Superman Returns

[K Borowski]

You're trying to liken a change to digital to a change in negative area or lenses, which it is not. Eastmancolor negative, in my opinion, was an improvement over technicolor, especially in terms of color accuracy. This shift is being fueled by greedy technology companies that want to force high equipment turnover like they did in still photography, and drive away the relative technological stability in cinematography. It is a change from the very beginning format of filmmaking to a chunk of change in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs pockets. Am I really the only one that is bothered by this? I can't fathom why everyone here is so enamored with digital. This is the end of FILMmaking. There's this unconscious force, especially here on the internet, that everything HAS to be done on a computer. WHY? I don't want to rant, but really, there is an honest-to-God conspiracy here by the chipmakers and cameramakers and computer companies to take over the film industry. And in the long run it is going to cost just as much money to shoot digital than film. Through equipment upgrades (yes they won't affect renting cinematographers directly, but you had better believe that camera houses are going to have to bear the brunt of constant camera upgrades, which they will happily pass on to their customers), computer upgrades, and low life expectancy of digital equipment, the cost of replacing and servicing the digital equipment, and digital projectors will cost as much if not more than film, only it'll all be going to silicon valley. I am not arguing any of this to save jobs either, but let's just give film the moment, it is still the format of choice, and though you all insist that it is dying, let it take it's time in doing so, rather than hastening through choice sayings like "Digital is taking over." Let's say this instead "Film is holding it's own in the MP industry instead of shrinking into nothing like we all wanted it to."

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Arni Heimir]

Well in all fairness, digital cinema serves the story for many films. A little Danish picture called "Festen" would most likely not achieved the same level of "atmosphere" if shot on 35mm film or even 16mm for that matter.

 

There was one guy who said that digital is ideal for contemporary cinema, and I agree. Why this prejudice towards hi def video and film. I often find 35mm releases to be over grainy and poorly matched in terms of color timing. Isn't digital just a step in the right direction?

[Robert Hughes]

I often find 35mm releases to be over grainy and poorly matched in terms of color timing. Isn't digital just a step in the right direction?

It appears that you are saying, "I prefer well produced video to poorly produced 35mm". Hard to disagree with a statement like that, but if you change sides, saying you prefer good film to bad video, the argument remains the same. Are you saying that video doesn't suffer color balancing issues, or that generational loss doesn't occur when transferring to video release formats such as VHS? Or that video projection unit-to-unit variances are less noticable than those in film projection spaces? I've seen some tired, burned out looking video projections lately.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Robert Hughes

[David Mullen ASC]

Electronics companies definitely want to take over the consumer still photo and video market, because those are highly lucrative, but the notion that they want to take over the motion picture imaging business is harder to fathom since it's not particularly profitable. Anyway, if the professional motion picture business shifts over to digital, it's hardly because everyone was forced to -- I know it's hard to believe, but there are actually people who like using digital technology to accomplish their creative vision and tell stories with. Certainly none of these productions like "Superman" using the Genesis were forced to, wanting to shoot on 35mm film instead.

 

It's arguable and even highly debatable that Eastmancolor in 1950 looked better than 3-strip Technicolor. It certainly wan't any faster, being only 16 ASA. The main reason why it took over was that the studios could process it in-house and shoot with their own cameras rather than sign a co-production deal with Technicolor, and hire their cameramen, cameras, and consultants. Image quality was not the reason Eastmancolor took over, unless you want to make the argument that the widescreen revolution with the new large format cameras basically became practical because of Eastmancolor negative, and THAT improved image quality.

 

But you could even apply your arguments against digital to that period -- you had the primary color motion picture technology business being taken away from a smaller local company by a major corporation in Rochester, NY -- Kodak was the Sony of its day in the world of image technology. It still is a major corporation, actually. I can hear some DP in 1950 telling his cohorts "do you really want to give more business to Big Yellow?"

