Steven Speilberg

[Jagger Christian]

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...?

[number6]

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...?

Vinyl giving way to CD deja vue

[Jon Schellenger]

I respect him as a film maker. He is one of the greatest film makers of all time. So as much as I love digital, I can see why he feels that way. There is something very special about film. No question.

Times are changing. We all will hope for the best and just accept whatever happens.

Very interesting post though.

[Graeme Nattress]

The art is in the artist, not the brush, or the canvas.

Graeme

[Adrian T.]

Another quote from Spielberg about this:


Eventually I'll have to shoot [and edit] movies digitally, when there is no more film — and I'm willing to accept that. But I will be the last person to shoot and cut on film, y'know?

[Adrian T.]

The art is in the artist, not the brush, or the canvas.

Graeme

Well said, Graeme! :calm:

[Frank Weeks]

I believe I can understand what he is talking about.

But should speilberg shoot in digital, he will still produce beautiful movies.
That's all he knows.

Frank

[Chris Parker]

he sounds like one of the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park with a comment like that.

I'm with Grahame. The art isn't in dipping film in chemicals. It's in the whole process that goes into making a story and telling it visually.

The script still needs to be written.
The actors still need to act.
The lighting is no less important.
The sound must be recorded and mixed properly.
The editing still needs to be done.
The music score needs to be written.

So no one gets to actually process film anymore. Whoop-dee-doo.

[conrad gaunt]

Vinal giving way to CD deja vue

Vinal is better than CD for high dynamic range sounds such as orchestra and ensembles with lots and lots of sounds, at different and varying volumes. 16bits isn`t enough, apparently, to record the nuances that such blends of sounds make. Mp3 encoding has been shown to sometimes make punk and pop actually sound better than CD, as a side effect (in perceptual tests,with a decent bitrate). CDs are good for tempory data storage, if its not important :) There is no doubt truth to what he says (hence vinyl still made), but that would mean I would have to use 8mm (to stay in budget). More important I expect is the discipline using film encourages in a crew.

[number6]

He may look back at the time he is forced to change as a rebirth. He may be getting complacent in using what is familiar, and may find that being challenged brings forth new creativity. He has made some of the most memorable films in the vaults, but his best work may be yet to come. Who knows?

[number6]

Vinal is better than CD for high dynamic range sounds such as orchestra and ensembles with lots and lots of sounds, at different and varying volumes. 16bits isn`t enough, apparently, to record the nuances that such blends of sounds make. Mp3 encoding has been shown to sometimes make punk and pop actually sound better than CD, as a side effect (in perceptual tests,with a decent bitrate). CDs are good for tempory data storage, if its not important :) There is no doubt truth to what he says (hence vinyl still made), but that would mean I would have to use 8mm (to stay in budget). More important I expect is the discipline using film encourages in a crew.

I know what you are saying, and I have no argument with it. But CDs won. Just as VHS won over Beta Max and similarly perhaps like Blu-Ray is winning over RED Ray...(maybe not!)

[Sanjin Jukic]

Technically with digital you can FAKE any film look.

Just make a good (digital) movie and then decide about a look.

Steven Spielberg likes to play "Antiquariat" film guy.

He thinks this should be always very IN.

But on the another side he also tries to be involved in a computer game design!?

All it's about an attitude.

[Leo Ticheli]

If it's film that provides the "soul" of a motion picture, it has failed miserably in the great majority of motion pictures.

Mr. Speilberg's films certainly do not fall into the "soulless" category and I suspect we would be as moved by them no matter what his choice of image capturing media.

I'm immediately reminded of the film, "Amelie," which I believe used extensive electronic color grading and image manipulation to achieve a truly magical feat of art direction. I hope Mr. Speilberg would not judge such a film as soulless.

Screening the short clips of Soderberg's upcoming films in the Red booth at NAB, I found nothing lacking in the "soul" department.

I do understand the great affection many of us have for film; it's given us so much. It's a magnificent tool, but not the only way to drive a nail. One might well argue that the advantages of digital acquisition may well provide more "soul."

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo Ticheli
Director/Cinematographer

[Shawn Booth]

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...?

It is spelled Spielberg.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Mr. Speilberg vs. Mr. Spielberg could be a good start for a thinking about brand new trend in artistic movies :) .

[Jason Ing]

Just a bit of pre-nostalgia on his part. I'm sure once he works on it, his opinion will change. He'll continue to create great art. But he has done some embracing of new technology... not necessarily all good. Look at what he did to E.T. I hate that new 3d soda scene.

[Johan Pabon]

Wether film or digital, every way of working will have it's limitations. It's the art to use and overcome these. Soul has nothing to do with the medium you work with. If we didn't go digital we might as well make films in Black and White, without sound and with beautiful orchestra's. In this way of working were also some nice limitations and our "ancestors" did a great job working with them.

[KeithHill]

He'll live. And, I'm sure his drive to create will cause him to get in and love the new processes. If not, he's got enough money to blow to do it the way he loves. There will always be someone willing to take his money.

[Jeff Coatney]

The art is in the artist, not the brush, or the canvas.

Graeme

So true, Graeme. Well said.

I would add my belief that film is what's held movies back. With digital, the limits are gone and the gloves are off.

[Lucas Wilson]

Hey... I have a ProTools rig, but I learned recording on 2" 24-track tape.

And there is nothing like that nasty smell of fresh tape in the morning to get me going. Something about actually having "tape rolling" is magic to me. There is also a certain virtuosity you get with analog recording gear that just isn't necessary digitally... the beauty of a perfect vocal punch-in and punch-out... the feeling of tracking backwards effects into a mix... ah, the good ole' days. : )

Spielberg obviously likes to cut on film. I'm sure it's more of an emotional and tactile thing with him.

Lucas
-----
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

[J.R. Hud]

With all due to respect to the master (Steve)

Get over it ! The soul is in the artist.

He should be pioneering and championing the format and new technology instead of sitting by the way side holding on to the pending relic that is film.

Saying it will lose it's soul is kind of insulting to every filmmaker out there embracing the technology; whether it be us, Lucas, Rodriguez, Jackson, Mann and on and on.

20 Years ?

He's in for a big surprise on that timeline.

[P Andersson]

http://massengale.typepad.com/venustas/images/wellsevans.jpg

People have been stubborn about their choice of medium before: Platinum printing was always famous for having a better handling of gradations than silver. History's greatest platinum printer and photographer Frederick Evans gave up photography altogether when platinum became unavailable in the First World War

[Ace]

OH Puhleeeese. Cmon! Its not like Spielberg is some indy type, character driven "vegan" equivelant of a filmmaker whos diet only includes healthy portions of formaldehyde and hydroquonine. This guy was one of the first to adopt digital technologies and special FX. This guy was one of the first to work with digital intermediates.. Give me a break. His mistress is digital and its only a matter of time before they get married.

One thing i do agree with him though is that the analgoue process (accross all disciplines) being taken away gives us less and less time to reflect on the decisions we make..Less time to sit down and "absorb" everything. Which is why its important for digital artists and filmmakers to take that time out as part of the working process I believe.

And we all have our comforts... The smells that give us longing, foods that bring us comfort, or habits that make us feel sane.. Cutting film for him is just part of that process.. its probably been the grounding practice of what he does. That plastic emulsion is the realest thing in Hollywood. What happens when that physical signifier goes away (Oh noez! Its all just zeroz and onez!). I also think he sees film as a living creature.. with its "magic" that has brought him fortune and success. But i dont think he's that stupid.

The camera has not rendered the painter dead.

[David Mullen ASC]

There will be plenty of imperfections, old and new, in digital movies, have no fear. Anything made by human beings will have flaws in it. We'll just trade in half the old technical flaws with a host of new technical flaws, you'll see.

[Paris Remillard]

Imagine being a chef and having to replace sugar with equal or splenda in all of your recipes. Sure it would still be sweet. But it does taste different. If people like Spielberg weren't really specific about the tools that they use and the choices that they make, then they wouldn't be at the top of their game. I don't see anything wrong with having the options to use the tools that you prefer for whatever the task may be.

[Pawel Achtel]

The art is in the artist, not the brush, or the canvas.

Graeme

True, but filtering out the Artist from a million monkeys with brushes will make it harder, not easier, for the Artist.

