When was the last time movie titles were done optically?

Simon Wyss · July 26, 2016

Simple. How do you print white on black?

Clear letters in black are obtained by phototypesetting. Film out

Gregg MacPherson · July 26, 2016

Simon. If you are saying that a photo typesetting machine can't produce white letters on black...that sounds right to me, but I'm guessing, inferring. I can't remember if film vs paper was an option for the photo typesetter back then. But we invariably used a paper out, black letters on white, then went to a separate service to get a high con film from that. All the titles were cramed together on a film that was about A4, then we cut it up and matted it into the title cards. This is the way that broke artists and early DIY indies did it here then. Probably all about the dollars.

Simon Wyss · July 27, 2016

Oh, yeah, of course there is also phototypesetting on paper. I didn’t think of it because quality is best with film, you know, sharpest edges. It depends on the availability of equipment, too. You might have had a graphics house in the near or a repro entreprise. We had a repro photo company couple streets away. Others do computer-to-film up to four feet wide.

I still believe in graphic arts. Nothing matches an educated title matte, the bigger the better. This:

irma00mz6.3825.jpg

Low quality still

Love Shirley anyway.

Phil Connolly · July 27, 2016

Yeah man - I'm gonna shoot my film on short end's on my arri 2C - single perf 35mm with a widened gate - yeah I'm making my own formats. I've worked out, I can get my shooting ratio down to 1.26:1 if I only work with sock puppets!

Process the stock in my bath tub using red wine and coffee. Recording non sync sound on my Nagra and edit on one of my 12 Steenbeck's. Titles will be carved out wood. Yeah!

All music will be analogue from my home-made modular synth.

Those digital guys know nothing about the look of reel analogue film man. If you don't do if this way you can't call yourself a filmmaker - i refuse to watch video its evil and wrong. Film is silver, video is rust - says it all. Digital just isn't right, I mean Buster Keaton never shot digital you know what I'm sayin.

Nah - I haven't got a story yet or any ideas but when i do it will be pure. Remember its not what you shoot, but what you shoot it on that matters.

(this analogue fetish thing gets a bit tiresome at times :rolleyes: )

Simon Wyss · July 27, 2016

Please excuse me, should I appear fetishistic here.

To answer politely, the fetish thing about the film look and stuff among videoists is far mor anal. Why can’t everybody simply do their digital movie filing and leave us film technicians in peace? No, they keep coming here and coming back and keep asking questions as if there was a pyramid to break open and to find a treasure in it. Duh!

Peter Bitic · July 27, 2016

Yeah man - I'm gonna shoot my film on short end's on my arri 2C - single perf 35mm with a widened gate - yeah I'm making my own formats. I've worked out, I can get my shooting ratio down to 1.26:1 if I only work with sock puppets!

Process the stock in my bath tub using red wine and coffee. Recording non sync sound on my Nagra and edit on one of my 12 Steenbeck's. Titles will be carved out wood. Yeah!

All music will be analogue from my home-made modular synth.

Those digital guys know nothing about the look of reel analogue film man. If you don't do if this way you can't call yourself a filmmaker - i refuse to watch video its evil and wrong. Film is silver, video is rust - says it all. Digital just isn't right, I mean Buster Keaton never shot digital you know what I'm sayin.

Nah - I haven't got a story yet or any ideas but when i do it will be pure. Remember its not what you shoot, but what you shoot it on that matters.

(this analogue fetish thing gets a bit tiresome at times :rolleyes: )

Given that this is a cinematography forum, I am surprised how often people dismiss certain visual techniques or processes (mostly having something to do about film) as unimportant and then blab about story, and ideas and "what you shoot on doesn't matter". I guess I would understand if director or a screenwriter had such a disinterested view about different visual options and concentrated just on screenplay, and actors and scenography etc. (but even then I would be surprised), but to be a cinematographer and adopt a position that those things *don't matter*, that's just absurd. Mind you, I completely understand if someone strongly prefers digital processes over analog ones, and based on that preference dismisses analog ones. I also understand if someone chooses one or another for pragmatic reasons (budget considerations for example), and realizes the medium is not the deciding thing when it comes to the quality of the movie. But to adopt a position of "it doesn't matter" when people are discussing differences between visual options on a cinematography forum, that's just absurd.

