The Unsolvable Design Problem

[David Mullen ASC]

As digital cine cameras improve, just as with digital still cameras, the problem becomes -- as you approach the gold standard of color negative emulsion, particular 35mm and larger formats -- is that the basic worlds of digital and photochemical are so profoundly different, that comparisons start to breakdown once you get close enough in technical quality in terms of resolution, contrast, color, etc.

In other words, we can easily articulate what's wrong with a consumer DV camera image compared to 35mm when discussing the notion of a "film look" but once you start comparing high-quality digital cine or still camera images to film, you run into this fundamental textural difference between the two and the question starts to become: "does it matter?"

Some people are never going to like digital photography, no matter how good it gets in terms of resolution or color or contrast, etc. But for the camera designers, the problem becomes at some level that in order to fool the eye into thinking this was shot of film, you have to start adding negative artifacts, which is a bit silly.

So we're reaching the point, assuming the problem with dynamic range can be worked out (i.e. increased to match color negative), that digital cinematography will just have to establish its own standards separate from film and people will come to accept that the two processes are like two different types of paints (oils vs. acrylics, let's say) or sculpture in metal vs. wood, and stop comparing one against the other. But again, this supposes that basic gross technical standards are similar.

But we seem to be reaching that point with these 4K cameras that we're getting beyond simple technical standards issues and getting into personal taste issues where there is no right or wrong answer. Some people are just not going to like digital images no matter how clean or sharp they look, and it's not really a question of fairness, just of personal taste.

I guess I'm saying this to some degree because as the RED footage goes out into the world, the RED team will just have to separate valid critique from the simple negative gut reaction that some people will have to digital photography, no matter how good it is. You can call that a bias or simply a difference in aesthetic taste, but either way, it's not logical but it has to be factored in.

Or to put it more simply, you can't please everyone.

[Graeme Nattress]

Great post David!

RED has it's own unique aesthetic, and because you shoot RAW there are umpteen ways to manipulate that data, that all look different. RED will never quite look like film, but it will have all the great qualities of film. It soon ceases to be a quality issue, but a personal taste issue.

Graeme

[Stephen Webb]

And I think that's a far more realistic view of the future than the people who simply state "film is dead" believe in.

I think with the Red One we've come to a point where, for the first time, there's a realistic alternative to 35mm. But it seems to me it's not a replacement - it doesn't look the same. I would think that for low-budget productions we'll see Red (and it's successors) almost totally dominating within a few years, but where budget is not really a consideration we'll see DP's & Directors choose (and yes, this is a big cliche but...) the right tool for the job.

I like the analogy of a different paint - Film is obvious oil :)

[Graeme Nattress]

Actually, I'd think Film is water colour, as when you paint with that, you've got to get it right there and then, but with Oil, it takes a long while to dry, so you can go in and manipulate it, and change it, or remove, or add texture or whatever before it finally sets. Or you can add an agent to speed up it's setting.

BTW, I love painting oil, but hardly get the chance these days.....

Graeme

[David Mullen ASC]

I've had this argument on another site where a pro-digital geek complained about the graininess of "300", saying that "audiences won't like that cheap-look of a grainy-looking movie" -- mind you, this movie has made 201 million dollars to date so clearly they didn't mind the grain in this case...

But at some point after I said that the DP and the director of "300", and a number of viewers (like me) see grain as something that can be a creative tool, not always a negative attribute, and the guy said "I hate grain -- you're going to have to convince me why anyone would ever like grain because I can't believe it anyone would seriously like it."

Well, that's a little like someone saying "I hate cheese so explain to me why you like cheese." Sort of pointless to argue.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yup, once you get down to personal preference, there's no right or wrong. The point is to get the camera to the point where you have enough information to dial in whatever quality it is you want.

Graeme

[Jason Francois]

Great post DAvid.

Everybody wants to look at everything in life (including film vs. digital) as either being black or white, but in reality it's just shades of grey.

[KETCH ROSSi]

As digital cine cameras improve, just as with digital still cameras, the problem becomes -- as you approach the gold standard of color negative emulsion, particular 35mm and larger formats -- is that the basic worlds of digital and photochemical are so profoundly different, that comparisons start to breakdown once you get close enough in technical quality in terms of resolution, contrast, color, etc.

In other words, we can easily articulate what's wrong with a consumer DV camera image compared to 35mm when discussing the notion of a "film look" but once you start comparing high-quality digital cine or still camera images to film, you run into this fundamental textural difference between the two and the question starts to become: "does it matter?"

Some people are never going to like digital photography, no matter how good it gets in terms of resolution or color or contrast, etc. But for the camera designers, the problem becomes at some level that in order to fool the eye into thinking this was shot of film, you have to start adding negative artifacts, which is a bit silly.

So we're reaching the point, assuming the problem with dynamic range can be worked out (i.e. increased to match color negative), that digital cinematography will just have to establish its own standards separate from film and people will come to accept that the two processes are like two different types of paints (oils vs. acrylics, let's say) or sculpture in metal vs. wood, and stop comparing one against the other. But again, this supposes that basic gross technical standards are similar.

But we seem to be reaching that point with these 4K cameras that we're getting beyond simple technical standards issues and getting into personal taste issues where there is no right or wrong answer. Some people are just not going to like digital images no matter how clean or sharp they look, and it's not really a question of fairness, just of personal taste.

I guess I'm saying this to some degree because as the RED footage goes out into the world, the RED team will just have to separate valid critique from the simple negative gut reaction that some people will have to digital photography, no matter how good it is. You can call that a bias or simply a difference in aesthetic taste, but either way, it's not logical but it has to be factored in.

Or to put it more simply, you can't please everyone.

Hi David,

I enjoy your responses to my Q? at the Cinematography site wen I was shopping for cameras, and was not sure Viper? 900r? Dalsa? D20?, but at the end I put 3 reservation for the RED cameras and I should be reciving them late summer.

As far as this post I could not agreed more, coming from still photography, shooting film since I was a kid and now digital with the Canon 1D bodies and there L series lenses I print in Canvas, Rug, Photo paper ecc..., but the difference in quality is not as much as wich photos are better but wich ones you like better.

Not just compering film to digital, but just compering the same digital photo printed in differnt paper.

So tryng to compare Film to Digital movies I think is oxiemoron(do not know the spelling on this one, sorry).

I love the clarity and boque on tyhe still grabs from the PJ's short thath I viewd at RED at NAB, I loved the look of the short and the look of the camera and all the accessories, I will be geting # of them in a complete set up, lenses not sure as yet, but RED's look works absolutely fantastic for me and my perswonal taste and wath I want to give to the movie goers as the final product, coloration not so sure, but again thath is my personal prefernce.

Your post to me is a fare and correct direction to make a point on the differences of the two worlds, as a true supporter of the RED camera, of Jim's idea and the hard work of His team, wich I had the placer of meeting at NAB, I stand with dose that speak of RED with objective words and not unfounded negativity to this project, witch at end is bringing a great Digital camera at a great price.

As far as compare one for the other to me it can only be done with RED vs. Sony vs. Viper vs. Dalsa vs. D20 ecc... and not vs. any of the Film cameras.

Again this is only my opinion with very very little knolege in this matter, but I do have a vision and taste and in this matter I reflect my likings.

Thanks again David for your prior serponces.

Ciao,

KETCH ROSSI
www.KETCHFRAME.com

[Jaime Vallés]

Very well stated, David. I feel that finally we can move on from the question of "is it as good as film?" to "which look do I like better". No right or wrong answer, just personal taste.

Thankfully, RED gives us a high quality (albeit different) alternative to film that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. That's what RED set out to do, and I feel they've reached, and even surpassed their goal.

[John Allardice]

Just a personal thing, but now that the recepie is good enough that we're at the 'add xx to taste' portion, I would love to see someone brave the waters with a full aperture sensor, so we can start shooting anamorphic 4k.

