Jump to content

The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons


Recommended Posts

But would you have made that same 2,800 mi. journey if people weren't shooting with the best?

 

I didn't come because of the tools. I came to work in the movie business. The tools to tell stories are always evolving. Arguably, humanity began with rough drawings on cave walls and it took off from there.

 

I guess it's the "traditionalist" notion that a story is somehow "less" because it wasn't told with "film" that makes little sense to me. The way I see it, you use whatever tool is most appropriate, both to the story and to the parameters that exist, which can include budget and other logistics. There isn't just one film stock... there are many and the DP chooses the one (or two or three) that are appropriate for the story and situation. And like that, sometimes shooting digitally may be more appropriate. Film... electronic acquisition...computer animation...traditional drawings on paper and cels.... whatever it takes to tell the story is what should be used. In fifty years, we may have something entirely new to tell stores that no one has even thought of yet. Because it's not "film," will that automatically diminish the story being told or the people who are telling it?

 

It comes down to this: For a long time, "video" wasn't a great option to tell a feature narrative story. Now, the technology as evolved enough that electronic acquisition is more than okay. It really is. Traditionalists can dig in and resist and explain all the "problems" with video and deride those who choose to use it and declare film as inherently superior from now until the end of time. Or they can learn and evolve and embrace the new opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's the "traditionalist" notion that a story is somehow "less" because it wasn't told with "film" that makes little sense to me.

 

I never said any of that stuff. That's bullshit.

 

I said I want to work with the best of everything, and film, my dear friend, despite being hard to use and incompatible with USB, is still the best. If I want to shoot HD, I could have driven 20 miles instead of 500 to the nearest TV station.

 

So if you want to turn around and interpret what I have said as me being Quixotic and a luddite, that is fine by me, but that's not how I mean it, and frankly I resent your implying that I am a mindless overzealous traditionalist. When and if they come out with a digital camera that doesn't look as good as film anymore, and it becomes mainstream, I am going to have to bite the bullet and go digital like everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The India scene either had "film" effects added for a "flashback" type of feel, or as you suggested, it might have actually been shot on film. My guess is that they sent Pitt and a tiny crew there to grab those shots. Why drag a Viper all the way over there for a shot that is going to be run through heavy processing anyway. That's just conjecture, though.

 

I talked to Fincher and Claudio for the ICG mag story. Tarsem shot Far East stuff on 35mm as a favor since he was roughly where Pitt was at during the holidays last christmas. Fincher said having Tarsem as a second unit guy was fantastic.

 

Claudio also shot on 35mm film for a scene on the water where it would have been inconvenient to run cable and for the highspeed backwards war stuff, since Fincher doesn't like digital highspeed yet (at the time of filming, which was a ways back.)

 

Main difference on BUTTON is that it is less previz than usual Fincher. I guess he couldn't get every detail of New Orleans worked out in advance. I joked that he should get a LIDAR scan next time during scouting, and he thought that sounded like a good idea (!!!!!) So I'm guessing he'll be back to previzzing everything next time out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said any of that stuff. That's bullshit.

 

I said I want to work with the best of everything, and film, my dear friend, despite being hard to use and incompatible with USB, is still the best. If I want to shoot HD, I could have driven 20 miles instead of 500 to the nearest TV station.

 

So if you want to turn around and interpret what I have said as me being Quixotic and a luddite, that is fine by me, but that's not how I mean it, and frankly I resent your implying that I am a mindless overzealous traditionalist. When and if they come out with a digital camera that doesn't look as good as film anymore, and it becomes mainstream, I am going to have to bite the bullet and go digital like everyone else.

 

 

I didn't intend on implying anything personally. Just responding to the general campaign to paint digital as "less," as you just did above, by suggesting that film "is still the best." A very subjective judgment if nothing else. "Best" is whatever is "best" for the project at hand.

 

And as stated, I've seen film look worse than video. True, any of us can stay at home and shoot news, which uses video. But again, as I stated, I didn't drive across the country just to shoot film. I could have done that in the Midwest just as easily as in LA. I drove here to work in the movie business which is about telling narrative stories, no matter what tools are used to accomplish that. Film looks good when used by a qualified Cameraman and it looks bad when it isn't. Video looks good when used by a qualified Cameraman and looks bad when it isn't. That's all I was getting at. Film is not inherently superior by any stretch. It's just a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Film is not inherently superior by any stretch. It's just a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

 

Film has better dynamic range, better latitude. That is a fact.

