The Walking Dead

[Erik Vanlenten]

Wonderful comments! Thanks for the views on 16mm, after reading the comments and going back to watch The Walking Dead I would have to agree that 16mm is the right creative vision for the show. The few times I had the opportunities to shoot 16 I absolutely loved the feel of the medium. With the SCARLET fixed in my future I am excited to use this program to give a bit of the feel of 16mm http://www.filmconvert.com/

check it out.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

The Walking Dead TV show was shot on 16mm film (Kodak Vision3 500T 7219)... Would love to see season 3 (if there is one) shot on Scarlet. I think they could achieve the same look and more with the Scarlet once it's finished.

Very excited for the cinematic possibilities of the Scarlet line for TV shows and Indie guys.

thoughts?

I think Scarlet would more than match the current quality, and get rid of that grain.

EDIT: I wrote that before realizing there were over 2 pages of comments on the thread. Yeah, not sure I dig the grain. I'm not sold on film texture/grittiness being essential to the narrative. It caught my attention. Strikes me as more of a short coming of old technology than a creative choice like art direction, make up, set design or location scouting. If anything, it would be useful to depict the perspective of a 1970s documentary. Kind of like using an HVX in Cloverfield, or EX-1/3 in Battle LA. But The Walking Dead is not a POV, 1970s show. It takes place in the modern day. I would expect to see it clean without film grain.

Isn't the purpose of filmmaking to replicate things as the eye sees them? First b&w stills, then b&w motion, then color, HD, 3D, etc...it strikes me that we're trying to get it so that you don't feel like you're watching something or through something.

 

[Lawrence Bansbach]

I think Scarlet would more than match the current quality, and get rid of that grain.

EDIT: I wrote that before realizing there were over 2 pages of comments on the thread. Yeah, not sure I dig the grain. I'm not sold on film texture/grittiness being essential to the narrative.

Whether it is or isn't, a more pristine image could be captured with Scarlet and, if desired, grain could be added later in post.

Isn't the purpose of filmmaking to replicate things as the eye sees them? First b&w stills, then b&w motion, then color, HD, 3D, etc...it strikes me that we're trying to get it so that you don't feel like you're watching something or through something.

I don't agree, and there's a whole lot of film theory that doesn't either. But, of course, it's a matter of opinion, and yours is as legitimate as anyone else's.

 

[Nuka Wølk]

I think Scarlet would more than match the current quality, and get rid of that grain.

EDIT: I wrote that before realizing there were over 2 pages of comments on the thread. Yeah, not sure I dig the grain. I'm not sold on film texture/grittiness being essential to the narrative. It caught my attention. Strikes me as more of a short coming of old technology than a creative choice like art direction, make up, set design or location scouting. If anything, it would be useful to depict the perspective of a 1970s documentary. Kind of like using an HVX in Cloverfield, or EX-1/3 in Battle LA. But The Walking Dead is not a POV, 1970s show. It takes place in the modern day. I would expect to see it clean without film grain.

David Boyd: 16mm is the perfect choice. Regardless if we did it in HD or 35mm film, we'd add grain in the end to make it have this look. It calls up the language of what we're used to seeing in a horror film. George Romero's stuff was all grainy. It's like looking at a documentary, and you instantly get into the 16mm documentary world. And if you take those same cameras and put them into The Walking Dead, it begins to be a believable, real experience. We were looking at a day exterior the other day, and it actually becomes scary -- the moment when you realize it's possible to do something this frightful in broad daylight.

It's pretty clear that they wanted the grain - that it was important for their vision.

I'm a huge fan of the books and I totally love the direction they went with on the television show. If I was gonna do this show, I'd go with 16mm to. I actually love 16mm and all it's characteristics!

Isn't the purpose of filmmaking to replicate things as the eye sees them? First b&w stills, then b&w motion, then color, HD, 3D, etc...it strikes me that we're trying to get it so that you don't feel like you're watching something or through something.

No offense!! I repeatedly stumble over some rather "distorted" views on other artists creative choices on this forum - and on art and filmmaking in general. In my opinion, film(both fiction and documentary) or art isn't about replicating the exact human vision - that really isn't that important or interesting a thing to convey. It's about experiencing the world through someone else - and humans ability to see - distorted or not - isn't everything when it comes to perception! Art is about a different perspective than your own!

