There Are No Bloodless Revolutions

[Jeff Coatney]

Jeff, I respect you, but the limitations are always behind the lens, sometimes right behind it (and there are lenses much older than cameras).

True dat.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The bottom line, IMO, is that moving to digital is an overall positive for the film industry. Does anyone disagree?

I'm ambivalent. The positives are undeniable of course, but there is always something lost when one technology replaces another, it's rarely a case of only positives and no negatives.

Three-strip Technicolor was a total pain to shoot (Jack Cardiff didn't miss it) but I can't say I've seen any color image shot since then that has the same look. Same goes for dye transfer printing. When all b&w film goes away, something unique will be lost too, color converted to b&w isn't quite the same, and color digital converted even less so. I don't think we've really seen anything to replace 15-perf 65mm IMAX photography yet, something that has all the texture of film but with a ton of resolution as well.

But on average, yes, there are a lot of advantages to digital capture once the dynamic range issue has been solved (Epic with HDRx™ isn't really out and being used yet for me to say that it has happened as of this moment, but obviously it isn't far off.)

The ability to shoot a lot of footage just to get a few good moments is certainly handy when shooting nature... I did an HD movie on the F900 where we had to get a vulture to attack a cell phone lying on the ground, I rolled for 40 minutes as well until we got the bird to do it.

On the other hand, with modern post schedules being so short and intense, I'm not sure every editor wants more footage to be dumped onto their desk if they have less time to sort through it. I used to shoot 10:1 and then 20:1 ratios on film shoots, but on my last pilot shoot on the Red One, we shot 60:1 -- 60 hours of material for a one-hour show. I shot seven hours of B-roll of a detective car driving through Chicago and the editor used one two-second shot, and it wasn't even one of the good ones, it was something grabbed handheld on the EX3, not the Red One. I'm not sure he even took the time to watch all seven hours of shots considering he had two weeks to cut 60 hours down to one hour. So there can be a lot of abuse of the ability to shoot lots of footage rather than carefully plan, rehearse, and shoot only a few takes that are reasonably good. And again, it's all for nothing if editing schedules are not extended to take advantage of the extra footage generated. Terrence Malick always shoots a lot, but he doesn't have to lock picture just two months after wrap either like a lot of low-budget features do.

Currently I'm shooting "United States of Tara" on the Genesis but we shoot it single-camera "film style", limited use of a second camera, and not a lot of takes, we basically plan the shooting and shoot just what we need. The editor tells me he prefers it that way, having footage come in with a clear directorial point-of-view to the material, with some indication of how it is meant to be cut, rather than get a mountain of generic coverage and endless takes with no cutting.

I'd say that from my standpoint, all the technical advantages to digital in mind, that's the biggest single disappointment about modern directors coming from a digital background, the total lack of discipline when it comes to shooting. Rather than stage for the camera with an editing plan in the back of their minds, they just stage without any compositions in mind and then cover the heck out of everything, shoot endless takes, and hope they can "find" the meaning of the scene in the editing room.

All of which encourages a lot of cutting in a sequence because no single shot can sustain any dramatic tension, let alone work from a blocking / compositional angle, for more than a few seconds before a cut is forced to happen to hide a mistake of some sort. So as a cinematographer, I was -- in general -- happier when stock limitations forced us to be more careful, to plan, to rehearse, to DESIGN a sequence, and to pre-edit it in our heads. Of course, this did not always work, and there are always moments when you simply need to burn a lot of film to get the shot right, to capture the moment.

The other odd thing is that, having shot about ten features digitally and about 25 features on film, I haven't found that we move any faster with a digital camera if the style of shooting is the same (in other words, a run-n-gun doc style with a stripped down crew, one zoom lens on the camera, etc. will tend to move faster than a traditional style with the camera moving on a dolly, etc. but we don't necessarily move any faster just because we are shooting digital, the camera technology itself isn't really determining the pace.) Some things go faster but other things go slower actually with digital, so it's a bit of a wash for me.

But there are a lot of "tricks" with digital that are a great advantage when you lose the light, or shoot in low-light in the first place. And there are times when not cutting makes things faster, like working on a camera car. And when shooting film on a moving car, I usually have to rely on the DR of the film to save me when we pass into really bright or dark areas unexpectedly, but with digital, despite the limited DR, I have exposure tools that allow me to immediately correct the exposure on the fly, which is very helpful.

