Steven Speilberg

[P Andersson]

"having a hellacious time doing it"

reminds me that i miss my friends at the lab

but i have also had some interesting times with new computer geek friends

 

[Stephen Williams]

From my point of view, the film vs digital argument is pointless. I cannot and probably would never be able to work with film. I can work with RED.

Hi,

I am pleased I don't have the same defeatist attitude as you. I work with all mediums because I want to.

Stephen

 

[number6]

Hi,

I am pleased I don't have the same defeatist attitude as you. I work with all mediums because I want to.

Stephen

Not defeatist... just don't have the time to piddle. There's work to be done!

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I still prefer the experience of movies shot on film and I own a RED. I truly believe it's due to my response to the way film captures an image. It's an organic process that responds to light and shadow differently than digital acquisition. I like "real" film grain. In some cases, I like it when it's gritty, texturized. Other times I like it when it's fine, subtle. Film does have soul. Interestingly, some of the more modern stocks with their ultrafine grain almost seem too clean, but still have some of the advantages that characterize film. I think film just captures the world in a way that is more appealing to me.

RED and other digital cinema cameras are starting to approach some of the characteristics that make film enjoyable to me. The use of 35mm sensors and lenses, and a dynamic range that is getting closer to film. But these cameras still don't capture the world the same way film does. It's a different process. It's almost hard to quantify, it's almost one of those things that is more feel, than technical.

I do admit that the writing is on the wall. Film will fall into the minority, maybe even sooner rather than later. But I actually hope there are directors who will make the choice to use film based on an artstic decision.

I also think there will be digital films that will be fantastic, maybe even making me reconsider my thoughts above. But I have a feeling it will have more to do with the artist/filmmaker than the technology itself. There will be those gifted people who will learn how to use digital filmmaking in a very "soulful" way, giving us stories that are enjoyable and full of exceptional imagery.

This is an interesting thread. Spielberg is resisting this technology, but we may need to give him the benefit of the doubt here, as he may be taking his time getting comfortable with the technology, learning it's character, seeing how it could be used to tell the stories he wants to tell. If a painter who has used oil all of his life was told that he now must use a new paint called acrylic because it's cheaper and everyone else is using it, he might resist, or at the very least want to experiment with this new paint until he could decide whether it is appropriate for his style.

 

[Harry Clark]

And remember, there is nothing stopping any of us from plannning, previsualizing and knowing "when it's done" and leaving it to stand on its own, even in a digital medium. I think what kills the soul of art sometimes is either extreme; over-polishing or what I would term "laziness creep" that sneaks up on us all as we fall under the pressure of time and budget constraints.
Cheers,
Harry

 

[number6]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I still prefer the experience of movies shot on film and I own a RED. I truly believe it's due to my response to the way film captures an image. It's an organic process that responds to light and shadow differently than digital acquisition. I like "real" film grain. In some cases, I like it when it's gritty, texturized. Other times I like it when it's fine, subtle. Film does have soul. Interestingly, some of the more modern stocks with their ultrafine grain almost seem too clean, but still have some of the advantages that characterize film. I think film just captures the world in a way that is more appealing to me.

BUT, (and this is very important in my estimation) is film toxic? What chemicals are put into the body when working with film? Do the chemicals used to work with film require disposal at a toxic waste site? Are digital movies more environmentally friendly? Isn't this like earth week or something?

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

The day Digital will really and finally replace film is when the sensors AND displaying surfaces physically mimic the structure and functioning of film.


Which means:

1. Three-layered [RGB] Foveon-type sensors for acquisition.

and

3. Three-layered [RGB] displaying surfaces and\or projecting systems.


There is something about Foveon-acquired images, I cannot explain...

Even on our single-layered 8 bit monitors, the Foveon-color resembles film.

Imagine what would it be if you have a Three-layered display, which would actually be three displays into one and the actual analog of film projection.

And it wouldn't "kill" film, cause it would be the electromagnetical-digital analog of film into a sensor\display.

But technology isn't there yet.

Maybe Jim should buy\license Foveon and push hard their R & D for the next RED Foveon Miracle.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

BUT, (and this is very important in my estimation) is film toxic? What chemicals are put into the body when working with film? Do the chemicals used to work with film require disposal at a toxic waste site? Are digital movies more environmentally friendly? Isn't this like earth week or something?

