacts, no scratches, no grain.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I know the film era is over, whether Spielberg or the ghost of Stanley Kubrick shoots film or not. I'm just trying to figure out what we'll end up with.

What we'll end up with is a natural progression towards a new medium and way of watching cinema.

Film has had its glory days. I've grown up watching films. All of my favorite movies have been originated on film. But I honestly feel that if a great Director and Cinematographer had the chance to shoot a movie in digital with a great story, we'd instantly have a new classic and digital would gain much more validity as a capture medium.

Currently, I can't think of one movie that has been originated on digital that actually has a great Director/Cinematographer/script behind it. That is sure to change in due time of course.

One thing that I've learned along with many of this and past generations is that technology rules all. Digital cameras have come leaps and bounds in a matter of 25 years whereas film has taken over a hundred to reach its current state. It's inevitable that we will surpass the quality of film if not mimic it perfectly with the use of post techniques and the right camera.

After seeing the RED 4k presentation at NAB, I came away feeling as though I'd just seen the future, no kidding. There was soo much potential there in that short. Some of the shots in Crossing the Line were more beautiful than anything I'd ever seen on film. The landscape shots to be specific were something of absolute beauty that even film couldn't capture as well.

Not to take anything away from Peter Jackson's Directing or Richard's Cinematography, but I know there is much room for improvement in both aspects. The RED camera even in its infant stages has proved to me that both digital and film has its own beauty just as each stock of film does. I've come to see RED originated footage as a truly unique and promising new stock that doesn't currently exist in film and never will.

As far as digital projection goes, check out Pirate's of the Caribbean on a Christie 2k DLP, it's leaps and bounds more beautiful than the film projected version.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Jonathan, your statements are garbage. Just to re-iterate, I'll reply with another one of your posts made on film vs. digital....

Yeah I'm really glad I didn't come along like 30 or 40 years ago, because I'm not sure I really would have gotten into film. I probably would have stuck with what my dad does, real estate, because filmmaking is a big enough challenge without having to deal with shooting a bunch of rolls of film and editing on ancient machines, etc.

Changing a mag only takes a minute, not very time consuming or difficult if you enjoy your job and the film making process....

And as far as editing goes, that's not your job anyway! Let the editor deal with the specifics and tools used to edit, you just worry about the cuts, not the tools used to cut.

I knew years ago when I wanted to get into the film industry that it was my goal never to touch film,

Why? Really, if you haven't ever shot on film then where's the bias toward digital coming from?

I for one LOVE film. You can't argue that film isn't absolutely beautiful when shot right. After all, YOU grew up watching and loving FILMS!

Name some of your favorite movies, or movies that motivated you to attempt a career in the motion picture industry, guess what, they've ALL or at least very many of them have been shot on FILM.

The only real problem with film is its initial cost and post costs.

but I wasn't sure quite how because at that time it seemed more like if you wanted professional quality you either needed a few hundred thousand for the Sony F900 or you needed to shoot on film.

Now RED has changed everything.

The F900 IMHO hardly looks like film, if you want the look of film.....shoot film, if you enjoy the beauty and clarity of 4k RED, then shoot RED, just don't go around making naive comments about tools you've never even used, it makes you sound like a fresh out of college film school noob.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

No, it makes you sound like an old-school film fan, which I am not. Don't use personal comments to defend your point of view -- it has no place here. You love film, good for you, I don't. I think Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith look ten times better than anything shot on film. That's the clarity of image I want, and the RED can do better than that, so I have no use for film.

Changing mags takes a lot of time, actually, when you have to change for every ten minutes of film footage you shoot and then you have to worry about processing it, which takes at least three days after you shoot it. And it is my concern where and how it is edited. I don't let my films be edited on Avid, even, let alone telecined in, which is stupid beyond belief -- I manage my film from start to finish, there's no lab involved, and no reason to have a lab involved. I want to see my footage at the end of the day on my computer. 'nuff said.

If you love film, that's great, good for you, I can't deny you that. But don't go after me because you are sad about film's imminent demise.

 

[Antoine Fabi]

lol, "organic" look, I have no idea what that means. Sounds like someone has smoked too much weed when they go on and on about the "organic beauty of the flickering image, it's so magical... *sigh*" Man pass me some of that, must be nice.

A suggestion for you Jonathan,

Please try to understand "why" people say something rather than just laugh at them, much more constructive and instructive.

Again, in the dictionary, organic:

1 of, relating to, or derived from living matter : organic soils. • Chemistry of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin. Compare with inorganic . • (of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents.

2 Physiology of or relating to a bodily organ or organs. • Medicine (of a disease) affecting the structure of an organ.

3 denoting a relation between elements of something such that they fit together harmoniously as necessary parts of a whole : the organic unity of the integral work of art. • characterized by continuous or natural development : companies expand as much by acquisition as by organic growth.

#3 sounds right when i think of film.
...and i think RED will be able to achieve that "organic" look.

Cheers!

 

[M Most]

Currently, I can't think of one movie that has been originated on digital that actually has a great Director/Cinematographer/script behind it.

