Roger Deakins on Digital vs. 35mm

[Dom Jaeger]

That was a rather beautiful post , Karl.

[Stuart Brereton]

I think B&W film is going to outlive color.

Film is going to continue, I'm sure, in some form a hundred years

 

 

I've posted previously that Kodak have announced healthy sales figures for stills film. Nowhere near the sales levels of yesteryear, but healthy. B&W survives largely because it can be easily processed at home, and with a little more effort, printed too. Color film is harder, but there is still that undeniable look to it that people love in sufficient numbers that even years after digital cameras took over, it is still easy to find 1 hour photo stores and chemists who will process film.

 

I believe that stills film sales have bottomed out and found their level, and if that level is regarded by Kodak or Fuji as 'healthy' then we will continue to be able to buy film for a very long time.

[John Sprung]

I find his arguments regarding better tonal transitions und higher dynamic range a little bit surprising - the ALEXA is good, but better than film?

 

One thing he says in the video is that with the Alexa, he sees immediately what he has. That allows him to work closer to the limits of its dynamic range. He doesn't have to play it safe like with film. So, for purely practical storytelling, though there may be less dynamic range, you can actually use a little more of it.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[K Borowski]

John, how's that any different than a neg. test and a light meter? In some ways, I'm more comfortable with a meter than a monitor under dubious viewing conditions. Very easy to look at a characteristic curve and see how many stops of linear range under or over you have, and how many of compressed toe and shoulder information you can get in a crunch.

 

 

 

Then again, I have a good meter, not one with a selenium cell from 1937 ;)

 

 

 

More comfortable with a monitor? Labs use calibrated monitors to TIME your film. So at least they can match the dynamic range of print stock. Why's it so hard to set one up in the field with film characteristics punched in? Even if a monitor can't display the range of ECN-2 neg,, it can be configured to do something along the lines of a histogram in a DSLR.

[John Sprung]

Today's soup isn't yesterday's soup. True, you can't see the whole range at once, but you can look at the shoulder and toe separately.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Hampus Bystrom]

Oh man how I love Deakins. I think that interview underscores why he's one of the greats. The consummate artist; embracing new technology, never afraid of challenges and what the future may bring. Personally if the DP starts bitching to me about how he has to shoot 35/16 rather than 5D if that's what the film requires, he's out on his ass. I hate that attitude, I know that the DoP:s job is to make sure that the image quality is optimal, but a great films is about so much more than great image quality.

 

By the way, this is not a dressed-up indirect response to anyone in this thread, I just took a quick look so I don't want anybody to think that I be trollin' or flamin'

Edited February 11, 2011 by Hampus Bystrom

[David Mullen ASC]

Sometimes when a director proposes that a non-standard format be used, let's just say something that is not as technically good as 35mm, you can see it as a creative challenge to look for the ways that this format may add something to the experience that is appropriate for the story. Doesn't mean it is the best choice, but it does mean that it can be a workable choice that can be artistically justified even if cost was the primary motivating factor. Think of it as the old adage of making lemonade when life gives you lemons.

 

But sometimes a choice can be plain wrong. For example, if a director said he wanted to shoot wide landscape shots for the big screen with stunning detail to immerse the audience in the setting... and then said he wanted to use the Canon 5D in HD mode, well, I'd have to tell him that honestly he wasn't going to achieve the effect he was talking about with that camera. Now maybe he wouldn't hire me because of that, but I'd rather be up front with what I can and cannot accomplish with certain tools rather than lie to get the job, because that would only bite me on the ass in the long run.

[Peter Moretti]

John, how's that any different than a neg. test and a light meter? In some ways, I'm more comfortable with a meter than a monitor under dubious viewing conditions. Very easy to look at a characteristic curve and see how many stops of linear range under or over you have, and how many of compressed toe and shoulder information you can get in a crunch.

