Was was George Lucas REALLY up to?

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

To everybody who wants to educate me about the presence of cables on film sets:

 

I am perfectly familiar with the intracacies of both film set production and TV studio production techniques. What I was trying to point out with the case of Star Wars II and III, is that the only way they could get good enough picture quality for their chroma-keying was to have the cameras tethered to the editing consoles by a large and expensive cable. I know all about video taps on film cameras and so on. I should; I used to build the damned things!

 

In other words, the only place you could use the video cameras effectively was in what was for all intents and purposes, a TV studio, or what has become known (most unaffectionately) as "video village". A film camera on the other hand, can be set up just about anywhere with minimal equipment and will produce much better quality images to boot.

 

So can I re-post the original question:

If video origination of feature movies is so bloody fantastic, how come so few people use it, five years on?

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Lets not forget about Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow... Fairly large production shot 100% on F900 from what I understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, you're just proving my point: all you can scrape up is a pitiful handful of relatively minor productions (in the overall scheme of things). The Spy Kids series was also shot on HD, and the image quality on that was awful, but it was only a kids' movie. Again I ask: Sony own Columbia; how come they didn't lean on them to do more HD productions?

 

 

I have always heard from his web documentarys that SWII was shot almost entirely on HDCAM tape, not disk.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I've heard him say it himself! But I know it's not true, at least not according to everybody else I've spoken to involved with the project. That's the whole point of this thread: Why is he saying this?

 

and to the origional posted, you seem to be dead against Digital to be a Digital Image Technician. As your "Primary Job" states. I thought I D.I.T was someone who works with HD video, and even video in general (SD).

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's no other drop-down option that describes my job any more closely. Should I just have put "other"?

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

What sort of an argument is this...?

http://www.cinematography.com/index.asp?newsID=4393

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Huh? So it was "nominated". Like lots of other films. Come back when it actually wins an academy award. And wins it because of HD orignation, not in spite of it:-)

 

Collateral was one of my favorite movies of 04. It's look made sense.

 

All I know is that EpisodeII was a real unique visual experience to me.

It's nothing that goes very deep (since it does'nt connect to anything else of interest in the movie) but it was extraordinairy...

 

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you need to get out more ;)

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Furthermore he is trying to further the craft, it makes since to shoot a film that is almost 100% blue screen to be composited with tons of fx on video.

 

-felipe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but it wasn't "100% blue screen"! A lot of it was video rear projection. Really crappy video rear projection.

 

I think it would have been much more interesting and challenging to try to use the great digital technology to achieve the exact look of the originals; then he would prove that the technology can do anything.

 

-felipe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This has aleady been demonstrated by others, but using film origination. I think the relevant issue here is that you can always take quality out of the image, but you can't put back wasn't there in the first place!

Meanwhile his backers just wanted him to make A MOVIE, worthy of its predecessors....

[Rik Andino]

So can I re-post the original question:

If video origination of feature movies is so bloody fantastic, how come so few people use it, five years on?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because so many industry big-wigs, big-time directors and cinematographers

are opposed to shooting on video, since they're so in love with 35mm.

 

I dunno if you're a big reader of history as I am...

But something thats always stressed is change happens.

From the Dinosaurs dying out so mammals could emerge

To the Fall of Rome and the rise of the steam engine, change happens.

 

I'm sure many people thought Porter was crazy

when he started splicing images together to make a scene...

 

Or Goddard when he broke from the standard editing techniques...

 

Now people think Lucas is crazy because he broke off from the film medium...

But 30 years from now video will be just as respected as film

And Lucas will be seen as the implementer of the new medium.

 

Just look at how the younger generation embraces DV and CGI.

Besides Studios are not looking to up their budgets they're looking to cut cost

That's why Robert Rodriguez is so popular... (and he shoots on HD)

 

Now me I love film (I even own a S16 camera)

But I'm not intransigent...I'm progressive enough to embrace change.

 

The time they are changing---so don't be square learn to live with it

So you don't become obselete.

 

 

 

 

 

 

KARMA bums

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Now people think Lucas is crazy because he broke off from the film medium...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People think he's crazy because he took a massive step backwards in quality for no real advantage. It hardly made any difference to the overall cost, and it took him far longer than anybody else would have to make a comparable film. If there had been something special about the final product, he would have been vindicated. But there wasn't. It was just a very ordinary Sci Fi film.

 

That's why Robert Rodriguez is so popular... (and he shoots on HD)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's not that popular. And guess whose equipment he post-produces it on?

