Stuart Brereton Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 it's clear by the way he talks, starts 15 min in. I think Roger is quite clear in saying that he prefers shooting digitally (with Alexa) to film because of the options it gives him. Nowhere does he say that he doesn't like film. Please don't offer your opinions as fact, particularly when speaking for other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted January 27, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted January 27, 2016 I think Roger is quite clear in saying that he prefers shooting digitally (with Alexa) to film because of the options it gives him. Nowhere does he say that he doesn't like film. Please don't offer your opinions as fact, particularly when speaking for other people. I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I think if you do more research, you may find my opinion spot on. He didn't like film because he's nervous wreck about how things would look out of the soup. The moment he switched to digital, he found himself much more relaxed and able to work better as well. Plus comments like this: "As I say, just the technical problems with film, I’m sorry, it’s over." don't come from someone who likes film. You would never hear Wally Pfister say something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 27, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted January 27, 2016 It's possible to like A over B without that meaning you dislike B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Pretty much, Roger never implies he doesn't like film, more like digital gives him some peace of mind and comfort in knowing what he has on the spot, but once again, he's probably the only one with Chivo who makes the Alexa sing the way he does. So when you have that going for you, by all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Looper Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Yes, we can say he's liking film a little less. By about 16.4%, give or take about 2.86% C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Yes, we can say he's liking film a little less. By about 16.4%, give or take about 2.86% C You are Crazy! I watched that video and it was totally obvious to me that he is liking film a full 72% less now that he has experienced the alternative. I think there can only be at maximum a 1.32% deviation from this figure. Please note at 15:01 that thing he does with his hands on his chin, and later on he reaches for his neck. It's clear to me he thinks film needs a good kicking. Also I shouldn't need to point this out but the whole time they are shooting this video in his garden, he is wearing his jeans and a "house of sand and fog" T-Shirt. He is ready to do the gardening and bury the past. Case Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albion Hockney Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I think Deakins simply expects and is used to top quality lab work - no chemistry variations, dirty baths, or imperfect washes; no handling errors that would introduce scratches, pressure marks, light leaks, hairs and dirt; perfect prints with his specified printer lights, and so on. And consistent lab work is difficult to find these days. So I don't see how he can be faulted at all for preferring a digital workflow to avoid these issues. He does not seem to be a cinematographer who has ever liked heavy grain, halation, flares, light leaks, 'happy accidents' in the lab. He generally prefers clean, sharp images with the least amount of interpretation possible between the image in his viewfinder and the final image on screen. Digital capture is perfect for that mindset. It's not for everyone. yea, I think this is exactly the case. Deakins likes somewhat "clean" imagery - his digital films all look great and I don't think for the way he works he is loosing very much in the digital process (a tiny bit of latitude and a little of color depth - but he seems to work the alexa really well). that said - I wish he would keep his opinion to himself because producers etc will use anything against you when trying to go film "Roger Deakins doesn't need film" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny N Suleimanagich Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Because this forum is often referenced years later and shows up frequently on search results, I can't allow Tyler's misinformation to propagate. From an archived post on his forum: "I think anyone who reads my views as I express them on this site will know that, whilst I love film, I see no advantage to shooting film over shooting digital" Edited January 27, 2016 by Kenny N Suleimanagich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I'd be surprised that all producers would even know who Roger Deakins is. But yeah, but then again, he can afford to say that considering the stellar work he's doing on the Alexa (except for Unbroken IMO), but I have to admit when watching the first trailer for Hail Caesar that I smiled and said out loud "well, film is something else, no way around it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E Clark Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Deakins says: "You can’t even process differently these days. You don’t have that option." What does he mean? Most labs will still push/pull process the negative, cross process and bleach bypass. OK, maybe ENR/Oz is gone, but that's print only. Not Roger, never put motion picture film through a process... but for my stills experience, there is no 'face-to-face' lab in my area where I can talk to the people who manage the process and if I want 'push' or 'pull processing' or go yet-another-round of test film(*) because I want to verify the process in the first place, there is no such facility for me. Likewise for printing the result on paper... *The note here is that I mostly shot Tri-X or Neopan 400 at ISO 200 in the first place, so 'push' and 'pull' were different from the manufacturer's recommendations from the start. Furthermore, we would run test rolls of film through the process very so often to verify that we and the lab were still in sync. I