Superman Returns

[Tenolian Bell]

Uhhh... "The Shield" IS shot on Super 16mm.

 

I haven't continuously watched the show it may have switched but definitely at some point it was on HD. I haven't watched the current season. From the episodes I have seen that shiny hot spot on the top of Vic Mackey's head was not from super 16.

 

The choice of film vs. HD isn't necessarily - or even primarily - about a look, it's about a lot of things that benefit both production and the studio library. You might want to re-read what I said.

 

Film is more forgiving, making it a better choice for location work and day exteriors - and also making it a bit easier to creatively light for. It can be shot at any frame rate, allowing both undercranking and overcranking when desired. There are different stocks available for different purposes. There are cameras available at just about every level of size and weight, so you can choose the right tool for the need.

 

Well here is what you said and all of these advantages play some part in the look of a show. In addition to other advantages such as archiving.

 

But I'm not trying to get into some crazy circular argument.

[David Mullen ASC]

You can digitally color-correct a film image to be hot & clippy in the highlights.

[Chien Huey]

This show likes to use a lot of contrast. They have lots of hot fluorescent and neon fixtures built into the sets. Lots of hot spots in the foreground with deep shadow and small hot spots in the background. The first season was shot on 35mm and this look worked wonderfully.

 

I'm almost positive that BSG switched from 35mm to HD after the miniseries (though I can't find the article online - I think it was covered in AC back in Dec 2005). Both 1st and 2nd seasons have been shot on the F900. For what it's worth, I noticed the highlights blowing out on the show also - but chalked it up to it being an aesthetic choice. I have also noticed as you have that the 2nd season cinematography is off from the 1st season. I follow the show and the podcasts and it seems that they are falling behind on a regular basis. The quality dip might be due to rushing.

 

I'm not making excuses for Steve McNutt or the F900. I'm just saying that in this case, it's not necessarily the medium.

 

As for film vs. digital, each has it's place. Personally, I like working with film. However, on the jobs I get to shoot, the budgets are for video. So, whenever I have some spare cash, I buy some film, take out my Bolex (or rent an SR - that's when I have more cash), shoot and process it. In the end it's about having tools and learning how to use them - I'm hoping to get hired to shoot on film but for now I pay.

 

Recently, I got the third-degree from a DP friend when I told him that I suggested HD to a director instead of film. The issue here is that she hired me to shoot on film but I felt that given her budget she would not be able to achieve the result she wants on film. What was decided is that I would put together an HD reel and a film stock catalog reel for her to see what she likes better. We're also waiting to see how much money she can raise.

 

My point is that isn't it my job as the DP to figure out the best way to get the director what they want with the available tools? Believe me it was hard to suggest video when I never get paid to shoot film - but I think it was the right thing to do.

 

Lastly, I do agree that most people who tout video/digital as being superior to film probably haven't worked with film in any significant capacity. Heck, I'm in that camp. But the people I run into that say that the HVX will cause film to go away, I just think "yeah, in your mind it all makes sense".

[Tenolian Bell]

You can digitally color-correct a film image to be hot & clippy in the highlights.

 

True it is technically possible. But logically why would someone shoot on 16mm to then grade it to have video like characteristics?

 

Especially when they could've shot video in the first place.

[Stas Tagios]

I'm almost positive that BSG switched from 35mm to HD after the miniseries (though I can't find the article online - I think it was covered in AC back in Dec 2005).

 

Yeah, only the miniseries was 35.

 

AC's Dec article on BG is a great read but as you say, not on-line. There is this, however:

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/telev...t_id=1000617085

 

""High-definition certainly makes sense for effects-intensive shows. Sci Fi Channel's recent remake of the seminal 1978-79 series "Battlestar Galactica" shot its pilot on 35mm film then switched to HD when it went to series, set for a January debut.

 

"HD is about a whole new creative medium that's out there for us to explore," "Galactica" cinematographer Stephen McNutt says. "We just have to understand how to control it creatively, and there are lots of things about it that you can control on-set, in-camera and in post." "

[Michael Most]

True it is technically possible. But logically why would someone shoot on 16mm to then grade it to have video like characteristics?

Especially when they could've shot video in the first place.