 

It captures a far broader range of colors. That is also a fact.

 

I agree that it is just a tool, but it is still, in many applications other than cost-minded ones, the BEST tool for the job.

 

I haven't seen anyone here say this is the best movie they have ever seen, just the best digital movie they've ever seen.

 

I like film because it is USED by the best, and the BEST movies have been made with film. That is why I am drawn to it, because of its history and proven qualities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said I want to work with the best of everything, and film, my dear friend, despite being hard to use and incompatible with USB, is still the best.

 

Looking at the past, that statement seems to be getting rather old.

 

About 9 or so years ago some kids decided to make a movie. It was shot with an RCA camcorder and was shot like a documentary, even though it wasn't a documentary.

 

That movie was titled "The Blair Witch Project."

 

It's been only 9 years since that movie came out, and look where we are today with digital. We now have HD, 4K, Digital Cinema Cameras (Like the Panasonic DVX-100), and now, the Panavision Genesis, and this is all in nearly a decade. If we continue to see more advancements in the next decade, film probably won't be the best for long. Besides that, with the economy in the shape it's in (and if "Benjamin Button" does very well), you're probably going to see more movies shot on digital video than we have in the past. Indeed, video is in a great position right now.

 

As for your comment on the best movies being shot on film, the reason is because there wasn't any digital technology back then. I also looked up the number of celebrities that have shot their movies on digital video. Some are strong supporters, and others declare that it depends on the particular movie. The celebrities include Robert Altman (A Prairie Home Companion), Tim Burton (Corpse Bride), James Cameron (Aliens of the Deep, Ghosts of the Abyss, and, possibly for his next film, Avatar), Francis Ford Coppola (Youth Without Youth), David Fincher (Zodiac, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Mel Gibson (Apocalypto), Anthony Hopkins (Slipstream), Peter Jackson (Crossing The Line), Spike Lee (Bamboozled), Frank Miller (The Spirit), George Lucas (Star Wars Episodes II & III), Sidney Lumet (Before The Devil Knows You're Dead), David Lynch (Inland Empire), Greg Mottola (Superbad), Robert Rodriguez (Sin City, and Planet Terror), Ridley Scott (The Company), Martin Scorsese (Shine A Light), Steven Soderburgh (Che), Sylvester Stallone (Rocky Balboa), and The Wachowski Brothers (Speed Racer). Even if most of them say it depends on the movie, that's still a lot of movies I just listed. Also, if what I'm hearing is true and that "Avatar" is being shot with digital 3-D cameras, it makes me interested to see how Cameron will pull it off. Who knows what that movie could do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the past, that statement seems to be getting rather old.

Doesn't make it any less true.

 

Most of the filmmakers favoring digital are doing so because you don't have to scan neg or because they like having long loads or they hate having film jams; they think it minimizes tech impediments to the day's shoots. But I don't think I've talked to anybody who thinks it actually looks better, just that it makes the work easier. And the fact that filmmakers are making decisions -- decisions that should be based at least in part on aesthetics -- on ease of operation or to save a buck, doesn't sound right to me. It isn't even just like the dif between 16mm and 35mm ... well shot 16 still has more of what intrinsically makes film look like film that any digital I've seen.

 

The worst compromise seems to be the 2K DI. Folks do everything at 2K like it is acceptable (even Doug Trumbull was quoted awhile back as saying 2k is enough, which is one of the saddest things I've ever seen coming from a large format giant like him), when it practically defeats the purpose of shooting 35mm, and makes it that much easier to buy off on lesser capture systems, by way of comparison.

 

I think this is what compromised visual effects work as well. Once the scans and comps were happening at 2k, you started getting modelwork that was well-shot, but you couldn't even tell it was well-shot once it had been scanned and comped and re-output or tweaked endlessly. There was a shot of the X-jet in a hanger in the first XMEN that used a good miniature. By the time it was comped into the environment and had the live action added, it just looked like so-so CG. So once you get most fx dumbed down to a certain degree, stuff that you'd've laughed at 10 years ago starts looking good. It isn't ALL cgi that's bad, but how it is being ground out. If you look at the spaceship stuff in Soderberg's SOLARIS, it is probably the only totally photorealistic spaceship stuff ever done digitally, but that is probably because Cinesite output at 4K, not 2K, plus they had better standards to live up to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any idea why Fincher prefers the Viper to, say, a Genesis?