 

 

Just look at how the younger generation embraces DV and CGI.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Usually because nobody will trust them with expensive film.

But I'm not intransigent...I'm progressive enough to embrace change.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So am I, if it's a change for the better. This is where it all falls down.

[Andrew Kimery]

No offense Jim but it doesn't look like you want a discussion just a fight. You've made up your mind, no outside ideas are entertained, and this thread was started just to whine/complain about how stupid HD is and how stupid people are who use it.

 

Reasons why Lucas used HD (IMO): First, he has an obvious history of pushing the technical side of movie making (the ground breaking FX of the first films, the Edit Droid & Sound Droid, THX, ILM, Skywalker Sound, etc.,.). Secondly, he obviously believes that digital has a place in cinema and is willing to be an early adopter to help the new tech along thru it's growing pains.

 

Reasons why no "significant" films/so few films have been made on HD: Well, first off you make 5 years sound like a long time and like every previous jump in tech (be it talkies, color, CG, or digital editing) was completely effortless and an instant success. Secondly, people have lots of time, money and experience in 35mm and don't neccisarily<sp?> want to learn/invest in something new. Especially something that is a completely new beast such as HD.

 

I haven't seen anyone in this thread say HD is "bloody fantastic" but I have seen people disagreeing w/yer opinion that it's akin to a steaming pile of 20yr, old 6th gen 3/4". ;)

 

Again, no offense, but everything I've said seems pretty obvious and it makes me wonder why you started this thread at all...

 

 

Andrew

[Landon D. Parks]

I don't agree with him either. I don't see where he is trying to get with his arguments.

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

What I find interesting about what was mentioned about change is that this time it seems to me that there is no clear and absolute advantage.

 

When sound came along, there were clearly new possibilities in cinema and people like Moumalin, rene clair, hitchcock, Ford, Lubitch, and many others immediately took advantage (sooner than most people think; Don Juan was 1926, The Jazz Singer 1927 and by 1929 greatly innovative sound films were already coming out, which means they were being made immediately after the tech was available).

 

Color, although resisted by many people clearly offered something that cinema didn't have before.

 

Widescreen was a new and exciting procenium to tell a story.

 

Digital technology is great, but the main thing it seems to allow is to facilitate things that have already been done, it's not like matte paitings or spaceships, etc, are a new thing (probably the most valuable tool of digital is the darkroom opened up by doing digital intermediates).

Since the change is not that apparent, I think that brings hesitation in many people's minds.

 

The biggest change, I think is that it puts the tools to make movies in the hands many people who would never have access to it before.

 

But in the end, it's all about telling stories, that has proven to trancend any changes in technology.

 

My opinion.

 

-felipe.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's more like the switch from Technicolor's 3-strip process to Eastmancolor -- one color process to another. Or the switch from the nitrate to an acetate base. Or the switch from recording direct to optical track to recording on magnetic tape to now recording to hard drives.

 

Obviously there advantages to shooting big-budget films digitally are currently minimal or else more people would be doing it, but the advantages to the low-budget filmmaker are more obvious.

 

However, look at the switch from recording production sound from analog tape to digital tape to direct to hard drives -- it's not like you couldn't keep making movies by recording the audio to analog 1/4" mag, but on the other hand, there have been reasons why this is becoming less common over time.

 

When digital cameras achieve parity with 35mm but are less expensive to shoot than 35mm, then you might see a real movement away from 35mm in big-budget films. But currently common HD technology is just below 35mm and the better formats are not really cheaper or easier to use than 35mm, etc., so there is not a big push in the industry to switch.

 

On the other hand, Lucas made "Phantom Menace" in 35mm and it didn't look much better than "Attack of the Clones" shot in HD, so I don't see why it matters which he wants to use if he's going to be doing what he's doing to the image. Besides, his movies are becoming predominately made up of post CGI effects, so there isn't much of the frame that is the original production photography. And ultimately, what's wrong with the last few films has nothing to do with how good they look or don't look.

[Guest JanayBrown]

It's more like the switch from Technicolor's 3-strip process to Eastmancolor -- one color process to another.  Or the switch from the nitrate to an acetate base.  Or the switch from recording direct to optical track to recording on magnetic tape to now recording to hard drives.

 

Or how about Cassette tape to CD / VHS to DVD? It took my parents about 3 years after DVD players came out to actually buy one. And they only did so because they were over at my house once and we were watching a movie on DVD and they were awed by it.