[mdo]

As one goes through life one should strive to avoid saying things likely to end up in a desk calendar of silly statements. I can understand why Speilberg might get choked up over the twilight of the film era, but stating that digital film is incapable of soul is romantic absurdity. Filmmakers are fully capable of being imperfect, regardless of their medium. I'll bet if a digital filmmaker pressed him on it he'd be a bit more realistic.

[Gary Stone]

Dear Mr. Spielberg,

Give me the money to shoot film the rest of my life and I'm right there with you. Cool? But, I think I'll stick it out with Jim and Co.

I'm poor, living in Atlanta, and have crazy ideas that I don't want to stuff through the Hollywood prism any more than I have to. Art is not a four letter word. $300M for ONE MOVIE?! Screw that.

Digital is freedom from the system.

RED is wings.

[Ace]

I'm poor, living in Atlanta, and have crazy ideas that I don't want to stuff through the Hollywood prism any more than I have to. Art is not a four letter word. $300M for ONE MOVIE?! Screw that.
RED is wings.

Gary, not to dash your dreams or anything, but out of a $300m budget, very little (less than 0.3%) would've been spent on film stock. I think the budget wouldve been the same had that $300m movie been shot on RED.

[Roberto Merlini]

OH Puhleeeese. Cmon! Its not like Spielberg is some indy type, character driven "vegan" equivelant of a filmmaker whos diet only includes healthy portions of formaldehyde and hydroquonine. This guy was one of the first to adopt digital technologies and special FX. This guy was one of the first to work with digital intermediates.. Give me a break. His mistress is digital and its only a matter of time before they get married.

One thing i do agree with him though is that the analgoue process (accross all disciplines) being taken away gives us less and less time to reflect on the decisions we make..Less time to sit down and "absorb" everything. Which is why its important for digital artists and filmmakers to take that time out as part of the working process I believe.

And we all have our comforts... The smells that give us longing, foods that bring us comfort, or habits that make us feel sane.. Cutting film for him is just part of that process.. its probably been the grounding practice of what he does. That plastic emulsion is the realest thing in Hollywood. What happens when that physical signifier goes away (Oh noez! Its all just zeroz and onez!). I also think he sees film as a living creature.. with its "magic" that has brought him fortune and success. But i dont think he's that stupid.

The camera has not rendered the painter dead.

Well said acehole... think first shoot later.

[Nick Wolf]

Its a conspiracy of elites, as soon as the boundries are approuched the lawers will construct a whole new set of barriers to get you back at the end of the line where in their eyes you belong ... To get into the club you need to be invited or play your game well enough to convince someone to deal you in because you have managed to aquire the illusion of pedegree ... A trophy here a trophy there and maybe you will be granted a break ... its still a lottery and the Red is a ticket but still the game is run by the house and as you know the house dont like you leaving with anything more than nothing.

Thats my take on the film vs digital argument.

DogDay

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I think most people in this thread are misunderstanding Mr. Spielberg's main point -- with the exception of acehole, who gets it.

I'm a VFX artist and enthusiast, and while I would never ever want to go back to the days of optical printers (except as a novelty), nor am I unhappy that just about any single off-the-shelf computer today is more powerful than the entire room of computers ILM used to make Jurassic Park, I have to say I get where Mr. S is coming from.

I mean, take a look at Jurassic Park again. Those are f***ing dinosaurs. Liberal use of animatronics aside, the purely digital dinos hold up incredibly, even today, and that film was made 15 years ago. And yet a film with heavy digital FX made more recently will often not hold up visually.

Why? Because it's easier. Filmmakers throw in tons of visual effects now because it's easy and it's cheap. When something is hard to do, it separates the men from the boys, so to speak, because the people who REALLY WANT IT will try that much harder to make it work and get it right. When it's something you have to be passionate about to be able to withstand the arduousness of even approaching it, then you can be sure that the passion will translate into the final product. Whereas today, any yahoo with $1000 or so can be a "3D animator" and look at the visual dreck that comes pouring out.

Nowadays it's fairly quick work to get a visual effect 90% of the way there, and it's the last 10% that takes 90% of the work. And that's why most people don't bother. When it's easy to get something that's "good enough", it's easy to settle for "good enough." But when getting the effect 90% of the way there took 90% of the time, taking it all the way through the last 10% seems much more worthwhile.

This is not to say that there cannot still be artists in the new medium. Plenty of people have pointed out the fact that the art is ultimately in the artist and not the tool. I myself was "raised" on digital and will probably never shoot film, and I like to fancy myself to be, if not an artist, at least not "soulless".

But we see things like Robert Rodriguez on Sin City just leaving the cameras rolling and rolling and rolling. You would never, ever do this on film, because every frame is expensive and that makes every frame precious. And while perhaps allowing the camera to roll and allowing the actors to explore may open the door to vistas of performance yet untapped, it may also open the door to lazy, "keep doing it until the tape runs out and I'll figure it out in editing" directors.

Much has been made in the last 30 years of how fortuitous it ultimately was that the shark in Jaws failed to perform. More than perhaps anyone else, Spielberg understands that it is the limitations of the craft, not the freedoms, which give rise to the true creative choices. Spielberg has been a major proponent of digital effects and such, and uses them to great effect in his work, but he also sets a personal limit to the number of digital effects shots he will use in his films. He could afford to do like Lucas, where every shot is some kind of digital tweak, but he knows that this just makes for lazy "fix it in post" filmmaking. So he affixes an essentially arbitrary cap to the number of shots he will allow himself to use (last I heard it was 400), to make himself choose wisely what needs to be an effect, and what he can achieve and communicate by other creative means.

Again, does he have to do this from a practical standpoint? No. Spielberg wants, Spielberg gets, and anyone would give him any budget he wanted to make a film any way he wants. But from a creative standpoint, he understands that he must limit himself in some way in order to force himself to make strong creative choices.

I think Spielberg's comment -- speaking, as I do, as an outsider with no special insight into the man or his mind -- strikes me less as a judgment call on digital, and more of a plea to its practitioners: just because it's easier to do doesn't mean you should take it less seriously. Just because you have the freedom to do anything doesn't absolve you from making concrete choices every step of the way.

Don't shoot a wishy-washy, anything-goes film and expect to make something out of it. Make concrete choices, make bold choices, make occasionally irreversible choices. That's how your film finds a voice, that's how your work finds a soul. You have the technology to get anything you want, but you should still know what you want.

[Sanjin Jukic]

DorkmanScot,

unforunately Spielberg is over,

he doesn't have to say anything in his last films,

he showed that he is empty as an artist.

He is just rolling old stuff for years and unsuccessfully digging

for a right story that could make him somehow eternal in a film history.

But he could not nail it anymore after "Schindler's List".

Actually he is more like a very successful money-maker-producer oriented.

Also he is listed in magazine "Fortune" after big George Lucas as a richest director in Hollywood.

But art left him long ago or vice versa.

So he doesn't need a digital at all and film or analog would not safe him either.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Sanjin,

Way to miss the point of my post.

As to your other "point", I think Spielberg can be safely assured of his eternal stature in film history. It's actually the fact that he doesn't rest on his laurels and continues to try to challenge himself and make films outside his comfort zone that impresses me.

Does he always do them perfectly? No. But he gives it a shot, he makes the films he wants to make, and I for one don't see the need to slag off one of the most, if not the most, significant filmmakers in the history of American cinema just to be snobby about what is "art".

[Sanjin Jukic]

DorkmanScot,

could be but all the time rolling a Spielberg story digital/analog is just a boring one.

Let's do another young American to make it again.

"It's time to change" said one of the 2008 Presidential Candidates or even all of them are talking the same!?

[Essor]

I think most people in this thread are misunderstanding Mr. Spielberg's main point -- with the exception of acehole, who gets it.

I'm a VFX artist and enthusiast, and while I would never ever want to go back to the days of optical printers (except as a novelty), nor am I unhappy that just about any single off-the-shelf computer today is more powerful than the entire room of computers ILM used to make Jurassic Park, I have to say I get where Mr. S is coming from.

I mean, take a look at Jurassic Park again. Those are f***ing dinosaurs. Liberal use of animatronics aside, the purely digital dinos hold up incredibly, even today, and that film was made 15 years ago. And yet a film with heavy digital FX made more recently will often not hold up visually.