 

To you they might be "video like characteristics." To others it's an aesthetic choice to be a bit harsh. Look at practically any commercial on the air today, and you'll see the same color correction choices - very hot, clipped highlights. It's a staple of commercial color correction.

 

As for "The Shield," no, it was never shot on HD video. It's been on S16mm film since day 1, regardless of what you think you saw. Are you sure you're not confusing it with "Rescue Me" (another cable show that IS shot on HD video)?

[Michael Most]

Well here is what you said and all of these advantages play some part in the look of a show. In addition to other advantages such as archiving.

 

But I'm not trying to get into some crazy circular argument.

 

I don't think it's a circular argument, it's that I intended these remarks to illustrate certain points.

 

"Film is more forgiving, making it a better choice for location work and day exteriors." My point here is that this adaptability saves time, which has nothing to do with creating a "look."

 

"It can be shot at any frame rate..." This means that you can serve the needs of the production better when speed effects are required. You also save time and money in post trying to create these effects but ultimately having an inferior version.

 

"Different stocks available for different purposes." This doesn't necessarily refer to a look issue, it refers to a production issue. Faster stocks for lower light situations. Slower stocks for high key situations. Daylight stocks for daylight conditions, tungsten stocks for tungsten conditions, and other stocks that adapt well to mixed light. All of these things lead to less reliance on post to correct what you couldn't shoot properly.

 

"Cameras available at every size and weight.." This also refers to production flexibility, not look. The availability of lightweight cameras means you can put them in places a more bulky video camera can't be mounted. The availability of eyemos and other less expensive units means you can afford to put them in dangerous camera positions in which you would never risk a $100,000 video camera. And design flexibility means that at least with some cameras, you have a choice of top or back mount magazines, allowing you to tailor the shape and balance of the camera to the particular need.

 

So it looks like my definition of what is done for "look" purposes and yours are a bit different. As for archival issues, they are very real and one of the primary reasons studio pictures (and quite a bit of television) are still shot almost entirely on film to begin with.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

---I'm leary of anyone who use's the term 'sweet spot'.

But 25mm vs. 30mm still isn't that big a difference. One usually hears that term used when comparing s16 vs. 35mm, or 35mm cine versus vs still lenses where the difference is much larger. 1.78x and 1.6x vs. 1.2.

 

---Thinking about this later, I remembered that the diagonal for the S35 'Scope frame is 27mm, yes, the same as tha 'academy' frame. 30/31mm is the diagonal for the full frame.

 

So my original statement of 25mm vs. 27mm still stands and the 'sweet spot' arguement is still specious.

The 8% difference between the two formats will not produce a noticable difference in apparent grain between the two formats for the majority of shots.

 

One of the conclusions is that S35 isn't all that much better than Techniscope, which isn't an attack on T'scope.

But S35 is more convenient since that is what the industry is set up for. & has the edge in 70mm blowups if there was still a market for them.

 

Oh, & does 'The Sweet Spot' sound like a porno movie to any one else?

 

---LV

 

 

Hmm. I stand corrected on this, although I was under the impression that "modern" implementations of 2 perf use a full-aperture center (i.e., a S35 center) and thus contain "essentially" the same image area. I'll have to check into that, but in any case, the image area is not "vastly" different, certainly not like, say, 2 perf vs. anamorphic. Or 1.77 vs. 1.85, for that matter.

 

---Unles you're comparing S35 1.77...:1 vs regular 35mm 1.85:1, the difference between 1.77 & 1.85 is less. 5% linearly.

 

---LV

Edited April 11, 2006 by Leo A Vale

[John Pytlak RIP]

The bottom line is that you should choose your origination medium based on what suits your production TODAY, not what might suit it five or ten or twenty years from now. Film origination and post production is a well known quantity, with a demonstrated ability to be "future proof" as new display formats evolve. Even if film does "go away" decades in the future, shooting high quality film today is still probably the best way to assure a future market for your production, regardless of how it will be displayed. The vast amounts of valuable film productions in studio archives today virtually guarantees that equipment will exist to scan the film at the quality levels necessary to meet the needs of future markets.

