Just saw Red Footage in an Optimal Viewing Enviro

[Tenolian Bell]

Sorry Tenolian, I don't think you are correct about the aspirations of film makers outside the US. I don't know if you're in the states but this is a very American-centric view.

 

No its not my intention to come off overly US-centric. I complain about the way filmmaking is done in the US all the time. Its more about business and profit than it is about the art of cinema. But even within that there are advantages to the US system that make it desirable for people from all over the world. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, it just is what it is.

 

The money and resources the Hollywood studio system and US distribution companies are willing to pour into movies is staggering. That is why US distributed movies dominate the worlds theaters. A film made abroad has the best chance of moving from obscurity into worldwide sensation if it has been distributed and marketed by a US company.

 

When going to Cannes, or Berlinale, or Venice. The US backed films generally have the biggest star actors and largest marketing campaigns. US distribution companies are prepared to pay the most money to buy unsold films.

 

Our conversations here on this board. Even though people on this board are from all around the world generally our talks mostly gravitate around television and film produced through the Hollywood system or distributed by a US company. Sometimes we talk about British, Australian, and Hong Kong cinema, but mostly its about what is being produced in the US. Actually it would be interesting to have more conversations about cinema from around the world.

 

Over the years on this board we've had a lot of people from overseas ask, "how can I come work in America" or "should I move to LA" or "should I apply to film school in NY or LA."

 

All that to say is that I'm not making the conversation US-centric, the tone of this board already is.

[Toby L Edwards]

Actually, although that is a tempting notion, I disagree with that most severly. This is also a dangerous starting point, namely to regard your audience as being more stupid or less educated. Actually, based on my experiences, I found that most one-job-filmworkers I met are actually anything but more intelligent or wits-ful than the Average Joe audience member, even in basic technical matters of filmmaking!

 

I have heard stuff like "ah, let's skip that 11th take, the audience won't notice" or stuff like that alot, and although some people truly believe that, and considerable parts of the audience might not notice too because they basically glance over the story superficially due to today's rapid visual firework that conditions space and pace, a lot of people with more brain power than the archetypical 11-year-old braindead that constitutes todays target/focus group samples actually WILL notice that "Superman return" has a different material aesthetics than Jurassic Park or Superman I - III! They might not guess that it's shot on 2K to HDCAM SR or whatever, or that it wasn't shot on 65mm Rumblerama, but they see that it looks different.

 

And I have heard alot that the "look" of the film was "odd", "cold", "strange", "disconnecting", "digital B) ". Also, the flatlining story and disenchanting acting weren't helping to move viewers away from the asthetical "Otherness" ? which is why "Superman returns" neither rebooted the franchise nor was the hoped-for commercial blockbuster.

 

Similarly, alot of people who see new prints on 35mm or 70mm of "historical" films on the silver screen are actually blown away by how great this looks. Some attribute this to "new digital technology like Blu-ray ? isn' that used in cinemas already?" while in fact it's just a cleaned-up fresh print. And they rediscover the screened cinematic experience, too, with that.

 

So, in essence, people recognise the visual uniqueness of cine-film, but because few know how filmmaking is technically made today and/or believe the marketing HD-ready blabla of their consumer goods and transfer those Sony InStyle catalogue motion picture product placemement implys (some people I met thought in 1993 that Spielberg shot JP with a Sony 3-chip VX-1 ? no joke!).

 

With video format basically vying to copy the film look (with RED being the closest cheapest bettest anything attempt, if one were to believe the RedUserForum) for decades instead of cultivating their own video look,or define what that is supposed to be in the first place (u-matic, S-VHS-C, D5?), that clearly shows what position cine-film as a demarker of visual aesthetics holds in the image acquisition industry. That a film as bad as "Superman returns" has become the pin-up of digital videography's possibilities is almost a sadly twisted irony of this debate.

 

Anyway, before I get hanged, drawn and quartered for this post, may I invite the fellow members of this forum to remember that polemics are to be written in a sharp feather, and that this post should be read like this, because the perpetual and never-concluding topic that is epitomised by this thread necessitates such a writing approach. Looking forward to seeing optimal viewing environments all over the planet soon so that viewing digitalians will finally appreciate the filmhistorical and filmtechnical greatness of "Superman returns".

