elvworks Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I am so looking forward to Superman Returns. I've been looking forward to a Superman motion picture for a while now, like alot of others I presume. It's hard to tell from the previews exactly how it will look but I hope this will be the first digital that will actually look good and will work with the story. If it looks as bad as Attack of the Clones and/or Return of the Sith, I might just start crying. :( But I am hopeful: :D Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Vialet Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I'm looking forward to seeing the Genesis at work on the big screen as well! And I also hope it doesn't disappoint... But I think you're overlooking COLLATERAL, elvworks, in which the digital cinematography was great and definitely supported the story! But i agree, the last Star Wars episodes didn't live up to my expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvworks Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Hi Richard, To be honest, I will have to rent Collateral, I only saw a few scenes in passing. I appreciate your suggestion. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradHruboska Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Well I have a friend who just finished Scary Movie 4 with the Genesis cameras as the HD engineer, and he has been raving about the images since he started. The combination of that large imaging chip and 4:4:4 recording has amazing color fidelity, and for compoiting zero weave. I am anxious to see a arri D20 in action as i agree that we need an optical viewfinder of some sort, but the accessories and funcitionality of the Genesis are quite good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted January 20, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted January 20, 2006 I think the film Flyboys was the first Genesis feature and should be out before Superman Returns. So that'll be a first little peek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridgett roh Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 a percentage of superman was shot on 35mm for reasons that i don't know about, a few hundred thousand feet, so it will be interesting to see on the big screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 8, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 8, 2006 I saw a poster for the Adam Sandler comedy "Click", also shot on the Genesis, which may come out soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvworks Posted April 8, 2006 Author Share Posted April 8, 2006 Digital is taking over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fstop Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 a percentage of superman was shot on 35mm for reasons that i don't know about, a few hundred thousand feet, so it will be interesting to see on the big screen. Visual Effects, specifically high speed miniatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 8, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 8, 2006 Digital is taking over. Sure, eventually... but let's be realistic -- these are still exceptions to the rule. In fact, I've shot less HD in the past two years compared to 35mm, the bulk of studio movies are shot in 35mm, and the bulk of dramatic TV shows in the U.S are shot on 35mm as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Digital is taking over. Maybe for personal projects you might shoot or in your school, but not in the real world of professional production. I tend to be a bit more blunt than David sometimes..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fstop Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 There was no need for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Digital is taking over. I'm sure it comes as no suprise from my moniker that I'm in the film camp. Maybe I'm crazy devoting my energies to preserving this medium, and maybe one day there will be no more film, but do you really have to friggin' say incendiary poop like this? I mean, it's a good thing we are in a forum, because if you said that to my face, I'd flat out wanna punch you in the jaw. There are people who make their livelihoods from motion picture film, many of them my close personal friends. Are you REALLY elated that, were digital to take over, they'd be out on the streets? Huh? Regards. ~Karl Borowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Bass Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 (edited) Wouldn't they just adapt and learn to shoot digitally? I'm sure there was a point when Avid became omnipresent when editors had to learn to use it. Did they just magically die and get replaced by computer whizzes? Or did they learn to use the new technology? Isn't part of DP's job to learn to use whatever's new on the scene, if a project calls for it? Edited April 9, 2006 by Josh Bass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Jonathan Benny Posted April 9, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 9, 2006 (edited) The reality is that most successful people in the motion picture business are able to adapt to new technologies while still working with the older technologies. Most of the assistants I work with are always eager to get their hands on the latest camera gear - film AND digital: they are constantly keeping up with whats going on. As someone who loves shooting on film, I personally wouldn't say that Digital has taken over - but it is most certainly gaining momentum that could, and probably will, lead to it "taking over". And thats not