Did you just go all Al Gore on us? :sarcasm:

Actualy, it's a legitimate point. But don't be fooled by the "greeness" of digital. There are some environmental compromises either way. But I do get your point.

But what is art, without some danger?

 

[number6]

Did you just go all Al Gore on us? :sarcasm:

There may a little Al Gore in all of us, and I'm not talking AlGoreythms, either. After all, didn't he use some digitally recreated scenes from the movie "Day After Tomorrow" instead of actual footage in his Documentary "An Inconvenient Truth?" I guess Truth is subjective.

Actualy, it's a legitimate point. But don't be fooled by the "greeness" of digital. There are some environmental compromises either way. But I do get your point.

I quite agree. Personally I think the answer to global warming is extinction of all life, so I'm more interested in not becoming personally extinct... thus I worry about unknown dangerous exposures.

But what is art, without some danger?

There is no comeback for that... you win.

 

[jpp]

It's an odd quote from the guy who also said,

“A little movie called Once gave me enough inspiration to last the rest of the year,”

That was miniDV

You have to take these Spielberg pronouncements with a grain of salt (or, say, nitrate). Upon seeing the Danish one-chip camcorder DV film "The Celebration" some years ago, Spielberg announced that he would have gladly produced the project on a grander scale, if only he'd known about it. The proof of that statement can be found in all the the non mass-market films he's produced since, whether Danish, American or Congolese.... For a grand total of zero.

So much for imaginary arts' philanthropy, and the invigorating effects of low budget films.....

If all this sounds like Spielberg bashing from the peanut gallery, well, you gotta admit, the guy makes an inviting target, the best and the worst of Hollywood rolled into one.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Did you just go all Al Gore on us? :sarcasm:

Al Gore is actually my 5th cousin...I could explain how through my mother's side. I am not proud of it though...my parents didn't ever vote for him either.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

and similarly perhaps like Blu-Ray is winning over RED Ray

How can we compare Red Ray vs. Blu Ray except the current specs we hear about now? Even if we did go by the "alleged specs"(and I do believe they are true) Red RAy IS winning.

 

[10s]

Film's limitations cause the artist to develop enhanced skills. The limited supply of film stock promotes the well developed skill of pre-planning. Video shooters tend to lack the degree of this planning skill when compared to film shooters. Afterall, a $1000 for a 1000' reel (10 minutes worth) and another $1000 to soup it causes one to be careful and well prepared when compared to inexpensive tape and hard drives. This difference makes a large difference in how the artist approaches the work. Both methods have their +/-. This is one item in the film/digital change over Speilberg might be looking at.

Another apsect of film versus digital is in editing. Michael Kahn, Spielberg's editor edits by hand and has avoided the change over to AVID that many of his fellow editors switched to long ago. The reasons given for holding on to this method is that the process of touching and handling the actual film (the organic part) by going through all the footage, gives him an intimate experience and knowledge of the material available for piecing together the picture. This process familairizes him with the material better than the digital method. Then he is able to not only put together the rough cut but can add plenty of detail with stolen shots from other scenes and such. Spielberg also edits side by side with Micheal. So far it has worked well for the both of them.

http://www.editorsguild.com/v2/magazine/archives/0106/cover_story.htm

The methods an artist uses is part of how the artist creates. The process informs him, it's like the clay to a potter or the stone to a sculpture, through this physical interaction the artist is able to create the work she/he has envisioned. Spielberg is wildly successful, why would he want to surrender his process for success? Others, such as you, will come along and find your success using your tools and methodologies. You will defend your methods and tools because it's part of how you do your work. Someday you might be seen as silly and old fashioned with your RED camera and all it's ancient gizmos, but if you have been successful in bringing to life wonderful stories then you will defend your ways even though a new system has been developed that eliminates your camera, tools and maybe even you!

In the end the tools and methods are all equal, as long as you the artist is able to create the works you aspire to bring into this world. So if you shoot on a hand cranked camera from 1908, or from a futuristic camera system from a UFO crash site and make stories we love, you win. Spileberg has been winning for a long time.

 

[number6]

How can we compare Red Ray vs. Blu Ray except the current specs we hear about now? Even if we did go by the "alleged specs"(and I do believe they are true) Red RAy IS winning.