[laguun]

i agree mostly, but can´t agree completly.

i fully agree on the "personal taste"-part of the post, however, its always possible and easier to add artefacts or reduce something than to remove artefacts or enhace something.

good example:
when we introduced digital cinematography in 2002/2003 here (sony hdcam), we took some bets with fellow dops who were pretty certain that they could differentiate 35mm from uncompressed 709 HD-sdi on a Sony class 1 CRT Monitor.

the colorist
- removed the grain of the 35mm, and used shots with pretty closed iris, pretty wide angles, close to subject
- added the grain to the uncompressed hd, used pretty open iris, far from subject, long focal lenght
and both dops fell for the trick and supposed that the "grainy" footage would be film.

with the possibilities of todays DI & VFX systems, film and digital 1080p/2k/4k have evolved to become more of a painterly medium, not "only" photographic as it traditionally was.

however, one new trend is interesting - our early customers and partner who used hdcam for cinematic work always tried to get the best quality out of it. since sin city, renaissance, miami vice etc - many directors & dop begin to "play" with the images.

they are using bleachbypass filters, add s16mm b/w grain, some even want to blow out the whites.... tons of "nasty" "gritty" looks seem to be en vogue.

also, i meet more and more dops (they are still the exception, however) who understand process and technology of DI systems and shot their images veeeeeery flat and then go for their look in DI. i even had lightning folks coming to our studio who were afraid that a movie would look bad because they didn´t understand how the dop wanted them to light it, as the dop already had the DI in his mind.

[Joel Kaye]

In a few years shooting on film won't sell a single extra ticket. Film will hold no additional value to distributors. To me, that's a reasonable definition of "film is dead". When it ceases to matter it's dead.

I'd rather be RED than dead. :-)

[Stephen Williams]

i
the colorist
- removed the grain of the 35mm, and used shots with pretty closed iris, pretty wide angles, close to subject
- added the grain to the uncompressed hd, used pretty open iris, far from subject, long focal lenght
and both dops fell for the trick and supposed that the "grainy" footage would be film.


Hi,

So with bad telecine you can make film look like video! Had those DoP's shot any film in the previous month?

Stephen

[Eddie]

Interesting discussion...
Running the chance of getting i bit too philosophical, I think that a very clean, sharp digital 35mm image seems almost "immaterial", which some people, especially those coming from film find disturbing. It is simply hard to see "what its made of".
I know the feeling after shooting jpeg RAW stills, zooming in on the faces, I always keep going until the perfect image starts to break up into pixels, it sort of calms me, to see the material. Then I can enjoy the Roughness of RAW or "watercolours" of jpeg
So I think the disturbing option is that you have to ad the material feel to the image.
Maybe in the future, one could replace the somewhat silly negative artifacts and overgrading, with an aesthetic of diferrent codecs?
Hopefully Graem is a Leonardo in that field...

[laguun]

Hi,
So with bad telecine you can make film look like video! Had those DoP's shot any film in the previous month?
Stephen

i wouldn´t compare a fully equipped DI studio with a pretty succesful colorist at the controls with a telecine.
more important is that he made the uncompressed 709 look pretty filmic.

the dops hadn´t shot digitally before at all.
5 years ago sonys hdcam, vipers, genesis weren´t so common as they are meanwhile.
that changed afterwards quite a bit, btw.

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't understand the obsession some people have over proclaiming "film is dead" or "soon film will be dead" -- it comes off as having some sort of inferiority complex for shooting digitally.

It's got nothing to do with box office figures -- "Blair Witch Project" made over 100 million dollars and was shot mostly on a Hi-8 video camera. No one seriously took that as a sign that film was dead, just that alternate formats to 35mm were becoming viable for filmmakers and acceptable to audiences.

Film is alive and well in filmmaking and that's the reality we live and work in today and tomorrow and for the next several years -- and beyond that, it's speculation with no practical value. If you're making a movie, all you have to deal with is the technical world of the next two or three years, from production to distribution.

It's not enough that a digital cinema camera match a 35mm look. First you have to achieve technical parity, then you have to have a smooth workflow for post, then costs have to be lower than with 35mm and shooting more efficient, and then it has to be readibly available worldwide for productions, and have a reputation for reliability. For Hollywood studio productions that can afford 35mm, it's a "if it's not broken why fix it?" mentality.

People declared film was dead when the F900 was released in 2000 -- HD photography hasn't even replaced film for television work, let along cinema work today. The majority of dramatic network TV series and high-end commercials are shot on film, despite the fact that most people view it in NTSC. And this is seven years after the intro of pro 24P HD.

So the transition to digital acquisition at the highest levels will not be as fast as some people think. I just shot a TV series for HBO and I couldn't even convince them to shoot it in 3-perf 35mm to save money -- they wanted to shoot in 4-perf 35mm "just in case" they needed to reframe the 16x9 image vertically in the telecine -- which they never did. And considering they shoot some 700,000' of 35mm stock, a savings of 25% from using 3-perf would have been significant. So when saving money in film stock is not a major consideration and they are happy with what they are getting in 35mm, why would they want to switch to digital? What would be their motivation?

For major studios, reliability and predictability are much bigger issues, and they are comfortable with the 35mm scenario, so convincing them to change will take time if money-saving is low on their list of priorities. Besides, when you make a 100 million dollar feature, the costs of shooting in 35mm are a minor consideration, probably equivalent to a couple of days of salary for the lead actor.

If you want to speculate for no practical reason, I'd say that film has at least a decade, just looking at current trends (including the RED camera.)

[Stephen Williams]

i wouldn´t compare a fully equipped DI studio with a pretty succesful colorist at the controls with a telecine.
more important is that he made the uncompressed 709 look pretty filmic.

the dops hadn´t shot digitally before at all.
5 years ago sonys hdcam, vipers, genesis weren´t so common as they are meanwhile.
that changed afterwards quite a bit, btw.

Hi,

A fully equipped DI studio 5 years ago! With what a monitor!

If the colorist had not had a telecine background, I don't think he could be very experienced.

Stephen

[Evin Grant]

That's not to say film won't become more cost prohibitive as the Red and other 35mm digital systems become the standard for lower budget productions. If a 2-3 million dollar film can save a $100K+ on film, procesing and telecine/datacine then the volume of film shot will drop and the prices of all those services will start to rise. This has happend in the still world already. Many varieties (And brands, Agfa) have dissapeared completely from the market. And prices have been rising, although the sinlge use camera is still keeping color negative alive and kicking.
I certainly wil not say film is dead, but I would say Red will make it much less cost effective in the low to medium budget level. Tent pole films will always do whatever they want, because they can afford to.

[laguun]

A fully equipped DI studio 5 years ago! With what a monitor!

Sony BVM20F1 IIRC,
serial 0000002.
still in use.
studio was, is and will remain missing a scanner.



If the colorist had not had a telecine background, I don't think he could be very experienced.

for that time, he was pretty good already.
however, back to the point - his tricks were enough to fool the both dops.

[JCallahan]

Brilliant posts David, it's as if you took them from my mouth...and then said them way, way better with way more actual insight.

[Stephen Williams]

Sony BVM20F1 IIRC,
serial 0000002.
still in use.
studio was, is and will remain missing a scanner.


for that time, he was pretty good already.
however, back to the point - his tricks were enough to fool the both dops.

Hi,

Grading on a monitor is not ideal for a DI IMHO. Fine for a digital finish but thats not a DI.

Stephen

[Joel Kaye]

I don't understand the obsession some people have over proclaiming "film is dead" or "soon film will be dead" -- it comes off as having some sort of inferiority complex for shooting digitally.

I'm certainly not obsessed by it. I could care less. And I'm not really talking about at the highest levels. There is literally no reason not to shoot film if you've got 50+ million for your movie.

Will Shyamalan or Spielberg ever shoot digital "anything"? I personally doubt it. So will film "die" in the strictest sense? Not until they do. But does shooting on film "matter"?

Strangely, producers have gambled on the F-900, Genesis and Viper when there's really no economic reason to do so. When film is so safe and proven why do you think that is?

[Stephen Williams]

Strangely, producers have gambled on the F-900, Genesis and Viper when there's really no economic reason to do so. When film is so safe and proven why do you think that is?

Hi,

Cashflow & Workflow.

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

Lots of reasons -- some like to be considered "cutting edge" (i.e. fashion), others like the look and feel of digital images, others feel it works better for their shooting or post style. Some are simply curious to try it out on something and go right back to film on the next project.

[laguun]

Hi,
Grading on a monitor is not ideal for a DI IMHO.
Fine for a digital finish but thats not a DI.

with a fully calibrated & lut-controlled monitor->filmrecorder workflow, exact color & luminance for the filmout is archieved.

what option would you have used? DLP or LCD-projection? would you consider that better?

we only use digital projection when we aim at digital projection, like for
http://www.delicatessen.org/

[laguun]

Strangely, producers have gambled on the F-900, Genesis and Viper when there's really no economic reason to do so. When film is so safe and proven why do you think that is?

different reasons all the time

jean jaques annaud - two brothers. silent camera not disturbing the tigers, having complete remote and long runtime. this one is a mix of 35mm and hdcam btw.

james cameron - ghosts of the abyss. underwater reloadissues and liked the image.

michael moore - bowling for columbine. ease of use & relaibility

michael mann - collateral. look.

robert rodiguez - sin city. workflow.

everyone has its special reasons.