Why? Because it's easier. Filmmakers throw in tons of visual effects now because it's easy and it's cheap. When something is hard to do, it separates the men from the boys, so to speak, because the people who REALLY WANT IT will try that much harder to make it work and get it right. When it's something you have to be passionate about to be able to withstand the arduousness of even approaching it, then you can be sure that the passion will translate into the final product. Whereas today, any yahoo with $1000 or so can be a "3D animator" and look at the visual dreck that comes pouring out.

Nowadays it's fairly quick work to get a visual effect 90% of the way there, and it's the last 10% that takes 90% of the work. And that's why most people don't bother. When it's easy to get something that's "good enough", it's easy to settle for "good enough." But when getting the effect 90% of the way there took 90% of the time, taking it all the way through the last 10% seems much more worthwhile.

This is not to say that there cannot still be artists in the new medium. Plenty of people have pointed out the fact that the art is ultimately in the artist and not the tool. I myself was "raised" on digital and will probably never shoot film, and I like to fancy myself to be, if not an artist, at least not "soulless".

But we see things like Robert Rodriguez on Sin City just leaving the cameras rolling and rolling and rolling. You would never, ever do this on film, because every frame is expensive and that makes every frame precious. And while perhaps allowing the camera to roll and allowing the actors to explore may open the door to vistas of performance yet untapped, it may also open the door to lazy, "keep doing it until the tape runs out and I'll figure it out in editing" directors.

Much has been made in the last 30 years of how fortuitous it ultimately was that the shark in Jaws failed to perform. More than perhaps anyone else, Spielberg understands that it is the limitations of the craft, not the freedoms, which give rise to the true creative choices. Spielberg has been a major proponent of digital effects and such, and uses them to great effect in his work, but he also sets a personal limit to the number of digital effects shots he will use in his films. He could afford to do like Lucas, where every shot is some kind of digital tweak, but he knows that this just makes for lazy "fix it in post" filmmaking. So he affixes an essentially arbitrary cap to the number of shots he will allow himself to use (last I heard it was 400), to make himself choose wisely what needs to be an effect, and what he can achieve and communicate by other creative means.

Again, does he have to do this from a practical standpoint? No. Spielberg wants, Spielberg gets, and anyone would give him any budget he wanted to make a film any way he wants. But from a creative standpoint, he understands that he must limit himself in some way in order to force himself to make strong creative choices.

I think Spielberg's comment -- speaking, as I do, as an outsider with no special insight into the man or his mind -- strikes me less as a judgment call on digital, and more of a plea to its practitioners: just because it's easier to do doesn't mean you should take it less seriously. Just because you have the freedom to do anything doesn't absolve you from making concrete choices every step of the way.

Don't shoot a wishy-washy, anything-goes film and expect to make something out of it. Make concrete choices, make bold choices, make occasionally irreversible choices. That's how your film finds a voice, that's how your work finds a soul. You have the technology to get anything you want, but you should still know what you want.

This guy gets it.

/Thread End

[J.R. Hud]

True, but filtering out the Artist from a million monkeys with brushes will make it harder, not easier, for the Artist.

I want a banana.


DorkmanScot,

unforunately Spielberg is over,

he doesn't have to say anything in his last films,

he showed that he is empty as an artist.

He is just rolling old stuff for years and unsuccessfully digging

for a right story that could make him somehow eternal in a film history.

But he could not nail it anymore after "Schindler's List".

Actually he is more like a very successful money-maker-producer oriented.

Also he is listed in magazine "Fortune" after big George Lucas as a richest director in Hollywood.

But art left him long ago or vice versa.

So he doesn't need a digital at all and film or analog would not safe him either.


I disagree. Munich was incredible !

INDY 3 ? Bleh.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Munich was interesting, but there are much better films about the similar topic in a native Israel.

For example Assi Dayan (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0206646/), son of Moshe Dayan has more original film stories...

but he is not American...not Hollywood...

[Dj Joofa]

It is a sad reflection that Spielberg's name has now come to be associated only with digital technology and effects. To develop appreciation of film as a "critic" should go beyond simple visuals.

What makes a director great vs. others? Is it just special effects or film technique?

There are several moments in Spielberg's films where you wonder why did a director did things in a way that he did. In "Jaws" there is a scene where the community has gathered in a room arguing about something (can't seem to remember now, but must have been the shark). And if I remember correctly there was that side door which was closed. However, as soon as the camera moved between the audience to a key character, whose voice was only heard before, you see the same door behind him as open. Now why would any director do that? But in my estimation Spielberg did that because he knew that was a very key point in the scene where every body (including the audience in theater) are now focused on that person and depth perception is really helpful in creating a great visual to go with his persona. He could have kept the door closed or had him next to wall, but then the scene would have been too flat and he wanted to give him that depth to that moment.

Same in the famous dolly/zoom shot on the beach when there was an alarm regarding the shark. He could have the guy sitting next to that wall (if I remember correctly, there was something like a wall/tent/etc., near by), but he had him sit slightly off, so that you could see far in the horizon, and when they do that dolly/zoom the depth perception really make the audience feel the moment.

In master filmmaker David Lean's last film "Passage to India", there was a scene where they showed locals witnessing foreigners off-boarding a ship. A typical special effects-minded film director might have gone to great extent to show perhaps great visuals of the ship, an object. But David Lean understood the moment of the visual reaction of the locals to foreigners is more important than glorifying an object, and he just showed that ship in the background, and for all practical purposes he might have used a simple painting in the background. But he used the moment to great effect by that simple technique of putting that ship in the background.

[wshultz]

[QUOTE=J.R. Hud;205009]I want a banana.




Funny!

[miraclemonsters]

The art is in the artist, not the brush, or the canvas.

Graeme

I beg to differ on this one.

Art, when we speak about the visual arts, is as much about the tools as it is about the person using them.

Because the choice of tools greatly affects your art. You may have an image in your mind, but the choice of brush, color and canvas determines how that mental image will translate into reality. Painters, Renoir, Van Gogh, Rembrandt, they went through intense processes of choosing those tools, the right material for a canvas, picking ingredients for their colors.

Now you could argue that by the simple fact that the artist chooses the tools, it's all about the artist anyway and not the tools.

At any given time in history, art reflected the state of the art or more precisely, the tools available.

I think Star Wars is a great cinemactic example of what has been said here. I am sure that George Lucas might have leaped at CGI and digital cameras at the top of his career. Now that he has them, have the latter three parts been any better than the first? I have a pretty firm opinion on this...

There is an inherent danger to art in not having any obstacles. A world in which everything is possible is ultimately boring. Both in the visual arts as well as in story telling. We need those edges and difficulties!

Because as we all know, many things which are today perceived as strokes of genius, were in fact brought about by limitations of possibilities.

my two cents anyway.... Tobias

[number6]

It is a sad reflection that Spielberg's name has now come to be associated only with digital technology and effects. To develop appreciation of film as a "critic" should go beyond simple visuals.

What makes a director great vs. others? Is it just special effects or film technique?

There are several moments in Spielberg's films where you wonder why did a director did things in a way that he did. In "Jaws" there is a scene where the community has gathered in a room arguing about something (can't seem to remember now, but must have been the shark). And if I remember correctly there was that side door which was closed. However, as soon as the camera moved between the audience to a key character, whose voice was only heard before, you see the same door behind him as open. Now why would any director do that? But in my estimation Spielberg did that because he knew that was a very key point in the scene where every body (including the audience in theater) are now focused on that person and depth perception is really helpful in creating a great visual to go with his persona. He could have kept the door closed or had him next to wall, but then the scene would have been too flat and he wanted to give him that depth to that moment.

Same in the famous dolly/zoom shot on the beach when there was an alarm regarding the shark. He could have the guy sitting next to that wall (if I remember correctly, there was something like a wall/tent/etc., near by), but he had him sit slightly off, so that you could see far in the horizon, and when they do that dolly/zoom the depth perception really make the audience feel the moment.

In master filmmaker David Lean's last film "Passage to India", there was a scene where they showed locals witnessing foreigners off-boarding a ship. A typical special effects-minded film director might have gone to great extent to show perhaps great visuals of the ship, an object. But David Lean understood the moment of the visual reaction of the locals to foreigners is more important than glorifying an object, and he just showed that ship in the background, and for all practical purposes he might have used a simple painting in the background. But he used the moment to great effect by that simple technique of putting that ship in the background.