something to be happy or sad about - its just something we need to be prepared for. Just one view, JB There are people who make their livelihoods from motion picture film, many of them my close personal friends. Are you REALLY elated that, were digital to take over, they'd be out on the streets? Huh? Edited April 9, 2006 by Jonathan Benny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 What are the film labs going to do? What are the people at Kodak and Fuji going to do? Film Loaders? Projectionists? Color timers are probably going to get far-reduced work, because, eventually, digital technology is going to involve for real time color timing and correcting on set. I'm sure that the crews will be relatively unaffected by the change, but what about the GIGANTIC SUPPORT INDUSTRY that has supported movies since their very beginning and grown up around them? Are you really arguing to shut them down? A very very small percentage of them if we decide, "Hey, digital's good enough". This is probably going to be the first change the film industry has made that is a REDUCTION in quality. Any change made solely for the purpose of saving the producers money is not a good one, at least in my humble opinion. In any case, because of the way that human beings behave, I'm sure there will be a shift eventually, but let's not call it here, now. I'm trying to get a job as a film loader for Spiderman 3 today, and I have to hear more of this digital is taking over poop? Give me a break! If you can't handle the fact that FILM is still the status quo in the film industry, than be a still photographer. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Collins Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 The computers and hard drives needed for these 4:4:4 digital features plus the cost of the camera? Does anyone know how that cost compares to shotting 35mm. I would guess 35mm is still cheaper in the long run. My other question is back up. I work in broadcasting and do everything in FCP. My hard drive failed and I lost everything I was working on.But I had everything on tape so I could get it back. How do they back stuff up? What is the work flow? Also if all the major studios go digital, I will be the first one on e-bay looking for a good deal on 35mm equipment :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kai.w Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Wow. What a rant! Seriously, if your arguments against a "technical" development are that people might lose their jobs, its getting a little ridiculous. All the crying of the jobless coachmen when the car was invented.... Digital is not taking over (not yet, not soon), but its gaining momentum. -k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 What are the film labs going to do? What are the people at Kodak and Fuji going to do? Film Loaders? Projectionists? Your inexplicable personal attachment to a technology is getting the better of you here. It's not the responsibility of any technology to last forever. You might ask similar questions about other industries that have seen technological change - for instance, what happened to telephone operators? Linotype operators? Elevator operators? Television repairmen (and television repair businesses, for that matter)? People eventually move on to other aspects of either the same or another industry when technology forces certain changes that affect their personal place in that industry. Having said all that, the sky is certainly not falling yet on the film industry. Over 90% of network dramas and probably an even higher percentage of feature films are still being shot on film, at least right now, in 2006. What those statistics might be in 2010, who can say. Regardless of the postings of Internet forum participants who do not work in the industry and believe that consumer trends are the same as professional trends, that is the fact. Those who know the facts understand. Those who don't, don't. This is probably going to be the first change the film industry has made that is a REDUCTION in quality. Hardly. Tripack negative was a reduction in quality from the 3 strip method. Techniscope (2 perf flat format) was a severe reduction in quality from anamorphic and/or 65mm shooting, as is Super 35 for anamorphic release. 1.85 was a reduction in quality from 1.33 projection. CRI's were a reduction in quality from internegatives (and they were later abandoned for this and other reasons). And digital intermediate is arguably a reduction in quality from direct contact printing, although there are clearly multiple mitigating factors there. My point is that changes in any industry are not necessarily quality driven, in fact, in most cases they are not. They are economically or creatively driven, always have been, always will be. Quality improvements as a result of those changes are icing on the cake. Any change made solely for the purpose of saving the producers money is not a good one, at least in my humble opinion. Welcome to the real world. Almost all changes are ultimately made for the sake of economics, as are almost all governmental decisions and just about everything else that involves spending money. That's the price of living in a capitalist society and the reality of our world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted April 9, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 9, 2006 Techniscope (2 perf flat format) was a severe reduction in quality from anamorphic Hooooooooo...Them's fightin' words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Hooooooooo...Them's