 

Anyway, my feeling is that by the time film dies in the motion picture world, digital will be some close in technical quality and look that the phrase "a difference that makes no difference is no difference" will come to mind (I believe Spock said that on "Star Trek".)

 

But I will agree that there is no need to hasten film's demise, not when it delivers such high-quality images. We should hold on to as many OPTIONS for imagemaking as we can, film and digital. But eventually, there always comes a time when the number of choices gets whittled down before new options show up. Look at the plethora of film formats in the 1950's.

[Josh Silfen]

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.

 

I've done a fair amount of research on Techniscope, and while I'm not really sure how this worked, or exactly what the process involved, I've been led to believe that the lack of grain in these films was not due to negative area (or lack thereof) but something called dye-transfer printing, which is no longer available. I don't know if that process's disappearance caused or was the result of that format's decline.

 

I've also heard from someone on this forum that they were involved in the restoration of one of these films for the DVD ('Once Upon a Time in the West') and they said that they had quite a bit of grain reducing work to do to make it look good.

 

How the dye-transfer prints compare to a 2-perf film shot on today's film stocks and lenses with a DI rather than anamorphic blow-up, I don't know. I would be interested to find out, though, as I'm also very interested in shooting 2-perf.

-Josh Silfen

Edited April 9, 2006 by Josh Silfen

[Arni Heimir]

I think it is obvious that digital is taking over. We see very few black and white new releases. So color film took over BW and "talkies" took over the silent era. It's only a matter of time before the digital format will be solely used for motion pictures. Only a small group of people use 8mm film while most of us use DV to record personal events.

 

I think that digital and video for that matter is not destroying the tradition of filmmaking. I recently saw a movie called "24th hour". It was shot on the cheap with video cameras. I think that I would not have experianced that story if video hadn't been invented.

 

We should stop obsessing about formats and think about context driven mediums. In a matter of time "pshysical storage" will be obsolete.

 

I remember a few years ago everybody though that e-books were going to destroy the tradition of literature. I guess that is what people thought when Gutenberg introduced the printing press.

 

I'm Icelandic and Iceland has no real infrastructure for film productions. No labs and no rentals for motion picture equipment. So, for countries like Iceland, the digital revolution is a God send and hopefully that will yield a new tradition of filmmaking.

 

I, for one, feel its a question of livelyhood for a lot of people. There are people who have created a career out of filmmaking. And digital may seem as a threat to them.

 

What do you think?

[David Mullen ASC]

Using an optical printer at Technicolor and going directly from the 2-perf color negative to 4-perf anamorphic b&w matrices for making the dye transfer scope prints saved one generation over the IP/IN method, plus dye transfer doesn't add any extra grain since it's not a photographic process, plus the higher contrast gave the illusion of greater sharpness. Of course, the same printing method could be applied to any other color negative format back then.

 

The death of dye transfer printing basically killed 2-perf in the mid 1970's because it didn't hold up as well using an IP/IN method, or using CRI's either I guess. Plus I believe Technicolor had some sort of discounted package deal for shooting in Techniscope and then releasing in dye transfer scope prints, which disappeared, so the economics didn't favor 2-perf as much. Plus with the rise of television, both anamorphic and Techniscope saw a decline over the next two decades in favor of 1.85, which was considered more TV friendly. Wasn't until laserdiscs and the rise of letterboxing for home video, plus the popularity of anamorphic films like "Dances with Wolves" that 2.35 started to rise in popularity again in the 1990's.

[K Borowski]

I think it is obvious that digital is taking over. We see very few black and white new releases. So color film took over BW and "talkies" took over the silent era. It's only a matter of time before the digital format will be solely used for motion pictures. Only a small group of people use 8mm film while most of us use DV to record personal events.

 

I think that digital and video for that matter is not destroying the tradition of filmmaking. I recently saw a movie called "24th hour". It was shot on the cheap with video cameras. I think that I would not have experianced that story if video hadn't been invented.