Joofa, you should start a thread in Adobe Workflows in re your Plug in stating it is available for dounload. Can't wait to read how it works for users, and then for the PC version.

edit: Oh, and for the purpose of making the above post on topic, Spielberg is right... and Spielberg is wrong... depending on your POV.

[Dj Joofa]

Joofa, you should start a thread in Adobe Workflows in re your Plug in stating it is available for dounload. Can't wait to read how it works for users, and then for the PC version.



Don't want to hijack this thread, but there is a thread in Adobe Workflows regarding the plugin. You can already tryout the plugin if you are on a Mac. Kindly download it from www.djjoofa.com. I have done some simple testing with FCP and AE and it works great.

It should relieve some dependency on Automatic Duck Pro Import AE as one can do an EDL export instead of FCP XML export. However, FCP XML export has more information embedded in it and I might add the support for XML also, as I have everything in place now; it is just a matter of reading XML files.

I do have some current limitations imposed on it currently, but they are more for me controlling its behavior while people try it out and I can remove them later.

Now back to Spielberg stuff ....

[Sanjin Jukic]

Now back to Spielberg stuff ....

Actually Spielberg was always wanted to be charismatic film director something like a Kubrick.

But he never been more then a movie entertainer.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Digital Cinema is a technical and a financial victory for filmmaking, not an artistic one.

Art is a timeless, human phenomenon that comes from the hearts, minds and spirits of human beings.

In a mysterious way, it comes out of Life itself..

Art may reside in a cave painting, in a 35mm film, in a RED One film....

It doesn't matter what the tools and the canvas are made of...

So, I think Spielberg is right and wrong at the same time.

He is concerned about the soul.. and rightly so.... if we lose it, no 35mm film roll or a RED One or whatever would ever matter...

An HVX200, a RED One or a Scarlet won't make you a Spielberg... a man who is undoubtedly a genius of cinema...

But these tools are giving us the chance that he himself didn't have when he was starting his career...

A chance to try without being restrained by lack of money or connections.

Nevertheless, I'm a little worried of all these digital toys, they're starting to establish a new visual fashion.

I gotta say that a lot of things that i see coming out of the digital cameras [even RED One] look sterile.

OK, this is subjective, but I don't like that.

It is NOT filmic and it IS soulless.

I believe it is mainly a question of who is using the tool and how the processing is done, CC, etc. etc.

But all this pursuit of the cleanest, sharpest image possible is a little scary.

Technically? OK, it's impressive.

Artistically? Not always.

It's lifeless.

So the question is how to mimic effectively the aesthetics, established by 35mm cinematography, using cheap-er Digital cameras and not to establish new visual aesthetics.

Art matters.

Spirit matter.

Humans matter.

Tools are secondary.

Anything goes, as long as it goes.

...

And yes, I hope Spielberg gives us many, many more of his wonderful movies, in a way that he sees fit.

He is truly one of the greatest filmmakers.

[Dj Joofa]

Richard Bare in his famous book "The Film Director" describes that when Spielberg was young and wanted to move into filmmaking, he just one day wore a suit and sneaked into Universal Studios and even hijacked an office and setup his base there and then would stroll around the sets talking with famous people, who would think that he were some employee. One day he was caught, but Universal seeing his passion let him continue.

[laguun]

I am a great admirer of Mr. Spielbergs work and art.

I personally however prefer perfect and pristine image quality as "canvas", and wish for recording, production and distribution where the artist can choose the "grittyness" of the work - so i have to disagree with his wish having an recording/distribution medias fault providing an paradigm of an art and business.

I however think he is wrong when he still gives film 20 years, that would be 2028.

One can only guesstimate, but i would suppose:

-majority of cinemas in the USA become digital: 2011-2014.
digital projectors are outselling their mechanical counterparts since 2006.

-majority of sold 35mm cameras in the world become digital: 2007 or 2008, depending if basing that on sales or deliveries. I expected that rather later 2010-2014, when nikon etc automatically enter our industry, simply as their dslrs probaly will do 30 fps and up soon enough.

the inner workings of all industries being translated from mechanical / magnetical to digital are pretty similar, and the smaller the niche, the slower they happen. our niche, being the smallest, is the last to reinvent itself, but its basically an old hat - tv, science, and photography which used mechanical cameras with film as main system dropped this decades or yeras ago.

[Gary Stone]

Gary, not to dash your dreams or anything, but out of a $300m budget, very little (less than 0.3%) would've been spent on film stock. I think the budget wouldve been the same had that $300m movie been shot on RED.

dashing my dreams is not an option :biggrin: i meant that as a general "holy crap, they spent 300M dollars for 2 and a half hours of entertainment?!!"

i just find that incredible. i'm pretty sure i knew it wasn't all spent on film stock.

[Aiden Cornwell]

Film is dead and I can't wait.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Film is dead and I can't wait.

That's good line for a song lyrics.

Next RHCP hit? :)

Film is dead and I can't waait.
Got a couple of redheads at my gate.

[Ramesh Jai]

In 20 years time there will be a whole generation of film makers who would have never worked with film. There will be no 'film nostalgia' for them. The little imperfections of film will be replaced with the little imperfections of digital cinema. Life goes on. Stories will continue to be told. The only thing that cannot be replaced is Mr.Spielberg's genius.

[subfreq]

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, shot on a Sony Z1. The art of the DP and Director is what made the film. The format was immaterial.

I understand his sentiment because the classic film process is changing, but what should be exciting is that film making at a high level is now possible from your front room with a Red and FCP.

I think it's an exciting time in Film history.

[jpp]

With all due respect to Graeme, the tools used in a visual medium determine its ultimate nature. Oil paints will not produce the same results as acrylics, water colors or Photoshop, and no amount of digital simulation will close the gap, unless the viewer brings very little attention to the matter.

Modern digital audio recording may be far, far more "accurate" and artifact-free than any vinyl recording ever made, but no one has ever established that these margins of "accuracy" are decisive or necessarily desirable in a playback system which is fundamentally inaccurate to begin with. And whether this level of reproduced "accuracy" in a flawed and delimited reproduction chain actually gives pleasure is a whole other question.

Though it's hard to explain why, there is something ultimately humanizing in the defects of a film print (up to a point, at least!). Grain, for example, seems to have its own organic life, which is absorbed into the dramatic texture, making it more real or, at any event, making a deeper appeal to the imagination of the viewer. The same can't be said for digital distortion and artifacts.

Sure, grain and all the other painterly qualities and humanizing imperfections of film can be credibly recreated with plugins, and the stuff about loving the smell of film, etc., is stretching the argument (open a film can, and the toxins are enough to knock you over), so perhaps Spielberg is simply expressing nostalgia. But you don't have to love Spielberg to see his point.

Every time there's a major technological shift, something gets lost. And as the digital revolution coincides with what is probably the slow death of cinema, through a combination of economics, profit motive, narrative exhaustion and the mass-market work of people like Steven Spielberg, that loss becomes all the more regrettable.

[Graeme Nattress]

Let's look at the original quote again:

"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 -"

My comment was that it was the artist that makes the art, not the choice of media. I think that's still valid. I don't equate digital with souless. I don't equate it with clean or slick. After all, 65mm film can look incredibly clean and slick.

The tools and the media can define the look, to an extent, but there is not a single unique look to each media, and it's the artist that defines how, precisely that media does look. I do paint with oils, and my techniques do not look very much like traditional oil paintings, for instance.

To me, it's almost like saying that unless the script is typed by hand on a mechanical typewriter, it will have no soul. Using a word processor or computer to produce your script will render it without artistic merit. And that's just not true.

Graeme

[Morten Eriksen]

...oh and 16 bit digital audio has a dynamic range almost twice that of vinyl and tape by the way...but vinyl definitely has a sound.

[Stephen Williams]

Technically with digital you can FAKE any film look.

All it's about an attitude.

Hi,

I am not sure you can fake the soft roll off of highlights that film achieves as standard.

Not accepting the advantages & disadvantages of any system both film and video would also be an attitude thing IMO.