 

 

 

Then again, I have a good meter, not one with a selenium cell from 1937 ;)

 

 

 

More comfortable with a monitor? Labs use calibrated monitors to TIME your film. So at least they can match the dynamic range of print stock. Why's it so hard to set one up in the field with film characteristics punched in? Even if a monitor can't display the range of ECN-2 neg,, it can be configured to do something along the lines of a histogram in a DSLR.

 

Karl, I admire your love for film and I hope it continues forever. As for digital monitoring, you can use a waveform monitor and some cameras have histograms. So you can tell pretty much exactly how close you are to the extremes.

[K Borowski]

Let me try to explain myeslf better: Can you SHOW these graphically, rather than with the standard techniques?

 

I'm arguing you can see, at least in standard definition, almost exactly what the negative is going to look like, assuming standard processing, and 1/48 sec. time offset from the frame itself, already. If someone were to write a LUT, use probably would have to be a CRT with a high enough gamma and wide enough brightness ratio, couldn't a montior show what the negative in the camera, contact printed onto high-gamma ECP, with its wide density range, at 25-25-25 or whatever the standard TAPE is?

 

Push processing, flash, bleach bypass, pull, other nonstandard techniques, mishaps, grain, not so much, but in terms of color dyes, there is a very standardized set of cyan, yellow, and magenta being additively printed onto another VERY VERY STANDARDIZED set of cyan, yellow, and magenta dyes.

 

 

 

A properly profiled monitor should be able to show you almost exactly what a negative looks like, a low-con. print looks like, a SD transfer looks like, even HD looks like already. But I'm arguing that maybe we're to the point with all of this new technology that a very very accurate visual representation of film exposure and color could be presented as well.

 

A system maybe like Cineon, or better, could be used to even dial in things like individual emultion batch differences, lab chemistry variations on a day-to-day basis that are within the tolerances, and print stock emulsion, processing variations.

 

 

EDIT: Corrected horrific run-on sentence.

Edited February 11, 2011 by K Borowski

[John Holland]

I spent lots of years dealing with " tech people " who all they did was look at waveform monitors and never really looked at the images and said you cant do that says so on here . Rubbish and afraid its gone back that way ! So you keep that thanks very much .

[K Borowski]

Simon: I am NOT in the 50-70 generation. Funny, I still think in meters, not in monitors, despite having worked with computers long before I got into photography. I was writing computer code before I knew what an F/stop was!

 

John: I don't "stare at waveforms" all day, but I use densitometers, video analyzers to have less than the horrific 90% waste that you used to have with Cinex Strips, reprints, guess timing back in the old days.

 

So the electronic aids we use save a LOT of time and money. Taps have been around withy the '60s, so if someone DOES want to see exactly what they have on a monitor, that is technically possible now.

 

 

 

I'm not saying I would shoot that way, or that one should have to shoot that way, merely that it CAN be done that way as an option.

 

I am a firm supporter, and will continue to be, of as many OPTIONS as possible, including digital imaging.

 

But these people that come up with all this snazzy software isn't it interesting that they convientiently omit all of the support that EARLIER software, like in the '90s had for film negative?

 

They're intentionally trying to make film as difficult to shoot as possible. And I resent that and am going to fight it. I am pro-KNOWLEDGE, pro-EDUCATION, pro-COMPATIBILITY. If I can make 90% of my decisions on a monitor instead of having to fill up a landfill with workprints, I am going to do it. But I do need that 10% waste to get things perfect on the print stock at the end. I am not too cheap to go back and reprint.

 

I'm going to insist on the lab dusting off the contact printer too. "Just doing it in 2K" doesn't cut it for me. So what is worse? Using a lightmeter, not knowing how the DI process works, and just griping about how all the problems are the DI's fault, or using the most high-tech monitor, DSLRs, no light meters, trial and error, but getting an optical finish all the way through and letting the HD guys that make everything look like SH*& on compressed HD tv anyway deal with my low-con print?

 

 

 

My intended audience is the movie theatre. If I have to bring in a HAL 9000 and a team of computer programmers, surpllus apollo computers, dig up optical printers from their graves, I'm going to do it. It doesn't matter what hell I have to go through if it improves the quality that makes it to the theatre screen.