 

When Sony demonstrates their new 4096 x 2160 pixel SXRD 4K Digital Cinema projector, much of the material they chose to demonstrate the projector originated on FILM. Some of the highest quality parts of the demo are clips from "The Music Man" and "The Sound of Music", shot on film over 40 years ago, along with more recent material from recent film productions like "Spiderman" scanned at 4K.

 

When "Casablanca" or "I Love Lucy" or "Hogans Heroes" were shot on film decades ago, I don't think anyone envisioned the market these productions would have on today's DVDs or HD satellite services. And decades from now, when "home theatres" are equipped with 8K resolution "Ultra-High Definition Video Displays" fed by holographic data storage media at gigabit-per-second data rates, what is your best origination medium today to sell to that future market? --- probably FILM. B)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> To you they might be "video like characteristics." To others it's an aesthetic choice to be a bit harsh.

 

Quite. I once asked for exactly this in a transfer session and the guy pretty much turned me down flat because it looked "videoish".

 

Gah.

 

Phil

[Dan Goulder]

---Thinking about this later, I remembered that the diagonal for the S35 'Scope frame is 27mm, yes, the same as tha 'academy' frame. 30/31mm is the diagonal for the full frame.

 

So my original statement of 25mm vs. 27mm still stands and the 'sweet spot' arguement is still specious.

---LV

I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time grasping the, as you say, "pure nonsense" and "specious" argument that lenses tend to perform best not at the outer edges, but the center. I've hereby petitioned the folks at Visual Products to drop the term "sweet spot", since you found it to be so overwhelmingly upsetting. So, now you can put away your slide rule and get a good night's sleep.

[Tenolian Bell]

"Film is more forgiving, making it a better choice for location work and day exteriors." My point here is that this adaptability saves time, which has nothing to do with creating a "look."

 

The availability of different stocks contributing to the look of a television show is my personal definition? Yes your point is true, but you cannot totally discard the fact that all of these attributes also effect the look of the show purely to add weight to your point.

 

 

Look at practically any commercial on the air today, and you'll see the same color correction choices - very hot, clipped highlights. It's a staple of commercial color correction. It's been on S16mm film since day 1, regardless of what you think you saw.

 

So much condescension amongst professional friends.

 

Yes I know of that effect as I've used it in telecine myself. This effect is generally a hot white light with naturally rounded bloom and soft edges. Even though the effect clips the highlights in video color space it feels natural and pleasing to the eye.

 

In The Shield I saw a sudden hot white spot with hard round edges on the top of Michael Chiklis' bald head. Its very unnatural as that does not happen in real life.

 

To you they might be "video like characteristics." To others it's an aesthetic choice to be a bit harsh.

 

I suppose video like characteristics can be pejorative that depends on how you choose to view it. But yes hot spots with hard round edges are a video characteristic because film does not record light that way.

 

I don't like it. Some may disagree with me, others may agree, but I think its just ugly.

[Jonathan Benny]

Hmm. I stand corrected on this, although I was under the impression that "modern" implementations of 2 perf use a full-aperture center (i.e., a S35 center) and thus contain "essentially" the same image area. I'll have to check into that, but in any case, the image area is not "vastly" different, certainly not like, say, 2 perf vs. anamorphic. Or 1.77 vs. 1.85, for that matter.

 

Super 35mm shot for anamorphic projection (2.40) contains almost 20% more negative area than techniscope. More than the difference between 1.85 and 1.77.

 

The difference manifests in a blowup and is not insignificant.

 

I am still quite excited though, to get my hands on Aaton's new camera and perhaps make my next film using the format.

 

Regards,

 

JB

[Guest Kai.w]

In The Shield I saw a sudden hot white spot with hard round edges on the top of Michael Chiklis' bald head. Its very unnatural as that does not happen in real life.

I think that words such as "natural" and "real life" used to describe film look just do not work.

 

-k

[Max Jacoby]

The way the eye and brain see is closer to film than digital, which is why I find the use of these words justified.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The way the eye and brain see is closer to film than digital

 

How so?

 

Neither reacts to light in anything even vaguely like the same way as the human eye. Again, I think this comes down to habituation. Film is grainy, crushed blacks and bounces around a bit. The fact that you are used to it does not make it right.