Stephen

[Harry Clark]

And there's a soft roll-off (distortion) when you saturate 2" analog tape. Just like film.
And 16-bit 44.1K CD standard captures 20 hZ to 20Khz, but tape can capture far higher frequencies.
Digital (sound or video) has to contend with quantization errors, aliasing, and other defects of a "sampled" image.
And I DO believe that the kludgy nature of typing on a typewriter alters how much you revise and second-guess your work. Ditto for cutting on film. Ditto for endless permutations of a song's mix in Pro-Tools. What about auto-tuning vocals? What about CGI? Spell check for poetry?
If you paint with acrylics, your painting dries faster and you can revise on a dry canvas. With oils, you really have to want to wait and "mean to" revise, or accept a certain stylistic choice of painting over slightly wet and soft paint.
Not bashing anyone here. I own a Red, HDX-900s and an SDX-900. I still shoot film sometimes. I love the fast feedback and flexibility of digital systems but really enjoy the dynamic range and forgiveness of film... and now I'm rambling.
But you cannot say that there is not a difference between mediums, nor that the work you achieve is somehow not affected by the choice of medium.
Anyway... just sayin'.
Harry

[number6]

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.

[jpp]

To me, it's almost like saying that unless the script is typed by hand on a mechanical typewriter, it will have no soul. Using a word processor or computer to produce your script will render it without artistic merit. And that's just not true.

Graeme

Believe it or not, a number of people have made exactly that argument and anyone who's ever written a book length manuscript on a typewriter can tell you why: when you have to to retype large blocks of text which would otherwise go untouched to make even minor changes, it amounts to forced rewriting and reconsideration, usually a good thing. And some people use what amounts to a film stock analogy: if you know a change is going to cost you 5 hours of typing (or a few hundred or a few thousand dollars in film stock), you think very carefully before doing it.

But, anyway, I don't think the analogy is a good one. In theory, no one can tell whether a book was written by hand or on a word processor (though, again, some people would dispute that). But differences between film and digital cinema are far more obvious.

Don't get me wrong. Fighting the d-cinema revolution would be absurd, not to mention a losing battle. It's also true that modern film stocks look more and more like digital acquisition as they get "better". But I still think something will be lost, when the transition is complete. Can't speak for Steven, but I think that's all he's saying.

[Edit: Harry Clark kind of beat me to it, but we'll let this one stand.]

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Again, I think the most significant words in Spielberg's quote are "too easy". It has nothing to do with film vs. digital per se and everything to do with the mindset of filmmakers who essentially get everything handed to them on a silver platter. Compared to dealing with film, us digital types are incredibly spoiled with an embarrassment of riches as far as how much easier it is to get an image and how much easier it is to work with it -- especially thanks to RED. We can polish and revise something until time or money runs out -- and I think that's what he's most concerned about. It is possible to polish the life out of something, and while technically "perfect" it does become, in fact, soulless. Seen lots of shorts like that in my time.

Whereas in the photochemical process, you've gotta work for it. You can't click a button and try a dozen different things. You've got to have a vision in advance and you've got to be clever in getting it. I think he's trying to remind everyone that you still have to come at filmmaking with that mindset, even in the inevitable digital era.

[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.

[Aiden Cornwell]

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.

I couldn't disagree with this statement more.

I have never bought into the old movies being better because they carry a title of "classic" on the box.

I want to see movies that have fantastic sound, picture and acting not to mention story. However Most of these movies fall into the category of being made in the past 15 years.

Yes there are some gems out there like Clockwork orange but I can only think of 10 movies that were made from 1940's to the 1990's that I truly love as films.

[10s]

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.

Film has been a huge money maker since the beginning, all the way back to the Lumiere brothers 1895 Paris screenings. Art, craft, soul, etc?... that all depends upon your definitions and values. Money, I'm glad it makes money, otherwise cinema would have faded away long ago.

[John Brawley]

What BS.

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."



Don't forget you can also actually take your edit off the KEM (he don't use no steenbeck) and screen an honest to goodness contact print in an honest to goodness cinema and watch the film in a way that a NLE based system, even HD, will find difficult to match.

jb

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

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

"E.T.", "Schindler's List", "A.I.", "Munich" (kinda...)...

[jpp]

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


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.

If "art" by definition is formal and austere, then Spielberg is not an artist, and neither is Lucas, Cameron, etc. The trouble is, "craft" alone is not really adequate to describe Spielberg's accomplishments, whether or not his films are considered coherent works of art in the classical sense. This question of absolute values in cinema is nothing new, it's existed since the silent era, with stunning visual imagination often in the service of juvenile and sometimes idiotic dramatic material. The earliest and most notorious example is probably D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation", which combines visual innovations amazing for its time (1914?), with what could be the stupidest and most offensive (i.e., racist) story-line ever conceived. It's a pertinent example, because many people find the Indiana Jones pictures astonishingly, embarrassingly, racist (and without the excuse of high art), which is all the more odd coming from a director who ought to be sensitive to these questions, and who claims to be sensitive to these questions and who (of course) made a big and expensive movie about racial hatreds. The more things change....

In the end, any mass-market popular art form is going to mix excellence and trash, which is as true of "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather" as it is of "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan". As such, blanket assertions of what is and isn't art may not be all that helpful or useful. Some might watch "Empire of the Sun" with pleasure and admiration, but would find "Jaws" and "E.T." unendurable. Or some may decide that Spielberg is insufferable, period, no matter how strong and artful his technique. Fortunately, there are other films to choose from.

[Dale Launer]

It strikes me as ridiculous to assume that art and profit are mutually exclusive. They aren't. But the shameless pursuit of profit is often artless. I remember sitting in the MGM commissary and looking at the logo under the MGM trademark - Ars Gratia Artis - which means "Art for Art's Sake". Oh the irony!

The studios are filled with people who simply - and I'd emphasize "simply" - want to make money. Which is problematic and always will be largely because they want to make a choice that doesn't have to be made - "We're in business to make money - I don't care about art". Well, shouldn't that idiot be thinking "I can make art AND make money"...?

And lastly - about Spielberg being an artist or not. Keep in mind that he's only the director. More often than not he didn't conceive, execute or write the plot, characters or dialogue. At best he's a secondary artist and more of a craftsman than anything.

[Jim Logan]

I don't think Stephen Spielberg is wrong - he is just a realist and an artesian that strives for artistic perfection. Like any artist he has a preference for his choice of mediums. Even when he does work in digital he strives to add the elements that we have come to accept from film and art. He is a true benefit to our industry because he pushed the envelope and motivates people around him to come up to his level. I have several close friends that work with him on a day to day basis and are blown away by his far reaching vision and what he is trying to accomplish. I think we are all in for surprises.

As far as his choice of tools . . . I do lots of woodwork - I have a favorite 40 year old Plumb wood handled finishing hammer - also lots of pneumatic and gas operated nailers. Guess which one I pick up first because it feels good in my hands and gives me a real sense of accomplishment when I create something with it. I think he does the same with his tools.

I miss film, I miss trim bins flatbeds, grease pencils, giant interlock systems and all the "magic" that we had. If I stop to analyze why, it is probably because it made us special, different. Now that anyone with a minimal computer can cut video we have a world of "experts" and we've lost the mystique of our craft. Is all this change wrong? No - it is simply the evolution of technology. We need to adopt the changes that make our craft better and discard the ones that don't.

Shoot film where film is apropos, shoot digital where digital is apropos - it's really not about that part of our craft. It's about what the audience sees and feels. Good storytelling will always be good storytelling.

As far as the appeal to the popular audience goes, and the compromise of art for the mass market. This is the Entertainment INDUSTRY. We strive for great artistic expression but always with an eye on return and the budget we have to work with . . . otherwise we ought to buy canvas and gesso.

[Harry Clark]

Jim, there is something to that.
When each step of the craft was fraught with various ways to make colossal mistakes, only the very dedicated craftsmen could "make it" in the world of film (and music, and graphic art, and typography) That goes for cinematographers, sound mixers, grips, even folks on the production side of things. It was never about being "wealthy" or owning a camera. It was about smarts, dedication, and tenacity. Most people gave up because it was too hard, physically, mentally, and spiritually.
We WERE special, because we prevailed against those odds and each mastered, to some degree, our craft and niche. And along the way we learned skills (by necessity) that those coming up today will have to learn only if they apply themselves consciously. And those skills (previsualization, anticipation, accuracy in exposure and focus, strict methods) are just as relevant with Red One as with a Mitchell BNC.
Now that any nudnik can grab a DV camera and proclaim himself a "film maker", what passes for craft and art has largely slid downhill. Is there a connection? I don't know, but I suspect yes. There's no high bar for most stuff on TV, or in the movie theater for that matter. Yes, Francis Ford Coppola was right when he said that new technology will allow that fat girl from Ohio make a great film that otherwise would not get made. What I don't think he anticipated when he made that statement was that we'd have to sort through 47,654 TERRIFICALLY BAD FILMS to find hers.
Just my two cents...
Cheers,
Harry

[jpp]

Yes, Francis Ford Coppola was right when he said that new technology will allow that fat girl from Ohio make a great film that otherwise would not get made

A lot of people are still waiting for that fat girl and her masterpiece. And you don't see Francis using consumer technology. It may be a truism to say that you need money to make movies, but it bears repeating ... and repeating....