fightin' words. I don't know why it should be. Just because something is technically superior or inferior doesn't mean you can't prefer the other for aesthetic or practical reasons. The fact is that 2 perf uses a fraction of the image area of anamorphic, so technically it's inferior - you can't make something out of nothing. A larger image area = a technically superior image. However, all things come at a cost, so if you prefer larger grain, and/or deeper depth of field, and/or minimal lens distortion (as well as flare distortion, etc.), then for you 2 perf might be a better choice. But it still doesn't make it technically equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 9, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 9, 2006 Well, 2-perf is half the negative area of anamorphic, so I think there is a good argument that it was introduced as a way of saving money more than maintaining or improving quality. Mike is right -- most changes in film technology caused a temporary drop in quality, but decades later, we can't imagine shooting with 3-strip Technicolor instead of color negative, and anamorphic, which was a simple solution to creating widescreen to compete with the vastly superior 3-camera Cinerama format, now is considered a high quality format. But back in 1953, essentially you were taking the standard Academy image area, more or less, and enlarging it to fill a screen twice as wide, so people did not see an improvement in quality over the old Academy movies, particularly those shot in 3-strip. In other areas, we have dropped superior formats temporarily introduced, like 65mm. In terms of job loss, a move to digital is hardly going to cause a blip in the number of jobs in Hollywood. At Fuji, Kodak, and the labs, that could be another matter. As far as projectionists goes, those jobs were lost when the platter system was introduced and theater managers at multiplexes started doing the job themselves, so a change to digital projection is hardly going to hurt at this point, job-wise. In production, we may lose loader positions, but those will be replaced by other positions to deal with digital issues -- probably higher-paying positions than loader. Otherwise, I don't see why there will be fewer camera assistants, grips, electricians, DP's, whatever. Even in film technology, we have positions now that did not exist decades ago, like colorists for telecines, video assist people, etc. Technology keeps changing. You might as well blame Kodak for trying to cause a loss of jobs among electricians for introducing high-speed film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dan Goulder Posted April 9, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 9, 2006 I don't know why it should be. Just because something is technically superior or inferior doesn't mean you can't prefer the other for aesthetic or practical reasons. The fact is that 2 perf uses a fraction of the image area of anamorphic, so technically it's inferior - you can't make something out of nothing. A larger image area = a technically superior image. However, all things come at a cost, so if you prefer larger grain, and/or deeper depth of field, and/or minimal lens distortion (as well as flare distortion, etc.), then for you 2 perf might be a better choice. But it still doesn't make it technically equal. Actually, when Techniscope was introduced, it was considered sharper than movies shot with the anamorphic lenses that were available at the time. Recent optical restorations of movies shot in that style still look surprisingly sharp, even by today's standards. Some lens technicians have explained that having the image centered in the "sweet spot" of the lens is what accounts for that quality. If you ever have the opportunity to see a good Techniscope print projected in a theater, you may be surprised to find less grain than you were expecting, as well as a uniformly sharper image. I'm currently working on a project in that format, and with modern glass and film stocks, you'd be amazed at just how good it can look on the big screen. I hope you will get to see the results. By the way, I also hope you will surmise from my grammatical style in the original response to your comments that I was just being playful. Of course aesthetics are a subjective, personal choice. Personally, I'm just glad to be working in ANY format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 What are the film labs going to do? What are the people at Kodak and Fuji going to do? Film Loaders? Projectionists? ... well...that's called "structural unemployment," and, not to sound callous, it's been a part of our economy since the industrial revolution. Now thankfully, film is a long ways from leaving, and digital is a far cry from being called standard. But I expect it (and who doesn't?) to happen in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 9, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted April 9, 2006 You can find a number of reviews in the 60's of Techniscope movies that comment negatively on the lower picture quality. Not everyone shooting that format did as good a job as Leone and his DP's. Half a negative is half a negative any way you look at it compared to anamorphic -- lenses alone can't make up that difference in real estate. And by the 1960's, anamorphic lenses were much better than they were in the mid 1950's. Look at how good the blow-up of "Dr. Zhivago" was to 70mm. I'm not saying that 2-perf couldn't look good back then, but it required some effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now