Jump to content

Tired of hearing "Film is Dead?" Well So Are We!


Recommended Posts

David Mullen ASC, on 22 Aug 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

 

I assume you are being funny. Otherwise, explain how you'd get the film back from the moon, process it, and telecine it to video, and do this "live" while the event was happening.

 

It has nothing to do with weight. But that's an interesting answer

 

Is it because video is "instantly" transmittable? That's close to an answer, but it doesn't quite rule out why film wasn't used to do the same.

 

Does it have something to do with the idea of a spaceship delivery and telecine to video, while the live event is taking place, being an entirely inexplicable and surreal proposition? Yes. I think this comes closest to the best answer.

 

cheers

C

 

metropolis_05.jpg

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If image quality was the highest priority they'd have shot film, but since live pictures. regardless of the quality. was key they used video. Since weight was a major issue, they didn't take film cameras, just stills. Film cameras, including IMAX have been used on other space mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that if more people were able to define in the most literal manner what makes film look like "film", in the same way they do [with disdain] toward digital, then we'd have a better grasp on things.

 

 

I think you have hit a core problem in the whole business. Nobody seems to know why film looks nicer than video. It also doesn't help that there are a few people, even involved in cinematography that don't seem to be able to tell the difference. For a long time it was expected that it was a depth of field. Then it became about resolution. Now it's all about dynamic range. The truth is tho that nobody really knows what creates the magic in film. Even the people at Kodak seem to be a bit unaware of what it's about because some film stocks are just more magical than others, and if they knew what was causing that, they would make sure that they had it in every film stock. The trouble is it's more like baking a cake and getting the recipe right.

 

I don't think video is ever going to look like film, partly because of this, but also as has been suggested here already, video is just better at certain things than film is. It's better for live transmission obviously. It's also far more economical if you want to shoot high frame rates. Insanely high frame rates are going to become not a big deal on video. I think video will also become way more sensitive in lower light situations too. (At the moment I think this tends to be something that people play up too much as there are a lot of video cameras out there that aren't really all that more sensitive than film in low light but this will change with time).

 

These are all things that video does very well and if they reach a point where they are actually better than film in these respects, do you think anybody is going to hold back and say "we better not do that, because film can't go that far". I don't think so. So digital video will excel in the things it is especially good at.

 

The focus on comparing things to film is also starting to slide away, as it should, because it's a bit nonsensical. I think people are just starting to see video for what it is and working to that rather than trying to get it to look like film.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If image quality was the highest priority they'd have shot film, but since live pictures. regardless of the quality. was key they used video. Since weight was a major issue, they didn't take film cameras, just stills. Film cameras, including IMAX have been used on other space mission.

 

How can image quality not be an issue? Why use inferior quality images? If film has better image quality than video then why not use film to do the live pictures?

 

Weight was not the problem.

 

Funnily enough, despite the obviousness of the answer, or perhaps because the answer is so obvious, there has yet to be put into words, the literal answer.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is most definitely personal taste. I am not at all liking digital cameras. The Alexa fools me at times and for the most part I enjoy what it can produce. I have Anonymous and Skyfall on BluRay and when I watch them, I never think I am watching a video. Whenever I view something that was shot on a RED I have that thought. Hell, last night I watched a Vietnamese film called Passport to Love and new within 30 seconds it was shot on the old RED. It was video video video. Ugly.

 

Right now I am pretty much being forced into shooting a feature with the Red Epic because nothing else is viable in the country where we are shooting. My dp would prefer the Alexa, but we cannot find a way to get the support we need. I've looked into 16mm, but the logistics are a nightmare.

 

The Red Epic is a great camera for many people and usually I can go to a movie and not be too distracted by it. But good grief it sucks being told you can't shoot a movie without it.

 

I have to say the Alexa is not fooling me, and I suspect that as more and more of everything is shot on this camera, we are going to get VERY used to its distinctive look. In another thread I did a comparison between movies and cheap TV dramas shot on the Alexa, and the camera look was generally similar with perhaps Skyfall having a little bit of an edge over the rest.

 

I understand what you are saying about the Red Epic being the most straightforward for you. Is the Red One MX not also an option tho? It has a few advantages, although it has the big disadvantage of being basically a cast iron cinder block. Reminds me of the CP16R! It tends to be a lot better for sound related stuff tho, and has now been used so extensively that all the significant problems have been ironed out. They both use the same sensor too so perhaps you could mix and match?

 

I do totally understand where you are coming from. Here in the UK there was a movie a while back that I quite liked but was shocked at how bad the video looked. I was convinced it must be from some very cheap Sony camera or something. I couldn't get my head round it because it had some state funding so was not short on money and a lot of the actual cinematography work had nice moments and didn't look like someone who didn't know what they were doing. It just looked like something shot on a cheap camcorder. I discovered later, and was deeply shocked to find, that it was shot on the Red One. I still don't quite understand what happened. I strongly suspect however, that the people involved did their own grading at home. Partly because of things the director has said about his latest movie, which looks way better.