 

Actually, he has given up on the Viper, in favor of the F23, because he is tired of them not fixing the issue of noise with the operation (fan noise, I think.) He had to use the 23 when shooting closeups in the hospital, because the viper just kept breaking the sound barrier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think the name of this forum should be changed from Cinematography.com to "FilmvsDigitalDebate.com". :unsure:

 

Hi Tom,

 

Nothing to debate at the moment, film beats video today as it has for the last 50 years. Today's Digital cameras do beat reversal film of the early 1980's which is what Sony set out to do with the F900. Sony's F35 seems to be the closest camera to film today beating all other video cameras but at what saving?

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photography and the film print I saw were beautiful. 99% of the audience would never suspect it was shot digitally. The sets and art direction are Oscar worthy, and then some.

 

If you wouldn't have put this poop into your initial post, the film vs. digital debate probably would not have started.

 

 

 

But, Tim is right, enough talk about what it is shot on. Despite the hype, and regardless of what it is shot on, I am going to see this pic.

 

Even if it is based on the original story of time travel regression, hasn't this topic been covered to death. I've seen a Star Trek episode, and even an original Battlestar Gallactica episode that had reversed age progression as a theme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Tom,

 

Nothing to debate at the moment, film beats video today as it has for the last 50 years. Today's Digital cameras do beat reversal film of the early 1980's which is what Sony set out to do with the F900. Sony's F35 seems to be the closest camera to film today beating all other video cameras but at what saving?

 

Stephen

 

Well Stephen, that is only partially true. There were auto crash test labs that continued to shoot VNF until it was discontinued in 2004, at least in Detroit. I knew a guy at one of them who was so nice he used to *give* me free VNF and processing!

 

Some of the high-speed labs are still using ECN-2, including his, but only for limited purposes.

 

Basically, he said that VNF was still the best projected, but when you put it on the computer, which, surprise surprise, was what all the engineers wanted, it didn't look so good.

 

Obviously with neg. film you loose all of the advantages of straight projection and have to scan by default, so it wasn't as useful for that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been only 9 years since that movie came out, and look where we are today with digital. We now have HD, 4K, Digital Cinema Cameras (Like the Panasonic DVX-100), and now, the Panavision Genesis, and this is all in nearly a decade. If we continue to see more advancements in the next decade, film probably won't be the best for long. Besides that, with the economy in the shape it's in (and if "Benjamin Button" does very well), you're probably going to see more movies shot on digital video than we have in the past. Indeed, video is in a great position right now.

 

I don't think it's film having a problem of dissapearing, so much as Kodak having a problem. It has abandoned all its best stocks, Kodachrome, 5254, 5248, Super XX and many more in favour of a rather dissapointing range of low contrast films designed to accomodate digital better. If that's not lying down and letting your adversary get a clear shot then I don't know what is. Kodak has the experience and expertise to produce filmstocks so astounding in terms of colour reproduction that no amount of 4K full frame cameras or Jannard sized ego's could ever overcome, and that would send digital fanboys running with their tails between their legs for the forseeable future, and good riddance. In my view digital saps the soul out the art of the cinematographer in a sea of 'oh well, we'll just fix it in post', and endless technicalities. Now that may appeal to some, it may offend others, please don't be, I'm merely trying to preserve the integrity of my chosen artform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Kodak is in a bit of an conundrum... dynamic range is the Number One technical advantage that color neg film has over digital (there are some others, like recording fine detail with no aliasing, and skintone reproduction).

 

Yet designing stocks with more contrast and saturation, as some people have asked for, would mean designing them with less dynamic range, thus getting rid of a measurably superior quality that film has over digital. And since most film today goes through a digital step, where contrast and color saturation can be increased but dynamic range cannot, dynamic range becomes color negative film's big selling point, even for a digital post.

 

Perhaps if someday digital actually matches film's dynamic range, Kodak can give up all pretense to having a technically superior imaging product and create new film products that just appeal on an artistic and aesthetic level alone, freed from any notions of superior color accuracy, wider dynamic range, and low grain for high sensitivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...