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

And lastly - about Spielberg being an artist or not. Keep in mind that he's only the director. More often than not he didn't conceive, execute or write the plot, characters or dialogue. At best he's a secondary artist and more of a craftsman than anything.

Only the director? You make it sound like he hardly does anything. Steven is much more involved in his films than you seem to imply.
I would also argue that a craftsman could also be considered an artist, and there's no such thing as a secondary artist.

[Sanjin Jukic]

http://f.chtah.com/i/40/288434679/Motonews_uk_April_08_hdr_01.jpg
http://f.chtah.com/i/40/288434679/Motonews_uk_April_08_hdr_02.jpg
http://f.chtah.com/i/40/288434679/Motonews_uk_April_08_hdr_03.jpg

"Motorola is calling all budding Scorseses and frustrated Spielbergs to get involved in its "DirectorME" short film
competition to celebrate the launch of the innovative MOTO Z10 mobile phone. Entrants have the chance to win a
MOTO Z10 and the top prize of £10,000 - enough to kick-start a career in film-making or just have some serious fun."

MORE>>> (http://emeapromotions.motorola.com/uk/z10/directorme.aspx)

[10s]

Digital is a beautiful medium, but yesterday I was talking to a 25 year old that saw for the 1st time color slides of his parents back in the 60s. He was shocked at the cystal clear vibrant colors, "it looked like it was just taken today". I know, the old slides my dad took of me & my brothers in the 50s & 60s pop!.....what color! Film is a beautiful medium.

Tools, we love them, that's why we're here. It's how we interact with our tools and the medium we're working that let's us explore and become masters of creation. I like what Jim had to say about his favorite finishing hammer, that's what we strive for, an intimate relationship with a small set of tools that helps us achieve mastery.

Art: I quote from Ayn Rand.

"An artist does not fake reality-he stylizes it. He selects those aspects of exsistence which he regards as metaphysically significant- and by isolating and stressing them, by omiting the insignificant and accidental, he presents his view of exsistence. His concepts are not divorced from the facts of reality- they are concepts which integrate the facts and his metaphysical evaluation of the facts. His selection constitues his evaluation: everything including in a work of art - from theme to subject to brushstrokes or adjective - acquires metaphysical significance by the mere fact of being included, of being important enough to include. An artist (as, for instance, the sculptors of Ancient Greece) who presents man as a god-like figure is aware of the fact that men can be crippled or diseased or helpless; but he regards these conditions as accidential, as irrelevant to the essential nature of man - and he presents a figure embodying strength, beauty, intelligence, self-confidence, as man's proper, natural state."

Maybe Indiana Jones is Art within a comic book wrapper and Speilberg is an artist afterall.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Well technology and affordability is just one barrier.

Still, you have to learn A LOT in order to produce some sort of decent content.

Theory and practice.

One way or another.

I don't see this barrier going away anytime soon.


P.S. ....And I ain't that fat. :clown2:

[Steve Sherrick]

The question of what constitutes art instantly brings me back to my high school and college days when this conversation would occur quite frequently and we usually ended up coming to the same conclusion every time - there is no conclusion.

The easiest way to analyze what Spielberg is or isn't is to simply ask yourself whether you like his body of work or not. If one of his films had an impact on you, then whether he is an artist, craftsman, or money-hungry egomaniac Hollywood director doesn't really matter, what matters is the film had an impact on you. If his films don't have an impact on you, then you simply move on to another film, another director.

As for making money, filmmaking is an expensive endeavor, unless of course you are making ultra-low budget films on video where you are able to get people to work for free. But generally speaking, there is always a financial aspect to making films, so those lines between doing it for the love of filmmaking and doing it for some commercial viability are always going to be a bit at odds with each other. How many filmmakers out there would rather their films never made a dime so they can maintain artistic integrity. I would think very few, unless they are inherently rich or have another means of supporting themselves.

[jpp]

The question of what constitutes art instantly brings me back to my high school and college days when this conversation would occur quite frequently and we usually ended up coming to the same conclusion every time - there is no conclusion.

The easiest way to analyze what Spielberg is or isn't is to simply ask yourself whether you like his body of work or not.

As much as one might want to agree with you, and I said much the same thing a few posts back, this kind of talk sounds like an expression of terminal decline, the sort of thing which gets said at the end of the line, rather than the beginning. If we don't know whether a Spielberg movie is art or not, we're in big trouble.

In a culture which has been thoroughly aestheticized by advertising and popular entertainment, any traditional notion of art probably can't be sustained. Even in the art house realm of cinema, it becomes next to impossible to assess the value of what you're seeing these days. About the only thing you can gauge is your own enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm, if any, may not survive a second viewing, or half of the first viewing. So unless you're very young, or seeing such work for the first time, the rewards are dwindling.

This is the Age of Bush in more ways than one.

[Steve Sherrick]

If we don't know whether a Spielberg movie is art or not, we're in big trouble.

Actually, I just read one of your initial posts and I see in some ways we are in agreement, especially about characteristics of film.

But, in regards to Spielberg, I almost sense a bit of an elitist attitude. That has always been my biggest gripe with certain segments of the art community. I enjoy art, including films that make me think, evoke emotion, etc. But someone like Spielberg seems to be cast as a commercial craftsman who cares less about art and more about putting people in seats, and I don't think it's that black and white. You don't have to like him or Robert Zemeckis or any of the other commercial filmmakers, but I question whether it's appropriate to dismiss them from the artistic realm. Just as I would never dismiss some of the dreadful arthouse films I have seen over the years. I respect anyone that uses this medium to express themselves. I may not like their film(s) but I respect them for making them.

Don't get me wrong. I don't lose sleep over any of this, but it is an interesting conversation. In the case of Spielberg, I don't like all of his films, but there have been some that have had an impact on me. If I misinterpreted your statement, I apologize.

[Dale Launer]

Only the director? You make it sound like he hardly does anything. Steven is much more involved in his films than you seem to imply.
I would also argue that a craftsman could also be considered an artist, and there's no such thing as a secondary artist.

You've made a statement of your belief. If you want to make that argument, then go ahead and make it.

[Dale Launer]

Yes, only the director. You make it sound like he does everything.

[J.R. Hud]

Only the director? You make it sound like he hardly does anything. Steven is much more involved in his films than you seem to imply.
I would also argue that a craftsman could also be considered an artist, and there's no such thing as a secondary artist.

Totally

With all due respect Dale, Spielberg is a true Auteur. His involvement is about as deep as it gets with an artist. He is NOT a director for hire (So to speak).

Does he do everything ? Of course not. But make no mistake, it is his vision we're seeing.

[Dale Launer]

Totally

With all due respect Dale, Spielberg is a true Auteur.

I think you might have a personal definition for Auteur and perhaps even "True Auteur". The word is French and means author. Spielberg is a director, not a writer.

>His involvement is about as deep as it gets with an artist.

Hardly. A real artist would conceive, etc. his world. Mr. Spielberg doesn't do that. That's why I would call him a secondary artist. He comes in and creates in the margins, not the body of work.

He is NOT a director for hire (So to speak).

Long before a director is attached, the screenplay is written. A producer is likley going to have a hand in the creative process, and possibly a studio exec or two. Then a list is made up of available directors. From this list another list is made up of directors who are considered desirable for the subject. Then another list is made up of 1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.

Spielberg may be top of the list for some projects, maybe not.

I find it hard to buy that anyone who was a name on a list can be considered the "auteur" of anything.

Does he do everything ? Of course not. But make no mistake, it is his vision we're seeing.

A vision of someone else's vision. Hence the secondary artist moniker. ie. a shark was someone else's idea. a very big, great white shark at that. If he wanted to change it to, say a really big hammerhead shark, well, that would be his after-the-fact, latter-day creative choice, but it's still a big shark that's determined to eat you.

