"Collateral"

[DavidSloan]

I would add to Rob Belics comments that many of the HD supporters here appear to be young people i.e early twenties, "film" students etc.

 

I can see why they would favour HD over film for several reasons:

 

1) Film requires a long training and experience process to learn how to shoot it well.  This idea does not jive with a generation that wants instant results, and every thing in the here and now.

 

 

And anyone can just hop on a viper and make a movie, right?

 

2) Film is much more expensive to shoot than tape, so naturally a starving film student will often choose video over film.  A Mini DV tape costing $7.00 and lasting one hour is pretty attractive.  When I was in film school I shot every thing on Super 8 and 16mm, never touched a video camera.  Myself and my friends got the money for the stock any way we could.

 

so video being a more cost effective medium is a negative?

 

3) As to the ridiculous idea that film people are some how concerned about learning all of the buttons on an HD camera...please my grandmother could operate a video camera.  Hmmmm, I wonder what takes longer to learn A) Loading a film mag in a dark bag properly? B) Putting a tape into a HD cam?  For "B" you simply hit eject and drop in the tape, gee tough.

 

ooooh, learning how to load a mag in complete darkness! mommy the boogey man is coming!  First of everyone learns on practice film, in complete LIGHT!  I personally got it right on my first try anyway...maybe our learning curves are a bit different?

 

4) Then there is all skill required to effectively colour correct the film during transfer to tape for TV use.  The DP must understand this process very well in order to get the best from the colourist.  Here's another dilema for young folk, they don't get into the high end transfer suites when rates run at $400-$600 per hour.  So it's tough to get the experience.

 

Most friendly post houses will allow you to at least come in and set the look with the colourist.  It's not as bad as you think, esp since I come in at least once a week with cans.

 

Think realistically.  Could a film DP with 20 years experience learn video, faster than a video DP with 20 years experience, learn film?

 

That's just nonsense.  The technology of video cameras is far more sophisticated then the box with the hole.  I bet if I gave you a viper you would be scratching your head for hours.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest lonedog]

What else have I got to say?

 

Holy geez what a can of worms that is to open, this forum ain't big enough for all that.

 

Ok so I won't be happy until every one has a 35mm film projector in their house so they can skip even using a TV HD or SD.

 

I'm loading up my weekly copy of Law and Order into the projector as we speak.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

DC. I love your humor. But all gags aside, i'm not quite sure what you really think about anything?

PS. I have a friend who's gay and he's wallpapered his appartment with with old 35mm film stock. Maybe i could give you his number?

[Greg Gross]

How soon can you send the VIPER to Pennsylvania for me to use on my

production? How much insurance must I have on it? Send it with or without

the handbook, I'll figure it out!!

 

 

Greg

Edited December 15, 2004 by pd170user

[Elhanan Matos]

Send it with or without

the handbook, I'll figure it out!!

 

I'll guarantee you that you won't.

 

Learning the menus in the Viper is the easiest part about the viper. Now capturing your material onto hard disks... thats not so easy, I spent about an hour today learning about the S.Two D.Mag hard disk recorder with a tech from "The Camera House" and I barely even skimmed the surface of what that machine can do.

 

PS. If you believe you can use the Viper in Filmstream mode you better brush up on your Linux command line (I'm not kidding, the S.Two is a Linux box) :)

[Guest dpforum1968]

Here gentlemen is the greatest example of film ignorance on the forum from David Sloan, I rest my case......

 

"That's just nonsense.  The technology of video cameras is far more sophisticated then the box with the hole.  I bet if I gave you a viper you would be scratching your head for hours."

 

No need to editorialize this.

 

OH, and equating the ease of loading of a film mag with plopping a tape into a camera....

 

"ooooh, learning how to load a mag in complete darkness! mommy the boogey man is coming!  First of everyone learns on practice film, in complete LIGHT!  I personally got it right on my first try anyway...maybe our learning curves are a bit different?"

 

Again, no comment from me needed.

 

DC

[David Mullen ASC]

Perhaps if you posted under your real name, you'd be less inclined to push people's buttons all the time? Just wondering... It always works out that the people posting anonymously tend to feel the least burdened by the social graces because there's no consequences to anything they say.

[DavidSloan]

Yes, loading a mag is the most challenging thing in the world, dpforum. Many great minds have been broken trying to figure out how to form a loop. We've lost too many great men inside that changing bag, but by golly one day we will live in a world where every man woman and child will know how to load a mag properly. :blink:

 

I'm sorry DP but you are by far the most ignorant person, here. Have you ever contributed anything productive to this forum or do you just make wise cracks? You haven't even made a single good argument, yet. Just saying 35mm is better than HD because I think it looks better, holds no weight.