 

 

 

What an excellent post.

Why would you get hanged, drawn and quartered for speaking the truth?

 

Toby

[Tenolian Bell]

Usually will only be viewed if a fee has been paid. A distributor may actually look at a film project just because it was shot on film because they know the odds are higher they may have a sellable product.

 

Most of the people who work to sell films don't work for an upfront fee. Its more about people who believe in your film and believe it has the right elements to be profitable. They have the connections to get your film seen by distributors. Their fee will be a percentage of the sale.

 

Even if the movie is shot on film there is slim chance a distributor will actually watch a film that has been walked cold into their office. It just does not work like that today. The reality is that the secretary will take your film and sit it on the pile of other walk-ins that will never be seen.

[Michael Lehnert]

Some years ago, many examples. Red on the Sony 4K looks more like 70mm than 35mm.

 

:blink:

 

Well, in that case, I shall not doubt. I probably need new glasses... and I know where to buy those from, already. At the same time, I should probably put my $20k down to buy into that J.ar J.ar Binks aesthetics as well.

 

If the Rolling Stones would be (critically) into film technology, they might get inspired to a new song by the aftermath of this thread, titled "Paint it, Red".

[Michael Lehnert]

I must admit that I am not entirely sure what you mean by an acquisition format, English is not my first language.

 

Emile, not having English as my first language either (actually, English was my fourth language... I guess that can be read in my posts :lol: ), I would recommend to someone who intends to enter film school and struggles between worthiness of cine-film vs Red (yes, a format of its own, it appears) plus the problem of aesthetics achieved through using specific gear (a precondition for becoming a crafting filmmaker or cinematographer that gets at least notice in this industry), to download Arri's ArriNews publication free from their website at arri.com.

 

This should familiarise you for free with standard terminology used throughout the world, get you some production info and approaches (cheaper than ASC/BSC journals and more substantive than InCamera) and also make you aware of marketing trickery ? after all, this is an Arri marketing publication, so bear that in mind before buying into the whole Türkenstrasse ecosystem (which suffers from occasional ecological damage then and there).

 

(I cannot understand why Aaton is not offering downloadable publications as a means to present itself, too)

[Michael Lehnert]

Our [...] talks mostly gravitate around television and film produced through the Hollywood system or distributed by a US company. Sometimes we talk about British, Australian, and Hong Kong cinema, but mostly its about what is being produced in the US. Actually it would be interesting to have more conversations about cinema from around the world.

 

I agree. I am sure most people also gravitate towards current productions and might not have heard of many more recent people who advanced the art of cinematography.

 

Most obvious is of course the absence of discussion about the Japanese, and of course the Indian or Mumbai film industry (after all after the US and Switzerland the third-biggest community here), which I am always astonished to experience as cine-technically, socio-politically and philosophically more sophisticated, daring, experiment-ful and worth-seeing than almost anything that is today produced for the European arthouse clique or inded Hollywood's filmic-accompaniment-tp-people-munching-popcorn-til-they-drop. And most crucially, I have experienced Indian filmmakers as much full-of-wits and worldly-wise detached in their perspective on their film industry, and easily talk that way in public or for promo-reels (whereas such remarks would never make it beyond the interview hotel room of a "Western" press call).

 

I am obviously not talking about stereotypical Bollywood dance routines or "The Guru/Monsoon Wedding"-knock-offs here, but serious Hindu-movies which barely get notice if you don't delve deeper into Google.

[Tenolian Bell]

Similarly, alot of people who see new prints on 35mm or 70mm of "historical" films on the silver screen are actually blown away by how great this looks. Some attribute this to "new digital technology like Blu-ray – isn' that used in cinemas already?" while in fact it's just a cleaned-up fresh print. And they rediscover the screened cinematic experience, too, with that.

 

Yes I agree. The art of cinema projection is extremely mediocre today. Once you actually see proper projection you could think it some new technology. But in reality its just a clean 35mm print and a properly maintained projector with a healthy xenon globe.

 

There is nothing digital can do to help poor projection. With film you can have scratched prints, misaligned masks, dim globes and pops/cracks in the soundtrack. With digital if anything goes wrong you can easily have a blank screen.