[frederico parreira]

60 years ago people couldnt choose, they HAD to shoot film, and yet, in spite of having no option, great movies were made.

so, if film dies, we will have great films to watch, still.

obviously film will not vanish, its just gonna cost much more :P and? whatever man.

 

mad props for deakins, who knows a great picture is not about resolution, or numbers or any of that rubbish.

[K Borowski]

You're right, it's not about resolution. Look at the use of diffusion in 35mm photography. . .

 

It IS about great flesh rendition and contrast range, and latitude though. It's easier to take something away, difficult or impossible to add it when it's not there.

[Bruce Greene]

One thing he says in the video is that with the Alexa, he sees immediately what he has. That allows him to work closer to the limits of its dynamic range. He doesn't have to play it safe like with film. So, for purely practical storytelling, though there may be less dynamic range, you can actually use a little more of it.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Really good point John!

[Simon Wyss]

It IS about great flesh rendition and contrast range, and latitude though.

To me it’s about work. That everything is much more thoroughly prepared with film cameras, that the production is a bit slower in the shoot but much less wasting dailies, that the general consciousness is about making something out of something, not scanning something only. It is versus because video does away with the artificiality of material work, there is no replace. With what would one replace film? Everything physical can not be replaced with anything informal. Abstraction removes life. Film is chemical, video is electrical.

 

Of course do I know we’re of the same generation if there’s some interest in such ephemeral things.

[georg lamshöft]

The question is not so much whether there are sharper, more dynamic or realistic aquisition technologies out there - it's about having the conscious choice of using the best technology for a certain task. As said before, 50 years ago we only had film, now we have film & digital (it's better this way, IMHO) and it would be simply stupid just having digital in a few years.

 

I don't really think enhanced features of a technology compromise the art just because we can get lost in them (having the ability to manipulate images in post, having more latitude and therefore becoming more lazy finding the right exposure, no need to let the camera stop running...) - it's more about discpline, trying to focus on the relevant and still having access to more elaborate abilities when necessary.

 

But - if we like it or not - there currently happens a "mortal combat" between technologies and companies and their "mentality" in designing and making aquisition technology. And powerful artists - if they like it or not - even unintendedly interfer in this "combat", propably just as much as business-people do. As soon as skilled artists allow a step backward in quality, the "business-people" will push for another step further in this direction.

David Mullen makes the Genesis look well? Why even considering 35mm for future TV-work? Gale Tattersal shots the 5D? Why even consider overpriced digital cinematography cameras? Roger Deakins states he prefers digital? Why should we spend a cent if it's good enough for one of the most respected cinematographers? They affect other artists as well, who propably argue with producers about choosing their worktool. They have to be extremely careful with statements, they can use "new, exiting technology" whenever they want but they have to make sure that they make clear why they do and that it's propably not a good idea to dump other technologies instantly.

 

"Rabbit Hole" - a multi-million-movie with Nicole Kidman - cinematographer wanted 35mm, had to use RED.

"Super" - multi-million-dollar movie with Ellen Page/ Kevin Bacon/ Liv Tyler - cinematographer prefers 35mm, had to use RED.

"Harry Brown" - multi-million-dollar movie starring Sir Michael Caine - cinematographers hates digital, had to use an F35.

 

These are jsut recent examples I've stumbled over. Knowing the technology propably none of these films would have been more expensive using 35mm efficiently and none of them would have become profitable by using digital cameras. Digital technology didn't allow a more democratic/ artistic production - it actually limited the artistic quality! THAT MUST NOT HAPPEN!

 

Every artist with some power in this business has the responsibility to fight against this "race to the bottom" - because business-people and lobbyists will fight for this race, whether we like it or not.

[John Holland]

I think you will find that "Harry Brown " wasnt a multi-million pound film !

[Michael Kubaszak]

imdbPro says it was a 7.3 million dollar picture.