 

We should stop obsessing about formats and think about context driven mediums. In a matter of time "pshysical storage" will be obsolete.

 

I remember a few years ago everybody though that e-books were going to destroy the tradition of literature. I guess that is what people thought when Gutenberg introduced the printing press.

 

I'm Icelandic and Iceland has no real infrastructure for film productions. No labs and no rentals for motion picture equipment. So, for countries like Iceland, the digital revolution is a God send and hopefully that will yield a new tradition of filmmaking.

 

I, for one, feel its a question of livelyhood for a lot of people. There are people who have created a career out of filmmaking. And digital may seem as a threat to them.

 

What do you think?

 

Yours are legitimate reasons for digital. I have no problems with a land without film labs embracing digital technology. In fact, I find it hard to believe, but I really liked the look of both "Collateral" and "Sin City". The use of digital for innovative usages is great. Making digital out to be "better" or "the only way" or "the way of the future" is bullshit. If people continue to put money into fiml, I promise it will continue to improve. The only thing that will stop film development is when people stop shooting film. It is not as if film is a petrified form that has been improved to the point that it cannot be improved anymore. Also, people typing poop in like "Well, it's the digital age" or "Lol. I guess I"m just too lazy to use film lol. Computers are cool", that just makes me want to go on a rampage with a gun. This "I'm too lazy, or I'm too apathetic poop (only in America, BTW) is why I so despise the times I live in. WHy do you people go on living with attitudes like that? People with no determination are a waste of material (Spock said something like that too David ;-) ). Anyway, I feel much the same way you do David. I want MORE CHOICES, digital and film. I wish they still had VNF, and ECO, and more K14 stocks out there. I wish they still had ECN-1 frankly. I wish they had old 2 inch video tape available and all kinds of crazy media, affordable F900s and the like. This is why I am pushing so strongly to get a special 1000 foot roll run of K40 from Kodak for my project this summer, because Kodachrome has a unique look that I want for this particular project I'm working on. I want more E-6 stocks from Kodak, as they are offering quite a pallate in stills, with emulsions that are essentially 1980s going all the way up to the really punchy E-series with just "wowwy" showy colors that nothing else quite matches. But they don't, and instead we are moving towards ECN-2 and digital only, and then solely to digital. What a shame. It's like telling painters they can only use oil on canvas. I will fight this trend as long as I live. Sorry that I don't just comply or fall into place with the status quo, but that's the way I was made.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[David Sweetman]

And in the long run it is going to cost just as much money to shoot digital than film.

 

well, like John Maynard Keynes put it, 'in the long run we're all dead.'

 

Man this thread's been good though, it's the most informed film vs. digital debate I've read yet.

[Dominic Case]

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

Some people on this list might be old enough to remember when the railway companies all relied on steam engines to pull the trains. Then someone came along and invented diesel engines (and electric ones even before the diesels had taken over). The steam age was over! What were the railway companies going to do? Go on carrying people and goods from A to B, that's what.

 

Same with the filmlabs, and Kodak and Fuji. Our/their business is images: in the case of the labs, it's providing services to transform images from one format or medium or carrier to another. If it takes digital technology, that's what we'll use.

 

So film labs move to providing digital intermediate services (with far MORE work for color timers). The release labs move to providing digital masters, and distribution copies on whatever medium it takes: hard drives, disks, broadband or satellite: it's what we'll be doing in the future.

 

Some labs are doing it now, and waiting for the industry to catch up.

 

Just noticed that Arnih is from Iceland. No film labs - so no baggage for the future: my parallel is an interesting one - no railways in Iceland either, (but plenty of steam!).

[timHealy]

I completely agree with the thoughts of people who seem to say anything digital is not nessarily better. For example my analog cell phone had much better audio quality than any of my digital cell phones. Digital video whether it is high def or mini DV is not better than film simply because it is digital. I am a fan of film in the way that it organically captures images. To me it is more graceful medium as an origination format. Now there are certain aspects to the way video looks which when I am given a straight choice I would prefer to use film. But I like choices too and if there is a reason to utilize the look of video, whether it is analog VHS or digital high def then I'll use it as a creative choice.