Satsuki Murashige · July 27, 2016

Not everyone here is a cinematographer, and that can be a good thing. A more holistic perspective on cinema makes the forum more interesting in my opinion. As long as it's an informed perspective, anyway. ;)

Stuart Brereton · July 27, 2016

There's nothing wrong in investigating older or out-dated techniques and technologies. I still hand process B&W film and print in a darkroom when I can; not because I think it's better, but because I enjoy it. There's a certain 'magic' to the process that Photoshop cannot match. Adhering to traditional methods is something that hobbyists of all kinds do, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes out of choice.

It's when people loudly proclaim that traditional/old methods are better, purely by virtue of being traditional/old, that I take exception. To me it's as pointless as those who take the opposite tack, and zealously promote whatever brand new technology is available, regardless of its suitability.

David Mullen ASC · July 27, 2016

Given that this is a cinematography forum, I am surprised how often people dismiss certain visual techniques or processes (mostly having something to do about film) as unimportant and then blab about story, and ideas and "what you shoot on doesn't matter". I guess I would understand if director or a screenwriter had such a disinterested view about different visual options and concentrated just on screenplay, and actors and scenography etc. (but even then I would be surprised), but to be a cinematographer and adopt a position that those things *don't matter*, that's just absurd. Mind you, I completely understand if someone strongly prefers digital processes over analog ones, and based on that preference dismisses analog ones. I also understand if someone chooses one or another for pragmatic reasons (budget considerations for example), and realizes the medium is not the deciding thing when it comes to the quality of the movie. But to adopt a position of "it doesn't matter" when people are discussing differences between visual options on a cinematography forum, that's just absurd.

The original post was:

"Does everybody just consider digital titles superior or is this phenomenom due to laziness?"

There are subjective terms in there like "superior" and "laziness" that will trigger some sort of defensive response in people who use digital techniques -- the question did not seem completely innocuous.

If the original post was that "I like the look of hand typeset/drawn titles shot on film -- why do you think this technique has been abandoned?" then people might have not felt they were stepping into another film vs. digital argument.

As for the notion that a cinematographer should have a strong opinion about whether the credits in his projects are created digitally or with analog techniques, I don't think it is fair to say that since this is a visual aspect of the movie, every cinematographer should care deeply about it. I don't think Storaro, for example, has ever commented on how the titles were made for the three movies he got an Academy Award for, partly because he didn't do that work.

There are long lists of things that a cinematographer cares about when shooting a movie and one has to prioritize, so devoting much emotional energy into the fonts used for a title card and how they were created and shot is usually WAY down the list. As artists of course we care about things that aren't noticed much by an audience member, but as practical, pragmatic practitioners of our craft, we have to prioritize, there usually has to be some economy of effort, which is why sometimes we do have to question doing something that will take more time or cost more money if we honestly think no one is going to notice or care (other than ourselves) or that it won't really make the movie any better. We'd probably feel differently if we were making our own movie on our own money, where we were more free to pursue a personal passion, or if we were hired specifically to resurrect an obsolete technique, but that isn't the case in most of what we do.

Twenty years ago when bad interlaced-scan low-res video titles replaced optical film titles for television shows, you might have gotten a bigger response because there was such an obvious quality change to something worse.

Of course most of us here care about how things are made, what techniques are used, etc. It's just that when you are asking that some older, more time-consuming, handmade analog technique be restored to mainstream cinema, you really have to accept arguments in opposition, and "is it worth it if the audience can't see it or doesn't care about it?" is a valid argument even if I think it is often over-applied or used incorrectly.