don't recall paying for a 'test roll' being processed it was just the lab 'keeping the customer happy'... We occasionally used non-pro labs, which basically only follow the narrow manufacturer's setup... and that was like pulling teeth to get anything out of... these were emergencies but necessary on those rare occasions. The 'lab' staff would look at us like we were idiots... we sometimes rejected a whole batch of prints because of the crappy control. I'm sure 'happy shots shooters' would have been fine with the output... We also had to explain to our customers why we couldn't use a 'cheap' lab such as Costco, or the local drugstore processor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E Clark Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Because this forum is often referenced years later and shows up frequently on search results, I can't allow Tyler's misinformation to propagate. From an archived post on his forum: "I think anyone who reads my views as I express them on this site will know that, whilst I love film, I see no advantage to shooting film over shooting digital" I'm interpreting these recent remarks to be directed to the fact that Film film processing has become a very limited business activity, and fewer resources to supply processing, or even film stock. Even if one was a Great Yellow Father die hard fan, there was always Fujifilm if one needed to have a competitive option. As it is, the Wife and I switched to Fujifilm because of the color of skin tones was better for us, given the color negative film stock, the processing, and the use of Fujifilm paper... I have liked films shot with Fujifilm motion picture stocks as well... In the interest of full disclosure... the Wife did get a lot of support for her seminars in the 90's from Fujifilm... but that was after we had switched and she struck up a conversation at a trade show with the Fujifilm team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 that said - I wish he would keep his opinion to himself because producers etc will use anything against you when trying to go film "Roger Deakins doesn't need film" Roger is entitled to air his opinion in an interview, because he has a wealth of experience shooting with either format. There are many people here who offer advice based on little experience and opinion based on dogma. Deakins is not one of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 As Roger says it: " I wouldn’t say it’s easier shooting digital, but it is much more reassuring when you can actually see what you’re doing on your DIT’s monitor. With film, it doesn’t matter how much experience you have, you’re still judging it by your eye. I still like to judge it by eye when I shoot digitally — that’s why I use an ALEXA Studio, because I like having the optical viewfinder — but it’s very reassuring when I go over to see the image on the DIT’s calibrated monitor." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted January 27, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted January 27, 2016 Satsuki, do you work at a lab? To my knowledge, Fotokem is a very good lab. Film processing is pretty regular business at Fotokem, and I would be surprised if the chemistry was not checked on a daily basis. What "perfect prints" are you talking referring to? "Hail, Caesar!" to my knowledge was DCP only. No prints were struck. What does Roger Deakins mean by "We had some stock issues and stuff like that"? Nope, I do not work in a lab and never have. I'm speaking from the customer side of the counter. As for the 'perfect prints', I was speaking generally about the level of quality lab work Deakins and other cinematographers of his stature have been used to in the past. Timed dailies workprints, answer prints, release prints. Obviously this was not an issue on 'Hail, Ceasar!' but reports of inconsistent lab work have become more common over the last few years as more and more labs have downsized and closed down. I believe Seamus McGarvey had some issues several years ago with poorly timed dailies from the lab (digital I think in his case) while shooting 'Anna Karenina'. Anyway, I believe Roger's thinking is that if he can't have that level of consistent quality again, then he would prefer to move on to digital where he can at least have consistency. He was similarly insistent on the need for his preferred digital camera system to have an optical viewfinder, which he eventually got with the Alexa Studio. So I think at this point he simply wants what he wants, and since he has earned it he generally gets it. Don't know what specific stock issues Deakins had. But you can certainly ask him directly on his forum: http://rogerdeakins.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Awesome interview from DP/30's David Poland with Roger for Sicario, he pretty much says that he loves film but could do without the mystery of film ie happy accidents or not knowing exactly if he got it right. Talks a tiny bit about Hail Caesar too, saying he was on the fence about shooting film, but since the Coen brothers want to shoot film and the film takes place in the 50's, it makes sense for him, he also talks about the grainy texture that he likes (although he says "it's fine" a lot ^^). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanji Robinson Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Nope, I do not work in a lab and never have. I'm speaking from the customer side of the counter. As for the 'perfect prints', I was speaking generally about the level of quality lab work Deakins and other cinematographers of his stature have been used to in the past. Timed dailies workprints, answer prints, release prints. Obviously this was not an issue on 'Hail, Ceasar!' but reports of inconsistent lab work have become more common over the last few years as more and more labs have downsized and closed down. I believe Seamus McGarvey had some issues several years ago with poorly timed dailies from the lab (digital I think in his case) while shooting 'Anna Karenina'. I am confused, Satsuki. What "lab work" are we discussing? There is quite a range of steps in the process. Processing? Printing? or Telecine? (the latter can be substituted by a professional color house. Labs like Fotokem don't have to do your digital dailies) If Seamus McGarvey was complaining about the "timed dailies", he meant either the dailies print or the telecine, correct? Obviously this was not an issue on 'Hail, Ceasar! But Roger said there was a "lab work" issue on "Hail, Ceaser!". So, he meant inconsistent processing of the negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted January 27, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted January 27, 2016 I think we are all familiar with the basic lab services - processing, prep for scan or telecine, printing. Scanning or telecine if done in house. And shipping if necessary. What I'm saying is that you can have problems with any one of those services if the work is not done correctly up to a high standard. And that reports of these problems have become more frequent in the last few years as the volume of lab work has declined and and as experienced lab technicians have retired. We have a few who still post on these forums. As to what specific problems Deakins encountered on 'Hail, Ceasar!' only he and his camera department could really tell you. Since it sounds like they didn't print anything, then that would seem to rule out a problem there. But if you're still curious about it, why not ask him directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Reading the ICG article, Deakins says about the film: "I liked the grain and texture of the film image for this particular show. As Ethan said, this is a film about film, so it made sense for the Coens that we went this route, even though initially I felt the Alexa might be the better choice. Since digital took over the major part of the market, there seems to be a little less back-up market for shooting film, which can create some problems." They say that digging up some of the equipment to shoot film wasn't as easy as in past years (!), first AC Andrew Harris "Some of this stuff had gotten pushed pretty far back on the shelf. Roger got his favorite camera back to shoot this one. Otto Nemenz had tried to give it to him a few years back, but he thought that was jumping the gun, and I guess this proves he was right." "Deakins has relied on the ARRI 535-B since the camera debuted. "I like this camera better than the newer Arriflex but recently they had been considering having it shipped to the ASC camera museum. Seriously !" "After the Coens finished their cut (Using Adobe's Premiere Pro CC), Deakins relied on EFILM supervising digital colorist Mitch Paulson for his DI. "I like to get as close as I can with the negative." Deakins reveals "and try to limit corrections, though sometimes one can use windows or tweak the contrast just a bit in the DI. I find the most difficult thing can be the timing of effects shots so that everything fits together." Paulson says "He is the only client who is always there from day one, starting with dailies grade and going through the whole film every day alongside me. He genuinely enjoys seeing what we can accomplish during the DI process. Deakins who is currently prepping a Blade Runner sequel for Denis Villeneuve, says the Coens' enormous amount of preplanning sets them apart from the "fix it in post" mentality." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E Clark Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Paulson says "He is the only client who is always there from day one, starting with dailies grade and going through the whole film every day alongside me. He genuinely enjoys seeing what we can accomplish during the DI process. Deakins who is currently prepping a Blade Runner sequel for Denis Villeneuve, says the Coens' enormous amount of preplanning sets them apart from the "fix it in post" mentality." Deakins and Coens were 'pioneers' in digital DI with "Oh, Brother where art thou?"(2000), so it does not surprise me that Deakins would be involved if he could with most of the processes to the final screened image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 He really should tell everyone what problems he said he had with the stock and lab problems ! I was at the BSC expo last friday and I can tell you the two film labs we have here in London are very very unhappy with his comments me to and I know Roger ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Ask him the question on his forum, there's a thread for the post on Hail Caesar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanji Robinson Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Please, someone post to his forum. I am sure there are more than two dedicated labs out there who are unhappy with Roger's comment that essentially paints all the labs with one brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Oh come on now, he just made a comment about lab problems, he's not talking about every single lab out there, he's just used to a digital workflow and let's not forget he hadn't shot film for a while. Makes sense he'd need some time to get back into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted February 3, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted February 3, 2016 Please, someone post to his forum. Again, what is stopping you from asking him yourself? If you want to know so badly, just ask him. He's very nice and down to earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanji Robinson Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 Oh come on now, he just made a comment about lab problems, he's not talking about every single lab out there, he's just used to a digital workflow and let's not forget he hadn't shot film for a while. Makes sense he'd need some time to get back into it. Let me quote the Variety article: "And I’ve heard that’s happened to a lot of people lately, you know, stock and lab problems."..."I don’t want to do that again, frankly. I don’t think the infrastructure’s there." Sounds like he is talking about every lab out there. I am not saying he is wrong. I am wondering if it's true? 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