 

As far as people in the "film business" being afraid of losing their jobs, I really don't think that is a problem. Video technologies are adding jobs to the business and labs have been spending money on new equipment and technologies. Color timers or colorists have color correction skills that will alway be in demand. Perhaps they might have to learn a new technology, but so do many people in many other fields. Our work will always need to be finely color corrected. Film loaders don't have to worry because video, especially high def, seems to add equipment, and an engineer to a shoot. Do crews use less electricians and grips on a job directly becasue of video? Not much really. Or at least not the jobs I have been working on.

 

And I think to Kodak's credit film is still improving. The current crop of Vision II stocks are simple exquisite. Most of my 16mm work that I transfer to video borders on looking like 35mm.

 

Sure video is advancing and looking better all the time, but there are still issues I do not like. ( I have been watching "Huff" lately and while the show looks good, there are video moments like when capturing action I do not find pleasing to the eye. Any info on what video format that show is shot anyone?) But if a particular project requires video as a creative choice or a budgetary choice, so be it. But it will still be shooting and working with directors and stories, and orchastrating the dance and relationships between the lights, cameras, lenses and actors that we do.

 

A side note, I wonder how many people who have claim the death of film have actually worked with film, lit it, exposed it, and have seen projected how film can capture the beauty of their stories, actors and images.

 

Best

 

Tim

Edited April 10, 2006 by heel_e

[Michael Most]

I have been watching "Huff" lately and while the show looks good, there are video moments like when capturing action I do not find pleasing to the eye. Any info on what video format that show is shot anyone?

 

Sony F900, 1080/24p.

 

A side note, I wonder how many people who have claim the death of film have actually worked with film, lit it, exposed it, and have seen projected how film can capture the beauty of their stories, actors and images.

 

You've hit the nail on the head here. My guess is approximately 1%. But that could be a bit on the high side....;-)

[Mike Panczenko]

The fact is, right now, film is superior "technically." That does not mean, however, that digital is never the better choice for the telling of a particular narrative. The medium, as many have said here, is supposed to serve the story, not the other way around. Something else was mentioned earlier in this thread that seems to have been overlooked. Just because digital is not to the technical level of film does not mean that it should not be used. These current digital projects are a testing-ground in which the inferiorities and limitations of the current wave of digital equipment can be addressed and overcome. I find it hard to believe that anyone here would feel that digital will never surpass the capabilities of film. The time is not here yet, but by opposing digital production in any form, a medium that is still in its infancy will remain so, and the "film is the only way" mantra will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Becoming emotionally attached to a medium is in many ways an opposition to the art, whether it is with music, painting, film, etc. Pick what is right for the project at the current time, but it seems silly to oppose new technologies purely because they are currently inferior. As was pointed out earlier, three strip was superior to tripack, but by taking a momentary step backwards, we were able to take great leaps forwards. It may not be neccessary to even take a step backwards if film and video are able to coexist until video reaches technical superiority, btu it would be close-minded and short-sighted to neglect it altogether. As for the assertion that digital is being highly touted and forced upon us by major corporations, this is nothing new. Were it not for the Medicis, we would not have many of the great works that hang in our museums today. Major corporations have always been at the forefront of technology- not for better, not for worse, just a fact of life. And, people have always adapted. If new technology was neglected because of the fear of putting people out of work, the sewing machine, automobile, computer, and many more would never have become the standard. People either adapt their knowledge to similar positions, or learn one of the new trades that new technologies offer. Just because there may no longer be a lab that processes film, does not mean that the industry will not require new jobs to drive new technology.

Edited April 10, 2006 by mpanc1

[Leo Anthony Vale]

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.

 

---The diagonal of a Techniscope frame is 25mm, compared to the 27mm of an 'academy' frame.