What I think you may be trying to do is to seperate the the filmmaking process from the story which is problematic. It suggests that the process of making a film renders the original point of departure to the status of irrelevance, that the end result becomes a seperate and distinctive entity. This is foolish. Actuating the idea, no matter how artfully it is executed, must not be confused with the idea itself which is at the very heart of what is considered art.

If you want to argue that making a movie is a collaboration, I have no issue with that. But the heart and origin of the creative process in filmmaking is in that screenplay.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

E.T. is a Spielberg movie for which he could be named an auteur.

It's my favorite in all of his work.

AFAIK he came up with the main ideas for the story but was aided by Harrison Ford's wife, who write the actual scipt.

On the other hand, E.T. can be also regarded as a brilliant film adaptation of the book The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry.


E.T. phone home...

[10s]

Totally

A real artist would conceive, etc. his world. Mr. Spielberg doesn't do that. That's why I would call him a secondary artist. He comes in and creates in the margins, not the body of work.



Dale I like your thoughts but I question what work is primary & secondary because I don't believe it's so neatly spun. It can be very messy and there are many court cases to verify the confusion of who's the proud parent.

Speilberg and many other producer/directors hire writers, conceive ideas based upon both their own inspiration and that of other authors. He often lets the writers hash out the writing details while he attends to multitude of other duties.

The essence of screenwriting is creating the plotting outline (the hero has a goal and attempts to achieve it, i.e., what events take place/when) and creating character development/arc, (how the hero changes as a result of his adventure) Speilberg is in on this.

In the new Indiana Jones project, Speilberg & Lucas create the basic story outline, hire David Koepp to write it and then fire him and hire another writer and then bring Koepp back, etc., what does that make him? answer: the creative driving force, along with G. Lucas, part writer, part director, part producer, part develoment exec.

On other projects such as H.G. Wells, War of the Worlds, Speilberg brought in Koepp to write it but Speilberg had many meetings day after day, and together they worked out the story and he guided the writer in the general direction. So what is he there, he's not the orginal writer, H.G. Wells is, he's not the screenwriter, Koepp is, but he still is the main driving force that shapes the overall project and point of view. The same can be said about Ridley Scott, and many many others.

If the projects are a success, then it has many fathers, if it's a bomb then obviously you'll hear "I only played a limited role while I attending to other more serious projects, it's a pity I couldn't have helped them more!" ;)

[Lachlan Ward]

There will be plenty of imperfections, old and new, in digital movies, have no fear. Anything made by human beings will have flaws in it. We'll just trade in half the old technical flaws with a host of new technical flaws, you'll see.

Indeed

[Mark L. Pederson]

The art is in the artist, not the brush, or the canvas.

Graeme

Amen. And besides Mr. Speilberg ... there are PLENTY of great plug-ins to add random "imperfections" if you need to add some "soul" to your next picture -

[Dale Launer]

>Dale I like your thoughts but I question what work is primary & secondary because I don't believe it's so neatly spun.

Most movies - the overwhelming majority, start with a writer. That would primary. What most directors do usually comes on the heels of the screenplay (or the adaptation). That is, after the fact. There are exceptions, but those are, well, exceptional.

The essence of screenwriting is creating the plotting outline...

Sorry, but you're trying to reduce it to a formula which is a little insulting. Every screenplay is unique. A writer can writer a great script and the next one can be not so great. But if he does the same script twice, he would be a hack. The director, however, can apply his style to every movie he does and no one questions the originality. Hence the primary/secondary nature.

>Speilberg is in on this.

He may be in on some projects but not all of them. I know the script I sold him started out in a hotel room in New York and trust me - he wasn't there. He bought after he read it. As far as his input later, he didn't seem to know what the changes were supposed to be just that it would be a very minor re-write. He did request that the monster be bigger than originally intended (a little bigger than, say, King Kong) and by the end of year (so much for minor re-write), he completely reversed his decision and wanted the monster to be much smaller than originally intended (no bigger than a bread van). Other than the first meeting, he communicated via his development underlings who pretended to know what he wanted. Maybe it was different on all his other projects, I don't know, but you seem to have first hand knowledge about how he works (or you read it someplace). My experience suggests something different.

>In the new Indiana Jones project...

That was the common role of a producer in the past. And it is still common. He shouldn't get writing credit. And today it's pretty rare that anything good starts out in the mind of someone other than the writer.

>The same can be said about Ridley Scott, and many many others.

>If the projects are a success...

The director usually gets credit, and if it's a bomb, it is blamed on the writing. The truth is...a great screenplay usually can't be destroyed by a mediocre director, but a bad screenplay, despite all the efforts of a talented director (and others) will merely come off as overproduced and underwritten.

Lastley, if Koepp is fired from a project and brought back, why do you give the writing credit to the guy who fired him? Did you read the drafts? Do you actually know what happened? Or are you making some assumptions based on what you want to believe. My experiences may be unique but according to the writers I know - they are not especially unique. Get two screenwriters in a room and they seem to have common complaints. I suspect if Koepp was fired it was because there was some extremely vague idea (which is more often the problem in development than not) on the side of the director/producer - which Koepp couldn't interpret. The next writer probably couldn't figure it out either, and so (as is very, very common) the original writer was brought back in. And the script doesn't change.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Dale you seem to have little to no understanding let alone any respect for the role of the director. You seem to think that the only creative mind in the entire filmmaking process is the writer.
Yes, the writer is important but this whole notion that there are secondary artists and primary artists is a load of bull. It's like saying that Russell Coutts isn't important because he didn't build the boat he won the race in.

[Dale Launer]

Dale you seem to have little to no understanding...

Really? Where do you get your understanding?

...let alone any respect for the role of the director.

Not true at all. I respect it for what it is; a difficult, taxing and sometimes monumental task.

You seem to think that the only creative mind in the entire filmmaking process is the writer.

Yes, I think the writer is the primary creative force of a movie. And the director comes in later. The director can be creative as can many people he (along with the producer and the studio) hire.

Yes, the writer is important but this whole notion that there are secondary artists and primary artists is a load of bull.

Clearly you don't understand the importance of writing. And I realize that's your opinion. But how was that formed? Didn't you listen to Spielberg's speech at the Oscars some years ago about the importance of writing?

It's like saying that Russell Coutts isn't important because he didn't build the boat he won the race in.

I don't know who Mr. Coutts is, but I'm sure he deserves credit for building a fast boat. But the analogy doesn't work for me. (building a house with an architect is better, but not perfect).

And you're leaving out the actors. I'd say the casting is more important than the director. But this is a bit of a mixed bag since a name director can often pull in desirable actors and in fact, often chose to direct a movie because of their ability to pull in name talent. Some are okay filmmakers, whose real talent it in schmoozing stars.

[Ace]

Dale you seem to have little to no understanding...

Really? Where do you get your understanding?

...let alone any respect for the role of the director.

Not true at all. I respect it for what it is; a difficult, taxing and sometimes monumental task.

You seem to think that the only creative mind in the entire filmmaking process is the writer.

Yes, I think the writer is the primary creative force of a movie. And the director comes in later. The director can be creative as can many people he (along with the producer and the studio) hire.

Yes, the writer is important but this whole notion that there are secondary artists and primary artists is a load of bull.

Clearly you don't understand the importance of writing. And I realize that's your opinion. But how was that formed? Didn't you listen to Spielberg's speech at the Oscars some years ago about the importance of writing?

It's like saying that Russell Coutts isn't important because he didn't build the boat he won the race in.

I don't know who Mr. Coutts is, but I'm sure he deserves credit for building a fast boat. But the analogy doesn't work for me. (building a house with an architect is better, but not perfect).

And you're leaving out the actors. I'd say the casting is more important than the director. But this is a bit of a mixed bag since a name director can often pull in desirable actors and in fact, often chose to direct a movie because of their ability to pull in name talent. Some are okay filmmakers, whose real talent it in schmoozing stars.