 

And yes I stand by what I said: the technology of HD is light years beyond the box with the hole.

[DavidSloan]

It's amazing that we have people here like David Mullin, who are just about the nicest, coolest people you could ever wish to be in the presence of...not to mention David's talent, and knowledge, and willingness to share it. Than you have guys like dpfrorum who contribute nothing of substance, and like to intentionally make people angry. This board needs a winter cleaning.

Edited December 15, 2004 by DavidSloan

[Jonathan Spear]

BOTTOM LINE:

 

I come from a photography background, and I've been teaching myself almost every aspect of filmmaking for the past 3 years. When the time comes to pick a camera for a project, be it 16, super8, 35 or HD, rest assured I'll be able to learn how to use the equipment.

 

For me, either format will be a learning experience. Both mediums offer benefits and liabilities. Both mediums take some getting used to.

 

One is NOT better than the other (I conclude this from studying the contents of pretty much all of your posts in most of these forums).

 

Is 35mm better than HD? Check out Star Wars: Attack of the Clones.

Is HD better than 35mm? Check out the Lord of the Rings.

 

=BOTH FORMATS ARE GREAT=

 

...so next time another silly male-ego film/HD 'fight' breaks loose, ask yourselves this:

 

--> and, respectfully, I'll use homosexuality, which I guess is somehow relevant to your posts (?!) :blink: <--

 

What's better, being gay or straight?

 

Well?

 

What's better?

 

Huh?

 

No answer, eh?

 

Heh.

 

Thought so.

 

Now where were we...?

 

---------------------------

 

-Jon S. B)

[David Mullen ASC]

Thanks for the compliment, but where I'd disagree with you David is in two ways:

 

(1) the assumption that something electronic with software is inherently more "advanced" than something that represents a high-point of precision mechanical engineering of the last century, the film camera movement -- not to mention that an Arri 435 probably has just as much sophisticated electronics in it as an F900; in other words, if something works great because it was so well-designed, the fact that the basic technology is a century-old shouldn't be held against it. Aspirin dates back to the Victorian age yet it's still one of the most effective drugs for certain things. Newer isn't better necessarily.

 

(2) the most advanced engineering for the "box with a hole" is really in that piece of film running through the box -- it's just the most advanced example of photo-chemical engineering rather than electronic engineering, that's all.

 

I don't know if there is much to be gained by proving which is harder to use, a film camera or a video camera. Basic operation is easy to learn for either and advanced work takes more time to learn for either. Film negative is more tolerant of exposure mistakes thanks to its latitude, but video makes it easier to avoid exposure mistakes thanks to its immediacy.

 

A Canon Scoopic or a Super-8 camera was the past equivalent of a consumer video camera and both are pretty easy to learn to use (just that there are more features on a video camera if you want to use them.) And an advanced camera like the Viper and an Arri 435 take some time to learn to navigate; personally, I'd feel more comfortable with the Viper since I don't AC my film projects. That doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.

 

Also, once you start getting into digital post issues, film DP's have to learn all the same stuff anyway so we're only talking about camera technology.

[Guest Kai.w]

I would add to Rob Belics comments that many of the HD supporters here appear to be young people i.e early twenties, "film" students etc.

 

I can see why they would favour HD over film for several reasons:

 

1) Film requires a long training and experience process to learn how to shoot it well.  This idea does not jive with a generation that wants instant results, and every thing in the here and now.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, come on. Give us a break. That's exactly one of the advantages of video technology that not only young people appreciate. You can see what you'll get. You can start editing during shooting, etc. What's wrong with that?

 

3) As to the ridiculous idea that film people are some how concerned about learning all of the buttons on an HD camera...please my grandmother could operate a video camera.  Hmmmm, I wonder what takes longer to learn A) Loading a film mag in a dark bag properly? B) Putting a tape into a HD cam?  For "B" you simply hit eject and drop in the tape, gee tough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You just have no clue what you are talking about! Plus, you seem to contradict yourself. Everybody knows that film is much more forgiving than video, so if you want to get it right it is more difficult than with film.

Ever tweaked the matrix of a Digibeta to get the best out of your limited dynamic range...? One of germans famous DOPs, Michael Ballhaus, made a shotmovie with the viper, which looks pretty much like crap. And why? Because, like you, he and other people working on this, seemed to be completely ignorant to the specifics of this medium. Did'nt even get the LUT right.

I thought everybody is quite glad that film is much easier to handle right than video...

 

 

 

4) Then there is all skill required to effectively colour correct the film during transfer to tape for TV use.  The DP must understand this process very well in order to get the best from the colourist.  Here's another dilema for young folk, they don't get into the high end transfer suites when rates run at $400-$600 per hour.  So it's tough to get the experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Most of the academies have contracts with the labs so they can get transfers much cheaper. I had ta few scene to scene transfers during my study. And I could have done much more if I had done more shooting on film.

