Evan Winter Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 the following should be an interesting read - here's a link to a transcript from the theatre where singer et al. viewed the first projected footage from the genesis camera currently being used to shoot superman returns. http://www.bluetights.net/transcript.php?id=9 the key quote that caught my attention was singer stating, 'Now it looks better than film'. this is said in passing by singer but the comment is still telling. evan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Pytlak RIP Posted April 28, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2005 the following should be an interesting read - here's a link to a transcript from the theatre where singer et al. viewed the first projected footage from the genesis camera currently being used to shoot superman returns. http://www.bluetights.net/transcript.php?id=9 the key quote that caught my attention was singer stating, 'Now it looks better than film'. this is said in passing by singer but the comment is still telling. evan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't forget that the images were evaluated in a screening room environment, digitally projected on a smaller screen (likely only a 2K projector). Whether that opinion holds up on a 60 foot theatre screen or though post production is still not known. I recall that the editor had some concerns that the post-production stream took longer than film origination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted April 28, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2005 Hi, I smell the smell of Panavision groupies... Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 (edited) Please, lets not start this digital better than film thing again. It makes me want to shoot myself in the face! :blink: Yours truly, President of the Format Agnostic Society. :D Edited April 28, 2005 by J. Lamar King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 28, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 28, 2005 I smell the smell of Panavision groupies... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe that's only fair since one of our regular posters has a "I Hate Panavision" website... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Really, who cares? The whole Film vs. Video debate is OLD People will shoot whatever format is appropriate/affordable/available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member drew_town Posted April 29, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 29, 2005 Please, lets not start this digital better than film thing again. It makes me want to shoot myself in the face! :blink:Yours truly, President of the Format Agnostic Society. :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah really. This time tomorrow there will be seven pages worth of posts from the usual you-know-who's bickering backing and forth and rehashing the twenty-nine thousand other seven-pages threads just like this one. Dang people! Financial supporter of the Format Agnostic Society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dominic Case Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 What caught my attention was the four-day wait. (Well three, Monday to Thursday, they can't count). Why does it take until Thursday to see HD dailies shot on Monday? The "what if it was film" argument was wrong anyway. If they shot in Tamworth Monday, the neg would fly to Sydney Monday night, process THAT night, go to transfer on Tuesday, and be available late Tuesday, not Wednesday. Certainly not Thursday. Can't make it faster than film? I thought that was a big selling point. Also hearing unconfirmed rumours that the location shooting is proving a little difficult on HD because of the high ratio light conditions in outback Australia. Not a problem on film. Not a problem on Star Wars, all shot in studio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 I have no desire to get into another film/digital debate either, though its probably inevitably going to happen. Feels to me like to some degree, directors taking up the digital mantel have the underlying agenda of being crowned a "cutting edge, trailblazing, cinematic genious". The only major studio director so far to say I shot HD because it offered me the look I wanted without the need to compare it to film in a pessimistic way is Michael Mann. When I hear statements like "Now it looks better than film, how do we make it go faster than film?", it makes me wonder. Also Tom Seigel says "You know, it's a whole new language, it's a whole new technology so to really explore all the stuff we can get out of it, we're certainly gonna make some mistakes along the way, we're gonna learn some things along the way but we're gonna' discover... " Grading images electronically has been around for nearly twenty years now. Rec 709 color space - 1920 x 1080 HD has been around for about six years, with a flood of television, music video, and commercial post production moving into the format. This statement infers that there is still alot of undiscovered territory in the format, I'm curious as to what he is learning new that no one else as yet discovered. I am generally curious and not asking this as the start to a heated debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted April 29, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 29, 2005 I think he's talking about shooting theatrical features digitally as still being a relatively new field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member drew_town Posted April 29, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 29, 2005 Can't make it faster than film? I thought that was a big selling point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can't tell what the heck they're talking about from this transcription. Sounds to me like they're referring to color-corrected material, in which I'd say four days is a blessing. But like I said, I can't wade through the stupid crap in the article so I don't know. It's not very informative and hardly something to really analyze. They sound a little too drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted April 29, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted April 29, 2005 X-Men: Anamorphic X-Men 2 : Super35 with really bad DI Superman: HD Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boone Hudgins Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 It was a video: http://www.bluetights.net/bulletin_list.php I think they were talking about the color corrected video. I'm not sure the whole thing was serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenolian Bell Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 I think he's talking about shooting theatrical features digitally as still being a relatively new field. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From what I understand its more the projection from digital that's still a work in progress. Working with LUT's and converting HD color space to a film print color space. Hammering out standards to do this in a predictable and repeatable fashion is still being worked out. Standards for digital projection are still in flux. 2K - 4K, some recommending 12 bit color depth, some 16 bit color depth. But I'm still not understanding what's new and undiscovered in the shooting or color correction. The resolution and color depth are set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 Yeah really. This time tomorrow there will be seven pages worth of posts from the usual you-know-who's bickering backing and forth and rehashing the twenty-nine thousand other seven-pages threads just like this one. Dang people! Financial supporter of the Format Agnostic Society. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I got five bucks this thread reaches 7 pages by May 3 next Tuesday That's 4 days from now... So who's in the pool? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted April 29, 2005 Share Posted April 29, 2005 (edited) Also hearing unconfirmed rumours that the location shooting is proving a little difficult on HD because of the high ratio light conditions in outback Australia. Not a problem on film. Not a problem on Star Wars, all shot in studio. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps the adjustments and mistakes that the DP himself reffered too and that seem to be puzzling a few on this forum, is the DP and gaffer getting used to and learning how to deal with limited highlight handling of CCD? This can be mistakenly reported by onlookers as "problems". I can't see many shots that come into the "having problems" category shooting in harsh sunlight on digital on a reasonable budget movie. One simply uses a larger/heavier silk, more fill or bigger key lamp or all three. Set designers should be aware need to explore how surfaces are captured by ccds. More of a problem on low budgets with limited resources.... I'm off to the sunny Bahamas next week to shoot a promotional video for a TV manufacturer for instore use at 5000 outlets. Their choice of format, after 3 months of deliberation and testing is uncompressed HD. Mike Brennan Edited April 29, 2005 by mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent J. Craig Posted May 1, 2005 Share Posted May 1, 2005 There are so many spelling mistakes in that article that I concur with the "they were drunk" analysis. Anyone who says "pan down" loses my respect, as in "You can see it with the Genesis camera, you can see Jupiter, and than pan down from Jupiter...". I hope he was misquoted. One pans left and right, and tilts up and down. A small issue, perhaps, but I have seen several experienced commercial crews snicker when a wanna-be director tells the DP to 'pan down'. (they never ask to tilt left or right, for some reason.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Winter Posted May 3, 2005 Author Share Posted May 3, 2005 Hey Brent, How are you? Not sure if you recall, I met you several times at Partners' when I was 2nd'ing. I love your crewpix website!! I hope all is well for you and I look forward to soon seeing your name in lights when you're DP'ing Hollywood's biggest and best! :) Evan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Allen Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 One pans left and right, and tilts up and down. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If you are panning left and tilting down at the same time, what do you call that? Just that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 I got five bucks this thread reaches 7 pages by May 3 next TuesdayThat's 4 days from now... So who's in the pool? :) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just freaking great man! As always I lose! :angry: Where were the controversial debates? Why didn't someone make a heated comment? It's just great man--game over man--what are we gonna do now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 If you are panning left and tilting down at the same time, what do you call that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Flagged........ :D -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Mottram Posted May 3, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted May 3, 2005 Pan up, pan down, who cares if you've films have earned a billion dollars? He can the camera's bananaing down if he fancies it. anyone here going to correct him? Anyway the workflow issue was really interesting my assumption is that they're losing time in both colour correction and down conversion. but something tells me that this is not really an issue and that they're having a laugh at our expense. There is no reason why they cannot have the SR footage going straight into their pipe and have the editors working simultaniously with the grading team. I'm sure that whatever you believe about shooting with the genesis Sigel is going to give the editors enough information to work with. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boone Hudgins Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 The part where Sigel is giving Singer a hard time about printing every take kind of makes me think it's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fstop Posted May 3, 2005 Share Posted May 3, 2005 There are so many spelling mistakes in that article that I concur with the "they were drunk" analysis. Anyone who says "pan down" loses my respect, as in "You can see it with the Genesis camera, you can see Jupiter, and than pan down from Jupiter...". I hope he was misquoted. One pans left and right, and tilts up and down. A small issue, perhaps, but I have seen several experienced commercial crews snicker when a wanna-be director tells the DP to 'pan down'. (they never ask to tilt left or right, for some reason.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When I did my film studies degree we were all told by a very pedantic lecturer (a very talented theorist with no interest/experience operating a camera or visiting a film set) the strict difference between pan and tilt. We were also warned we would be severely docked marks if we used either term incorrectly. A couple of years after that I attended a lecture on Jack Cardiff and Freddie Francis, both gentlemen were present. Straight from Cardiff's mouth he was describing camera operation and he frequently used the term "pan down". Safe to say, university was a waste of time. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 4, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted May 4, 2005 I think the rule should just be if everyone understands what you're saying. If a director told me to "pan down from the sky", I wouldn't correct him, I'd tilt down from the sky. It's a good idea to learn the proper terms of things as long as you understand it has nothing to do with whether you are any good or not at cinematography... 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