So for run-of-the-mill filmmaking, as a whole, I think digital is a good idea, especially when the DR problem is solved. But it's not like something isn't going to be lost when film goes away, whether it's textural issues or a certain discipline that it engendered. And I'm not even mentioning the whole archival issues when you have huge shooting ratios.

 

[Chad Clemans]

There are a lot of other problems that make filmmaking difficult other than film technology. Getting a good script, getting a cast to sign on, getting locations, scheduling, etc. have very little to do with the camera side of things but can be very difficult barriers at times for certain types of projects...if you could solve all of those problems, it's unlikely you'd be stopped dead at that point by the need for a film camera....there are a lot of other hurdles out there, many of them not technical or even financial in nature.

Yeah, if someone in the future could make it as easy to obtain great actors and great scripts as it now is to get a 35mm sensor camera.... we'd have something!

Couldn't agree more with both of you. You really struck a cord in me with these comments as I've spent nearly every waking moment of the last ten years of my life trying to minimize these 'other hurdles.' On the one end I have days worth of commentary on this, but on the other, words can't describe how painfully complicated doing this is, and what I've been up against and put myself through all these years in my attempt, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Suffice it to say that the variables in motion-picture production are, in my estimation, more of a logistical, legal, technical, and political nightmare, with the level of collaboration involved in so short a time, that few things in this world are more complicated to do easily with consistently high quality. Unsolved computational complexity mathematics, or 'Good Will Hunting math' as I like to call it, is what the logistical side boils down to, and that isn't the half of it.

I mean, honestly, is the main problem for indie filmmakers Kodak and Fuji, or is it the studio distribution system?

You're right; it's the latter. What's interesting is that the vertically integrated studio system in the golden era was the means of consistently pumping out high quality films with relative ease, and making sure the financier/distributor owned the exhibition theaters to show them in. Then the antitrust laws abolished that, making companies like Loew's divest themselves of their holdings such that exhibition theaters couldn't be owned by financier/distributors, and the talent had to move out-of-house, and thus we have our system today, which was intended to provide independents with access to exhibition theaters. The major theater chains still cater to films with bankable talent though, so even if a filmmaker acquires financing independently of the Big 6 studios, they are still oftentimes withheld from acquiring bankable talent by the Big 4 talent agencies unless they have the kind of street credit which one is hard-pressed to acquire without previously making a film which gets distributed with bankable talent. The unions play the same trick on them.

But I do consent that even if these 'other hurdles' weren't such an issue, and while inferior equipment from yesteryear can still make a great film, the technical side of this industry is still a barrier to those wanting to become filmmakers. Of all people, Redusers are among the crowd that know best that it can take a lifetime to learn this craft, so nonetheless I am grateful for the technological advancements in both image and workflow which can make getting to a stylized destination quicker, and with more room to non-destructively experiment without breaking the bank.

Yes, yes and yes. If you are looking to be famous, the future is the wrong place to look. And the "money" is leaving the movie business faster than a sinking ship can take on water.

David O Selznick mentioned nearly the same thing back in the 50's or so, calling Hollywood a ghost town of what it used to be, and mentioning that the money had mostly moved on. To some extent he was as right then as you are right now.

Companies like RED could make upwards of a billion dollars in a year or two, and they are some extension of the "movie business," so while I'm seeing the same thing you are, the revival will happen, it just may be next to the dead tree rather than in its stead.

Thanks to all for your comments on this thread!

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

But on the other hand, after all that democratization happened, how many Van Gogh's appeared? How many Ansel Adams are there? How many more Kubrick's now that everyone is shooting their own movies? There are simply limits to the number of great artists that emerge even when the doors are thrown open to everyone... for most people, it never gets beyond the hobbyist status.

I agree with this sentiment but on the other hand I do see a LOT of fantastic painters, photographers and artists who never get their due credit even though being phenomenal.

I think for every 'Kubrick' there are several dozen Kubricks who just don't know how to market themselves properly. Especially in the modern art climate where personality almost triumphs talent and vision in a lot of instances.

 

[Frank Cueto]

Currently I'm shooting "United States of Tara" on the Genesis but we shoot it single-camera "film style", limited use of a second camera, and not a lot of takes, we basically plan the shooting and shoot just what we need. The editor tells me he prefers it that way, having footage come in with a clear directorial point-of-view to the material, with some indication of how it is meant to be cut, rather than get a mountain of generic coverage and endless takes with no cutting.

