Roger Deakins on Digital vs. 35mm

[Jesse Cairnie]

"I can not remember one shot in my entire career that has not been compromised in some way or another"

- Roger Deakins

Edited February 14, 2011 by Jesse Cairnie

[georg lamshöft]

Our PAL-TV-signal is lousy, typical MPEG-2 overcompressed crap - I cannot judge sharpness, grain or noise but I can tell if something is digital and that scares me even more. The colors and dynamic range on "Good Wife" are typical for "1st generation" digital cine cameras - it shares a certain "fingerprint" (again, not in every scene) that sets it apart from 35mm-originated-material - even in SD. It's the same with "Tudors" or "Reaper" (which looks different but not really better due to being shot on the D-21), so I guess it has nothing to do with post-processing - although I think I can see the different rendition of the D-21, but it's clearly just a poor imitation that fails trying to look like film. Series like "Fringe", "House" or "Castle" resemble a more "filmic" or "cinematic" look. What was the first thing I was looking at when seeing ALEXA-footage? Dynamic range charts or noise-measurements? No, the ability to render a human face half-lit, contrasty and yet without clipped highlights or crushed shadows.

To me, the 1st gen-cameras all failed in this regard which surprises when seeing the effort that was put into Genesis/F35 with six photosites sampling one pixel - the dynamic range is low, the noise high (wich is not so surpring, since the photosites are tiny), IMHO.

 

Again, this is no criticism of your work or artistic competence, we're just discussing the result of technical choices, right? ;-)

 

Don't tell me you don't see it on your HD-setup? I would have to get an appointment with the eye doctor or psychiatrist ;-)