[David Mullen ASC]

Look, the artistic compromising goes WAY beyond what camera you end up using, it seeps into every aspect of production: "that later afternoon shot has to be scheduled at noon because of our call time and the access to the location and the actor's turnaround", "your first-choice for (crew position) just took other jobs and you have to hire whoever is left locally", "we just lost the location you liked with the windows so we are using the one without windows", "you can't paint the walls in that house", "you have three hours to shoot that six page scene and somehow you have to frame out one person because he's not available until next week", "we can only afford a 2K D.I.", etc. And of course it happens in every department which in turn can affect the cinematography.

 

So whether a DP got his first choice in anything matters less than what he accomplished in the end with all the limitations and restrictions.

 

I also don't buy that a cinematographer can't say anything nice about digital because he's "giving ammunition to the enemy" sort of nonsense. If I like something, I say I like it.

[Francesco Bonomo]

Look, the artistic compromising goes WAY beyond what camera you end up using, it seeps into every aspect of production

 

That's very true, but have you ever been in a situation where a director or a producer have imposed a certain film stock, a set of lenses or a specific kind of film camera?

[David Mullen ASC]

That's very true, but have you ever been in a situation where a director or a producer have imposed a certain film stock, a set of lenses or a specific kind of film camera?

 

I'm hired because people respect my opinion, so I'll tell any director or producer what I really think when they suggest a certain stock or format, whether for artistic or financial reasons. However, I'm not dogmatic, I try to see things from their perspective and I am willing to look for ways of making thing work for their budget. So it's a give and take. Maybe I get the stock I want but I give up the lenses I want, maybe I lose my choice of post house, etc. There are limits to getting things my way, obviously. But generally I don't get past the job interview if they tell me how they want to shoot the movie and I don't agree with it, so I try to avoid getting into the situation where I'm hired and then I get told what the format will be.

[Francesco Bonomo]

I'm hired because people respect my opinion, so I'll tell any director or producer what I really think when they suggest a certain stock or format, whether for artistic or financial reasons. However, I'm not dogmatic, I try to see things from their perspective and I am willing to look for ways of making thing work for their budget. So it's a give and take. Maybe I get the stock I want but I give up the lenses I want, maybe I lose my choice of post house, etc. There are limits to getting things my way, obviously.

 

Thanks for your reply, David, it does indeed make a lot of sense.

 

But generally I don't get past the job interview if they tell me how they want to shoot the movie and I don't agree with it, so I try to avoid getting into the situation where I'm hired and then I get told what the format will be.

 

I guess the biggest fear for a lot of people is to be exactly in the situation you're describing, i.e. where producers/directors or other entities pick the camera and then just say "it's either this or nothing", which seems to be happening more often these days.

[David Mullen ASC]

I just did a short film where we tried to get an Alexa but the director got a deal for an F35 for nearly free... he asked me if that was OK with me because he wanted me to be happy, and of course I said it was OK! The F35 is a fine camera and this short film was being paid out of his pocket, so I wasn't going to break his bank by being dogmatic about the gear.

 

I'm not a gear fetishist... as long as I feel that the choices are within a similar range of quality, the choices are mostly about logistics, what package requires what post path, how it affects speed of shooting on set, how it affects my lighting package or crew arrangement, etc.

 

Now I know most of you are thinking of more extreme compromises than one between a Red, F35, Alexa, or between Fuji and Kodak, you're thinking "I was hired to shoot a movie on 35mm and know they are talking about the Canon 5D" or "I wanted to use a M-X Red One or Alexa but now they are talking about an EX1", "I wanted to use Cooke S4's but now I have to use some Canon still camera lenses", etc.

 

Like I said, I've always tried to avoid getting into those situations even when I was a beginner with no track record, so if I took a job on a smaller format, it was because I was OK with that choice.

[georg lamshöft]

7M$ is lot's of money in comparison to the average cost of proper camera/processing. Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, The International) just made a movie called "Drei" for about the same amount of money - 35mm anamorphic, complete 4k DI with CGI! It can be done.

 

Of course the camera is only a small part of the whole issue - but this is the topic here.