[Joel Kaye]

different reasons all the time

everyone has its special reasons.

Right. And those are people with money and resources at their disposal and could easily shoot film. Will anyone with a budget under a million even seriously consider film within 2 years?

[Gbabymogul]

Some might laugh at this, but the recent "Miami Vice" was a watershed moment, for me. It was the fact that the medium was open to artistic decision making; sort of like when a painter sees oils primarily and then is introduced to watercolours, acrylics, pastels, and even spray paint. The evolution of digital gives the artist more tools for the tool box (and for this small time guy the ability to get closer to serving the story needs). I love film, and want to see it be around for many years (albeit at a much reduced cost) and am falling in love with digitals new frontier. Just like i'd never advocate for discontinuing oils because the nnew acrylics are just as good at reproducing images, i'd never advocate film being obsolete. Personally, i want as many choices as possible, as an artist, and as a businessman.

Digital will be neither film nor video, but something altogether new. That's an exciting premise because you're at the advent of a new medium (of a sort). Like the travellers from yesteryear coming from Persia and the Mediterranian with cobalt blue; the ways of making it pure poetry and exciting the world are left too the artistis talent and imagination.

I concur that there is going to be a transition period where there will be some who will never like the look of it, some who will forget the medium and embrace it for what it does in forwarding a great story, and some who will prefer it to film. When you can be immmersed in the story (like in Miami Vice, for me) and can sense the artistic intent in every frame, then digital will have arrived. We've waited a long while for that to happen, but I think the day is arriving. For me, the image quality had to serve the story and I didn't feel that digital cinema was there yet for the stories I wanted to tell (and most assuredly having the bank to achieve it).

I am excited to be on this new frontier (for me) with my cobalt blue (or RED :-) ) paint, and will choose whatever medium suits my pallette and the story, whether it be film or digital. Now, if only my bank account/business will support this new world ;)

Once the camera comes out, i'd also like to spend a lot more time talking about how the camera interacts with the elements of filmmaking (sorry Gibby i'm gonna keep calling it that no matter what i shoot on :p) I know this is a tech site, but i'd also like to make it efficacious to revolutionary storytelling - more originality, fresh approaches.




:Guinness:

[Jonas Nyström]

New ground breaking and cutting edge technique = New ground breaking and cutting edge esthetic. Some DPs will forever cling to the history in 35mm, and some DPs will explore new digital future.

I'm from the future.

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes they will. They'll do it because they love film and want film, and that's as valid a reason as any other. What we're offering is a new digital system that has a great image quality, better than that which has gone before it, and a workflow to go with it.

Just as I still listen to vinyl and buy new records on vinyl, I expect film to have a similar niche for many, many years to come, and for me, I'd want to watch a classic movie on film, not digital, but I know that's not cheap to do, or practical in the home. A good friend of mine has a very large private 16mm film collection and it's always fun to visit and see films on film.

Graeme

[Stephen Webb]

I'd want to watch a classic movie on film, not digital

I saw Wizard of Oz projected digitally a couple of months back and thought it looked awesome! Shame it wasn't 4K though, especially after hearing Rob Hummel talking about the difference it made.

[David Mullen ASC]

I watch a lot of old movies and I think people could learn a thing or two from them -- newer isn't always better, it's just newer. Being cutting edge simply for the sake of being cutting edge ultimately comes off as shallow -- innovation in style has to be in support of content.

The best stylistic innovations, the ones that last over time, tend to arise naturally out of solving a creative problem.

Sure, plenty of people with a budget in the half-mil to 1-mil range will be shooting film in two years (you wanna bet $1000 on it? Because I'm sure I won't lose that bet!) -- because at that budget level, film is still a viable, affordable option. They may pick Super-16 or 2-perf 35mm (if that catches on again) though. D.I.'s are coming down in price too, making those formats more viable than ever.

I once shot a feature in 35mm with a budget of $100,000, so it's certainly possible if someone want to do it.

I know one director who has been making these little Super-16 features in the $50,000 range and he absolutely hates digital photography so I won't even bring it up to him.

Two years is nothing -- it will pass in a blink of an eye and we may just be starting to see the first RED features hit the theaters. The cameras haven't even really been delivered yet, right? So most RED features won't go into production until early 2008, then go to film festivals in early 2009 (like Sundance), maybe get bought by a distributor for release in late 2009? And then other indie directors will start to see these, see that distributors don't have a problem with them, that they look great, and that someone else has gone through the birthing pains of the 4K workflow, etc.

As Dave Stump, ASC sometimes says "You can always spot the pioneers -- they are usually the ones lying in the fields with arrows in their backs." Not everyone is going to want to be an early adopter. So two years... it's a no-brainer than film will still be used by low-budget filmmakers.

[Jonas Nyström]

Graeme - Speaking of vinyl, I remember the indignant "true listener" when the CD arrived - something you just couldn't listen to. And I'm a musician (or was at least) so I know about dynamics and so on - but "ten years after" I can say; it is possible to listen to an album even on CD, even if it doesn't sounds like vinyl. Same story with now with mp3, mp4 and .aif...

I know my history, as you - and that's why your filters (which I use a lot) is so good. But I'm shure you have met them, DPs who will never even consider digital media, just as a child who wont take a taste of the something unknown.

My point is; new technique will bring new esthetic, for what is worth.

[laguun]

Right. And those are people with money and resources at their disposal and could easily shoot film. Will anyone with a budget under a million even seriously consider film within 2 years?

i think it might make more sense to look at it in a different way and ask other questions:

how many movies will be produced with digital aquisition, be it for cinema or for television, be it comercials or full feature?
this number will raise extremly now.

how much will the production cost for stock/lab/camera/rental be reduced?
remarkable: for A-budgets, $$$.$$$-$.$$$.$$$, but not too much.
extremly: for lower budgets, and hopefully clever producers won´t use that to reduce production cost, but use the available money for quality and marketing.

what i really really like about red:
- it will educate, no, even force people to archieve a higher level of craft. 1080p/2k production already is cruel as it reveals so many flaws which went unnoticed on s16mm. camera, props, costumes, sets, makeup, light etc have to be top level.
- finally, a high-quality, not to expensive postproduction workflow.

[Gbabymogul]

Serve the story with freshness/originality. It doesn't matter what you shoot on if that motto is followed.

Of course, there are business considerations involved (and market conditions) but both film (and now seemingly) digital are good enough for it to come down to story considerations, and for the self-funded boutique comp's - ROI.

Time to play. Play accordingly.

:Guinness:

[Jonas Nyström]

Serve the story with freshness/originality. It doesn't matter what you shoot on if that motto is followed.

agree 100%

[laguun]

I know my history, as you - and that's why your filters (which I use a lot) is so good. But I'm shure you have met them, DPs who will never even consider digital media, just as a child who wont take a taste of the something unknown.


basicly the transition is an old hat. it was pretty much the same in music/audio production when the first DAWs/ADATs made the classic SSLs/multitrack tape not obsolete, but marginalized the need for them.

interesting enough is, that the discussion back then was pretty much the same and the same dreams & objections existed. the DAWs didn´t reduce the need for proper microphones, rooms and producers, so won´t red reduce the need for fine lenses, scripts&actors and cameramen.

[zak forrest]

it might have a lot to do with how old you are and what you grew up with determining what "feels" like a "real movie" to you. maybe kids growing up in the digital movie world wont really have as many issues as i do for example, me who preferred zodiac on film than digitally projected. (it felt movie like a "movie" to me. which i think might be TOTAL B$%^&* and a personal issue that i have to DEAL WITH because it doesnt make "ANY SENSE"

??? kids growing up in a red world will say that red movies "feel" like "real" movies to them

[Jeff.Glickman]

As always, David is not only well-spoken but astutely accurate regarding technology, perception, and 'the human factor' in regarding photography.

"Film is Dead". The nostalgic says 'bah', the techno-geek says 'yay', the romantic says 'no', the cinematographer says 'please no', and the pragmatist says, 'probably'.