Peter Bitic · July 28, 2016

I agree that the OP wasn't optimally formulated - I shouldn't have used the word "laziness" (not just because it is unnecessary provocative and judgmental, but because there are other explanation why somebody who likes analog titles wouldn't use them). As for word "superior", I think that's fine. Basically I think there are 2 general explanations why people who aren't ignorant about all possible options could use digital over analog titles: 1.) because they think digital are superior (better, more appropriate for the movie, etc.), and 2.) not because they think they are superior, but for other, more compromising reasons ("laziness" (or not willing to devote much emotional energy to such things ("the audience won't care, it's not really that important, etc.)), budget and time consideration, lack of equipment, directive from above, etc.

Again, I would completely understand if everybody just prefered digital titles (although my taste is different), and I didn't mean to suggest that there is something objectively wrong with that (wasn't trying to incite a new film vs digital debate, I was more interested in exploring the reasons why nobody uses analog titles anymore, although it is obviously fine (and interesting to read) if people give their reasons why they like one or another.) I also understand pragmatic reasons.

What bothered me with Phil Connely's post is this mocking dismissal of analog techniques based on the notion that it doesn't matter. Of course it doesn't matter in the sense that quality of the movie depends on whether you use it*. But the result will be different. Ergo, it matters.

*But if you use such reductive approach to cinema, you will find that cinematography as a whole doesn't really matter since I don't know if there exists a bad movie that wouldn't be bad if it had good cinematography, and good movie that would be bad if it had bad cinematography. Cinematography is used to complement and support director's vision, to create visual interest and to give a certain unity to the whole. It is a very important component, despite not having the power to destroy a good movie, or make a bad movie good. Everything in the movie is important, and you should either have a preference and stick with it (eg. digital is better that's why I use it), or concede that unfortunatelly lot's of stuff needs to be compromised, and you begin with the elements that aren't deciding to whether the movie will be good or bad. Titles have even less power to influence the quality of the movie than a cinematography, so obviously you should compromise them before lightning, camera, etc. But, again, they aren't unimportant. Titles shot with a film camera and digital titles look noticeably different (at least to me), that's why this is something that a director or a cinematographer ideally should have an opinion on and ideally be able to choose the most appropriate option according to their taste. To mock a discussion about this visual element because there are things (ideas, "story", things in front of camera etc.) that should take precedence before it in un-ideal, compromising world of filmmaking, just rubbed me the wrong way. Where other can this be discussed if not on a cinematography forum?

David Mullen ASC · July 28, 2016

I just don't think for a lot of us, we have a passion about titles, particularly just text over a black background. I mean, I enjoy a good graphic title sequence, and there is always some anticipation as a movie begins and the titles fade up, even plain ones, but the fact that modern movies generate them digitally hardly makes a blip on my emotional radar. If I have a negative reaction to seeing digital titles instead of film ones, then I should be apoplectic about actual scenes being shot digitally.

Peter Bitic · July 28, 2016

But don't you think there is an important difference between the two (ie. digital and analog titles VS digital vs analog recording), meaning that it doesn't follow that if you dislike digital titles that you will also dislike digital video? Digital titles are "synthesized", they are created out of nothing on the computer, they are completely perfect unless degraded, whereas shooting stuff on digital video is a reflection of an actual reality captured through lens - it is not perfect and artificial in any way. So there is at least a philosophical contrast, or maybe contrast in approach when you are combining stuff completely manufactured inside a computer with stuff that is a reflection of reality. There is also a visual difference that reminds you of this contrast (perfect titles vs. imperfect reality that follows).

For example, I like artwork that is done traditionally and I have no problem digitally scanning it as opposed to shooting it with a film camera (actually I much prefer the former approach). But I generally am not a big fan of digital, "synthesized" art that is done inside a computer (despite I acknowledge it as a legitimate approach). So there is a difference between digital as "digitized stuff from reality" and digital as "stuff created inside a computer).

David Mullen ASC · July 28, 2016

Would someone like digital titles because of their synthetic perfection but then hate digital cinematography because it is too clean and sharp? Because if you prefer film titles because of their analog textures then it would follow that you'd also prefer film photography of actual scenes for the same reason -- I can't imagine someone having opposite aesthetics for titles compared to the live action scenes.