 

I really don't think audiences can tell the difference between a movie shot in 24p HD or on film. But that is my personal thought. I think that in 10 years from now everything will be shot on DV. Kind of like shooting still photography. Very few are still using film now that digital is cheaper and more practical. IMHO

[Guest Kai.w]

People think he's crazy because he took a massive step backwards in quality for no real advantage. It hardly made any difference to the overall cost, and it took him far longer than anybody else would have to make a comparable film. If there had been something special about the final product, he would have been vindicated. But there wasn't. It was just a very ordinary Sci Fi film.

He's not that popular. And guess whose equipment he post-produces it on?

Usually because nobody will trust them with expensive film.

 

So am I, if it's a change for the better. This is where it all falls down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is rather ignorant. You fail to realize that "better" is sometimes very relative! Technically speaking 35mm is considered to be superior than HD. However will all the flaws and problems that come with HD you also get certain aesthetics which you cannot achieve with film. Depending on what story you want to tell (and how you want to tell it) this might actually be better done with HD than film.

This is certainly true for Collateral (and apart from your rather weird arguments I think that's one of the reasons it was nominated!) and also for E II.

Again, E II could only achieve this when viewed digitally projected. This was a unique experience and I know some die hard 35mm film fans which did't like the look ( "too abstract" ) but they could not deny it was extraordinairy.

 

-k

[Sam Wells]

Reasons why Lucas used HD (IMO):  First, he has an obvious history of pushing the technical side of movie making (the ground breaking FX of the first films, the Edit Droid & Sound Droid, THX, ILM, Skywalker Sound, etc.,.).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is true. I first did digital editing of soundtracks "way back" in 1989/90 on IMS Dyaxis (and people said things like "Y-y-y-you're cutting all your sound on a COMPUTER ???" :D

the hardware side for that system having been developed originally for Sound Droid..

(the software came from the IRCAM world of electronic music, Avant-Garde/academic so was a very interesting & daring marriage then, 'pre Protools' etc).

 

So if it inspires things to happen with technology, well you can use it or not; you don't have to do the same things with it that poor ol' George does !

 

-Sam

[Greg Gross]

I got Michael Mann mixed up with "English Patient",sorry. He did not direct

that. Well anyway the popcorn chewers for the most part, never saw the diff-

erence anyway. Since I write and also am a professional photographer,I think

its a damn shame that "Collateral" wasn't shot on film. Stars Wars did not bother

me as much maybe due to large sets,lighting style,costumes. I would love to see

what Sydney Pollock could do with "Collateral" on 35mm format. Its just such a

damn fine story. I just hate to see it though looking like a soap opera. I read

somewhere that the Viper caused them some real problems. Somebody on forum

posted about that this past year. Anyway I really do believe that Mr. Lucas knew

what he wanted to do,and he did it. At least Star Wars did not look like the "Days

of Our Lives". The one I really like though is- "thats the look we wanted" that one

will get you out of any g****** jam your are in. I do not make many mistakes

doing professional photography but when I do, I own up to it. Maybe with the Pan-

vision Genesis we might have seen a difference. No doubt with a Panaflex we would have. Of course didn't you guys know though,that you can't shoot film at

night. You can't? I'd like to be drinking a cup of coffee with them and have them

tell me that one.

 

Greg Gross

[Guest Kai.w]

The one I really like though is- "thats the look we wanted" that one

will get you out of any g****** jam your are in. I do not make many mistakes

doing professional photography but when I do, I own up to it. Maybe with the Pan-

vision Genesis we might have seen a difference. No doubt with a Panaflex we would have. Of course didn't you  guys know though,that you can't shoot film at

night. You can't? I'd like to be drinking a cup of coffee with them and have them

tell me that one.                                                Greg Gross

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you think like Michael Mann decided to shoot HD because it would save him some money so without doing any tests beforehand at shooting they were completely surprised to found out it looks like crap so they decided to tell everybody the look was done on purpose....?

Give me a break!

Think of who is one of the main actors of that movie: L.A. Think of how Mann pictures urban space in his movie and how this space affects the main characters and their actions... I'm not saying that this was the only way to shoot it but it was definately not wrong.

 

 

Works fine for me...

 

-k

[Greg Gross]

So why not shoot in 35mm,make it a little grainy,and it still looks better?

