I'd like to talk about Spielberg

[Jan Reiff]

it would be really interesting what a mr. kaminski, this wonderful master of light, the man who gave spielberg a new style, would tell us about the red. i think he is very much connected to film, because i remember an interview with spielberg in which he said, that he won´t jump on the train of digital cinema in his life. maybe he has to ... ?

[Rick Darge]

Spielberg is a joke.

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

Spielberg is one of the most gifted filmmakers of this world.

[Brook Willard]

Let's leave it right there, guys.

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

Spielberg is one of the most gifted filmmakers of this world.
True , but Mr Kaminski would just put a denier 20 black stocking at the back of the lens and it would all be honkey dory.

JJ
DP

[Rick Darge]

I like cheese.

[Unwounded]

it would be really interesting what a mr. kaminski, this wonderful master of light, the man who gave spielberg a new style, would tell us about the red. i think he is very much connected to film, because i remember an interview with spielberg in which he said, that he won´t jump on the train of digital cinema in his life. maybe he has to ... ?

Spielberg doesn't have to. He's one of the directors who has enough clout where he's gonna do it his way no matter what costs differences the producers bitch about paying. There's about ten years and change left on both his career and the practical life span of film, I think they'll both fizzle out together around the same time(I don't mean that in a nasty way). It's the film people without his clout who are gonna be forced by economics to change over whether they like it or not.

Are you sure about the 25 beta units? Last I remember there where about 10 or so. I was begining to think that Jim's 1-5 was maybe a reserve for that kind of catering to the big wigs and stuff as well as "charity" loaners for worthy indy hard luck cases.

[matteo]

"There's about ten years and change left on both his career and the practical life span of film"

Not to chime in on rocky territory... but I suppose I will. I am overwhelmingly excited about the potential of RED and its implications, but lets not knock film just to advance the cause of digital cinema. RED can stand on its own two legs without jabbing at a medium which has been around longer than electricity... I would love to shoot 35mm and I would love to shoot RED. Each have their own pro's and con's, and I look forward to reading comprehensive side by side comparisons from carefully conducted tests.

And from what I have been reading, Jim and his team have been doing an excellent job.

[Michael Stanmore]

maybe if he tested it and saw what a man of his talents could produce... he could change his mind...

[Unwounded]

I used the word "practical" very purposefully. I didn't use the word "Aesthetic". I hope you can see the differnce.

[Kyle Mallory]

You guys are funny... Each is a medium. One may be more "technological" than the other, but you'll always have die-hards who simply prefer the medium of one over the other. Acrylics are cheaper than oils, and dry faster too, but artists still paint with oil.

[Drew Mylrea]

On these lines:

I had the pleasure of talking to and listening to Kaminski talk in a class we had at UCLA last year; he's a really quick, funny guy. Film vs. Digital came up in the conversation but was thrown out immediately. From what I gathered from the conversation, and again this is what I gathered and is in no way a direct quote, was that his crew has absolutely no interest in shooting digital (when someone asked Kaminski if he would ever shoot digital it was a flat out "No.")

As a RED reservation holder, and proponent of digital tech (like most in the boards I believe it's the way of the future, hands down no questions asked), I was at first blown away by this seeming naive response, but after some more questioning I think I understand their approach (again this is my take of what Kaminski said):

Speildberg and his crew view film and digital as two entirely different formats, none better or worse than the other and each both as able to serve storytellers. Spieldberg's favorite movie of last year was Once; he doesn't hold a grudge against digital, he and his team are just in love with the process of shooting film, pro's and con's included. Grain isn't considered an inferior attribute, it's a part of what they love, as is film's unique response. But it doesn't stop there: everyone knows that Spieldberg still cuts his film on a flatbed –*he sits down with Kahn and marks his favorite moments with a grease-pen –*again, an element to the process that he is comfortable with, enjoys, and considers integral to his directors toolset. Just as directors have specific tools that they use with actors that they wouldn't abandon in a million years, film is an indispensable tool that provides a process Spieldberg knows and loves.