 

I think there are two significant things that work against the red cameras. Firstly the Alexa produces nicer footage right out of the camera (although I have seen some very nasty things come out of the Alexa too, but it's less often)

 

Secondly because the Red cameras are a cheaper option they tend to be used on cheaper productions without the budget to get things quite right.

 

Theres possibly also a third factor that there are a lot of people who don't really understand that the footage is supposed to be graded at all as they are just used to stuff coming out of the camera and using that, or that they don't understand that they need to hire a colourist to do the grade.

 

Anyway I hope you can make the Red cameras work for you. I suggest you find their strengths and play to them! :)

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How can image quality not be an issue? Why use inferior quality images? If film has better image quality than video then why not use film to do the live pictures?

 

 

We already established that film can't shoot live images, so I'm not sure why you are asking that question.

 

Also in relation to image quality, clearly they didn't care. The pictures ended up being heavily degraded and what most people saw was footage shot off a CRT with another video camera at the downlink station and then converted again for the sat uplink. People were just overjoyed that they had live pictures at all tho.

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you have hit a core problem in the whole business. Nobody seems to know why film looks nicer than video. It also doesn't help that there are a few people, even involved in cinematography that don't seem to be able to tell the difference. For a long time it was expected that it was a depth of field. Then it became about resolution. Now it's all about dynamic range. The truth is tho that nobody really knows what creates the magic in film. Even the people at Kodak seem to be a bit unaware of what it's about because some film stocks are just more magical than others, and if they knew what was causing that, they would make sure that they had it in every film stock. The trouble is it's more like baking a cake and getting the recipe right.

 

I don't think video is ever going to look like film, partly because of this, but also as has been suggested here already, video is just better at certain things than film is. It's better for live transmission obviously. It's also far more economical if you want to shoot high frame rates. Insanely high frame rates are going to become not a big deal on video. I think video will also become way more sensitive in lower light situations too. (At the moment I think this tends to be something that people play up too much as there are a lot of video cameras out there that aren't really all that more sensitive than film in low light but this will change with time).

 

These are all things that video does very well and if they reach a point where they are actually better than film in these respects, do you think anybody is going to hold back and say "we better not do that, because film can't go that far". I don't think so. So digital video will excel in the things it is especially good at.

 

The focus on comparing things to film is also starting to slide away, as it should, because it's a bit nonsensical. I think people are just starting to see video for what it is and working to that rather than trying to get it to look like film.

 

Freya

 

Yes.

 

I have a theory why film looks different from video. Some might say "better". But lets just say "different". I've been researching this for a couple of years now. I've been working on film to digital transfer systems, from a technical (experimental and mathematical) point of view, doing lots of measurements on film originated images, in the hope of creating an better film to digital transfer systems

 

Certainly there are some obvious differences but what of the subconscious differences - differences we might subconsciously see - differences which could create a sense of film being "better". It's not the grain, although many people do speak of it in this way - they say they like the grain - and perhaps they do, but what is probably more the case is that in film there are very subtle high frequencies occurring - not because of the grain, but despite the grain. But they happen within the grain - which is why one might erroneously give grain the credit. Every silver bromide particle is in a random location with a random size. No particle is the same as any other particle. Film is a statistically neutral material. Video (and more so digital) isn't. They are a mathematically neutral material. There is a big difference. Digital has a cutoff frequency. Film doesn't. The MTF curve of film doesn't just stop mid-curve at x lines/mm. It continues on indefinitely. But it becomes harder and harder to see or quantify. Pinpointing where it vanishes becomes impossible. This is because it is statistical rather than mathematical.

 

Take for example this picture. Every pixel is either white or black. There are no gray tones. Yet despite this we are able to see a grey tone signal. The signal is statistical. We are able to see statistical signals. Our brains can perceive them.

 

Michelangelo%27s_David_-_Floyd-Steinberg

 

Where we fail to see the grey tones is when we look too closely. Looking closely all we see are black pixels or white pixels. No grey pixels. Indeed not only do the grey tones disappear but so too do the high frequencies we otherwise see. It is when we stand back that the signal becomes clearer

 

The image or signal doesn't reside in any given pixel as such but in the relationships between pixels. Relationships that are clearer when we are further back from the image. Statistical relationships. Percievable relationships. The same must occur in film. But in film, there is an infinitely rich number of relationships possible due to the completely random shape and size of every silver particle (or dye cloud).