I'm just a photographer, darkroom tech. of 20 years or more,don't know much

about film. Do you think these examples look good? I'll admit the camera angles

are damn good! I do know that the Viper was hooked to a bunch of boxes. I

do know that Mr. Mayer designed the Genesis to get away from the boxes. Of

course we are looking up Mr. Cruise's nose a little bit, I believe I could photo-

graph him a little better. I hope you are looking at this as a friendly debate sir,

I'm not on a campaign here. No, I'm sorry, I don't buy the urban space look.

 

 

Greg Gross

[Guest JanayBrown]

Two things that struck me about Collateral.

 

1. The story was extremely interesting and engaging. Threw me for a little loop when my theory was confirmed who the last victim was going to be. More of how wonderfully it all tied in. And I must say Jamie and Tom were awesome in their characters.

 

2. I think the fact that it was shot partially in HD gave it a gritty reality edge that only Video could deliver in this particular case. It was kind of like watching Cops.

 

Now my question is this. If the story is engaging and the acting wonderful does it really matter what format it's shot in? What is the real importance here? I'll admit the last 2 SW movies left me wanting. But then so did Empire. But that is an issue of story more than technical quality for me. But will I go to see this final one. Of course. Have to see how it all culminates. Get the answers to questions from the first 3.

 

But Lucas has been an innovator. And as I mentioned previously people mounted the SAME arguments about CDs and DVD's when they first came out. How many people even here made the arguments but now have a CD player and a DVD player? It was mentioned about editing sound on a computer. *GASP* Imagine the first feature film edited on a desk top rather than the old slice and cement editing.

 

It was mentioned before that change is going to happen, and the younger generation of "film"makers are going to be the ones to push that change. As always happens the old wardogs prevent progress and the younger hungry groups cause the change to happen one way or another.

 

There really is no WRONG way to record your movie. HD, Film - does it really matter as long as you have a great story to tell?

[Michael Most]

You're just quoting the same "house of mirrors" B.S. that everybody else does.

 

Jim, I don't know what your problem is, whether you're simply rude by nature or that you really don't believe that anyone here knows as much as you do or has been in the business as long, but I can assure you that I've been in the film business at least as long as you have, and have at least as many contact worldwide as you do. I don't simply repost hearsay, I base what I post on information that I have from either first hand knowledge or conversations with my own friends and contacts that have such information. The information I have about Ep. 2 is from the people at ILM who had to deal with the material that was delivered, and the information about Ep. 3 (which I will confirm tomorrow) is from the people who supplied the camera package for that production (and it wasn't Panavision).

 

If you'd come down off your high horse and possibly consider the notion that other opinions on the subject of digital production might actually be just as valid as yours, and that not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, you might just become somewhat elightened. Or maybe not.

[Michael Most]

It was mentioned before that change is going to happen, and the younger generation of "film"makers are going to be the ones to push that change. As always happens the old wardogs prevent progress and the younger hungry groups cause the change to happen one way or another.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Michael Mann is 62 years old. Paul Cameron, the original director of photography, is 47. The best "new" ideas don't always have to come from the "younger generation of filmmakers." The "old wardogs" of which you speak are often the most open to new technology and ideas simply because they're experienced enough to know when they're appropriate and when they're not.

[Guest JanayBrown]

Michael Mann is 62 years old. Paul Cameron, the original director of photography, is 47. The best "new" ideas don't always have to come from the "younger generation of filmmakers." The "old wardogs" of which you speak are often the most open to new technology and ideas simply because they're experienced enough to know when they're appropriate and when they're not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed yes sometimes the old wardogs do innovate. But the reality of the situation is this... (In MY mind of course) it will be the younger up and commers who will make HD the standard not the topic for what were you thinking conversation.

 

I am guessing in 10 years time maybe sooner the question will be why did you shoot that on cell?? What was so and so thinking blah blah blah. And this argument will be reversed. If you think about it like many of the big named directors today who started out making movies in their back yards with super8 cameras the upcoming generation of "film" makers can afford digital cameras. Many high schools use them its what they know. Like kids entering college next fall have no reference to the term you sound like a broken record....

 

It's what they know and as they join the ranks of the Stones, Lucas', Spielburgs(SP) etc they will be doing it in HD because it is what they know. And the guys who are hell bent on film will have gone the way of the editors who didn't make the transition from cut and tape editing to NLE on a desktop did as well. Eventually as more people use it the cost of shooting HD will come down and be dramatically less than film. IMHO.

 

Both formats have it's merits and HD has a lot of room for growth. And I think it wise that those who believe in the "Tradition" of film need to learn how to use both equally well or risk being left behind.

 

Many theaters are also now switching to digital format projection with the Christie systems. Catch up or get left behind is what it's looking like to me.