I'd say that from my standpoint, all the technical advantages to digital in mind, that's the biggest single disappointment about modern directors coming from a digital background, the total lack of discipline when it comes to shooting. Rather than stage for the camera with an editing plan in the back of their minds, they just stage without any compositions in mind and then cover the heck out of everything, shoot endless takes, and hope they can "find" the meaning of the scene in the editing room.

Damn David, you just hit the nail in the head, SQUARE ON.

Once Michael Crichton (in Jurassic Park I believe) resumed this in a simple analogy. I'll try to paraphrase it here.

If somebody wants to Learn karate, well it takes years, its a process that has may many steps and this steps thru the years instill a respect and a discipline. Because of the time it takes and the discipline needed there is a certain amount of maturity that is gained in the process as one moves thru the ranks. By the end of this process (who says it actually ends?) the time and lessons learned not only make you a great martial artist, with the capacity to kill someone with your bare hands, it also shapes & embeds in the martial artist a lot of discipline to control his craft. That is a good way to look at all the guys who grew up shooting film or being guys who study their decisions. Digital is a lil'bit akin to a guy with a gun. The process of buying a gun wont make you more disciplined, true you have now the capability to kill someone, even faster than the karate master who has been training for years.

Or something kinda like that...

 

[Jeff Coatney]

I'd say that from my standpoint, all the technical advantages to digital in mind, that's the biggest single disappointment about modern directors coming from a digital background, the total lack of discipline when it comes to shooting. Rather than stage for the camera with an editing plan in the back of their minds, they just stage without any compositions in mind and then cover the heck out of everything, shoot endless takes, and hope they can "find" the meaning of the scene in the editing room.

All of which encourages a lot of cutting in a sequence because no single shot can sustain any dramatic tension, let alone work from a blocking / compositional angle, for more than a few seconds before a cut is forced to happen to hide a mistake of some sort. So as a cinematographer, I was -- in general -- happier when stock limitations forced us to be more careful, to plan, to rehearse, to DESIGN a sequence, and to pre-edit it in our heads. Of course, this did not always work, and there are always moments when you simply need to burn a lot of film to get the shot right, to capture the moment.

David, this can't be emphasized enough. Film did accomplish the goal of being an artificial discipline some of the time.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

David, this can't be emphasized enough. Film did accomplish the goal of being an artificial discipline some of the time.

Conversely though it can make you stodgy.

You can get the same discipline out of digital--just force the director to watch ALL of their dailies and log and capture their own footage.

But I do agree that poorly planned and undirected footage is a pet peeve of mine. It's usually pretty obvious and I think a lot of "Shaky cam" is more offensive because of non-direction than the shakiness of the camera itself. Lots of "Just point 10 cameras at the action and shake them!" as opposed to carefully planned coverage that just 'happens to be shaky'.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Or shoot productions on a limited number of CF cards with no offloading...and don't use LUTs in camera?

 

[David Lagos]

Being one of these "young people with only a digital background", reading this thread has really given me some perspective in terms of the craft that goes into making movies.

Ultimately, that's where the division happens: some decide to really force themselves to understand the motivations and reasons shots, angles, and blocking are chosen in order to convey the story, while others simply don't and just go through the motions. And its those decisions that seperate the mundane hacks from the extraordinary craftsmen.

As most people on here, I've studied the history of film and recognize that we would have never gotten where we are now in the industry without its development as a tool for story tellers. Having said that, I do feel that I have kind of cheated by choosing/learning to shoot digital as I know what I am avoiding by not shooting film; that "guilt" translates into me wanting to have the shots I choose and use in anything I produce have a value that goes beyond just being easy to put together in editing.

Maybe that's just me, but I do know that I'm very lucky to be able to shoot digital and as a way of returning the favor to fate, destiny or whatever, I push myself to think and compare what I'm doing to the work and people that have come before me to try and see if I can make convince myself that I truly deserve the privelage to make movies, when so many(some much more deserving) cannot.

PS: Another way to cultivate some of that discipline that is lacking with the newer generation of filmmakers is to try working every position possible to fully comprehend what's at stake and the value of other peoples time and skill. Personally, thats why I like taking on as many roles during the entire process as I can. Yes, it can be gruelling and sometimes detrimental to the project if you're not careful but boy does it make you not want to waste time or screw up at all.