Then I know some academies even have their own complete telecine suite.

Our academy where I'm still working doesn't have a telecine but an Inferno and a Flame, so even though these are compositing stations you can do some great digital grading on this.

(I myself did the grading for one project on an inferno, which was nominated for german camera price and won best cinematography in a short and best student short at the hdfest 2002)

Theoretical knowledge on grading is even more easy to get. And you can do low-level practise in photoshop if you want...

 

Using film alone does'nt make you a better DOP. Your arrogance is unbelievable. What is it about? Craft or art?

Sorry, but you seem to be all for the first...

 

 

-k

[Guest dpforum1968]

Many of you seem to be missing the basic point of my argument.

 

I can for example hand some one a DV camera and they can be up and shooting in less than an hour. Give them a tri-pod and tell them to use "auto" mode and they'll deliver some decent shots.

 

Give the same person a 16mm film camera with the same one hours worth of training and see what they come back with.

 

My point is that film requires much more experience to shoot it well, and there's no replacement for experience. I know several BetaSP operators who dream of the day they can shoot film, I don't know any fellow film guys who dream of the day they can shoot video. I wonder why that is?

 

The "box with the hole" argument, well thanks for the entertainment on that one. Classic.

 

DC

[Guest dpforum1968]

Oh I almost missed this one....

 

What's better, being gay or straight?

Well?

What's better?

Huh?

No answer, eh?

Heh.

Thought so.

Now where were we...?

 

 

Straight is obviously better.

 

DC

[David Mullen ASC]

You're not comparing apples to apples -- a consumer DV camera with auto features to a pro 16mm camera with no auto features?

 

How about comparing someone being handed a cartridge of Super-8 film and a consumer Super-8 camera versus a consumer DV camera, both with auto exposure? In this case, the FILM camera may be easier to learn to use in one hour.

 

Or if we're talking about pros here, not consumers, why assume that a pro video shooter has no idea how to use a light meter and needs auto exposure? That's pretty insulting.

 

You want to make video shooters out to be inherently less technically capable or knowledgeable people than film people. I don't see the point -- other than the fact that you're a film shooter so it makes you feel better to belittle video shooters ("Hah! I can learn your job but you can't learn my job!") Silly.

 

Do you want to participate in this forum or just constantly come in an insult half the members for not being "real DP's" like yourself because you shoot film and they don't? I'm halfway tempted to suggest that everyone from now on just ignore your posts unless you take a less snide attitude.

[Guest fstop]

Yes I'm a closet "video guy".  And a closet homosexual.

 

Must be why I oppose Canada's same sex marriage laws so vehemently.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, and to think you were just telling us video 's flaw is being unable to read and interepret basic information...

[Jonathan Spear]

Oh I almost missed this one....

 

What's better, being gay or straight?

Well?

What's better?

Huh?

No answer, eh?

Heh.

Thought so.

Now where were we...?

 

Straight is obviously better.

 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

:angry:

 

well...

 

I don't like homophobes. People like you shouldn't be in this business...you should stick with politics and televangelism.

 

You can be ASC for all I care...I respect you about as much as I respect your opinions.

 

Now where were we David, David and Kai?

 

:D

 

-Jon S.

[Jonathan Spear]

(reminder: http://www.CINEMTOGRAPHY.com)

 

 

CINEMATOGRAPHY.

Edited December 15, 2004 by TSM

[Greg Gross]

Hello Elhanan Matos,

Thank you for your post and I guess I stand corrected then. I thought the

Viper was easier to use than a box with a hole in it. Well what kind of bud-

jet do you need to shoot a feature film with the Viper? As its not up to a film

look,would it not be better to shoot with a box with a hole in it? I mean look

how crappy,ugly Collateral looked. Were not some of the scenes shot with a

Viper? Maybe the damn camera was just too complicated to use on a feature

film at that time. I forgot to check the Hollywood Reporter on how well Coll-

ateral did at the box office. I think for what the public pays for a ticket that

they need a better look than a soap opera look. Maybe I could learn about

the linux format in a few days and still shoot with the camera and come up

with a good image(images) and not a crappy look? While using a box with a

hole in it I have photographed the following people in the past: Lee Marvin,

Johnny Mathis,Ed Begley,Rowdy Yates,The Turtles,Billy Jean King,Rod Mckuen,

Glenn Yarborough,John Travolta,Roy Hargrove. I've had no complaints from

anyone about the look the box with the hole in it gives. Best regards.