[David Mullen ASC]

They tested pushing 35mm color neg versus gain-boosting HD for night exteriors on "Collateral". Basically the main difference in look was that the HD had more low-end picture information PLUS it had more depth of field -- hence why you can clearly see the palm trees against the glow of the night sky outside of the taxi window. In 35mm, those trees would have: (1) been more out of focus; and (2) there would have been less separation between them and the night sky.

 

While push-processing film can make up for a lack of density from underexposure, you don't see any extra low-end detail and in fact, you tend to get an increase in contrast.

[Michael Most]

And the guys who are hell bent on film will have gone the way of the editors who didn't make the transition from cut and tape editing to NLE on a desktop did as well. Eventually as more people use it the cost of shooting HD will come down and be dramatically less than film. IMHO.

 

No editors who have any significant talent lost their positions because of electronic editing. Editing is a skill that is totally separate from the equipment used to do the physical part of the job. Editing is in the mind, the eye, the ear, and the brain, not in the Moviola, the splicer, the Kem, or the Avid. I know that young people either just entering or hoping to enter the business would like to think otherwise, but the fact is that all good editors who were working before are still working. There was no great transition to make, regardless of what you might want to believe. The tools changed. The skill stayed the same. The value of experience in that skill also stayed the same. And the value of the talent as a storyteller is also the same.

 

The cost of shooting is primarily contained in things other than the cost of the camera package, the raw material that runs through that camera, and how it gets to the editor. Those things add up to a fraction of the overall production budget. Any change from film to digital acquisition has little impact on the size of the crew needed, the equipment needed (regardless of what Sony might want you to believe), or the time required. That's not to say that the savings incurred by minimizing the cost of the raw stock and eliminating the need for development are ignored, but in terms of an overall budget on any professional scale production they are relatively small. The one thing that digital shooting does bring to the party is the ability to shoot more footage without incurring significant additional costs. This can be an advantage in the hands of a good director who truly understands the needs of his/her cast, or it can be a crutch that can allow a less skilled director to just keep shooting and shooting in the hope that something good will result. Take your pick. The simple fact is that those who are "hell bent on film" (your words) are simply choosing the best currently available medium for motion imaging, at least in technical terms. When the best available medium is not film, they will likely choose that. However, current HDTV systems are not that medium, at least for features. For television, the cost savings is more significant because of the much lower overall budget, and the quality achieved is more than sufficient for electronic distribution, so the situation is a bit different.

 

Many theaters are also now switching to digital format projection with the Christie systems. Catch up or get left behind is what it's looking like to me.

 

Digital projection has absolutely nothing to do with, nor does it require in any way, digital acquisition. You're talking about two completely different ends of the industry that have just about nothing to do with each other.

[Elhanan Matos]

The information I have about Ep. 2 is from the people at ILM who had to deal with the material that was delivered, and the information about Ep. 3 (which I will confirm tomorrow) is from the people who supplied the camera package for that production (and it wasn't Panavision).

 

That would be Plus 8 Digital in Burbank.

[Chris Keth]

Somebody told me once that I look like Natalie Portman...  :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Then I need to meet you sometime :-D

 

But let me be serious, a little. Don't blame the format, blame the people using it. HD is just HD, it'll never be anything more or less. It can be used well or it can be used poorly, just like any other medium from 65mm film to drawing pencils.

[Greg Gross]

All I'm saying is that I would have wanted to shoot "Collateral" on film as

creatively possible. If the palm trees are out of focus but still are identified

as palm trees by the eye fine with me,the urban look included. I'm just talking

here about another way of telling the story,another look. What is wrong with

lighting to gain DOF? I'm not talking about lighting up the whole urban landscape

but only small parts of it close in to the action. While still maintaining the look of

where the story is taking place. Just another look,another way to tell the story.

To maintain urban look up close and then have the DOF fall off into the night.

I respect Mr. Mann's position on why he shot it the way he did, he got the look

he wanted. All I'm saying is that if I could shoot it,then I would want to shoot

it on film for a different look. The film look is what I'd be after,35mm. I do not

think that I'd have any trouble finding 20K's in LA. Another way to do it would

would be to shoot it close in with only a little urban light,light actors but they

would be surrounded by mostly darkness with some definitive urban lights. I

believe what I'm talking about is creativity. I'm just talking about different app-

roaches to telling the story on film and excluding HD. I think I'm starting to get

a feeling as to how Howard Hughes felt at times.

 

Greg Gross