So the "sweet spot" arguement is pure nonsense.

 

I've seen many 35mm Techniscope prints and the picture quality was all over the place.

'Games' was an exceptionally grainy film, due to Frakers use of fog filters.

The Variety review of 'Charly' complained it was in "greasy, grainy" Techniscope.

The kindest thing I can say about 'King of Hearts' is that it has rather nice hand painted SMPTE leader.

 

Technicolor litrature of the time says flat out that it's a cheaper process so that producers who otherwise would have to shoot in B/W can use color.

 

Technicolor charged the same for the 4-perf optical blow up work prints as they did for contact printed workprints. Since all IB matrices were optically printed, that stage didn't cost more than than any other format would.

 

Frayling's Sergio Leone mentions 'For a Fistful of Dollars' had B/W workprints and implies that they might have been contact printed.

 

I like Techniscope, but I also liked ECO blow ups.

It has trade offs compared to anamorphic, over all anamorphic yields the better image.

 

---LV

 

A side note, I wonder how many people who have claim the death of film have actually worked with film, lit it, exposed it, and have seen projected how film can capture the beauty of their stories, actors and images.

 

---Ages ago I was at an Image Transform demontration and talk about tape to film transfers at I think an SMPTE meeting.

 

The speaker mentioned that the majority of inquiries they received about transfers were in conection with 'filming' rock concerts. The producers were music industry people whose experience was with audio tape. So instinctively thought of video tape.

Bunch o'tape heads.

 

---LV

[Dan Goulder]

---The diagonal of a Techniscope frame is 25mm, compared to the 27mm of an 'academy' frame.

So the "sweet spot" arguement is pure nonsense.

---LV

The comparison was made with a super 35mm frame. This argument, which you refer to as "pure nonsense", was made by the well qualified folks at Visual Products and Focus Optics. You're bolstering your position by naming the worst production examples you can possibly think of, which is disingenuous at best.

[Tenolian Bell]

I'm back and forth with the comfort of thinking one day on high budget professional production I may shoot more video than film. I've come to this general sense.

 

Right now if I were shooting a film for theatrical distribution film would be the default medium of choice. Unless there are circumstances which make the strengths of video a better option.

 

Right now if I were shooting a television show HD would be the default medium of choice. Unless there are circumstances which make the strengths of film a better option.

 

There are certain times and certain shows that still reveal weaknesses in HD. My current example is Battlestar Galactica.

 

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.

 

The second season was shot on HD and this look does not work as well at all. I'm sure they wanted to maintain the look and style of the first season. I don't think it may have been such a good idea to stay so closely to what was done in the first season.

 

In the second season you basically have to become accustomed to and live with blown out hot spots on peoples heads as an aesthetic. One of the main characters is a tall blond woman. Most of the time her blond hair is white halo with no detail.

 

While hot areas in the background also loose all detail. One episode in particular a guy is having a dream where he commits suicide. He walks to an area where he climbs a metallic structure. The area around him is so bright and over exposed that its hard to understand his surroundings. I'm sure they did this as an indication of his mental state, but it just didn't look good.

 

The humans home planet was decimated by a nuclear attack. The planet surface has taken on a bright bronze mustard color all other colors are desaturated. This effect works fine in the first season. But in the second season it just looks like over exposed video shot through a yellow filter. If I could turn zebra stripes on my television nearly the entire frame would be full of stripes. I don't know what they could do differently but that look just doesn't look good on HD.

[Dan Goulder]

While this thread has been focusing (though not exclusively) on the evolution of video, one shouldn't overlook the fact that film stocks also continue to evolve. I suppose each format has been driven to a significant degree by advancements in the other.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

The comparison was made with a super 35mm frame. This argument, which you refer to as "pure nonsense", was made by the well qualified folks at Visual Products and Focus Optics. You're bolstering your position by naming the worst production examples you can possibly think of, which is disingenuous at best.