[Lars Zemskih]

Emile, not having English as my first language either (actually, English was my fourth language... I guess that can be read in my posts :lol: ), I would recommend to someone who intends to enter film school and struggles between worthiness of cine-film vs Red (yes, a format of its own, it appears) plus the problem of aesthetics achieved through using specific gear (a precondition for becoming a crafting filmmaker or cinematographer that gets at least notice in this industry), to download Arri's ArriNews publication free from their website at arri.com.

 

This should familiarise you for free with standard terminology used throughout the world, get you some production info and approaches (cheaper than ASC/BSC journals and more substantive than InCamera) and also make you aware of marketing trickery – after all, this is an Arri marketing publication, so bear that in mind before buying into the whole Türkenstrasse ecosystem (which suffers from occasional ecological damage then and there).

 

(I cannot understand why Aaton is not offering downloadable publications as a means to present itself, too)

 

Why are you trying to make this personal? I am only thinking out loud, and I've said in that particular thread that I agree and I am about to start studying in school that shoots everything on film, as reading a lot about it go me convinced that it is the right thing to do. I don't so much about it, it is a forum where we say what we think, right? Plus the U.S industry is so different from a European one, hence maybe some difference in thinking. So you going back to the thread I've posted sometime ago I feel is not the correct thing to do in this case.

 

Are you a filmmaker at least noticed in the industry? Do you know what I am doing? What does it mean that is at least noticed in the industry. Being signed as a director to a moderately sized production company here, is that a little bit noticed by the industry?

 

I don't have to download the arri newsletter, I usually pick them up when I go to local arri rental. You making assumptions about me, and making this very personal is just not cool

Edited November 1, 2007 by Emile Rafael

[Evan Winter]

Well this got crazy fast. Or as Lehnert might say, 'The rapidity of mental degeneration located locally is without parallel or peer'.

 

Evan W.

[Michael Lehnert]

What an excellent post [(quote / quote)].

Why would you get hanged, drawn and quartered for speaking the truth?

Toby

 

Because (apart from London evoking a strange late-Georgian/early-Victorian mood in me today, readying me for such pleasurable endeavours) I am not sure one can assume that "truths" want to be heard. In my experience spanning across various fields and industries, the t-word is actually the one that the least people want to hear. And when money, marketing, career-prospects and stakeholder-interests come into it, the t-word gets beaten up not only quite easily, but also very rapidly.

And as sarcasm, polemics and irony, even truly helpful words and tips translate badly into the "cloud" due to the way we have to type and interact, people can get easily misunderstood where you are coming from, and before you can say knife, you get bogged down into a content-wise doomed debate with someone else.

 

I leaned myself out of the window alot these last two days here and here, and expected to draw "third-time-unlucky" as regards challenging comments.

 

I hope that Kodak actually stops being in the defensive in respect to image acquisition promotion by letting itself drawn into those comparative categories that the videographic companies define and set. Reducing cine-film to Xk resolution is ridiculous and shows only a lack of aesthetical comprehension. As if there were lp/mm debates when EXR replaced EastmanColor?! At a time where cine-camera manufacturers like Panavision, Aaton, Bolex, even the occassionally innovation-lagging Arri are upping their game, only if cine-film manufactuer go into the offensive too and stand up for the non-quantifiable, but most definitely qualifiable artistic and technological merits cine-film offers, they will indeed not loose out to the Jar Jar Binks of this world, even if "Superman returns"' Adler, Peters and Singer might have finally understood that shooting digitally does not radically facilitate post or (most ludicrously) saves the production some acquisition-format money or indeed set-up time (translating into labour costs).

 

I hang around in the Super 8 forum alot as I think that this format is undergoing alot of most interesting and radical changes, and the people who go there as "newbies" truly want to learn about the intricacies of cinematography the hard way, namely via cine-film. And often, you do get confronted with very young people who splashed out on $10k-$15k of video kit that is obsolete before they get their credit card statement, yet are totally overstrained to grasp the basic working of focal range, focal lengths, f-stop, depth-of-field, filming speed and film speed. At least there, you can lay the foundations through participating in this forum. David Mullen is very much a example by way of having built this very place, namely by thinking that this is something worthwhile doing, despite the increasing workplace problems in the industry. Nevetheless, "we" don't even have moderator there :P ... Alessandro, what about you as a senior figure, btw B) ? You have my vote!