And of course, there are exceptions to all of these, with myriad combinations.

I grew up in a hi-end audio store, which was the family business. By the age of 14 I was selling on the floor, most often auditioning for customers with A/B comparisons of amplifiers, speakers, sources, even cables. People were stunned to find out that indeed the most important component in their audio system, for musical performance, was not the speakers but rather the source. I'd hear argument after argument against it, but sooner or later I'd put on a hi-end CD player vs. a crap model and their eyes would inevitably pop out of their sockets.

(bear in mind at this point, that the analogous comparison is watching a 35mm shot film, reduced to DVD on a large TV, vs. watching the same film shot DV and then projected massively....that should give you an idea).

Somewhere around the early 80's CD's became a force, and as a store that sold primarily turntables as sources--as hi-end sources--we listened to the original models of CD players and said, 'this is crap, it'll never survive'. Well, about 6 years later we had CD players in the store, and by the mid-90's, sales of turntables were through the floor (though not exterminated entirely). CD players continued to get better and better, their resolutions improving, methods of both encoding and decoding improving, transport mechanisms getting better at 'reading' the bits, and D/A converters making smoother, more passable wave forms. Around the turn of the millenium ultra-high-end CD players became the rage in the audio world, and we had some models that were $30, 40, 50k. They did sound quite impressive, and not because of the price-tag. The engineers from specified companies had really hit it.

And yet occasionally in my family store, someone will whip out a solid turntable, plug it in, go to the old vinyl rack, pop it on and MAN-OH-MAN would you listen to that dynamic range, attack, smoothness, detail....oh...and by the way....grain and 'pips n' pops', which really, don't seem to bother you one bit. In fact it's kind of comforting.

As a side note, there are also plenty of technical reasons why vinyl has A LOT more information than a CD. Ultimately now, they're just 'different'.

It's not difficult to listen to a CD, or SACD (which is another issue), and if I stacked the world's best CD player next to the world's best turntable I could probably convince 50% of the people listening that one was better than the other and the other half the opposite. Do I have a preference? Sure. Did the market care? No. There's still SOME pople listening and even purchasing tables and vinyl, but ultimately convenience won out, along with inexpensive manufacturing, inexpensive packaging, a less expensive production process, and a desire to make more money.

Chances are in 10 years very few films will be shot celluloid compared to today. Money makes the world go 'round, unfortunately. Even the cynics will start trading in their Mags for their HDrives. It doesn't mean the medium wil go away entirely...kodak will find a way to keep it moving, and instead of selling several billion feet, they'll sell several hundred million.

Relegated? perhaps. Dead? Never.

Oh...and what will happen when say, Harris Savides or Deakins or Doyle or Mullen ( ;-)) in 20 years decide to flirt with shooting a test-roll of FILM for a new project? What will happen? Someone in the *lab* (what the hell is a LAB) will dust off the baths, they'll run, they'll push, they'll print. An old projector will have the lid taken off, and the DOP in question will sit in a darkened theatre with ONLY 16-18 Ft. Lamberts of light hitting them and say, 'oh man, the grain, the noise, the dust....doesn't it just look f------ng beautiful'.

[Stephen Webb]

film is still a viable, affordable option. They may pick Super-16 or 2-perf 35mm (if that catches on again) though. D.I.'s are coming down in price too, making those formats more viable than ever.

I'm planning a short for later in the year and we're looking with great interest at 2-perf. Given a good deal on stock (and I'm told Fuji are practially giving it away at the moment), processing and 2k DI I'm thinking the cost difference with HDCamSR will be negligible.

[laguun]

Mr. Glickman, well observed.

i would like to add that there is the "good-enough"-factor. (i suppose thats a clumsy translation of the german term)

SACD, DVD can sound better than CD, musicstudios produce in 24bit/96/88 all the time which is better than CD and would fit on SACD/DVD - but the audiences don´t hear the difference on their typical home stereo or mostly have mp3. CD and mp3 is good enough for the mayority of people, certainly not for the purist, certainly not for the mayority of producers.

same with movies & tv.
typical cinemas 35mm projection -isn´t- 4k, even below 2k, and lots of 1080p film have made their way into the charts.
having 4k productionside is great for postproduction, but most resulting works will be shown on 35mm out, 2k or at home on blueray, hd-dvd and.... yes, pal & ntsc.

finally, is is the audience who decides whats "good enough", not us.

sadly, 65mm and SACD already were "too good" for them.
and red is certainly way better than "good enough" for 99.9% of the audiences of the next decade, or even longer.

[Tom Lowe]

Great post, David.

I think the transition will really begin to pick up steam over the next 2 years, and within 5 to 6 years, it's going to become uncommon to shoot 35mm.

One model to really look at is film 35mm chemical still cameras vs digital cams and DLSRs. As David pointed out for motion-picture technology, digital cameras and DLSRs really started to make headway once people felt that there was something close to parity in quality. Once that is established and people are comfortable with the image quality, they very quickly begin to realize the major and undeniable benefits of shooting digital. Do you remember the first time you took a digital photo, and were shocked to see the image right there and then on your LCD? No more having to drive down to the one-hour place and cross your fingers that the punk behind the counter wasn't going to ruin the exposure.

Once something close to parity is reached (and RED will l certainly have a hand in this), 35mm motion picture cameras will go the same way 35mm SLRs went.... slowly being retired. Some will still shoot 35mm for the next 10 years, but you can also find guys shooting on 35mm SLRs these days (not many, though :biggrin: )

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Good words, David. In the last year, traditional film had just one target in my eyes, to be as grainless and sharp as possible. Sometimes, after shooting 35mm, when I sat in front of the monitor in telecine I wanted, that the film wasen't this clean as it is this days, so I started, to put some dirt (some more grain) in it. I know this is silly, but film has another taste than 4K digital, this is true. On the other hand, I begin to love this crispy sharp digital thing, and I know I can grade it contrasty, I can grade it to dirt. People will forgett, how film looks, because there is a economical question (perhaps not on the big movies in Hollywood) but on the smaller budget film (in Europe the film budget will never be this high as in Hollywood). So the conclusion for me is: better to have a 4K digital negativ than to have this oversharpened HD stuff which will never have the same latitude or deepness as the picture from a REDone or similar cameras will have.

[Jim Arthurs]

I was the first in my region to routinely do 35mm Spirit DataCine transfers for my stock footage work. I convinced a client to give it a go on their job, thinking that they'd LOVE the results, which were cleaner in the blue channel, and had less weave than the Rank Transfers we'd been doing for decades.

Wrong!

They complained that it looked too much like video. Mind you, this was shallow DOF 85mm 96 fps slow-mo footage of people on tennis courts. All other visual cues were screaming FILM, except for the lack of grain and the rock steady picture.

Interesting... ever notice that all "film-look" processes can do is just emulate the negative attributes of film, i.e. gate weave, grain and dirt/defects?

[Sean]

I don't understand the obsession some people have over proclaiming "film is dead" or "soon film will be dead" -- it comes off as having some sort of inferiority complex for shooting digitally.

It's undoubtedly exactly that--an inferiority complex. But when "film" is justifiably equated to exclusive access and the need to have the blessing of studio executives and rich financiers, then I start to understand just why there is some satisfaction in saying "film is dead." We all want to believe that each of us has a right to express ourselves as artists (good or bad) and that we each should have the same access to opportunity as anyone else (opportunity has historically favored rich, white dudes raised in the Valley and graduating from USC Film School). So not surprisingly, there's a certain satisfaction in watching the elitism of the "film" industry collapse. Note, it's the ELITISM that I relish collapsing, not whether one material (colour negatives) dies in favour of another material (digital cinema).

[Joel Kaye]

So two years... it's a no-brainer than film will still be used by low-budget filmmakers.

Still used by "some" sure. I'll never argue that film is going to go away. Someone is always going to love it most. I just argue that it doesn't matter. It matters so little that no one's going to develop new film cameras just like Nikon stopped developing new 35mm SLR's. For Nikon, that line is dead.

The large majority of movie starts in 2 years that are under $1 million will probably be budgeted under $200k due to decreasing amounts of money producers are getting from distributors.

In 2 years - I predict 80+% of movie starts not destined for theatrical release will be digital. Theatrical is such a small part of the total number of movies made I don't even like talking about it. 150 movies get wide release each year. Film will dominate those movies until a new set of DP's and Directors who grew up on digital cameras are helming the majority of releases. God knows how long that'll take. 15 years?