 

---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.

 

I was pointing out that the quality was all over the place and that it wasn't a universally well regarded format.

 

I actually did mention I liked the format.

It's best for something with alot of handheld and for being in small spaces.

It might be best for documentaries. There is a woeful lack of 2.35/1 documentaries.

 

---LV

[Josh Silfen]

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

 

 

I'm firmly of the belief that film is the best origination medium that exists RIGHT NOW, but those who think that digital will NEVER surpass film in quality are being naive. I'm sure when it comes out, opinions of how "Superman" looks will run the gamut and the relative image quality produced by the Genesis will be hotly debated, but there is no question that this camera and others like it produce images that are technically leaps and bounds ahead of those from the cameras that were available just a few short years ago. Digital will continue to advance in quality, and one day, maybe two years from now, maybe five, maybe ten, maybe fifteen years from now it will be technically superior to film.

 

Arguments like yours weaken the case for shooting on film now, while it still is better, by giving credibility to the claim of digital advocates that people who want to shoot on film are dinosaurs who do so solely for nostalgic reasons, like writers who still use typewriters. (That very comparison was made by George Lucas in the Time magazine article about the future of filmmaking a couple weeks ago.)

 

In my opinion, the argument in favor of shooting on film -- the only valid argument -- is that it is still technically superior to any digital camera yet manufactured. When that stops being the case, I think it will be time to let go and embrace the new digital age, where images created by chips hold just as much resolution, selective focus, and dynamic range, not to mention subtlety, power, and emotion, as those created by photochemical reactions.

 

What I don't understand is the current pressure, especially from outside the industry (such as the publishers and readers of the aforementioned Time magazine article) to embrace this format NOW, BEFORE it has been perfected. Some have mentioned that many technological advances in film history have been a temporary step backward, but I don't see why that should make it necessary. Even IF (and that's a big 'if') it is cheaper for a current production to shoot on a camera like the Genesis, in an age when one star of a film gets paid more than $20 million, why do people outside the industry really care if an extra hundred thousand is spent on film and processing?

 

One prevailing opinion seems to be that in the hands of a true cinematographer and/or director, a digital image can have every bit of meaning as one shot on film. This is true, but why does it mean that they should be forced to work with a medium they don't feel is technically as good? Given the chance, Rembrandt might have been able to do some great things with Sharpies or crayons, but that doesn't mean he should have been pressured to do so simply because they're cheaper and better understood by the general public than oil paints. Similarly, if a DP finds that digital is well suited to a given story, he should by all means use it, but as long as there is another medium out there that is able to capture more subtlety and texture, he should have the choice of using that as well.

 

I guess I just don't really understand the point of all these arguments. WHEN digital is better than film, I really think most cinematographers and Hollywood in general will embrace it. Until then, shoot whatever you want, and let others do the same.

-Josh Silfen

Edited April 10, 2006 by Josh Silfen

[Michael Most]

How the dye-transfer prints compare to a 2-perf film shot on today's film stocks and lenses with a DI rather than anamorphic blow-up, I don't know. I would be interested to find out, though, as I'm also very interested in shooting 2-perf.

 

You don't have to shoot in 2 perf format to see the results of this. Anything shot in S35 for anamorphic release is using exactly the same image area a 2 perf 2.35. Most pictures shot this way these days are finished via a DI, so you have lots of choices to judge whatever you want to judge.

 

Right now if I were shooting a television show HD would be the default medium of choice. Unless there are circumstances which make the strengths of film a better option.

 

I don't know why you would think HD video would be the "default medium of choice" for a television program, unless you're talking about a multicamera sitcom. Fact is, over 90% of network television dramas are still shot on film, although admittedly that percentage is quite a bit lower for certain cable fare, in particular a number of programs on Showtime and the SciFi networks. However, even in cable, many dramas are still on film - just about everything on HBO, The Shield, Nip/Tuck, The Closer, Monk - all of these shows and others are shot on film.