Filmmakers challenge themselves in all sorts of different ways that interest them; some like to branch out and experiment with the different types of acquisition mediums (like Mann or Soderberg who are using new technology define their own digital aesthetic) and some challenge themselves with story, plot devices, etc. It doesn't seem (at this point in their career at least) that Spieldberg or Kaminski have an interest in changing the way they shoot their films. Film provides the unique process that Spieldberg and co. have come to love when making a film: good for them!

That being said, if you want to see what Kaminski would do with a Red I think it would be pretty easy to roughly emulate his style:

Set some people down and throw more backlight than is humanly possible on them. Stop being concerned about blowing out your highlights, just make sure that your subjects face is protected and then start running wild with that light and blow things out as you feel it's justified. After Kaminski spoke to our class, a buddy and I went up and asked him some shooting questions. He quickly grabbed a piece of chalk and started diagraming. He drew a person, some 1k and 2k lamps defining their face, and a 50k streaming through a window directly behind them. In no way was it a scientific formula, but it sent a clear message to us: be bold, light by feeling, your light meeter and histogram doesn't show you an image or induce emotion and use a medium that you love.

That was a novel. Hope it was interesting.

-drew

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

I wouldn't love to shoot 35mm. If I were given 35mm stock I'd burn it or sell it, not shoot it. I'd die a happy man if I never have to touch film, which is an archaic way to capture images that needs to stay back where it belongs -- in the 20th century. It had a great, wonderful run. That run is over.

[Rick Darge]

That's awesome. Thanks for sharing that.


On these lines:

I had the pleasure of talking to and listening to Kaminski talk in a class we had at UCLA last year; he's a really quick, funny guy. Film vs. Digital came up in the conversation but was thrown out immediately. From what I gathered from the conversation, and again this is what I gathered and is in no way a direct quote, was that his crew has absolutely no interest in shooting digital (when someone asked Kaminski if he would ever shoot digital it was a flat out "No.")

As a RED reservation holder, and proponent of digital tech (like most in the boards I believe it's the way of the future, hands down no questions asked), I was at first blown away by this seeming naive response, but after some more questioning I think I understand their approach (again this is my take of what Kaminski said):

Speildberg and his crew view film and digital as two entirely different formats, none better or worse than the other and each both as able to serve storytellers. Spieldberg's favorite movie of last year was Once; he doesn't hold a grudge against digital, he and his team are just in love with the process of shooting film, pro's and con's included. Grain isn't considered an inferior attribute, it's a part of what they love, as is film's unique response. But it doesn't stop there: everyone knows that Spieldberg still cuts his film on a flatbed –*he sits down with Kahn and marks his favorite moments with a grease-pen –*again, an element to the process that he is comfortable with, enjoys, and considers integral to his directors toolset. Just as directors have specific tools that they use with actors that they wouldn't abandon in a million years, film is an indispensable tool that provides a process Spieldberg knows and loves.

Filmmakers challenge themselves in all sorts of different ways that interest them; some like to branch out and experiment with the different types of acquisition mediums (like Mann or Soderberg who are using new technology define their own digital aesthetic) and some challenge themselves with story, plot devices, etc. It doesn't seem (at this point in their career at least) that Spieldberg or Kaminski have an interest in changing the way they shoot their films. Film provides the unique process that Spieldberg and co. have come to love when making a film: good for them!

That being said, if you want to see what Kaminski would do with a Red I think it would be pretty easy to roughly emulate his style:

Set some people down and throw more backlight than is humanly possible on them. Stop being concerned about blowing out your highlights, just make sure that your subjects face is protected and then start running wild with that light and blow things out as you feel it's justified. After Kaminski spoke to our class, a buddy and I went up and asked him some shooting questions. He quickly grabbed a piece of chalk and started diagraming. He drew a person, some 1k and 2k lamps defining their face, and a 50k streaming through a window directly behind them. In no way was it a scientific formula, but it sent a clear message to us: be bold, light by feeling, your light meeter and histogram doesn't show you an image or induce emotion and use a medium that you love.