So maybe we are agreeing but talking about different ends of the market.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

It's undoubtedly exactly that--an inferiority complex. But when "film" is justifiably equated to exclusive access and the need to have the blessing of studio executives and rich financiers, then I start to understand just why there is some satisfaction in saying "film is dead." We all want to believe that each of us has a right to express ourselves as artists (good or bad) and that we each should have the same access to opportunity as anyone else (opportunity has historically favored rich, white dudes raised in the Valley and graduating from USC Film School). So not surprisingly, there's a certain satisfaction in watching the elitism of the "film" industry collapse. Note, it's the ELITISM that I relish collapsing, not whether one material (colour negatives) dies in favour of another material (digital cinema).

Yes, true words, the french revolution was possible (as a known example of revolution), because the establishment did not read the signs, did not understand the needs of the people. It is sometimes hard to understand, that times are changing, but it will be also hard for the revolutionst to stay on there line, to stay tuned, to go the way with open ears and not to do the same error as there enemies did.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Well, perhaps not enemies but there compatriots....

[Poi Boy]

I think 7 years max before we see the end of film as the primary Holloywood medium.
Aloha
-A

[David Mullen ASC]

In 2 years - I predict 80+% of movie starts not destined for theatrical release will be digital. Theatrical is such a small part of the total number of movies made I don't even like talking about it. 150 movies get wide release each year.

You may be right... but I can dig up similar predictions made in 2000 when the Sony F900 came out. And to some extent, it has already happened at the lowest end of the budget ladder.

Sure, theatrical distribution is less common for indies -- on the other hand, oddly enough, for some reason I had five features released theatrically over the past year, two in wide release (Akeelah and the Bee, The Astronaut Farmer) and three in very limited release (When Do We Eat?, Shadowboxer, The Quiet) but in theaters nevertheless. Two of those were small-budgeted 24P HDCAM features.

That was weird for me -- usually I'm lucky if every two years I get something I shot into a theater.

The studios have all formed indie divisions making union features mainly in the 3-mil to 10-mil range, which has been great for me -- it pulled me out of the under 1-mil non-union indie feature range. But in a sense, it has also killed the true indie movement, at least for theatrical release, not to mention pushed a lot of foreign films out of the theaters. Most "indie" features released theatrically have name actors, a moderate budget, and studio involvement on some level.

[Joel Kaye]

You may be right... but I can dig up similar predictions made in 2000 when the Sony F900 came out. And to some extent, it has already happened at the lowest end of the budget ladder.

I didn't say that. :-) The F900 has never really looked right to me but RED really does look great to me. It works like a film camera. Sure it's not film - but 35mm lenses, wider latitude, 7 years of computer and software advances and we're talking a new ball game here. For low budget people who love the look of movies RED is close enough and still less money than an F900. I just think your 16mm filmmaker of yesterday is your RED user of tomorrow.


for some reason I had five features released theatrically over the past year, two in wide release...

....Most "indie" features released theatrically have name actors, a moderate budget, and studio involvement on some level.

Congratulations - that's an amazing streak! As you note "indie" in theaters is really "IndieWood" with Hollywood money and stars. To me that's not indie anymore. One or two true indies hit theaters every year. RED will probably be competing for those spots in 2 years. An Indywood movie shot on RED is probably 3-4 years away by my math. But then the floodgates could open.

[Poi Boy]

I think the floodgates will open very rapidly. This is not 2000 and red is not an hd cam.
-A

[laguun]

You may be right... but I can dig up similar predictions made in 2000 when the Sony F900 came out. And to some extent, it has already happened at the lowest end of the budget ladder.


not only in the lowest, also the mid and the highest budget, the sony cameras are in use, especially if we add the genesis, which is also a sony design.

but the 900, 750 (in the EU) & 950 workflow is -quite- expensive, if you buy a complete workflow. The digital 1080p options including viper were no real pricebreakers for -one- particular project, so they only took a smaller chunk of their potential market.

camera + power + case + color vf + options = 70-150K
2 very good zooms zooms and/or primeset = 60-170K
recorder = 35-80K
larger class 1 monitor = 15-60K
NLE / DI = 20-250K

so, it wasn´t easy for indies to invest in the new workflow, and many kept on renting on a per project base.

The price advantages were mainly effective for the few who invested, could benefit from a streamlined workflow and planned for >3 years with several projects, while 35mm wasn´t much more expensive for a single movie.

red really changes that paradigm.
i suppose in ~2008/2009 the red rental fees will be going down quite a bit.



The studios have all formed indie divisions making union features mainly in the 3-mil to 10-mil range, which has been great for me -- it pulled me out of the under 1-mil non-union indie feature range. But in a sense, it has also killed the true indie movement, at least for theatrical release, not to mention pushed a lot of foreign films out of the theaters. Most "indie" features released theatrically have name actors, a moderate budget, and studio involvement on some level.

here in germany the situation is a bit different, i suppose mainly for four reasons.
#1 there are several very succesful indies
#2 the studios are much weaker here, there are no real "mayors" who can control the market and there are several indie distributors and lots of independent cinemas
#3 public broadcasters (arte, ard, 3sat, arte ...) who are available for co-production and allow theatrical release create constant demand & financing
#4 the budgets are much smaller in average

lol - we came way offtopic in this thread.

[Adam C Lubkin]

The studios have all formed indie divisions making union features mainly in the 3-mil to 10-mil range, which has been great for me -- it pulled me out of the under 1-mil non-union indie feature range. But in a sense, it has also killed the true indie movement, at least for theatrical release, not to mention pushed a lot of foreign films out of the theaters. Most "indie" features released theatrically have name actors, a moderate budget, and studio involvement on some level.

Let's hope a new distribution model emerges along with the move to digital projection, and that it has a place for a wider range of movies.

David, it's good to see you posting frequently here. Your perspective and insights are most appreciated.

[Joel Kaye]

Let's hope a new distribution model emerges along with the move to digital projection

That's truly when the revolution will happen. Somewhere between Google and iTunes there could be a solution. I'm not sure iTunes cares more about indies than Hollywood though. Google - I'm positive - cares about indies because their entire model is based on democratizing everything as much as possible as far as I can tell.

They are going to solve ad placement in indie video. Videos will be like websites and you'll be able to place video ads right in them. They already have a pay per view.

The trick is how do you get someone to watch your movie? Marketing. That's what every filmmaker will need to learn next.

The person who sells it makes all the money. Right now that's Wal-Mart followed the Hollywood distributors.

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble is that if, like me, you love the theatrical experience of watching a movie with a crowd looking at an image projected onto a 70' widescreen, then it gets hard to be excited about a movie being released on the internet, with most people opting to watch it on their computers. I mean, what's the point of shooting 4K or in 35mm if not to see the image projected LARGE??? 720P is good enough for most computer monitors and TV sets.

I've even shot four of my last few indie films in 35mm anamorphic, which is a lot of work and some extra cost, just to get a better image on the big theatrical screen. I love that experience, so alternate distribution schemes that don't involve theatrical projection don't really excite me.

[zak forrest]

Oh...and what will happen when say, Harris Savides or Deakins or Doyle or Mullen ( ;-)) in 20 years decide to flirt with shooting a test-roll of FILM for a new project? What will happen? Someone in the *lab* (what the hell is a LAB) will dust off the baths, they'll run, they'll push, they'll print. An old projector will have the lid taken off, and the DOP in question will sit in a darkened theatre with ONLY 16-18 Ft. Lamberts of light hitting them and say, 'oh man, the grain, the noise, the dust....doesn't it just look f------ng beautiful'.


I thought this was getting kinda lame but then you really got me with the Ft. Lamberts

[Tom Lowe]

Trouble is that if, like me, you love the theatrical experience of watching a movie with a crowd looking at an image projected onto a 70' widescreen, then it gets hard to be excited about a movie being released on the internet, with most people opting to watch it on their computers. I mean, what's the point of shooting 4K or in 35mm if not to see the image projected LARGE??? 720P is good enough for most computer monitors and TV sets.

I've even shot four of my last few indie films in 35mm anamorphic, which is a lot of work and some extra cost, just to get a better image on the big theatrical screen. I love that experience, so alternate distribution schemes that don't involve theatrical projection don't really excite me.