 

Phil

[timHealy]

The way the eye and brain see is closer to film than digital, which is why I find the use of these words justified.

 

I agree. Think of it this way. Motion picture film grew from still photography which is a more organic photochemical process. Video and television as we know it grew from broadcast radio which is an electronic process. With the given idea that each medium needs a frame rate to put images together, does the eye see in an interlaced 2 field manner? Obviously no. Does the eye see a hard "edge" when things are blown out? No. Those are qualities of live broadcast radio inspired modern day television and video. Film on the other hand at least captures whole frames at a time and motion picture negative does not blow out during overexposure and does not have that hard edge like video. The word I like to use to describe film is that it is more "graceful" in the way it captures images. However even film does not have the latitude the eye has but it certainly has more latitude than video. So that is why I agree that film is certainly more "natural" and "real life" like than video.

 

Now in the last few years technology has made some really terriifc steps toward emulating film (I think 24P has been a great step towards that), but it is still an electronic medium capturing images in a different manner. Some day the scientists and engineers will figure out a way to completely emulate ALL the aspects of film but I think we still have some time to go.

 

Having said all this if someone offered me a job shooting in video would I turn it down? While I would prefer to work with film I would take the job and use the opportunity to learn and get whatever I can get out of the work.

 

Best

 

Tim

[Guest Kai.w]

The way the eye and brain see is closer to film than digital, which is why I find the use of these words justified.

I could not disagree more. I'm not saying digital looks more natural. Maybe it is a training thing but to me and to most people I know, interlaced looks more natural simply because of the higher time resolution. 24 FPS looking natural? Give me a break. Now the higher dynamic range of film definately comes closer to what we use to see cause the eye adopts very quickly to different contrasts. On the other hand, the grain of film is just as unnatural as anything and the much less noisier video image in this aspect looks more natural.

Clipped highlights? I think both do not even come close to what happens when I watch into the sun. Though in general you could say that the clipping is more subtle with film thus coming closer to human vision, which usually just adopts to higher contrast.

The large DOF of small chip video cameras looks much more natural than 35mm comparable DOF. But this is not so much a film vs digital thing.

Generally, I find the whole texture of film most unnatural.

 

Both capture methods are way of from human vision. And its hard to say the one looks more natural than the other.

 

But if digital capturing once reaches higher dynamic ranges as film, I'd actually say chances are high it will look more natural than film.

 

Look at some tonemapped HDR examples here:

 

http://www.hdrsoft.com/examples.html

 

 

-k

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time grasping the, as you say, "pure nonsense" and "specious" argument that lenses tend to perform best not at the outer edges, but the center. I've hereby petitioned the folks at Visual Products to drop the term "sweet spot", since you found it to be so overwhelmingly upsetting. So, now you can put away your slide rule and get a good night's sleep.

 

---I'm not saying that there is no fall off in the corners, rather that the size difference between Techniscope and S35 makes for an insignificant amount of fall off compared to 16mm vs. 35mm.

 

Yuu are the one being disingenuous.

 

---LV

[Dan Goulder]

Yuu are the one being disingenuous.

 

---LV

Tell you what, Leo. If you can refrain from mutating a difference of opinion into a subtle personal attack, then I'll refrain from whacking you in return. Have a nice day...really.

[timHealy]

Maybe it is a training thing but to me and to most people I know, interlaced looks more natural simply because of the higher time resolution.

 

No I don't think it is training. It is a very real and perceptable thing. When I was just a young impressionable kid and teenager, way before I was interested in films and filmmaking as a career, I knew there was something about certain TV shows I did not like. Different Strokes, the Cosby Show, Family Ties, All in the Family and a couple on Public Television for example, all had a look I did not like and I found it unpalatable. Long before I could ever articulate it, I knew I did not like TV shows shot on video. Other shows in that time period and later were all shot on film. Shows like Mash, Cheers, Hawii 5-0, Kojak and soon after Seinfeld and Friends.

 

To put it simply, I thought TV shows originated on 2 field 30 fps NTSC video during the 70's and 80's looked almost too real and sharp in an almost sterile kind of way. A look that for me I found distracting. TV shows that were originated on film did not have this sterile feeling to me. It wasn't until I was studying film in college that I discovered the connection. It was too high a frame rate! between the frame rate and the fields, there was too much information. That is why I think the greatest advancement video has had towards emulating film has been 24P. Get ride of the fields, slower the frame rate, add blur. But the engineers still have a bit father to go.