 

I think it's this which gives film a certain kid of kick. A certain kind of "reality" that is lacking in digital, but is, strangely I've found, transferrable to digital. Not entirely but more so than I expected. It is not a question of resolution, although related. Or dynamic range, although related. It is do with a certain statistical relationship between film and image.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We already established that film can't shoot live images, so I'm not sure why you are asking that question.

 

Well, in fact, no we didn't. We all knew it, but nobody actually said it. You are the first to literally say so.

 

cheers

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, in fact, no we didn't. We all knew it, but nobody actually said it. You are the first to literally say so.

 

cheers

C

 

John said "because it was a live transmission" and we all understood what he meant by that.

Any further explanation was redundant really.

 

John is an expert at summing things up in a tiny number of words. He should join twitter! ;)

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying about the Red Epic being the most straightforward for you. Is the Red One MX not also an option tho? It has a few advantages, although it has the big disadvantage of being basically a cast iron cinder block. Reminds me of the CP16R! It tends to be a lot better for sound related stuff tho, and has now been used so extensively that all the significant problems have been ironed out. They both use the same sensor too so perhaps you could mix and match?

 

I think there are two significant things that work against the red cameras. Firstly the Alexa produces nicer footage right out of the camera (although I have seen some very nasty things come out of the Alexa too, but it's less often)

 

Secondly because the Red cameras are a cheaper option they tend to be used on cheaper productions without the budget to get things quite right.

 

Theres possibly also a third factor that there are a lot of people who don't really understand that the footage is supposed to be graded at all as they are just used to stuff coming out of the camera and using that, or that they don't understand that they need to hire a colourist to do the grade.

 

Anyway I hope you can make the Red cameras work for you. I suggest you find their strengths and play to them! :)

 

Freya

 

Freya, one issue that worries my DP is the RED's inclination to overheat. Since we will be shooting in Vietnam where 90+ degrees with horrific humidity is the norm, it makes him nervous. He'd prefer shooting on the Alexa, but we are going to have to work with the lone rental house that has it and try to come up with a compromise on the costs. I've no idea if that is even possible.

 

Last night I watched two films. DRIVE (Alexa) and SNITCH (Red). Without question I preferred the look and feel of DRIVE, but that can come to no more than the lighting and skill of the DP. Over the last few days I watched half a dozen Vietnamese and Korean films shot on the RED MX and for the most part hated how they looked. The Korean films were less distracting but I think that comes down to the fact they have a lot more money to play with and therefore can affords a real grading of the final product.

 

If I have my way we will test all three BlackMagic cameras and see what's what. The problem is the people behind the scenes would rather we just shoot on a RED and not "waste money" on needless fiddling. Say what?!

 

It's still early so I will continue pushing for what I believe in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, in fact, no we didn't. We all knew it, but nobody actually said it. You are the first to literally say so.

 

cheers

C

 

Seems like everyone knew apart from from you.. They barely managed a TV transmission at the time, so if it wasn't possible they'd have probably have rigged a 16mm camera beside the Hasselblads for screening upon their return. As it was the blur from the moon met the needs of the audience, otherwise it would've just been audio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

John said "because it was a live transmission" and we all understood what he meant by that.

Any further explanation was redundant really.

 

John is an expert at summing things up in a tiny number of words. He should join twitter! ;)

 

Freya

 

Yes we all all understood the answer. What we didn't understand was the question. Or how to answer it.

 

John's reply is a good one but it adds no new information to that which was already stated in the question. The question had already established that it was a live transmission (about which the question was being asked). So to say "because it was a live transmission" doesn't actually answer the question. But it was a good answer. I smiled at the one. I had to laugh at the ones about weight. The surreal one (about getting film to the earth, processing it, telecine) was also a really good one.

 

But treating the question seriously (ie. not just as a rhetorical question) the correct answer, which we all knew, but couldn't quite literally say, is "because film is incapable of live transmission"

 

From that follows what is actually your own response, which is really the much better answer - to work out a way of moving beyond comparisons between film and video, to move beyond comparing chalk and cheese.

 

The correct answer to the question shows why one can't actually say things like "film is better than video", or indeed, "video is better than film" because it depends entirely on what is meant by "better". Better at what?

 

 

cheers

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Freya, one issue that worries my DP is the RED's inclination to overheat. Since we will be shooting in Vietnam where 90+ degrees with horrific humidity is the norm, it makes him nervous. He'd prefer shooting on the Alexa, but we are going to have to work with the lone rental house that has it and try to come up with a compromise on the costs. I've no idea if that is even possible.

