Rob Belics Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Film never struggles to look "just like video". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith Posted June 15, 2004 Share Posted June 15, 2004 Hmm, film has always come across as harder to me, editing consists of having to transfer it and it takes a lot of time. One other thing, I know this has nothing to do with the subject, but I have a question about scenes from the "Matrix" and "Crouching tiger hidden dragon" Ok, so when the actors jump high into the air they are held by cables. But, how do you get rid of the cables? I know you can rotoscope it, but that?s not exactly perfect, guessing what would be there by looking at the surrounding colours. Also, people blue screen the shot. But, if you were to take the shot and knock out the blue, for a start there are different shades of blue. So, ok you widen the range of blue to take away, but sometimes the blue gives of light which hits the actors. Then when you get rid of the blue it would cut out the outline of the actors. And, what programs allow you to blue screen? I heard premiere does it, but I?ve never seen it in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 "Sorry Mike but your presumptuous statements here aren't really bolstering your argument." What was presumptious about my previous post? Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 Film never struggles to look "just like video" Are you saying it is easy for film to look like video? Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 "For bigger budgeted films, it seems that 35mm is still doing very, very well, and Super 16 use has picked up. That's just a cold hard fact which is sort of hard to argue with, unless you want to be like Mr. Ultra Definition here." I didn't say film was or wasn't doing well, I was clarifying your assertions about the ins and outs of shooting HD. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted June 16, 2004 Share Posted June 16, 2004 As so many videographers struggle to make video look like film, film would never try and look like video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Barham Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Are you saying it is easy for film to look like video? Sure. Telecine. Downres. Reduce the contrast ratio. Optionally, add video artifacts. Video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Sure. "Telecine. Downres. Reduce the contrast ratio. Optionally, add video artifacts. Video." Won't look like HD video. Too clean, you'd have to shoot 65mm. The first film I've ever seen on a HD monitor that fooled me was in Geneva, aerials shot on vistavision transfered by Swiss Effects. Grain free very steady ...then I saw a few dust spots. Hardly an easy thing to do, getting rid of the grain and dust and wobble not to mention shooting large format. I don't know why you would want to reduce contrast ratio, properly shot video HD displayed properly displayed is hardly contrasty... you really think you can get film to look that clean? Some very well shot and graded 35mm fooled me for a little while on grants stand at NAB on the Apple display. Make film look like HD, not easy. Make HD look ike film, just transfer to film, easy, but expensive :) Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 Last week I went looking for a new photographer for my sons headshots. We had been using the same one for seven years now but just got tired of her "selling pressure". Telling us we need to buy more "looks" than we need. I was a little concerned because she is definitely the best around but I would be paying double what others charges. His agent recommended this other guy. I liked his work pretty much and we went with him but my wife, son and I all thought there was something just "different" about his prints. The morning of the shoot we found out what it was. His acting coach said she didn't care for his work because he shot digitally. I had not thought to ask about that since our other photog used film but, yes, without even thinking about it, all of us noticed there was something different and we didn't like it. (These were b&w photos also). I've said this before. It may not be a big difference at times but a subtle little difference that makes all the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 17, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 17, 2004 I really like the convenience of my Kodak DX3700 digital camera. However, for anything important, I also take along my Minolta SLR and shoot film. Interestingly, my best film prints of late have gone through a digital intermediate system (Kodak "Perfect Touch") which is used to optimize tone scale and color. I also have a Picture CD made of all the film images, in addition to the paper prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 "he morning of the shoot we found out what it was. His acting coach said she didn't care for his work because he shot digitally..." Here are extracts from an interview with a photographer who was one of the first to go digital in the late 90s. 'I'm doing a new book, the image files are 2mb and they've printed fantastically. Digital photography now is a bit like 35mm was in the early 60's-all the magazines were scared of it. They'de complain to me "oh, its too grainy' and I would say 'It's not too grainy, its what it is.' I think the technical boffins like to keep the mystery going." "I think people get confused about bad quality and change of quality" "I can get better prints on the Machintosh than I can with chemical prints" "I think digital is dangerous because it makes good people average and makes bad people average" "All that counts is the image that comes out, and if someone can manipulate that and make something unbelievable then I think manipulation is fine." "I did an advertisement about four years ago with Quinten crisp, and that was shot on an Olympus digital. That was only 1.6 megapixels and no one could tell the difference[from film]- and it was a third cropped." "Digital Technology like a paintbrush, what matters is how you use it or don't use it. I think that there is too much discussion "how many mixapixels is that? Because I notice that if you give someone a disk with a 10mb file they'll say we can't print this', but if you give them a print from the same file, they can" (laughs incredulously) David Bailey Interviewed by Gavin Stoker Sept 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted June 17, 2004 Share Posted June 17, 2004 And year over year, quarter over quarter, professional motion picture sales are at an all time high and increasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 "And year over year, quarter over quarter, professional motion picture sales are at an all time high and increasing." I don't disagree with the satement, it makes sense, but what is the source? Below is a recent Kodak announcement "....Consistent with that strategy, Kodak plans to develop and implement a new, lower-cost business model for its silver-halide based film and paper products, which will allow the company to claim a larger manufacturing share of the traditional industry. This will create a flexible business model whose cost structure enables the company to compete aggressively in the traditional business and stay ahead of declining demand in developed market...." So, if I interpret this correctly, Kodak is getting a larger market share of (all film products) in a decling market. It went on to state it remains committed to serving the movie industry. But should any of these figures and statements mean anything to a producer or DP needing to decide what format to choose? Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filip Plesha Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Mike, you missed the point. The increse is in Motion picture film sales, not film sales. And it has nothing to do with what you are refering to here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Belics Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 Source: John Pytlak, Kodak, this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted June 18, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted June 18, 2004 Yes, Kodak Entertainment Imaging (Motion Picture) has seen ever increasing volumes of motion picture film sales. Even 16mm is growing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Source: John Pytlak, Kodak, this forum. Is there a breakdown of print film versus neg? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 "Mike, you missed the point. The increse is in Motion picture film sales, not film sales. And it has nothing to do with what you are refering to here" Bob, why post your comment about sales of motion picture film in response to David Baileys statements in the first place? Any comments on what he said? What has sales of motion picture film got to do with this particular discussion? Probably more relevant on one of the film forums or start a new thread! Many DPs and producers on varying budgets make decisons about shooting formats based on the overall quality of the movie that can be delivered to the audience. Baileys comments about social political technical implications of new digital technology are relevant, he trades technical quality for audience impact, which is exactly one of the profiles of choosing HD. Should DPs producers and directors be influenced by sales figures from manufacturers? or statements by photographers who have bucked (a not disimilar) system? Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now