I'm not saying powerful cinematographers aren't allowed to tell what they like about a certain a technology, they just have to be highly conscious that their statements could be ripped out of context and affect their colleagues, who don't have this power over the "business-people".

 

Mr. Mullen, I highly respect your work and your professional statements in this forum which is partly the reason why it isn't just a bunch of "internet-geeks" like me :-)

You mentioned a very specific example - well, maybe I would have tried to show him how the choice of the F35 would affect the final look and let him decide if he wants to afford the more sophisticated equipment!? But this is not the situation I'm arguing about, it's about cinematographers don't having the choice because people with absolutely no interest in the product or knowledge of technology and the working conditions on set dictate what equipment to use. Like "good wife" - I don't know it very well but it's one of the few digital-shoot TV-series you've (and colleagues) that already runs in German TV and it clearly tries to establish a "cinematic" look (no reality-TV etc.) but it's really not difficult to see that it was captured with an underperforming digital camera.

Wouldn't you have rather used 35mm for this job but weren't allowed to so or do my eyes trick me and this is exactly the look you wanted? Isn't the F35 one of these gigantic monsters with lot's of (image) noise, no appropriate viewfinder and still quite expensive? So it wasn't about the enjoyment of working with this camera, either, I guess? The studio has bought some cameras, likes the workflow in their process and said to you this is the camera you HAVE to use, right? I'm sorry, I'm pushing this all off-topic, but this is the only way I can manage to express my problem with this whole issue.

 

I'm slightly "gear-fanatic", I admit, I'm an engineer. But you can not underestimate the value of good tools. Many talented people are actually so terrified of using "overperforming" tools which they can't use properly under given circumstances, experience or talent that they tend to not upgrade their tools in the first place, when hitting limits they still think it's their fault and there must be a way to work around it. I don't care if an untalented, rich person makes bad images with 50000€-equipment or 500€-equipment - they're still bad images and I could care less. But many talented people reach the point where they are actually limited by the abilities of their equipment - when this underperforming equipment wasn't even chosen by the artist, it makes me even more angry!

 

The way ARRI or PANAVISION (from what I've heard) act as a company, the way they design, manufacture and service the equipment is something precious! It's so much easier to follow the "shareholder-value-route" like others do and just offer what the customer really wants, management tries to find a way to make things cheaper and worse, marketing has to sell this "progress" so the customer "wants" (customers are usually amateurs regarding technology, they want something, but have no idea how and at what price it is achieved) it... Don't believe it? Millions of people need their notebook as a professional worktool with high requirements - there are barely any offerings left! Millions of photographers wanted high IQ and wondered why their "professional" super-zooms with fast AF don't perform and small niche companies are the only ones offering lenses that can perform well?

 

When we are not really careful and accept "little quirks" (a software crash here, some plastic parts there, some overheating here...) in our tools, the industry will adapt and companies like ARRI or Panavision cannot survive. We will end up with X-K prosumer-cameras with über-cool features, a dozen new every year, plastic/thin magnesium housings, large colorful touchscreens. They crash several times a day, they're built for amateur filmers but there will be nobody left who has the money AND the knowledge how to built professional cameras for cinematographers anymore! It terrfies me!

When people see the ALEXA the way it is meant to be seen and Panvision manages to bring a similar performing tool on the market, we propably have a chance and the "digital revolution" will not degrade standards this time!

 

It's 2010 and we cannot even fly in less than 6h transatlantic, we cannot shoot astronauts into space with a spaceship anymore, 35mm projection looks worse than ever, 65mm is "too expensive", TV-series make millions, actors make millions but 35mm is "too expensive"... something is wrong here!

[David Mullen ASC]

If "The Good Wife" looks bad on German television it must be due to conversion standards or compression; I wouldn't describe what I've seen in HD as looking like "underperforming digital camera" origination. The Genesis, F35, etc. all produce excellent images for HD broadcast; other than having a bit less dynamic range than 35mm film, and of course, less grain, I don't see a lot of image degradation from shows using those cameras. Most of the quality loss comes in how these broadcasters choose to compress the signal.