That was a novel. Hope it was interesting.

-drew

[Joel Kaye]

He drew a person, some 1k and 2k lamps defining their face, and a 50k streaming through a window directly behind them

OK - I'm going to have to use the Sun instead of a 50k... but sounds like fun to me.

That actually would be a very good RED vs. Film test... to really see how they both handle the blowout.

[chuck colburn]

I wouldn't love to shoot 35mm. If I were given 35mm stock I'd burn it or sell it, not shoot it. I'd die a happy man if I never have to touch film, which is an archaic way to capture images that needs to stay back where it belongs -- in the 20th century. It had a great, wonderful run. That run is over.

Hi JonathanLB,

Boy you must have had some really bad exsperiences shooting 35mm cine.
I for one would like to hear them. Was it problems with loading or screw ups at the lab or what?

Chuck

[ChristopherKenworthy]

On these lines:

I had the pleasure of talking to and listening to Kaminski talk in a class we had at UCLA last year; he's a really quick, funny guy. Film vs. Digital came up in the conversation but was thrown out immediately. From what I gathered from the conversation, and again this is what I gathered and is in no way a direct quote, was that his crew has absolutely no interest in shooting digital (when someone asked Kaminski if he would ever shoot digital it was a flat out "No.")

-drew

That's what you'd expect. Which is why I was surprised to hear the inventor of Gensis last year, at a face to face in Palm Springs, claiming that Kaminski had seen some Genesis footage and thought it might be worth a look. Was he drunk? Anyway, if Kaminski was remotely interested in Genesis, he'd probably be a bit more interested in Red. For film-users such as Spielberg and Kaminski, the gut reaction of Never-Never-Never may change with time. Spielberg says he loves grain, and the way it dances; well, film-out your Red footage and you'll still get grain. He claims he'll use film until his dying day, but unless he dies soon, I doubt that's true. Red feature films are going to start popping up before too long, and they'll convince everybody this is a good format to shoot with.

[Russ McDonald]

On these lines:Speildberg and his crew view film and digital as two entirely different formats, none better or worse than the other and each both as able to serve storytellers. Spieldberg's favorite movie of last year was Once; he doesn't hold a grudge against digital, he and his team are just in love with the process of shooting film,-drew

I understand that sentiment completely. Artists are artists they become comfortable, with they're tool set. Having said that, look a the impact of photoshop and painter on 2D creation.

I think that there is allot of misplaced fear by the establishment. They are so used to doing things in-camera. All of they're skill set is driven on that principle. Push, grain, and mystical chemical treatments. All these effects can now be done in post...

It's silly, the RED One despite all our wishes can not delicately light a scene that projects an emotional tone. That doesn't come with a digital sensor. It only comes in the form of Gods gift, and years of honed experience... We have 3 years max before all the big players jump on the 4k band wagon, Sony, Canon, JVC and with PL mounts. They don't really have a choice. This will drive the costs down, in gear and storage. Studios will start demanding they shoot digital. I can hear it now. "Film decays boy, 1's and 0's are forever!"

As a Director I won't be shooting 35mm anymore. I don't like the time limitations of 400 ft, and 1000 ft loads. I feel that Actors Performances have the most impact on a movies' success or failure. The latitude to just keep going, and staying in the moment, all of which leads, to those magic moments that make film history. In that context digital capture wins hands down.

[number6]

Speaking of Spielberg, anyone know who won the million dollar deal with him in the "On the Lot" TV show? I missed the last episode and didn't hear who won the competition.