 

So, when you read some posts here in the HD/Red/Next-Big-Thing threads which are history-repeating-itself symbols, devoid of the wider industry-context and corporate politics, or just ? frankly ? technically naive, but are expressed by working professionals, you cannot other but react in the writing style I used. Is it unpolite? Probably. Inappropriate? Surely. Necessary? Absolutely! People have to start to cut through the cr*p they get thrown at and willingly eat-up without a word of resistance. (How to become Executive President for Strategic Outreach Efforts at Eastman Kodak is the crucial question, here ;) )

 

Anyway, I told myself to become a Sustaining Member upon my 200th post, so I will have to bugger off to PayPal, soonish.

 

Thanks for the appreciated understanding words of yours, Toby; see you around.

 

-Michael

 

 

 

P.S.: Evan: Close, but not there yet. Primarly, you forgot to include the typos.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Michael Lehnert

[Michael Lehnert]

I don't have to download the arri newsletter, I usually pick them up when I go to local arri rental. You making assumptions about me, and making this very personal is just not cool

 

In that case, given your practical job experiences, extensive interaction here, plus you having a film student status and hence reading introductory and advanced literature and many marketing brochures or spec sheets, the term 'image acquistion format' should not be an alien term to you; especially not on which you question Tenolian in an HD thread with a counter-post rather than googling the term for yourself quickly as a way to learn for yourself.

Sorry, Emile, but in this case, you misread my intentions towards you completely, as I was truly attempting to help you ? after all, I don't know the quality of your film school's reading list as you publicly questioned their current teaching approach in the first place.

As regards the angst of career prospects you rightly have as someone setting out now which I raised in this thread with you: not having a considerale degree of nervousness about success would be naive and probably only lead to not-making-it. It's the fear of failure and personal insecurities that drives most of the very successful people I've met, in any profession. Not confronting the real possibility of ending up in an "office job" would be the wrong way to begin thinking about you starting a career in filmmaking (Why so gloomy about office jobs? There are more options in life than just either filmmaking or a 9-5 mentally-suicidal office job: higher-production value filmmaking easily deteriorate into a desktop job anyhow, with plenty of paperwork and dreary team meetings with a clear lack of focus and conclusion ;) )

 

Anyway, I am off to reading about the latest generation of obsolete technology, Kodak Vision3 cine-film.

[Lars Zemskih]

In that case, given your practical job experiences, extensive interaction here, plus you having a film student status and hence reading introductory and advanced literature and many marketing brochures or spec sheets, the term 'image acquistion format' should not be an alien term to you; especially not on which you question Tenolian in an HD thread with a counter-post rather than googling the term for yourself quickly as a way to learn for yourself.

Sorry, Emile, but in this case, you misread my intentions towards you completely, as I was truly attempting to help you ? after all, I don't know the quality of your film school's reading list as you publicly questioned their current teaching approach in the first place.

As regards the angst of career prospects you rightly have as someone setting out now which I raised in this thread with you: not having a considerale degree of nervousness about success would be naive and probably only lead to not-making-it. It's the fear of failure and personal insecurities that drives most of the very successful people I've met, in any profession. Not confronting the real possibility of ending up in an "office job" would be the wrong way to begin thinking about you starting a career in filmmaking (Why so gloomy about office jobs? There are more options in life than just either filmmaking or a 9-5 mentally-suicidal office job: higher-production value filmmaking easily deteriorate into a desktop job anyhow, with plenty of paperwork and dreary team meetings with a clear lack of focus and conclusion ;) )

 

Anyway, I am off to reading about the latest generation of obsolete technology, Kodak Vision3 cine-film.

 

Well, I was just in the rush of the discussion and asked it straight away. Plus, realize I am not in the school yet, I've applied and recently found out that I got in and I am excited to go to the school that insists on shooting on film, other than so many trying to make their students learn on digital. I was just a little confused. But there is no need to become so personal in a discussion as to suggest me what to do and make assumptions.

[Michael Lehnert]

Congratulations! Where will you be heading, school-wise?

 

Nevertheless, as regards your personal and ill-perceived reading of my post about which I have already elaborated on quite extensively: Shall we move on now?

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

So how far is the death of film stock? 5? 10 years? never?