As far as circumstances that make it a better option, there are several, even if you completely ignore the image quality issue. 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. And film is still the only proven archival format that is independent of any specific electronic format, thus yielding a far more "future proof" master element. If anyone here wonders why film is surviving and thriving, they might do well to ask those who shoot it, or the studios that prefer it. There are good reasons for their preference, and they are not always what those outside the industry think they are.

[Jonathan Benny]

Anything shot in S35 for anamorphic release is using exactly the same image area a 2 perf 2.35.

 

Incorrect: Super 35 2.35 for anamorphic release uses more image area on the negative than 2-perf 2.35 techniscope did/does. Techniscope did not use the "soundtrack" area. Super 35mm 2.35 is centered and uses a larger area on the negative which includes the "soundtrack" area. If you were to stack two Super 35mm 2.35 frames on top of one another you would have more than 4-perfs worth of negative. Stacking two techniscope frames gives you exactly 4-perfs worth of negative.

 

On a side note:

 

Any news on Aaton's Penelope 2-perf / 3-perf camera? I find this to be an exciting prospect. I am considering the format for my next film but sync-cameras are tough to find in North America.

 

JB

[Tenolian Bell]

I'm sure when it comes out, opinions of how "Superman" looks will run the gamut and the relative image quality produced by the Genesis will be hotly debated, but there is no question that this camera and others like it produce images that are technically leaps and bounds ahead of those from the cameras that were available just a few short years ago.

 

Superman Returns though cannot be used as a pure example of the cameras picture. Because the image will undergo so much manipulation it won't look like what was originally on tape.

 

For example they will be able to shoot outdoors and let the sky go white because later they will have the ability to put in what ever type of sky they choose. That does not give us a realistic idea of the cameras ability.

 

I don't know why you would think HD video would be the "default medium of choice" for a television program

 

Personal choice. A high key show like "Monk" could easily be shot on the Genesis and you wouldn't know the difference. Even though I think "The Shield" would work better on super 16 than HD.

 

Did you read my assessment of Battlestar Galactica's switch to HD?

 

Fact is, over 90% of network television dramas are still shot on film

 

Yes I know this, I want them to shoot film, but honestly many of these shows could be on HD without compromising their look.

 

As far as those other factors flexibility, archiving and so on. It just depends on what the producer values most.

 

Any news on Aaton's Penelope 2-perf / 3-perf camera?

 

I suspect we'll hear the latest news at NAB.

[Josh Bass]

The Shield's HD? I thought it was film?

[Michael Most]

Even though I think "The Shield" would work better on super 16 than HD.

 

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

 

Did you read my assessment of Battlestar Galactica's switch to HD?

Yes I know this, I want them to shoot film, but honestly many of these shows could be on HD without compromising their look.

 

Well, yes, I did read your assessment of Galactica, but apparently you didn't read my reply. 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.

 

As far as those other factors flexibility, archiving and so on. It just depends on what the producer values most.

 

If by "the producer" you mean the studio, that would be correct - but what they value is efficient production (which equals lower cost, no matter how you look at it) and the most versatile and robust physical product. If by "the producer" you mean the program's producer, the choice isn't in their hands because they usually don't own the show.

 

 

Incorrect: Super 35 2.35 for anamorphic release uses more image area on the negative than 2-perf 2.35 techniscope did/does. Techniscope did not use the "soundtrack" area. Super 35mm 2.35 is centered and uses a larger area on the negative which includes the "soundtrack" area. If you were to stack two Super 35mm 2.35 frames on top of one another you would have more than 4-perfs worth of negative. Stacking two techniscope frames gives you exactly 4-perfs worth of negative.

 

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.

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

 

Since 4-perf Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1, half of that is 2.66 : 1, hence why you don't use the whole width of the 2-perf negative for 2.39 : 1. So it's a slightly smaller negative area than 2.39 extracted from 3 or 4-perf.