[jaadgy akanni]

Film makers like Spielberg are beyond any negative opinions at this point. He's proved to be one of the best, as many others. But frankly at this point whatever anyone has to say about RED doesn't matter to me, I just don't give an F.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

1) Spielberg is fast
2) Spielberg is a genius
3) Spielberg has no reason in the world to change anything he's doing.

I never touch mechanical pencils "oh but they're new and amazing and make really nice consistant lines and you never have to sharpen them...." Do Not Want!

I understand where he's coming from. If it works. It works. If DV was 'working for me'. Producing the images I wanted and had a workflow that I loved doing, I would never change.

I still don't own a digital camera. My only image aquisition device (well besides my cell phone but that doesn't count) is a 30 year old Canon ftb. Why change? It has exposure time, a whisker and loop lightmeter and button that makes it go click. It works! It takes gorgeous photos and none of the hastle.

My only requirement for any tool I use is that it can't get in the way. I bend that rule when I have no alternative (any 3D application). But if film doesn't get in Spielberg's way then by-golly there is no reason why he should stop using it. Ever.

[Graeme Nattress]

What I think Spielberg gets from film, is the ability to be "hands on" through the edit process in a way that doesn't exist for digital. However.... What I love about digital is that I get to be hands on with each and every pixel on the screen. I get to make those pixels dance and sing, and perform in the way that few other people get to do.

Graeme

[orre]

qoute:Speaking of Spielberg, anyone know who won the million dollar deal with him in the "On the Lot" TV show? I missed the last episode and didn't hear who won the competition.

That blond semibold guy who made mostly kind of silent movies in the beginning. Ben? He made a movie with two lamps falling in love and one about a car that got mad.
What did you guys think of the look of those movies, as I understand it the were mostly shot on genesis. I think they looked very videolike.

[number6]

That blond semibold guy who made mostly kind of silent movies in the beginning. Ben? He made a movie with two lamps falling in love and one about a car that got mad.
What did you guys think of the look of those movies, as I understand it the were mostly shot on genesis. I think they looked very videolike.

His name wasn't Ben but I can't think of it at the moment. Can't really comment on the look because I'm more of a content guy. Really "felt it" when I saw the two lamps short (clarification: not "shorted out", but short film.) Also remember one lady who made a scary short from a tree's perspective. That was one where the look of the movie, as well as what she was trying to say, did register with me. She was voted off the next show. Guess I'm out of touch.

[Michael Schrengohst]

His name wasn't Ben but I can't think of it at the moment. Can't really comment on the look because I'm more of a content guy. Really "felt it" when I saw the two lamps short (clarification: not "shorted out", but short film.) Also remember one lady who made a scary short from a tree's perspective. That was one where the look of the movie, as well as what she was trying to say, did register with me. She was voted off the next show. Guess I'm out of touch.

http://www.realityexploits.com/2007/08/21/on-the-lot-will-bigham-wins/

[number6]

http://www.realityexploits.com/2007/08/21/on-the-lot-will-bigham-wins/

Yeah, Will Bigham... that's his name. Probably shouldn't forget it... could be a significant movie maker in the future, especially with this big break.

[orre]

Will! I was way of. How could I forget.
Of cource the story is most important.
I was just amazed how bad it looked even though they had all those resources and professionals working on their films.

[number6]

... What I love about digital is that I get to be hands on with each and every pixel on the screen. I get to make those pixels dance and sing, and perform in the way that few other people get to do.

Graeme

Graeme, I think I know what you mean. I never was good at regular photography but when I got my first (225,000 pixel cdc sensor) digital camera-Kodak dc120, kdc raw-I marveled at how much that type of image revealed. It actually seemed to me that you could take a picture of someone and by looking at the image of their skin, reveal the state of their health with those raw captures. Naturally, the image had to be made more presentable before you could print it and hand it over to the individual. In some cases, that required pixel-by-pixel manipulation to get it "just right."

edit: I meant to say CCD sensor... I'm LexDisec

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

As Graeme pointed out, Spielberg will never convert because it's not about image quality for him. Even if RED were absolutely identical to 35mm film in every imaginable way, and everyone in the world shot RED, Spielberg would shoot film. He still shoots film and he still cuts the film physically on a flatbed, and you have to understand that it has nothing to do with the image quality itself.