Greg Gross,Professional Photographer

Student Cinematographer

P.O. Box 5057/Harrisburg,PA 17110

Tele. 717-233-9065

Edited December 15, 2004 by pd170user

[John Sprung]

Aspirin dates back to the Victorian age yet it's still one of the most effective drugs for certain things. .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, David. That's my favorite line on this forum. LMAO at the subtle humor of picking that particular analogy for this particular thread.... ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Guest dpforum1968]

"I don't like homophobes. People like you shouldn't be in this business...you should stick with politics and televangelism."

 

Spoken like a true Hollywood liberal. I don't know many gay DPs. Lots of actors and art directors though. I expect we'll soon be flooded with Hollywood people here to get married under Canada's new idiotic same sex marriage laws.

 

You can ignore my posts, no worries, I can just re-register under a different handle and use a different web based e-mail account. If the forum can block posts from the same computer using a new handle, then I'll just use one of my alternate computers that uses a different ISP. Easy.

 

Ahhhh, the miracle of the internet.

 

Why take what I say about video as an insult?

 

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

DC

[Guest dpforum1968]

Besides, pd170user, and myself can go off and start our own forum. He has the right idea. And there's lot's of us out there!

 

"Well what kind of budget do you need to shoot a feature film with the Viper? As its not up to a film look,would it not be better to shoot with a box with a hole in it? I mean look

how crappy,ugly Collateral looked."

 

DC

[Michael Nash]

Yikes! I go out of town for few days and come back to...this! :blink:

 

Okay, I watched Collateral on DVD last night. Didn't see it in the theaters. First off, DVD/video display is kind of "the great equalizer" for formats, smoothing out the differences between resolutions. That right there helped the HD material look more like traditional 35mm on a TV screen. On DVD I thought the difference between the pushed 35mm material and the HD material was pretty minor, almost negligible in some scenes. Much of the movie was shot with the Sony F-900 as well as the Viper. The making-of featurette on disc 2 shows an F-900 on a Steadicam for the alley sequence where the first victim falls on the cab; it also shows a Viper in the underground Metrorail station

 

Yes, the HD material was a little noisy, but so would have been 35mm under the same light levels. According to the A.C. article, Michael Mann and Paul Cameron tested different HD cameras along with four highspeed film stocks, all pushed, and decided that HD gave Mann the look he wanted. So sure, it could have been shot on film, but Mann wanted the specific look of HD to tell his story. It's ART, for crying out loud!

 

I personally liked the look of the HD for this particular story, and I think the unique qualities of electronic imaging help make the movie what it is. There's all this talk about "reality" and "realism," but I think the effect was actually a little surreal. The noise, resolution, and motion blur could hardly be described as "real," yet they added something effective to the story.

 

The one thing I didn't like was all the "power window" gamma/color correction (which might also have been done in DI had the movie been shot on film). Particularly annoying was the "highlight" on Cruise's eye when he kills the guy in the Jazz club, and also the shot of Mark Ruffalo standing at the window in the first victim's apartment. I also didn't care for the green screen outside the train windows at the end; that really took me out of the story at its climax.

 

And regarding the crappy quality of the commercials, there are several factors for that. Tape format as has already been mentioned, but also the "blowup" of the widescreen image to fill a 4:3 frame. I'm not sure why the contrast fell apart in the commercials though; the movie itself is sufficiently color-rich and snappy.

[Guest Kai.w]

The one thing I didn't like was all the "power window" gamma/color correction (which might also have been done in DI had the movie been shot on film). Particularly annoying was the "highlight" on Cruise's eye when he kills the guy in the Jazz club, and also the shot of Mark Ruffalo standing at the window in the first victim's apartment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I admit I sat rather near to the big screen when I watched it in the cinema. So I did'nt really noticed any power windows, although I usually am quite sensitive towards this one. I'm just glad, that now there are different grading tools available (lustre) where you can do more precise masks and not just stupid circles and rectangles for your grading. They might not do everything in realtime, but therefore you're much more flexible.

 

 

I also didn't care for the green screen outside the train windows at the end; that really took me out of the story at its climax.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ops. Did'nt even notice that. Aeh... too near the screen. ;)

 

-k

 

And for all those who did'nt like how Cruise looked in collateral:

"It's the hairstyle, stupid!" :P

[Brad Grimmett]

I don't know many gay DPs.  Lots of actors and art directors though. 

DC

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know both gay and straight DP's, actors, and art directors. What's your point?

[Guest dpforum1968]

It's a satire post regarding the stereotype that gay people stay away from "techie stuff" like cinematography. And steer more toward "gay" jobs like art direction and acting.

 

That's ok Mel Gibson, Arnold S, and myself, can maintain our anti-gay views and still succeed in the film business.

 

Mel Gibson tossed a poofer right out of a window in his Braveheart, ooooo boy! Did he ever hear about it from Barbara Streisand for that one!!

 

DC