If one were to strive for the feeling of not watching something or through something - then were would you find direction, or another perspective? What would be the point of that - couldn't you just walk out of the theater instead and look at reality? You wouldn't be able to cut, use different lenses, or anything that would fall out of place in a replicated reality. It would just be like a perfect 3 dimensional virtual reality rollercoaster theme park ride...but without the rollercoaster if you get my meaning.

...It's not all that important that it looks real(as in compared to the human vision) - it's far more important that it FEELS real.

That is perhaps the most difficult thing about filmmaking - to make everything feel real and right (no matter what you shoot on). It's such a subjective thing, that it's insanely hard to agree with everyone - on your crew and in the audience. Art is like saying "This is how I perceive the world" - and you just know that not EVERYONE will understand or agree with your point of view...

So...In this case, you probably just didn't "get" the grain ;D I totally respect that!!

BTW. Frank Darabont has left the series, but will probably still have some kind of smaller role with the show in the future. That could open up(or not I hope) the possibility of changing from film to digital. Who knows...

 

[Ryan Farnes]

Right. I almost put a disclaimer in. Film is a canvas, like a painting, etc....

To each their own I suppose.

I view film grain as sort of like lens flares. A happenstance peculiarity that we embrace or abhor.

 

[David Rasberry]

I think Scarlet will offer a unique canvas and palette of its own. Digital does not need to look like film, it needs its own aesthetic. Compared to a video camera the creative latitude of what is possible with a Bayer raw camera is just amazing.

 

[Nuka Wølk]

I think Scarlet will offer a unique canvas and palette of its own. Digital does not need to look like film, it needs its own aesthetic. Compared to a video camera the creative latitude of what is possible with a Bayer raw camera is just amazing.

I agree. And this is also why I'm far more excited about new projects that will be made on SCARLET - because of how it will compliment that specific project But as for the look - I personally still want the look and feel of film for filmmaking, but without the hassle and artifacts that follow with that format. But I'm not worried because I like the look of RED

 

[Erik Vanlenten]

Love the discussion, keep it going!

Can't wait to see what is shot with scarlet, the digital 16mm of the future!

 

[Ryan Farnes]

Seeing the reasons the filmmakers used 16mm on the show is enlightening. I'm obviously just speaking without knowing...but I wonder if I saw a clean image and a 16mm image on their set, I might go with the 16mm grainy image as well.

It is interesting though that their reason for it is to hearken back to previous work of others in the horror genre. It makes me revisit the internal debate I have about my insistence on 24p and wonder if Peter Jackson's Hobbit films, being shot at 48p, will begin to help me break my hold on that. (obviously there is the 3D consideration there....) If the reason for me liking 24p is that all the films I've ever seen of high visual quality all had that 24p frame rate...perhaps there is nothing intrinsically more valuable in the 24p frame rate other than I associate it with the visual qualities of other work that I value. (although it will be hard to break me of it)

 

[Nuka Wølk]

Seeing the reasons the filmmakers used 16mm on the show is enlightening. I'm obviously just speaking without knowing...but I wonder if I saw a clean image and a 16mm image on their set, I might go with the 16mm grainy image as well.

It is interesting though that their reason for it is to hearken back to previous work of others in the horror genre. It makes me revisit the internal debate I have about my insistence on 24p and wonder if Peter Jackson's Hobbit films, being shot at 48p, will begin to help me break my hold on that. (obviously there is the 3D consideration there....) If the reason for me liking 24p is that all the films I've ever seen of high visual quality all had that 24p frame rate...perhaps there is nothing intrinsically more valuable in the 24p frame rate other than I associate it with the visual qualities of other work that I value. (although it will be hard to break me of it)

There are no rules Just certain technical limitations and standards that you have to be aware of(also in terms of distribution) - or pioneer and progress beyond(create new groundbreaking technology)! 15fps, 24fps, 48fps - this is just evolution. But every artistic evolution leaves behind specific technical remains that in themselves are interesting or even loved by some. Incidently, these "artifacts" evolve into parts that define aesthetic qualities and ways of stylization in more recent cinema.

This subject also reminds me of the film "The Artist" from 2011: film director Michel Hazanavicius had cinematographer Guillaume Schiffman shoot at 22 frames per second instead of the now-standard 24, to give the actors "a little flavor of the '20s.".

Here is the trailer for THE ARTIST: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OID2-ySsXHw