Dean Semler (DP) and Mel Gibson (Director), "Apocalypto." Dean is one of the finer shooters working today. And regardless of what you may think of him personally, Mel is a very, very talented director.

Bryan Singer (Director) and Tom Sigel (DP), "Superman Returns." Not what I would call a great movie, but Bryan is a proven director (if he never did anything other than "The Usual Suspects" I would probably still feel that way), and Tom is an excellent, visually experimental cameraman.

Michael Mann (Director) and Dion Beebe (DP), "Collateral" and "Miami Vice." Michael is, well, Michael. Dion won both the Oscar and the ASC Award for "Memoirs of a Geisha." Pretty prodigious talents here.

I could name some more, but I think you get my point.

As for digital projection, it has nothing whatsoever to do with digital origination. Digital projection is usually done these days from a Digital Cinema Package created directly from files generated during the digital intermediate process. It is very rare - almost impossible - today to find digital projection of a studio released picture using HDCam tape or anything like it. How a picture is shot is a completely separate issue from how it is exhibited. Pictures shot on film are projected digitally every day, and pictures shot on HD cameras are projected on film every day. One doesn't require the other.

 

[M Most]

I don't let my films be edited on Avid, even, let alone telecined in, which is stupid beyond belief -- I manage my film from start to finish, there's no lab involved, and no reason to have a lab involved. I want to see my footage at the end of the day on my computer. 'nuff said.

So basically, you do it all, and have no need for other professionals at any point along the way. You don't need a cinematographer, a producer, a script supervisor, an assistant director, a writer, a picture editor, a sound editor, a finishing editor, a colorist, a sound mixer, or a distributor. Your statement above explains quite a bit.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I for one am far from an "old school film fan". What I am though, is someone who loves motion pictures and utilizes all the tools available for any given project whether it be orgitinated on film or digital. I am also someone who respects the craft, and a large part of that craft is in the "relics" of film. If you have no respect for the roots of an art, you don't truly love the art.

Over the past 2 years I've shot almost exclusively on digital for budgetary reasons mainly, but also because the job market is sliding over to the digital end due to just that, budgetary reasons.

I can make a pretty picture on both mediums, but that also depends greatly on the camera that is being used. An F900 is nothing though as far as clarity goes when compared to something shot on 35mm with a 4k scan.

When you speak of "clarity" in Attack of the Clones are you refering to the cgi backgrounds? or the edge enhancement? or maybe the flat colors and lack of latitude? Hmm..... By choosing AOTC as your end all be all to film, I can see where your stupidity comes from.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I don't think ORGANIC applies to film whatsoever, it's about as far from organic as possible -- it is full of nasty, harsh chemicals that would kill anything organic! Organic is fruit, vegetables, maybe something like that, NOT film, which is full of chemicals that isn't even close to organic.

What I want to see, and am perfectly ok with, is arguments centered around actual facts, like resolution, contrast ratio, depth of field, etc. Those are all measurable elements that can be compared from one medium to another. There is no excuse for making arguments that aren't measurable -- there are NO intangibles for film, everything is measurable scientifically. Anyone who says otherwise clearly won't accept any arguments, their mind is just made up already. This is just like the scientific method. If you can't prove a theory wrong, there is no way to prove it wrong, it's not a valid theory. It has to be falsifiable.

I'm sorry but I'm very blunt when it comes to arguments of this kind. I simply won't put up with people arguing based on words that they can't define and that don't have any accepted meaning. Define your terms, then we'll argue. Otherwise, your argument is garbage.

Revenge of the Sith is not only artistically one of the best films over the last ten years, and in my opinion the best, it's also the best looking. It is not WHATSOEVER flat, it's extremely sharp and the colors are brilliant. I'm sorry that you're probably a die-hard prequel hater, too, but that's not really relevant to me.

Great films are shot on digital, and that started with Attack of the Clones by one of the great directors of all time. I don't need to defend that statement, Lucas is and will remain one of history's great directors.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Dean Semler (DP) and Mel Gibson (Director), "Apocalypto." Dean is one of the finer shooters working today. And regardless of what you may think of him personally, Mel is a very, very talented director.

Although I respect Dean's work, he has never been on the bleeding edge of anything in Cinematography. He knows how to shoot, he does it well, but he's never shot a unanimous, "masterpiece" of a movie.

Mel, he's hit and miss for me. I thought Apocalypto was good but it was no Braveheart.

Bryan Singer (Director) and Tom Sigel (DP), "Superman Returns." Not what I would call a great movie, but Bryan is a pr oven director (if he never did anything other than "The Usual Suspects" I would probably still feel that way), and Tom is an excellent, visually experimental cameraman.

Yawn.

Michael Mann (Director) and Dion Beebe (DP), "Collateral" and "Miami Vice." Michael is, well, Michael. Dion won both the Oscar and the ASC Award for "Memoirs of a Geisha." Pretty prodigious talents here.

Both of those films are very experimental and rely heavily on available light. Once again, not the greatest Cinematography examples, I'd rather call them experiments in lighting and new ways of movie making.

 

[Stuart English]

RED projected

RED projected

So to clarify what I was saying.