Your comparison to the Architect I think suits this discussion..Every (great building) must be conceived holistically in the mind of the Architect. His free flowing sketches, ideas and programming of the narrative comes from a place which is always based on tons of research and constant iteration and refinement of the spacial narrative, based on the many "characters" in which the space interacts with (and environment, social context blah blah).. But Architects are trained to be the writers, anthropologists, researchers, visualizers, model makers, creators all at once. Which is important, because for a building to be truly successful, it needs to be conceived in the mind of someone who is a scholar of the humanities. (And not say an engineer)

But when we talk about writers, the issue here is that writers who don't dabble in directorial roles are not trained in full capacity to function as "an architect", in which being able to conceive, write, and execute from start to finish..Hence the need for the director, who becomes everything the writer should be doing with the visual language. Those which do write and direct, my hat goes off to them because for one to possess such talent is a total fucking mind fuck.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Those which do write and direct, my hat goes off to them because for one to possess such talent is a total fucking mind fuck.
As a writer/director, my hat's off to the guy who can write something and let it out of his hands for someone else to interpret. I think that would make me nuts.

[Disco Legend Zeke]

The thrill for me. back in the days of "Video Tools," was that the production of television was suddenly reduced in cost by 99%

Sure The Sony CV-1000 Porta Pack didn't make a picture as good as 35MM film (or even 16.) It certainly was no match for a PHILLIPS or RCA broadcast camera and a $200,000 quad recorder.

But it cost $995. Suddenly radicals, students, anybody with a story, had access to the means of production.

RED is the culmination of that late 60's revolution. Every year since has seen increases in quality at every level of production. 16MM news gathering fell by the wayside. Unknowns like Mike Shamberg were inventing the reality show.

The hollywood establishment has been finishing in 4K for a couple years now.
The improvement in throughput sharpness required sudden changes in the makeup and art direction.

Prior to digital intermediates, a 35 MM release print measured 800 Lines (for a 3:4 aspect) These measurements were undertaken by the SMTPE when the HD scanning specifications were written. The 1920 Digital image was a tiny bit better than pure optical film.

After switching to 4K intermediates, release prints from laser scanned negatives approached 3K in presentation resolution.

And now we have 4 K a both ends.

It not about saving $200 a minute in film on a $300 million dollar production, it's about making $600,000 theatrical features possible.

The video artists have been here since the equipment first emerged, now they are able to create works with the technical quality of the big guys.

As for Speilberg he is entitled to do anything he wants... I learned a lot watching his work, and hearing his insights in the DVD extras.

Lucas, on the other hand, pushed for the digital cinema from the very beginning. Both have my respect and admiration.

[Brian Ferguson]

I love the image of projected 4K Red images, it isn't video and it isn't film. It is something new. It takes the instant gratification of video and utilizes the work ethic of film production (read that - you need focus pullers etc.).

The thing I always liked about 35mm film is if you had a print you could take a loupe and actually look at a frame and see it. With ordinary light.

Same way with Kodachrome and Ektachrome in stills, it was a tangible durable medium you could hold in your hand. I still like that memory.

I think we look at the masters of the renaissance the work stands as evidence the past. Film is not holding up to the rigors of time as many films are being restored at great costs. But the future of the digital is not assured either. Whatever brush the artist is holding we need to look to the future and make sure the art endures. This is the challenge for both mediums. How can future generations enjoy the art of an era regardless of the medium.

[10s]

[QUOTE=briferg;208055

I think we look at the masters of the renaissance the work stands as evidence the past. Film is not holding up to the rigors of time as many films are being restored at great costs. But the future of the digital is not assured either. Whatever brush the artist is holding we need to look to the future and make sure the art endures. This is the challenge for both mediums. How can future generations enjoy the art of an era regardless of the medium.[/QUOTE]


Good points everyone. When I was reading about the film medium being restored at great cost and the renaissance masters it made me think of the Sistine Chapel mural restoration undertaken a few years back. For decades scholars have had great careers sermoning, lecturing & extolling us about the tones & muted colors of these great masters, and how this was their deep inner vision of the human soul, blah, blah, blah... only to find when the frescos weres cleaned they were bright bold colors; the muted color was soot from hundreds of years of candle buildup!!! :wacko: We humans can get really hung up on what's suppose to be right, correct by experts instead of making up our own minds.

What's this have to do with the thread?.... I don't know, but maybe if I can make a decent looking picture and take some folks on a gripping dramatic journey, I'll be happy. I would think Speilberg would agree that's really what this is really about... and popcorn sales!

[mezmo]

I'm told that Fuji will make film forever, even if it costs them to
do it. They are looking forward to being the last man standing in
this particular game. It's a status thing with this company.
Seeing Kodak out and all that.
So Mr Speilberg , you may just have to change filmstocks not formats
if you need to shoot film on and into the future.
Mezmo.

[shashbugu]

kodak made over a billion in revenue from selling film stock, and print film.

it will be a while, 2o years is accurate

[Robert Horwell]

i will keep shooting film whatever, i love my 16mm cameras, they are tactile, mechanical, solid , the have personality, i love the sound of film flying through the gate, that lovely purrr, the excitement of sending off a roll of film to be processed, the optical viewfinder, the smell of my cameras, i love them. I'm sure when my RED arrives i will develop a unique relationship with her, not one to replace my relationship with film, just a new one. Why should i want my RED cam to replace my film cam? i don't, it's just another tool, another brush and colors to add to the artistes pallet.

[Adam Levins]

i will keep shooting film whatever, i love my 16mm cameras, they are tactile, mechanical, solid , the have personality, i love the sound of film flying through the gate, that lovely purrr, the excitement of sending off a roll of film to be processed, the optical viewfinder, the smell of my cameras, i love them. I'm sure when my RED arrives i will develop a unique relationship with her, not one to replace my relationship with film, just a new one. Why should i want my RED cam to replace my film cam? i don't, it's just another tool, another brush and colors to add to the artistes pallet.

ahhh I love it.... very well said!

I am sad too to see film slowly disappear over the next couple of decades, but I guess I am on my way out too (eventually) :help:

[Bing Bailey]

god there is a lot of ragging on spielberg going on. I don't think he looks for visual perfect as much as emotional perfection/truth. I think thats what all great directors are looking for. some stumble into it. anyone that thinks spielberg doesn't have anything to do with the script or every aspect of making a film is nuts.

his films have a look and feel thats all him no matter who the writer was. he is an auteur. as for the entertainer/artist I think he is both. the percentage shifts depending on the subject matter.

I wouldn't rag on film either. its is beautiful and presently has the most dynamic range of any medium. thats what were striving for. thats what we are trying to achieve. we haven't gotten there yet. REDONE gets us about 95% of the way, Epic may get us to 98 or 99%. maybe in 10 years we'll surpass it. but film is still the platinum standard. as for flaws they are still there no matter what the medium. flaws in the actors faces , in the set design , in the lighting , all lenses have flaws no matter how high quality that transfer to the final image.

I think we should all be a little more humble. film will never stop being beautiful no matter how much a pain in the rear in can be to work with. most of the complaints are really about cost rather than quality anyway. the first time I shot film and I got to see the dailies it made me giddy.

[Christoffer Glans]

If I had the money and a Red, I would do a digital master, but I would also do a 35mm master of it and store it at the national film institutes special filmarchive.
Both because I think it's more safe to store a physical frame then a digital, but also because I like what happens to the image when the grain is added.
And to have a scratch in a frame is just good.

I watched a screening of Gladiator recently and it had an imperfection in a few frames that just made me feel cozy :)

[rubbersquare]

I think it's more safe to store a physical frame then a digital, but also because I like what happens to the image when the grain is added.

I am a huge fan of film, so much so that I fought to not adopt digital still photography. But when I saw the quality difference between a transparency scan and a digital shot, I was sold. I love vinyl. I love film. But when we shot a short film on HD (Sony F900) and a critic said, "You shot Super 3d, yes?" I realized that the art isn't the medium; it's the artist. Which pissed me off to no end, but relived me a bit as well. (kudos to Kurt Rauf, the DP, btw). As much as I'd hate to admit it, I'm willing to shoot HD (Red), but I'd be doing a hell of a lot of tests beforehand.

Just as it bugs me to see 2.35:1 "scope" film (which are just matted) and relish in seeing true anamorphic films, I love seeing digital films that trick me into thinking they're film. But I still hate the snobs that call us "videographers" - but that's another topic.

[Christoffer Glans]

I made a music video with a dvx100e without a mini35 adapter and just it's built in lens. Some people thought I shot that with 35mm or 16mm.

I think that it's stupid to mock either format, it's all in the artists eyes and vision. If you know how to tweak and grade material you can do wonders.
I just love film as a storing media due to it's physical form compared to ones and zeros.