Spielberg shoots film because you run a take and then you've got something you can hold in your hands, you can run the film through your fingers and touch something that you've created. Spielberg hand-crafts his movies in a very literal sense, and it makes the films very personal and powerful for him. It helps him feel connected to the work and, ultimately, to the audience. To convert to digital, even of the same image quality, would eliminate, for him, much of the magic and purpose in making films.

Personally, I don't know that I could ever work with film. I do effects and digital makes it cheaper and easier to do what I want to do. But I can understand why Spielberg does it the way he does it.

[number6]

I was just amazed how bad it looked even though they had all those resources and professionals working on their films.

Good point, with the talent these guys had working with them, there's no excuse for a bad "look", unless the director was aiming for that.

[number6]

Spielberg shoots film because you run a take and then you've got something you can hold in your hands, you can run the film through your fingers and touch something that you've created. Spielberg hand-crafts his movies in a very literal sense, and it makes the films very personal and powerful for him. It helps him feel connected to the work and, ultimately, to the audience. To convert to digital, even of the same image quality, would eliminate, for him, much of the magic and purpose in making films.



Probably true, but he's getting to a stage in his career where he's probably winding doun. Sort of like when talkies came in. Either you could talk, or you retired from acting.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Probably true, but he's getting to a stage in his career where he's probably winding doun. Sort of like when talkies came in. Either you could talk, or you retired from acting.
I don't see them as being equivalent, though. Talking pictures were a whole new ball game. Choosing digital vs. film is just a more extreme case of choosing one particular film stock over another for the film you're trying to make. The analogy breaks down a bit since you could theoretically emulate the properties of ANY film stock with well-shot RED footage, but my point is: the capture medium will have no ultimate effect on the content or value of the film itself. People in the film world learned to accept this about projects shot on DV, and people in the digital world are going to have to realize this about projects that continue to shoot on film.

Whether he shoots RED or Kodak, Spielberg would make the same film, HIS film, and I don't think that the availability or even prevalence of RED will in any way affect that. All that matters, ultimately, is what's on the screen. No one in the audience really cares how it got there.

[Zach Nelson]

It's not the production medium as much as it's the distribution medium. No one will know it's 35mm or digital up there on the screen, not really. But when the digital pipeline is all that's left, it will be like going to a non-talkie theater when everyone else is going to see talkies.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

That's a valid point, but it's not what we've been talking about in this thread. I don't think any of the "shoot on film" old guard would have any problem with digital DISTRIBUTION. If they did, you wouldn't have any of their films on DVD.

Once the film is shot and completed, making a digital master for distribution is a relatively simple and straightforward process. Given that most films, even shot on film, and even Spielberg's, eventually have a DI stage and plenty of effects work, it's actually easier to make a digital master than traditional exhibitor's prints. It's basically doing one step less.

The issue here is regarding the acquisition, and I don't agree with the assertion that Spielberg's films will suffer if he doesn't convert to digital. In fact, I assert that they would suffer if he did.

[Zach Nelson]

My bad

As long as you can either acquire digitally or with film, it won't matter. Leave it up to the prodco to decide which is better for them. Do we really care?

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I think you and I are on the same page here, znelson. There's just an attitude all over reduser that anyone who doesn't jump on the RED train is going to be steamrolled under by the future, and it really is kind of nonsense.

The RED camera will make it cheaper to make a professional-looking film. It will not make it easier. It's talent that makes good films, not cameras. Spielberg's got it, so it doesn't matter what he shoots with.

[number6]

That's a valid point, but it's not what we've been talking about in this thread.

Surely there are no sideboards on a thread.