I suggest that most films that we have seen digitally projected have also been shot on HDCAM or transferred to HDCAM. Then they may or or may not have been played back from HDCAM tape, more likely a cinema server. Some films will have benefitted from a 10 bit DPX style origination or D.I signal path. Then the RED footage was captured with a 12 bit data path.

I suspect that what most people have described as the "flatness" of digital projection is probably because most digital footage has this limited dynamic range and limited color space 8 bit / 3:1:1 YUV format HDCAM footprint superimposed on it. Take that restriction out of the equation and project a 12 bit / 4:4:4 RGB image then you should see something radically different - even with the same projector.

For me that is the magic of RED, enabling super high quality from lens to lens. And at an affordable cost, so many can exploit this new tool.

 

[dalemccready]

I think thats a bit harsh re Dean Semler. What about "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and "Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps" ?



...actually he's a solid dp, no disprespect meant to him, but I take your point.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

4:4:4 and a large dynamic range, music to my ears!

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Exactly,

That's what i think Stuart.
The usual "cold" look of digital may very well come from the very limited data.

The RED footage at NAB was the very first digital footage that i really liked.
RED will be a @#@ good tool.
A 12 bit data will smooth the image (color correction etc...) big time.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

I think thats a bit harsh re Dean Semler. What about "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome" and "Nutty Professor 2: The Klumps" ?

You know what, I take everything I said about Dean Semler's work back......How could I possibly forget about the beauty of The Nutty Professor 2!?! hehe

 

[M Most]

So to clarify what I was saying.

I suggest that most films that we have seen digitally projected have also been shot on HDCAM or transferred to HDCAM. Then they may or or may not have been played back from HDCAM tape, more likely a cinema server. Some films will have benefitted from a 10 bit DPX style origination or D.I signal path. Then the RED footage was captured with a 12 bit data path.

Stuart, unless you're talking exclusively about independent, student, and festival pictures, that's just not the case. Studio pictures that are projected digitally - i.e., almost any major release at a theater that happens to have digital projection - are, for the most part, shot on film, and for the digital projection release, sourced directly from the DI. HDCam is not part of the process at all. The DI's are all done from either 2K or greater film scans, or in some cases (usually not for studio pictures, though) 4:4:4 RGB HD format video, usually recorded on HDCam SR - a very, very different format than HDCam. The digital cinema package is sourced directly from the color corrected 10 bit log files created in the DI.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

The RED footage at NAB was the very first digital footage that i really liked.

Same here, it was truly the first digital footage that made me say wow.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Great films are shot on digital, and that started with Attack of the Clones by one of the great directors of all time. I don't need to defend that statement, Lucas is and will remain one of history's great directors.

I just don't see the point of arguing for a movie that is 90% cgi. There is no way to truly judge the quality considering that.

Another example is Sin City, once again, eye candy galore, but it's so heavily cgi'd that you can't really say whether that perceived sharpness and resloution is due to the F900 live action footage or the cgi background in contrast to it.

Using heavily cgi'd movies as an example is pointless. You need movies shot in real world, live action, non cgi situations. And to date, there haven't been any to really break the line as far as quality goes in comparison to film.

Yet, the RED footage was a different story and that's what makes me so excited about it.

 

[M Most]

Although I respect Dean's work, he has never been on the bleeding edge of anything in Cinematography. ....Yawn.....
Both of those films are very experimental and rely heavily on available light. Once again, not the greatest Cinematography examples, I'd rather call them experiments in lighting and new ways of movie making.

Alexander, I really don't know what you want to hear. The choice of digital origination is not a common one for most pictures because film is, to this point, simply a superior capture medium, as well as a better production tool. You and I seem to agree on this, so given that assumption, there is no real reason for large budget pictures made by top directors and shot by top cameramen to be shot on anything else except as an experiment. The only exception would be for a story that benefits from certain characteristics of digital capture, to be determined by the creative forces behind. it. But based on the names I listed, I don't know what you're looking for. If you want to say that Steven Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Clint Eastwood, Francis Coppola, Terry Malick, and, yes, Peter Jackson and other rather elite names have never done pictures using digital capture, and that Vilmos Zsigmond, Caleb Deschanel, Vittorio Storaro, Allen Daviau, and Robert Richardson have not shot pictures using digital cameras, that's true. But then again, none of them have likely been in situations where it seemed appropriate, given the budgets, subject matter, and production circumstances they have had. Perhaps if they were on a project where that was not the case, they would have used one of the digital alternatives. Daviau, in fact, shot most of the tests on the Genesis for Panavision prior to its release, and has continued to do so - although he has yet to shoot an actual movie on it. And in the scheme of things, I really don't know that it proves anything anyway.

Who exactly would you consider the "elite" names you're looking for?

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

mmost, I am at a loss of thought in regards to our argument..

What exactly are you attempting to debate as far as what I've stated goes?

You've named many of the elites, and yes, they've yet to shoot digital.

I believe it was Semler and continues to be Semler who first tested the Genesis for Panavision. Daviau was quite confused when it came to shooting on the Genesis as was witnessed at the local 600 Masters Lighting Workshop in which he was one of the stars.