 

 

I don't suspect overheating will be as much the problem as the camera sounding like a jet turbine waiting to take off might be. The Epic has a bad reputation for this at the best of times! For some reason the RED One MX doesn't suffer as much from this. I'm guessing because it doesn't push things as far. Maybe if you don't shoot at full 5K resolution on the Epic it won't heat up as much? Or maybe you would be better off with a Red One MX. It is a much bigger and heavier camera tho. That can be useful in some situations, others... not so much.

 

If you are lucky the new firmware update with better fan control might be around by the time you come to shoot. There is also the hardware fan upgrade too.

 

If it's really going to be that hot tho and you have a lot of dialogue, the Alexa might actually work out cheaper!

 

A shame you can't use Dragon. Apparently it likes the heat! :)

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we need to move on from debates about which is better (chalk or cheese) that doesn't mean abandoning the ongoing study of what makes chalk or cheese tick and how it can be improved. On a technical level comparisons can still be very useful. Quite obviously digital has benefited from using film as a benchmark. And so to that extent we shouldn't be too ready to abandon comparison. The issue is whether there is anything more about film, that digital can learn.

 

Freya mentioned a kind of "magic" and while that sounds a bit fluffy it needn't be. It can just be a way of referring to that which hasn't yet been technically determined.

 

At one point there was some perception, amongst the digital community, that what people liked about film was grain. I mentioned this earlier, but not the consequences. The consequences were (and still remain) the bizarre practice of adding grain to a digital image. Now sometimes, of course, when mixing film and effects, a certain consistency is being aimed at, which requires matching the grain. But what of the practice of just adding it to make it look like film? Something Peter Jackson once suggested. This is really quite silly. And it is based on a misunderstanding of what film grain actually is. It is more about certain tradeoffs made between various technical factors, in order for film to achieve the image that it does. It is a requirement of the way film works. It can't work in the way that it does without that effect. Now certainly some people might like that effect. but is that a reason for adding it to a digital image? Maybe but it doesn't advance how digital might learn from film grain. All it was learning about film grain was that some people liked it. And they though they had worked it out. They hadn't.

 

Film reconstructs an image statistically. A side effect of this is what we might call grain. Or might even call noise. But adding grain to digital doesn't in anyway reproduce the cause of grain. It merely reproduces the effect. Grain or noise, added to digital takes something away from the signal that digital otherwise mediates. That is why it is silly. In film, the signal is reconstructed by means that actually produce a grainy result. It is not something designed to produce that effect. It is something film does (something quite important) that nevertheless produces grain as a side effect. The question to ask is not how to fake this effect (as if was just some sort of aesthetic thing) but to look at what technically causes it, because what causes it is actually far more interesting than the effect. It is something that digital doesn't yet do, or is only beginning to realise.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freya mentioned a kind of "magic" and while that sounds a bit fluffy it needn't be. It can just be a way of referring to that which hasn't yet been technically determined.

 

 

"any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How can image quality not be an issue? Why use inferior quality images? If film has better image quality than video then why not use film to do the live pictures?

 

Weight was not the problem.

 

Funnily enough, despite the obviousness of the answer, or perhaps because the answer is so obvious, there has yet to be put into words, the literal answer.

 

C

Weight wasn't a problem? EVERY OUNCE on the Apollo spacecraft was a problem!! Also, storage space was a problem. They took exactly what they needed to accomplished their mission. Now think about what you just said. The whole reason for going to the moon was to prove we better, smarter and more importantly, stronger than the Soviets.To make them understand that if they ever contemplated attacking us, we had the technology to lay them to waste. The scientific discoveries were secondary but the perception of sueriority was paramount to that goal. The live images of men actually walking on the moon while the whole world watched was the greatest PR stunt in the history of the world. Who the HELL is gonna want to wait eight and a half days to see a movie even WITH better resolution when it can be broadcasted LIVE!!! Carl, sometimes I gotta wonder if you were dropped a lot as a baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weight wasn't a problem? EVERY OUNCE on the Apollo spacecraft was a problem!! Also, storage space was a problem. They took exactly what they needed to accomplished their mission. Now think about what you just said. The whole reason for going to the moon was to prove we better, smarter and more importantly, stronger than the Soviets.To make them understand that if they ever contemplated attacking us, we had the technology to lay them to waste. The scientific discoveries were secondary but the perception of sueriority was paramount to that goal. The live images of men actually walking on the moon while the whole world watched was the greatest PR stunt in the history of the world. Who the HELL is gonna want to wait eight and a half days to see a movie even WITH better resolution when it can be broadcasted LIVE!!! Carl, sometimes I gotta wonder if you were dropped a lot as a baby.

 

The question, if you re-read it, was why film (instead of video) wasn't used to broadcast live from the moon.

 

Making a film camera lighter isn't going to help you. There was a more fundamental problem. But that's okay. I understood what you meant. I had a good laugh. The question was a difficult one to comprehend.

 

cheers

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...