I think the point being made by ZNelson was relevant. And, if Spielberg made the statement that he would not be changing from film to digital acquisition, then he will possibly be narrowing his audience for his films. Also, he may have made that statement before it became evident that you can make equal (superior?) quality digital movies compared to film. I suspect he's not a fuddy-dudey. That is, I'll bet he's open to change. But if not, maybe it's time for a changing of the guard.

[Zach Nelson]

The only steam-rolling or head-rolling might come from studios or financiers who aren't willing to spend the extra costs associated with film-based acquisition. Doesn't film add like $125,000 to a typical budget between the stock and the lab fees? Oh plus the cost of dailies.

Can anyone come up with a relative figure of what film "costs" to a "typical" 90 minute feature?

[number6]

I'm thinking more than the money "audience" will be the deciding factor. The audience of the future will be accustomed to something less filmic, and that is why I think even theaters will become digital based. After the conversion to digital equipment the expense of showing a movie should be cheaper to both the studios and to the theaters. And I believe the brains of this new audience will be more comfortable with crystal clear digital.

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

I really don't think the difference between film and digital will be SO noticable that audiences will refuse to watch movies made on film. Probably most of them won't even notice the difference (how many audience members, outside the industry, do you suppose knew Zodiac was digital?).

People still watch movies shot in black-and-white. (Spielberg has made a few, in fact.) I'm sure the audience of the future will still watch movies shot on film. Especially with Spielberg's name on them.

[Mark Crabtree]

Spielberg shot War of the Words digitally and loved it. When he sees that digital is mature, from shoot to post, he will invent even more new and fantastic ways dazzel us. To the question: Will he abandon film forever like Lucas or Tarantino? Answer: Who cares. He knows how to tell a story and if his stories are a little grainier that other directors so what? But the facts are the facts, film is on the decline and digital, Red in particular, is on it's way to domination.

[Russ McDonald]

The only steam-rolling or head-rolling might come from studios or financiers who aren't willing to spend the extra costs associated with film-based acquisition. Doesn't film add like $125,000 to a typical budget between the stock and the lab fees? Oh plus the cost of dailies.

Can anyone come up with a relative figure of what film "costs" to a "typical" 90 minute feature?

Here you go my friend. post #256 http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3719&page=26
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3719&page=26)

[Michael "Dorkman" Scott]

Spielberg shot War of the Words digitally and loved it. When he sees that digital is mature, from shoot to post, he will invent even more new and fantastic ways dazzel us. To the question: Will he abandon film forever like Lucas or Tarantino? Answer: Who cares. He knows how to tell a story and if his stories are a little grainier that other directors so what? But the facts are the facts, film is on the decline and digital, Red in particular, is on it's way to domination.
Spielberg didn't shoot War of the Worlds digitally. He shot it on film. War of the Worlds was merely the first occasion where he did extensive previsualization as opposed to pen-to-paper storyboarding. To date he hasn't shot any features digitally, and that includes Indiana Jones 4 -- unless you have a source that proves me wrong.

Additionally, Tarantino didn't abandon film -- he shot Death Proof on film, post-Sin City.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But the acquisition format is irrelevant to telling a story, and as znelson said, the only likely reason digital will become prevalent is monetary.

[James T Mather]

Spielberg shot War of the Words digitally and loved it.

Wrong.

http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/technical

[James T Mather]

This is nonsense surrounding digital film making spelling the end of filmmakers like Spielberg et al. The film stock costs are roughly 10 percent of a productions overall budget and people are not simply going to flock to low budget films because they are sharper. It will simply mean that the low end will have more access to cheaper equipment - regrettably the only people over a long period to benefit from the new cameras will be mostly low budget producers.

Spielberg's film succeed because they draw in the audience. He will continue to make films as long as his pictures are commercial successes (and due to his cred some time beyond that point, no doubt) . The availablility of cheaper cameras will not put a dent in his success.