 

You mentioned still photography and provided some examples but I am keeping this discussion in terms of moving images where I have spent my career. Other more educated and experienced people will have to discuss still images.

 

Best

 

Tim

Edited April 12, 2006 by heel_e

[Tenolian Bell]

Both capture methods are way of from human vision. And its hard to say the one looks more natural than the other.

 

Yes of course. In my original statement I didn't say anything about frame rate, depth of field, field of view, or any other aspect. I only spoke of dynamic range.

 

In real life you will not see a sizzling hot spot on the top of someone's head because the overhead Kino Flo is producing a spectral highlight that exceeds 100 IRE at the current exposure.

 

Of course it is possible to focus a light into a hard beam and use frames to cut its edges into a hard defined shape. But that's an entirely different effect from clipping.

[Guest ecce_rodrigo]

COLLATERAL!!!!

 

I usually don?t comment on other people?s taste, but because you are not the first to compliment Collateral?s photography, I must admit that perhaps I saw it in a bad theater, for the purple fringing on those street lamps, the strange dragging when Tom starts running down the stairs, or any other low light set, it all looks very bad to me!!!!

When it comes to digital, optimized film scanning is the only way for me? at least for now?

I assume Genesis is 4k in each color, right? Or did we come to the point when 4Gb/s transfer rate to disk is possible in such a little camera?

By the way, I think I might have found the cheapest place for film scan?

 

Cheers

Rodrigo

[james smyth]

video during the 70's and 80's looked almost too real and sharp in an almost sterile kind of way.

 

I would argue this has more do with you being used to watching television shot in a certain manner. The fact is that the higher time resolution makes the motion appear more natural and gave television an unfamiliar feeling.

 

As for digital film making, the fact is that digital will completely take over at one time or another (maybe years, decades, who knows). It's true that film has a more natural feel than any 1080p feed, but this is because of limitations in the currently available technologies. Eventually the available pixels on a CCD and display device will exceed those of the human eye. As wonderful and fun it is to shoot on film, it is a luxury with a limited life span. I myself am a bit sad that by the time I graduate from school there will be more work with HD than with film, but it's a reality. Anyone have an opinions on the 4k vertical resolution Dalsa Origin?

 

As for Film being more forgiving, I'd have to disagree. Maybe it's just because I'm still a student, but when I shoot with film I'm always worried worried worried that my exposure is off, of light leaks, film cost, being an idiot and accidentally leaving the variable shutter closed, and other things that don't show up till the film comes back ruined along with my opportunity to shoot specific scenes. But when I shoot with video I can control and experiment with the exposure on set, light leaks are no problem, I can reshoot to my heart's content without worrying about film waste, and gives me a refreshing freedom. Again, it could be my lack of experience, but that's how it seems to me.

[timHealy]

What "manner" is that?

 

I had no control or education about the images and TV I was taking in. But as I got older I realized there was a difference. I just could not articulate it. Did this differnce not exist before that? It most surely did. I just did not noticed until my eye started seeing the difference.

 

As far as your apprehension shooting film, that will go away with more shooting and experience. When You get to a certain comfort level with the basics, you can really start learning more of the craft which includes lighting and working with actors and the camera. But film is more forgiving. You really do have to be an idiot to screw up exposure with such wide latitude. To under or over expose something you need to be wildly off you rmarks. Just relax and double check you asa when doing meter readings or get a meter where you can lock settings.

 

About video emulating film someday, well no poop, I haven't denied that. I don't think anyone has, but it'll still take some time to get fully there.

 

Don't worry about film not being used when you graduate. I've been working on films, TV, music videos and commericals since 1988 and guess how many times I worked on something shot high def. Three. Once last year on a pilot for PBS called Copshop, and a few years ago on a CBS show The Education of Max Bickford and a litttle time on Hope and Faith. None of the movies I have worked on have been shot on video. From War of the Worlds to Spiderman II, film is still the way it works for most.

 

Best

 

Tim