[David Mullen ASC]

So how far is the death of film stock? 5? 10 years? never?

 

Death? Maybe never, but certainly not for decades. But in terms of when the majority of production traditionally shot on film will be shot digitally instead, I would guess not for 7 to 10 years, if not longer. Technology moves fast, but industries don't always move fast to change their methods. Film works, most people like the results it gives, and if you can afford to shoot film, then the incentive to change is lower than for someone for whom film is too expensive to use. So there has to be a number of factors in place for a massive changeover, which haven't happened yet.

 

First there has to be a generally accepted feeling that available digital technologies look as good if not better than film, that they are more convenient and cheaper to use than film, that the shooting and post workflow are convenient and standardized to some extent, that the camera technology is readily available worldwide, that it is reliable, and that it is archivable in the long term. Also, there has to be a period of belt-tightening where studios get so concerned about reducing costs that they mandate digital origination, despite the fact that the origination costs are a small percentage of overall production costs.

 

Right now we are just at the point where a few of these elements are in place, but not enough for some sort of tipping-over point. That's why I would guess 7 to 10 years, but who knows what will happen in the meantime. Unforseen factors could come into play that either extend the use of film or shorten it.

[Hal Smith]

...........That's why I would guess 7 to 10 years, but who knows what will happen in the meantime. Unforseen factors could come into play that either extend the use of film or shorten it.

I have the notion that we may be about to enter a new golden age with respect to film, particularly high quality production on film. When the studios started to get scared by TV in the 50's and 60's they figured out that what they needed to do was produce films that did something that TV couldn't do. And what happened was all the "Scope" systems, stereo then multichannel surround sound, theatre calibration systems like Dolby's, THX, etc. In a few years they may see theatre attendance start to fall off majorly due to HD home theatre systems having become widespread. Then (I hope with fingers crossed) they'll stop sending high speed duplicated prints with barely HD quality to the theatres, using 2K DI's, and less than top quality theatre video projection and start to sell theatrical presentations as Super-HD. I saw an early release trailer of "Dan in Real Life" a couple of months ago that was sharp as a tack, absolutely beautiful film. It had twice the screen definition of anything else on that screen that day. The systems are there - they're just not being used.

[Robin Buday]

I have the notion that we may be about to enter a new golden age with respect to film, particularly high quality production on film. When the studios started to get scared by TV in the 50's and 60's they figured out that what they needed to do was produce films that did something that TV couldn't do. And what happened was all the "Scope" systems, stereo then multichannel surround sound, theatre calibration systems like Dolby's, THX, etc. In a few years they may see theatre attendance start to fall off majorly due to HD home theatre systems having become widespread. Then (I hope with fingers crossed) they'll stop sending high speed duplicated prints with barely HD quality to the theatres, using 2K DI's, and less than top quality theatre video projection and start to sell theatrical presentations as Super-HD. I saw an early release trailer of "Dan in Real Life" a couple of months ago that was sharp as a tack, absolutely beautiful film. It had twice the screen definition of anything else on that screen that day. The systems are there - they're just not being used.

 

The systems are there Hal, this is true. It just comes down to money. If I showed you the price sheet for a 4K DI with optimal printing it would send you through the roof. Besides, there isn't much incentive for anyone to be using these systems unless the results are going to be seen on the final print stock. When theater systems start going digital and the film never leaves a hard drive, the need for higher resolution DI sessions will also increase. It will be cheaper too...

[John Sprung]

Right now we are just at the point where a few of these elements are in place, but not enough for some sort of tipping-over point. That's why I would guess 7 to 10 years, ....

Different parts will tip at different points. Sitcoms have mostly gone already, since the old 2/3" cameras had substantial advantages for them. The huge DOF is just what they need, as is the long run time on a cassette. Single camera TV will likely be the next to tip, since the final release is electronic, and money is always a big issue here in TV land. For big budget features and TV commercials, there'll be a long period of coexistence. Special venue stuff like Imax may be the last to see some sort of digital camera, maybe the Lockheed-Martin?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

Single camera TV will likely be the next to tip, since the final release is electronic, and money is always a big issue here in TV land.

 

Archiving is still a serious issue that has not been resolved with digital. Archiving is extremely important for long term revenue. With internet distribution growing any show can be distributed and bought in perpetuity. So you want your origination material to be as format agnostic as possible. HBO contractually requires film negative of all of its one hour dramas for this reason.