Hey David, one of the regulars around here, and I can't remember who it was (but I think he was a pretty technical guy) said that a few years back some high-tech testing was done in a random sampling of multiplex theaters. They used lasers and all kinds of sensors, and concluded that the average resolution of 35mm films projected at an average multiplex was something on the order of 800 horizontal lines -- better than DVD, but softer than 1080p. I believe the idea was that the prints were multiple generations away from the neg, and also that many theaters have poor projection lenses, etc. Have you ever heard anything along those lines? The last couple movies I have watched at a theater, I paid attention, and the resolution did indeed seem pretty soft.

That's why I'm beginning to think, even if I shoot at 4K REDCODE to take advantage of the lenses and DOF, I might set 2K as my "finishing" resolution, so I can downsample and maybe do some reframing and such. Does that sound reasonable? My point being that unless movie theaters are going to have 4K projectors (?), they will be either be projecting 35mm film (less than 2K when displayed) or on 2K projectors, so 2K seems like a safe resolution, for the time being. Does that sound right?

[laguun]

Hey David, one of the regulars around here, and I can't remember who it was (but I think he was a pretty technical guy) said that a few years back some high-tech testing was done in a random sampling of multiplex theaters. They used lasers and all kinds of sensors, and concluded that the average resolution of 35mm films projected at an average multiplex was something on the order of 800 horizontal lines -- better than DVD, but softer than 1080p. I believe the idea was that the prints were multiple generations away from the neg, and also that many theaters have poor projection lenses, etc. Have you ever heard anything along those lines?

this is indeed true for most screens, in germany similar testruns have been made, and most screens were 700-1100 lines measurable.

no big surprise, ultra-highspeed copies, old projectors, let alone the glass in front of the projection room which mostly is normal window glass tose days, less than optimal aligned projectionlenses, screens not being completly straight and much more were reasons for the surpringsly low resolution. its sad anyhow.

[Tonaci Tran]

more speculation on my part..but I would venture to guess that there will be more directors who will switch to digital because there is now finally a suitable alternative than those will stick with using film forever.

especially with the new breed of people new to the game like myself... and do not get me wrong..as I have high respect for all you veterans in the game..there will be a time when all of you will retire...and the next generation of movie makers will transition in and at that point..using film will be still be respected..but also looked at as "old-school."

[Joel Kaye]

I love that experience, so alternate distribution schemes that don't involve theatrical projection don't really excite me.

If you've gotten yourself into a position where you can say no to any job that won't make theatrical release then that's awesome. I think we'd all like to be in those shoes.

As an indie with no track record I have to expect the worst and hope for the best. Some people call it cynical, but I call it realistic. I'm trying to make a calculated gamble here.

I'm HOPING for theatrical (ie shoot on RED) but planning to be profitable without it. Does that clarify?

I think it's realistic to assume this marketplace is so competitive that planning for a theatrical release come hell or highwater is an unsound business plan. Shooting RED I'm ready to go for theatrical with my 4K if I hit a home run. But if I don't I want the other markets to pay for my expenses. I can go the festival route for the theatrical experience or 4 wall.

Even without theatrical shooting 4K gives reframing options, better keying, motion stabilization options etc. The extra latitude, 35mm DOF and bit depth is what I'm paying the money for. If it was 2K I'd be happy. The difference between shooting RED and not shooting RED is probably $20k. It's a good gamble. Plus all the competition and their 1500 cameras will be offering better quality if I'm NOT in the game with RED.

Moviemakers want theatrical even if it costs them a Ferrari out of their own pocket to do it. But how many movies get seen in the theater vs. on DVD by most people?

Gimme the Ferrari.

[I Bloom]

Along the lines of film as a medium versus the digital medium. I've found myself in the situation where producer and directors (who's eyes are perhaps not as discerning as mine and who haven't spent as much time obsessing over the technical details of the medium) have looked to me for strong advice whether or not to shoot film or high-definition-with-a-35mm-adapter. In some situations I have pushed hard for 35mm and got my wish. But knowing it would be at the expense of some other department in most cases art dept.

I had to stop myself and ask is a movie where $50K is spent on film a better looking movie than one where that same money is spent on sets, props and locations. The answer is very clear to me. Maybe I just think too much focus is made on the medium itself and not on the 'cost of the medium' and by that I mean what the medium is taking away from the production overall.

With that in mind the promise of the RED makes me think film is DEAD TO ME. (Tip of the hat wag of the finger) because I'm loosing my will to push for something that I believe is possibly harming the projects I'm working on by leading them on a stray path.

Keep in mind, I'm indie and small time. And these economics are amplified in my realm. There seem to be some cases where I did the right thing, specifically pushing 4 perf because I new that an entirely optical contact process would be within the total budget of the film, and that the subject matter would benefit from being delivered to festivals as a film print. But I guess what I'm saying is that there are many cases where a DP's choice to push a digital medium is just good looking out for the project overall, and RED just might take any compromise out of that logic. (If they could get 4K compressed to crank over 30p, I'd be 100% on this thought)

In other news, its out of our hands, so even discussing it is an exercise in futility. But fun nontheless.

IB

[Tom Lowe]

I really think the ratio people will be able to shoot at with RED vs 35mm is important and will make a big difference. If you can record HOURS of footage on a RED for no real cost, you can shoot a ratio even more outrageous than the top directors in the studio system could dream of shooting on 35mm. You need to do 25 takes to get a dolly shot? No problem! And you won't have that pressure on you of knowing that every time you yell "action" a couple hundred bucks is out the window.

[Joel Kaye]

I had to stop myself and ask is a movie where $50K is spent on film a better looking movie than one where that same money is spent on sets, props and locations. The answer is very clear to me.

Exactly. When you're spending 10 million on a movie film cost is irrelevant. When you're spending $100k it's a disproportionate amount of the budget. Rent RED. I'm pretty sure that's the conclusion most low budget filmmakers will come to in a couple years.

[David Mullen ASC]

I really think the ratio people will be able to shoot at with RED vs 35mm is important and will make a big difference. If you can record HOURS of footage on a RED for no real cost, you can shoot a ratio even more outrageous than the top directors in the studio system could dream of shooting on 35mm. You need to do 25 takes to get a dolly shot? No problem! And you won't have that pressure on you of knowing that every time you yell "action" a couple hundred bucks is out the window.

I've done enough HDCAM features where tape was cheap to know the limits of this notion -- just because you can now afford to do 25 takes per set-up, doesn't mean that you have more hours in the shooting day for 25 takes per set-up.

At some point, there simply isn't time to spend getting one shot perfect, no matter how low the costs of the takes are. I mean, look at the Peter Jackson short -- just because he was shooting with the RED cameras, do you think he was spending a lot of time getting perfect takes? Or was he running around like mad trying to get as many set-ups done in the day in as few takes as possible?

In fact, it's actually been a problem on tape shoots where the director forgets the time he's taking up because he's become enamoured of the fact that he can afford to shoot more takes, so at the end of the day, he's gotten fewer set-ups done.

Besides, if being able to shoot more takes meant a better movie, then all videotaped movies would be better than all filmed movies, since they were able to have more takes. It also doesn't explain how John Ford made some of the greatest movies of all time with so few takes.

[Poi Boy]

Nothing really changes in a red versus film production... you are still screwed time wise and on the run to complete your shot list. What is different is that you are spending less money on your camera package and stock and you have more options in post.
Aloha
-A

[Peter McCully]

John, you hit it on the head there. Perhaps a full apature sensor will be a future development... Not only for anamorhic but also for IMAX blow-up. Then the 1:85 4K would be windowed....
But as regards the other comment on film "look" etc. Perhaps the greatest compliment for Red in future will be to not be noticed! Surely Red's greatest quality is for it's footage to be easily shaped to suit the artistic aims for whatever production it' being used on.

[Tom Lowe]

I've done enough HDCAM features where tape was cheap to know the limits of this notion -- just because you can now afford to do 25 takes per set-up, doesn't mean that you have more hours in the shooting day for 25 takes per set-up.

At some point, there simply isn't time to spend getting one shot perfect, no matter how low the costs of the takes are. I mean, look at the Peter Jackson short -- just because he was shooting with the RED cameras, do you think he was spending a lot of time getting perfect takes? Or was he running around like mad trying to get as many set-ups done in the day in as few takes as possible?

In fact, it's actually been a problem on tape shoots where the director forgets the time he's taking up because he's become enamoured of the fact that he can afford to shoot more takes, so at the end of the day, he's gotten fewer set-ups done.