If you are talking about basic typeset text over a black background, I don't think most people feel that whether it was shot on film or created digitally changes the moviegoing experience one way or the other -- I mean, the Star Wars receding title crawl was created on film originally for the first three movies and then digitally for all the prequels and sequels (and probably the restored version of the originals were replaced, but I can't confirm that) but they all look and feel similar, the only difference really is that the receding letters don't quite jiggle as much against the star field as they originally did.

Sometimes it just comes down to Spock's line that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. The differences exist... but most of the time, they don't make a difference. But if shooting title cards on film is your particular passion, then you should pursue it, but I think you shouldn't expect most people to share that passion.

I mean, I'm sure there are book printers and book collectors/readers who have a passion for seeing manually-pressed ink using metal type onto paper to create a book rather than a modern printing method, but most of us read books for the content and even though we appreciate the choice of type and the paper quality, there are deeper levels of difference in printing techniques that we hardly notice or care about. You could say that a writer should care about the quality of the printing of their books, and most do, but again, there are degrees of caring -- for some, it's the design, layout, paper quality, ink quality that matters but as long as the lettering is crisp and sharp, they don't have a strong feeling about how that ink got onto the paper.

Peter Bitic · July 28, 2016

I guess there can be a connection between a person who dislikes digital titles for their perfection and a person who dislikes digital cinematography because it is too clean and sharp, but I don't think it is automatic. I dislike pixel-perfect precision of digital titles (most of the time), but like cleanliness of digital recording (that's why I think we need to develop even more high-res sensors, because you can get a really nice-looking, clean digital video only by down-resing by a certain factor). And yeah, if the movie is shot on film, I think titles should be done on film as well, for consistency sake. But if the movie is shot digitally, I don't think it would be a good idea to complement it with titles shot on film. There is another alternative besides doing it on a computer though - doing it in real life through whatever analog process and then recording it digitally.

Extreme example (also to illustrate a potential huge visual difference between "digitized reality" vs "computer synthesis" when it comes to graphic elements like fonts):

The first one is a digital scan from an old National Geographic pre-computer typesetting, the second one is obviously a digital font on a digital background. Both are digital files, but one was recorded digitally and the second one was created digitally. There is a big visual difference between the two.

***

I don't really have a particular passion for shooting titles, it's just that I have become more and more interested in analog processes in various stuff (I'm most interested in animation) for their distinct visual quality that I find has more "life" to it. And by analog processes I mean mostly doing stuff in real life as opposed to on computer, not recording digitally vs recording on film. I prefer the latter, but digital recording is very good at capturing the energy of reality, sometimes even better than film.

David Mullen ASC · July 28, 2016

That's not really a fair comparison because IF someone wanted their digital titles to look like the analog one, they would do a better job of matching that look, creating a textured background, softening the font edges, etc.

A better example would be to pull a frame from a Woody Allen title sequence, always white letters over black, usually the same font, and compare one made in the 1990's to something made last year for his movies.

Peter Bitic · July 28, 2016

It was an extreme example intended to illustrate the potential difference between digital fonts and digital recording of analog fonts (because we were talking whether someone who dislikes digital fonts automatically dislikes digital recording, which I don't think it's true).

And of course, look of the first picture can be emulated on a computer (but hardly with complete synthesis as you would have a hard time creating a textured background like that from scratch), but I think that is besides the point. With computers nowadays you can very accuratelly simulate almost every physical visual and audio property, but when you do that, you are conceding that there is something there that is worth simulating compared to visual characteristics that are distinct to computers. Eg. when we compare film vs digital recording, saying that you can make digital look like film does not really invalidate the comparison IMO.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Peter Bitic

Satsuki Murashige · July 29, 2016

Regarding the digitally-generated title crawl in 'The Force Awakens', it looks like Lucasfilm/ILM may have deliberately added some 'registration jiggle' between the text and starfield so it didn't feel so clean and perfect. It's very subtle, but it's there.

More recently, 'Stranger Things' on Netflix has some nice faux-film titles that help set the period mood really well. I really like the way they dissolve from color to a holdout matte and zoom past the lens.