 

Right now the short term expense of shooting on film provides a sure and known way of archiving for long term distribution.

[Dan Goulder]

HBO contractually requires film negative of all of its one hour dramas for this reason.

Many people thought 'The Sopranos' ended up on a negative.

[John Sprung]

Archiving is still a serious issue that has not been resolved with digital. Archiving is extremely important for long term revenue. ...

Right now the short term expense of shooting on film provides a sure and known way of archiving for long term distribution.

True, long term archiving is an important issue.

 

What seems to be happening now is that shows get more and more clones and versions made of them as they play out in the ancillary markets. If the earliest digital tapes become unplayable, it's very unlikely that all the dozens of others will also be found to be NG.

 

There are some major hits, Star Trek, Friends, Seinfeld, Cheers, etc, that will have sufficient sales to justify going back to the film elements and re-posting in HD. There are also some major flops (I've finally developed a little bit of tact, and won't mention names) that haven't sold at all, and may be in some danger archivally. Most other shows fall in between, and are protected mostly by copious cloning. For the vast majority of shows, though, we wouldn't go back to film, even though we have it.

 

Constantly re-dubbing to the next digital tape format can be a drag. What seems to be emerging as a sensible alternative is to archive things as files on the LTO series of tape formats, the same ones used by your bank and insurance carriers to store your financial digits. That has to be lossless and long term, too.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Tenolian Bell]

There are some major hits, Star Trek, Friends, Seinfeld, Cheers, etc, that will have sufficient sales to justify going back to the film elements and re-posting in HD.

 

That's it exactly. When they made Star Trek they had no idea at the time that 40 years later the show would be repurposed for HD broadcast. In that same vein we don't really know what the state of television delivery will be 40 years from now.

 

Constantly re-dubbing to the next digital tape format can be a drag. What seems to be emerging as a sensible alternative is to archive things as files on the LTO series of tape formats, the same ones used by your bank and insurance carriers to store your financial digits. That has to be lossless and long term, too.

 

I've heard discussions on this and re-dubbing is not being considered for serious archiving. The amount of material that will have to be re-dubbed will exponentially grow as time goes on.

 

Tape is also being ruled out as archivist think in hundreds of years, tape will not last that long.

[Robert Houllahan]

Death? Maybe never, but certainly not for decades. But in terms of when the majority of production traditionally shot on film will be shot digitally instead, I would guess not for 7 to 10 years, if not longer.

Also, there has to be a period of belt-tightening where studios get so concerned about reducing costs that they mandate digital origination, despite the fact that the origination costs are a small percentage of overall production costs.

 

 

Here is a great NY Times article about the real costs of film production:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/business...a/12strike.html

 

They could shoot everything on DV for cost cutting and it would not make a dent in this monster.

 

-Rob-

[Sam Wells]

That's it exactly. When they made Star Trek they had no idea at the time that 40 years later the show would be repurposed for HD broadcast. In that same vein we don't really know what the state of television delivery will be 40 years from now.

 

I've heard discussions on this and re-dubbing is not being considered for serious archiving. The amount of material that will have to be re-dubbed will exponentially grow as time goes on.

 

But in the age of DI and digital finish, I don't quite see what film origination has to do with archiving or repurposing / scaling to different delivery formats. Unless you're going to remake a DI from the OCN ! I don't think so. - I mean you have all the grading efx sky replacement who-knows-what that was done in post..... well THAT's the movie not the OCN.

 

-Sam

[Gary McClurg]

But in the age of DI and digital finish, I don't quite see what film origination has to do with archiving or repurposing / scaling to different delivery formats. -Sam

 

The question is... what is the delivery format... we've gone from tape to tapeless... vhs to dvd... to hd/blueray... every five years are so the formats change...

 

Why do you think we still have I Love Lucy... it was shot on film... where most of the shows shot on video at the same time or no longer around because the tape stock didn't last...

 

My posting is not about film vs digital... its like a guy told me years ago... film transfers to anything... and it lasts if you store it right... so will the digital format ever stay the same or will it always be changing... most likely changing... or how do we know how long a new process will really last...

Edited November 13, 2007 by Gary McClurg