Besides, if being able to shoot more takes meant a better movie, then all videotaped movies would be better than all filmed movies, since they were able to have more takes. It also doesn't explain how John Ford made some of the greatest movies of all time with so few takes.

All good points. I kind of overstated it. I guess what I mean is, I can shoot a RED feature and not compromise on quality vs 35mm, and still be able to shoot a lot more footage on RED than I would with 35, if I am on any kind of a budget. You can't really make that statement with an F900, for example, because you are in fact making a big compromise on image quality, DOF, lenses, etc. If your budget is only a couple hundred grand, every time you roll 35mm film you can feel that money being drained from your budget. I worked on a 35mm short recently, after doing a string of HD shoots, and I could literally feel the stress and anxiety levels rising when that 35mm film was rolling!

Also, being a big Terrence Malick fan, I know that one of the ways he gets all those amazing shots is by shooting millions of feet of film. The Steadicam shot with Q'Orianka Kilcher walking in front of the camera right as lightning breaks across the sky wasn't luck -- it was Malick and Lubezki rolling film almost constantly for 3 months. :)

[Priyesh P.]

I´ve made the experience that scarcity quite often pushes to make things better, since it has to be much more evaluated what is needed and if it is needed, how much quantity is feasible?

In my very own case, I always work like I`m shooting film, even with DV, there´s nothing I hate more than having to deal in editing with endless amounts of mediocre or useless shots. When I have the feeling that each second of material is sort of precious, I´m going to judge and evalute it more thoroughly - that´s nearly impossible if you have 25 takes of each and every thing you´ve filmed.

[David Mullen ASC]

Also, being a big Terrence Malick fan, I know that one of the ways he gets all those amazing shots is by shooting millions of feet of film. The Steadicam shot with Q'Orianka Kilcher walking in front of the camera right as lightning breaks across the sky wasn't luck -- it was Malick and Lubezki rolling film almost constantly for 3 months. :)

Sure, but I almost think that's the more important factor with his movies: the long schedule more than the volume of film shot. With a longer schedule, you have more opportunities to capture nature in all of its moods. I think he shoots a lot of footage more to generate a lot of improvised scenes that will be discarded later in the editing room. But even there, you need the shooting time as much as you need the volume of footage.

And it's a type of filmmaking that is a bit indulgent and excessive, but he gets away with it.

I'm a huge fan of Kubrick, for example, but I'm not sure that "Eyes Wide Shut" really benefitted from having one of the longest shoots in film history and all the takes that Kubrick did as well (and he printed all of them.) Some directors have a tendency to not want to move on to the next set-up.

[Stephen Williams]

I worked on a 35mm short recently, after doing a string of HD shoots, and I could literally feel the stress and anxiety levels rising when that 35mm film was rolling!

:)

Hi Tom,

IMHO it's that stress that gets the magic!

Stephen

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Personally in my time directing I've found that I almost always have the great take 2 takes before I quit. With digital you really do have to fight that urge to slow down the schedule "well let's get one more for safety".

I was an AD on an independent shoot and I had to take another director aside inbetween takes and ask him quite seriously. We can come back tommorow and finish all the setups for this scene or you can stop taking "safety's" the choice is yours. He got the point and we doubled our schedule. I highly doubt we missed out on anything important.

I think it's more of a trait of inexperience than anything else though. Inexperienced directors tend to not know how to get the nebulous perfect take that will never exist so they just keep shooting hoping something will randomly fall out the sky into their lap.

Anyway to the topic at hand. I may be extreeeemmly biased in my opinions based on my post background but I don't think film stands a chance. We're nearing that wall of advancement with chemicals. You can only make a stable compound at room temperature so sensative so fine grained. Digital on the other hand is much much simpler to improve. I don't think we're necessarily there yet, but eventually shooting will be on par with capturing reality. It'll be HDRI, it'll be in 8k and in all likelihood it'll also be in 3D. With microlenses it'll also be infinitely in focus so you can set exactly what depth of field you want later.

If someone wants 5218 run it through the 5218 simulator. You want the exact color response? No problem run the HDRI image through the 5218 exposure LUT. Want the grain? No problem the exact grain characteristics have been capture and catologued. There is no physical problem which can't be replicated in a computer later. And with time every computer solution gets cheaper.

In the end computers always win. Who knows maybe we're already inside the matrix and everybody is shooting 'digitally' ;)

[Petr Dvorak]

I think that in area of film material itself is far more difference than between film and Red digital cinema footage. So you can take Red digital as another emulsion number and simply dont choose it for your project if you dont like it. Now when all final look of footage is heavily digitaly manipulated in post its just another new (and very welcomed) alternative in process.

Its just very disturbing for some people, because it can drastically change their cashflow in certain areas of bussines, welcome to new era ...

[laguun]

i am wondering...

... why didn´t anyone bring up the topic of... -series- yet.

we had a series to produce:
16 episodes, 16 countries, 8 crews, 36 weeks productions time.

every episode covered a country in 30 minutes, and we shot quite remote locations (cuba, mauritius, kenia) with very limited access to resources as light, service. etc.

buget was good, but not without limits.

that was the setting when we decided that we would have to look at 1080p. we didn´t want to shoot in lesser quality (digital betacam, 16mm) than possible, and after some very unemotional tests with the, back then still pretty uncommon, 1080p cameras we were 100% positive that 35mm wouldn´t be a good choice for that production.

alone being able to have a midsize team with 2 jeeps or riding on camels in the middle of the serengeti (it IS hot there) with ~20 hours worth of stock was a blessing. being able to digitize the footage into the NLE without lab was a blessing as well. having monitoring of the shots on the quite variable set (boat, helicopter, cage underwater, deep in the desert) and not being dependent on dailies as well.

we then did the back then huge investment, had to learn lots of dos and donts, had to relearn grading, introduce computer technology in many production steps which were only manpowered before... it was really challenging especialy in the first months.

and there is no free lunch in digital as there is no free lunch in 35mm:

i do agree that more shooting time is a blessing for a production, but
#1 its often not possible due to actors, studio, crew or distributors planning,
#2 after 30, 45 days of shooting people CAN begin to be exhausted and loose their edge
#3 often it makes more sense to accelerate shooting with larger crews/2nd unit etc

while a certain amount of stress can be inspiring and keep people on the line,
#1 if you are on a project for more than half a year, stress will exhaust several crewmembers, especially the more sensitive, younger, artistic ones
#2 there are risks (especially on 35mm in remote, hot environments) i am not willing to take as a producer, betting the company isn´t what one does after 17 years in the biz.

cheap stock is a blessing, thats for sure, but,
#1 unsecure directors/dops shooting 15 takes will dramatically slow down post (especially younger people which grew up with dv often do that..)
#2 as a producer, you often have to remind people quite direct, that stock is by far not the only cost. And that it is no excuse for sloppy or average performance on set/location to be able to shoot another take.

after now 5 years of digital production for cinema & television, and over 100 masters out of the house, from shorts & commercials & clips, over docs, tv-drama and full features, we still used film for several reasons.

these reasons mainly were:
#1 need for higher fps without going to 50i or 720p
#2 close scenes and the wish for shallow dof, car interiors etc
#3 access to pl-lenses without the imagequality-eating 35mm adapters
#4 vfx shots to be scanned @4k, makes a huge difference if you need to pan & scan in post

so, if one looks pragmatic at the "new" market, after red, there is finally a camera which integrates the strenghts of "classic" 35mm and "new-wave" digital aquisition. that, in my humble opinion, is whats its all about.

[David Mullen ASC]

I would say though that on a feature shooting film, the stress of how the image will turn out goes down a little every day as you get back dailies, to the point that near the end of the shoot, I find it hard to even get the director to look at dailies, they are so confident that it's all turning out all right. If film were really that unpredictable in its results, that unreliable, insurance companies would never let the studios use it.

[Tom Lowe]

Sure, but I almost think that's the more important factor with his movies: the long schedule more than the volume of film shot. With a longer schedule, you have more opportunities to capture nature in all of its moods. I think he shoots a lot of footage more to generate a lot of improvised scenes that will be discarded later in the editing room. But even there, you need the shooting time as much as you need the volume of footage.

And it's a type of filmmaking that is a bit indulgent and excessive, but he gets away with it.

I'm a huge fan of Kubrick, for example, but I'm not sure that "Eyes Wide Shut" really benefited from having one of the longest shoots in film history and all the takes that Kubrick did as well (and he printed all of them.) Some directors have a tendency to not want to move on to the next set-up.