Kinda my point... Blue Ray is winning by virtue of having product out in the wild. The IDEA of RED Ray is picking up steam, but has a long headstart by Blue Ray to overcome.

Still, we don't yet know if they are really competing in the same arena. It appears it is not a hardware fight as much as it is a codec fight, IMO.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Another apsect of film versus digital is in editing. Michael Kahn, Spielberg's editor edits by hand and has avoided the change over to AVID that many of his fellow editors switched to long ago. The reasons given for holding on to this method is that the process of touching and handling the actual film (the organic part) by going through all the footage, gives him an intimate experience and knowledge of the material available for piecing together the picture. This process familairizes him with the material better than the digital method. Then he is able to not only put together the rough cut but can add plenty of detail with stolen shots from other scenes and such.

What BS.

I began my career working with film, cutting on a Steenbeck; when we moved to Avid, I was at first in very unfamiliar waters. I couldn't simply look at a clip hanging in the bin and know it's duration by judging it's physical length.

I quickly discovered that cutting electronically was an order of magnitude faster than cutting on the flat-bed, and I believe much better, if, and it's a big if, the same amount of time was devoted to studying the footage. It makes zero difference if you're looking at it on a tiny flickering ground glass or a high definition monitor. Or... does it?

I'll take seeing it as it really is, thank you.

One must be very judicious cutting film; everything must be carefully thought through before you snip, otherwise you're handling clips with too many spices! Trying several different clips or in and out points is simply out of the question; it takes far too long, so brilliant flat-bed editors really think things through before cutting in a scene.

Do I miss actually touching the film, the "organic" part? Not only no, but hell no. If our industry had to return to the pace of cutting flat-bed speed, the whole thing would collapse like a house of cards.

I did keep the Steenbeck in my foyer for sentiment until an over-zealous maid cleaned the, "I love you daddy," that my daughter had written in grease pencil on the surface. Then I gave it to a promising young film student. I never looked back.

If non-linear computer editing is so much faster and better than film/flat-bed, why does Mr. Speilberg choose flat-bed?

Because he can.

He can tell the producers he's going to take however long he wishes for the edit and they will say, "Yes sir, Mr. Speilberg."

Good shooting (and editing) and best regards to all.

 

[10s]

If non-linear computer editing is so much faster and better than film/flat-bed, why does Mr. Speilberg choose flat-bed?

Because he can.

He can tell the producers he's going to take however long he wishes for the edit and they will say, "Yes sir, Mr. Speilberg."

Good shooting (and editing) and best regards to all.

It's pretty simple, Speilberg is wildy successful, call it BS if you want.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

Mr. or Ms. 10s, I did not state nor imply that Mr. Speilberg's success was BS, as the syntax of your reply might suggest.

What's BS is that film editing on a flat-bed produces a more artist edit. If it did, most other wildly successful film makers would use it.

Best regards,

 

[10s]

Mr. or Ms. 10s, I did not state nor imply that Mr. Speilberg's success was BS, as the syntax of your reply might suggest.

What's BS is that film editing on a flat-bed produces a more artist edit. If it did, most other wildly successful film makers would use it.

Best regards,

Leo, I tend to agree with you, I like NLEs/ digital, etc..., but the film processes they employ works for them, they succeed time after time, so maybe for them it does produce a more artistic edit. I don't believe I said editing on a flat-bed makes a more artistic edit for everyone, I think I said the method they employ helps them create their films; all those successful films. Of course it's not for everyone. I can understand why Spielberg would mourn the loss of a medium/craft when it's been so good to him, who wouldn't?

Every new tool creates a new set of problems while it solves the old set of problems. Digital tools are a dream come true for many of us, but it does have it's costs, one of them being a loss of discipline in a few areas I mentioned above.

 

[Phil Maker]

Why is Speilberg and "art" even in the same sentence?

 

[Zach Nelson]

A quote from an article on Mr. Speilberg...

"Sadly, in twenty years, movies will all go digital. There will be no photochemical steps - no film, no developing, no correcting the color in the lab and having a hellacious time doing it. It will all be too easy and very clean and very slick and, I think, very souless. The little imperfections are what make film a great art. When it loses that -"
He can't even finish the sentence.

Thoughts...?

The soul was lost and the art was thrown out the window when film became just another way to make money ... they should be happy with digital, it'll keep more money in their pockets.