Yes, you are correct about the long shoot schedules helping Malick a lot. That's one of the tougher things for an indie shoot to pull off. One idea I have about that, is to take a very minimal crew -- director, DP, AC, and maybe a grip/helper, and take a RED on a one- or two-week location scout. At that point you could shoot all your cutaways and atmosphere shots, and get them out of the way. Then you won't be wasting time on your 30-day principal shoot trying to get a shot of a beautiful lake at sunrise or whatever. Of course, this assumes your DP and a couple others are willing to go on such a shoot for minimal pay. You also need equipment, like a small crane, dolly, etc.

As far as Kubrick, I think in a few cases it did help him. For example: that famous scene in the bedroom when they smoke pot and Kidman reveals to Cruise her fantasy about the Naval officer. Kubrick spent something like 10 days alone with Kidman and Cruise rehearsing that scene. I think they did an ungodly number of takes, as well. But in the end, that scene showcases some of the best acting I've seen on the big screen in recent memory. Very tough to pull that scene off!

BTW, David, are you a fan of Barry Lyndon? That movie took something like 300 days to shoot!

[Joel Kaye]

Yes, you are correct about the long shoot schedules helping Malick a lot.

It's an interesting approach to moviemaking, but I know I'm going to go the old school direction of preplanning like crazy and shooting that movie. I like the idea of shooting fast and getting a lot of angles. I'm basically going to shoot RED like it's film. I don't really want a thousand options in post. I want to previz it so well that I know the story and shots are going to work before we begin.

At least that's the plan. :-)

I think everyone has to figure out their own personality/approach and then find crew/actors that match.

[David Mullen ASC]

Whatever works for the artist. Kubrick, Wyler, Stevens, Fincher, known for doing a lot of takes, Ford, Kurosawa, Speilberg, known for doing few takes, whatever it takes to get there.

When I did "Northfork" in Montana, it was a 1.5 mil / 24-day shoot in late spring, but the story was set in winter. So just in case the snow melted before we finished our exteriors, I went up to Montana about two weeks before production began and the camera assistant and I ran around shooting winter landscape shots for about five days (not easy with a Panaflex and Primo anamorphic lenses... humping that gear up and down valleys, across streams, etc.) But it made a big difference, having that time. Montana is a big-ass state and I probably spent most of that time driving rather than actually shooting, but it allowed me to find some nice shots without the pressure of the main production shoot breathing down my neck.

Unfortunately on most of my films, I have to delegate fun stuff like that to a 2nd Unit DP and crew because the production won't budget for the extra days for me to shoot it myself.

[Tom Lowe]

When I did "Northfork" in Montana, it was a 1.5 mil / 24-day shoot in late spring, but the story was set in winter. So just in case the snow melted before we finished our exteriors, I went up to Montana about two weeks before production began and the camera assistant and I ran around shooting winter landscape shots for about five days (not easy with a Panaflex and Primo anamorphic lenses... humping that gear up and down valleys, across streams, etc.) But it made a big difference, having that time. Montana is a big-ass state and I probably spent most of that time driving rather than actually shooting, but it allowed me to find some nice shots without the pressure of the main production shoot breathing down my neck.

Unfortunately on most of my films, I have to delegate fun stuff like that to a 2nd Unit DP and crew because the production won't budget for the extra days for me to shoot it myself.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Northfork was beautifully shot BTW......

Any chance you can give a rundown of your lighting package, or the main lights atleast?

[Clayton Harper]

Northfork was beautifully shot BTW......

Any chance you can give a rundown of your lighting package, or the main lights atleast?

Since we're kissing butt, let me go on the record for loving the look of Jackpot.

Mullen, you rule.

[David Mullen ASC]

"Northfork" was 90% day interior and exterior -- there were only two small tungsten-lit interior scenes, one at night and the other in an underground tunnel lt only by a string of 40w lightbulbs.

So most of the movie was lit with HMI's, being day scenes. I had an 18K HMI, a 6K HMI, and a 4K Xenon -- those lights gave me the shafts of light in smoke-filled rooms -- and then a smaller assortment of HMI's and Kinoflos. I often keyed faces soft with the 10-tube Wall-O-Lite Kinoflo.

Since I was using HMI's, I didn't have much problem getting a good stop for the anamorphic lenses, and since we opted to use fairly heavy ProMist filters (partially to compensate for the sharpening for the skip-bleach printing we would be doing, but also for the halation) I mainly shot interiors on Fuji F-125T without the 85 correction filter.

I desaturated the movie photochemically by using tungsten Fuji stock without the 85 correction in daylight, by flashing the negative, by using smoke and ProMist filters - and then by doing a skip-bleach to all the prints, thus also restoring the blacks lost from all the milking-up of the negative. All of these tricks sucked the color out of the image, as well as clever art direction (we put gray paint in catsup bottles in a diner scene and sewed a b&w American flag -- even the lab couldn't figure out how I managed to get all the color out of the flag! The best tricks are the simplest...)

---

I'm proud of "Jackpot", being one of the first features shot on the F900 in 2000. We shot it in only 15-days for about $200,000 or so, mainly with a few Kinoflos, Chinese Lanterns, and a lot of Christmas tree lights. Tiny crew.

[Alexander Nikishin]

Thank you for the info David, I've yet to see Jackpot but I'll definitely put that on the list for further viewing.

Were you using the wall o lites because of the lack of available space for a bounce setup or s-box or grid cloth setup? Or do you just prefer the softness of Kino's in comparison?

[David Mullen ASC]

Mainly I used the Wall-O-Lite for speed - I could just roll it around the room to where I needed it. Other scenes, I used a large diffusion frame of grid cloth with an HMI behind it, and Kinos for fill instead.

You can see the use of Kinos in these shots. The first one had the Wall-O-Lite as the key from the side:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork33.jpg

This insert had a hot edge from an HMI through a window, but otherwise was softly backlit by the Kino Wall-O-Lite and filled-in with a 4-bank Kino (which you can see reflected in the tea pot):

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork34.jpg

[Alexander Nikishin]

Beautiful gradation throughout the film David. The visuals of Northfork have really stuck in my head ever since seeing it. Thank you for the examples.

[Peter Sensor]

Well put , David. I like to think of grain as making the image feel Alive.
I recently did a workshop with the Arri D-20. We recorded some still life
images on a flashmag and played them back - everything just sat there-
rock solid. If I had played back a film image - it would have had a little movement - I'm not talkin film weave, I mean grain movement -ALIVE !
Also, the pictures were so sharp - I looked at it like we look at a new fine grain film stock and say- ok, now - how do we screw with it ? Are we back to nets behind the lens ? Old glass ? How do we make it our own ? And ,speaking like a true cinematographer, don't tell me what you're gonna do in post, I'm gonna tell you what I'm gonna do at the Lens, and I'm going to ask my Director to commit- right there in the field. Nothing against Post,
If I need your help, I'll ask for it.

[thornben]

I agree with you David, but I don't know... I think everyone is missing the point.

So many of the "problems" with the look of a digital image get resolved when it gets printed to film. I'm pretty sure everyone's seen an HD movie in the cinema and then if the producers have just dumped the HD down to DVD (instead of scanning the digital interneg or print) it looks TERRIBLE. And when I see a digital projection, even though it's better than watching it on an interlaced TV, it's still feels nasty. I don't know about anyone else, but a digital projection is like going from your expensive speakers to the headphones that come with your iPod. I find it a strain to look at.

Thats where all of this discussion need to move to - about how the image is REALLY going to change once everything is digital projection. I agree both film and good digital are great mediums for getting the images, but the sound of the voice that's telling you the story (i.e. projection) is still very raspy to me.

[David Mullen ASC]

When I did "Jackpot", it was one of the first 24P HD features completed, and we showed it both digitally projected and in 35mm prints. The response was 50/50 -- some people preferred the digital projection, some the print. Depended really on how much they liked or hated clean digital images. If they didn't like digital images, they preferred the film prints. It's just a taste thing.

Although digital projection has improved since then, and so have film-outs. I saw "Superman Returns" (shot on the Genesis camera) both digitally projected and the 35mm print version, and I was surprised at how similar they looked.

[Desert Rune]

I thoroughly enjoyed Superman Returns in the theater. I did not realize it was shot digitally on a Genesis. I just remember it looked great and the special effects looked effortless and solid.

If Red can shoot as well or better than a Genesis, I think Red filmmakers have nothing to fear. :biggrin: