Could Digital Kill Film?

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't fix cars and I can't repair toasters, that's what I mean by a lack of mechanical skills. My brother in pre-school could take apart an alarm clock and put it back together again. Now he fixes cars and builds houses. I can't hammer a nail into a piece of wood straight to save my life.

 

As for the duties of a cinematographer, you can read this:

http://www.imago.org/images/pdfs/CINEMATOGRAPHERS/responsabilities%20of%20the%20cinematographer.pdf

 

Hi David,

 

I do not mean to be flippant, but what do you mean you do not have any mechanical skills?

 

[Justin Hayward]

So it really is still 2007 on this forum, not 2017?

Hilarious. I literally had to double check the date of the OP. Man, I've been on this website a long time.

[Tyler Purcell]

Worst thing is i got no hope, everything is getting worse for me about the cinematography ... :unsure:

The worst thing for me is that, even when people shoot film, they tend to shoot in a "digital" way, pushing the stocks really hard, with pronounced grain, not lighting or using minimal light and doing digital fixup work which spoils all of it.

 

Where I did think the exteriors of Hateful Eight were masterfully done, I didn't much care for the interior "set" lighting at all. There was no contrast, no mysterious nature to any of it. Just nasty studio lighting that was so unrealistic, it kinda make it seem like a play... which was, Quentin's whole idea from the beginning.

 

Where I did think some moments if "Interstellar" and "Dunkirk" were well done, over-all I'm not a fan of Hoyte's work. The best scenes in "Dunkirk" were the scene with the troops in the washed up boat and the little quick shot right at the end in the house, they had tuns of contrast and looked great on 5/70. Those stood out to me and everything else was just... meh.

 

Heck even "Inherent Vice" which was a photochemical finish, I saw on 70mm, was pushed so hard and so far, it really looked like S16. I was depressed because it had so much potential but under lighting it, totally killed it for me.

 

Those are really the last wide releases finished on film and I didn't much care for any of them in the cinematography department. Those days of the "great" cinematography movies, ya know "The Master" or "There Will be Blood", just BRILLIANT stuff that makes your spine crawl it's so good. Heck, just look at Deakins early work, "Shawshank" on 35mm is quite the experience, it's so well made, so well directed and the cinemtography is to die for.

 

We have the ability to make good movies, nothing has changed. I just think we've lost a bit of the essential "classic" filmmaking feeling in these modern movies. These filmmakers who work exclusivly on film have great opportunities to do amazing work, but so far even they have fallen flat.

 

Ohh and P.S. David's "Love Witch" is masterfully done, looks brilliant on 35mm. It's the best "new" thing I've seen on 35mm in years. It just didn't get a wide release and nobody knows about it, which is really a shame. With one scene cut down, it could have done well in the national box office.

[David Mullen ASC]

Keep in mind that it's often the director pushing the cinematographer to not use enough light for the negative, for a variety of reasons. I've been on sets where the director shows up and has almost every light turned off until you end up shooting wide-open with the stock push-processed. Twenty years ago, most directors were resigned to the fact that the film stocks needed a certain amount of light, and they saw the results in the lab projected on a screen in dailies. Once print dailies went away, people started judging light levels on set by their eyes, experienced or not. And now that they've gotten used to the high sensitivity of digital cameras, it's very hard to get them used to the higher light levels needed by film if you want a dense negative. Or want to use slower film stocks.

[Jon O'Brien]

That's an interesting observation about professional filmmaking, that cinephiles generally don't work in the industry. I think they certainly do, but possibly not in the departments you've worked in. Quite a few directors have said they're huge movie fans. But by cinephile are we talking movie lovers or specifically movies shot on celluloid? There is a big difference between a fan of actors, roles and stories, which is the fictional side, and being a fan of movies themselves, which is a deep appreciation for the medium. But as for poseurs, this same thing happens in other industries as I've seen it several times and it is tiresome. It's a well-known thing in science, with hot shot know it alls turning up who are in love with the topic but don't actually do any research or anything else. I have great respect for what people who actually work in the industry do, and have done. I can also see the hilarity of this topic being around for so long. But people do have to say and write what they do in defense of real film because if they didn't, and don't still today, film will disappear.

 

In music, a creative field I do know something about, the best, most influential creative people are most definitely huge music fans. They just couldn't do what they do if they weren't. A creative industry like music production and the film industry basically needs two types: hard bitten engineering type people of many types who actually do things, and the others who maybe some pass off as being dreamers and wannabes of which there are an almost endless supply, but if you look at history, who actually gets big new projects off the ground? Is it the hard bitten engineering types? They assist, but they don't generate. The dreamers do it with the absolutely necessary help of the, maybe at times cynical, down to earth types. I just felt that self-evident truth had to be stated in reply!

[fatih yıkar]

The worst thing for me is that, even when people shoot film, they tend to shoot in a "digital" way, pushing the stocks really hard, with pronounced grain, not lighting or using minimal light and doing digital fixup work which spoils all of it.

 

We have the ability to make good movies, nothing has changed. I just think we've lost a bit of the essential "classic" filmmaking feeling in these modern movies. These filmmakers who work exclusivly on film have great opportunities to do amazing work, but so far even they have fallen flat.

 

 

Tyler, as you mentioned above Hateful Eight-Dunkirk-Inherent Vice-The Master photochemical finish movies and they all look good really different than digital and D.I movies.

I don't want to be so paranoid but something keeps bothering me that even photochemical finish movies kinda start to look digital, i can't explain too much because of my little knowledge

For example Nolans movies after (insomia, the prestige, incepiton batman trilogy especially dark knight rises) colors and image texture not look organic ..

Pta movies (magnolia-boggie nights-Punch-Drunk Love) looks fantastic but (the master) color looks punchy and movie was too sharp. (There will be blood) doesn't have that intense looking (magnolia-boggie nights) has.

Movies i remember in years (Transcendence) which i cant believe it was photochemical or (Funny People) also photochemical but when compare with (40 year-old virgin) In (Funny People) texture is very low, it seemed to be changed in colors too ..

So in recent years is something changing in photochemical process??? like printer lights technology or machine they used to i don't know and there's not much info about process that's why i want to ask maybe you know something.

In recent years only movie i satisfied was (Inherent Vice) as you said it's kinda s16 because of pushed hard but you should look again from bluray maybe 70mm prints make the movie more grainny than exist.

(Love witch) really made me happy and i love the movie look, ıt's was feast for my eyes thanks again David..

Edited October 17, 2017 by fatih yıkar

[Jon O'Brien]

Also, yes, this is a forum on cinematography, but a lot of factors come into cinematography, as David has shown above. A big part of the whole shebang is the script, which everyone is talking about. Do you understand what a writer is? That they must be a sensitive artist? A writer is by definition a type of dreamer and wannabe. These people must be inspired to create a great script. If that inspiration happens to come from real film, stand back and let that writer indulge their passion because otherwise your whole industry is not going to have any creative product at all. Stand back and let the artists do their thing ... and support them, or all the engineers can give up, drive cabs, drink beer if they can afford it, and dream of the days when they worked in film.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[Michael LaVoie]

Girl Skateboards is keeping the memory alive. I got this board recently. My favorite stock I used to shoot back in film school. So I had to get two. One for collecting and one to actually skate.

[Jon O'Brien]

I'm not saying that all good or great script writers and directors are inspired by real film. But if you put your ear to the ground and actually listen to what some of the most creative people are saying today, it's definitely a factor worth taking note of. You can have all your top, uber cool technology if that's what floats your boat as a cinematographer, but remember that you are but one link in a chain.

[Keith Walters]

Quite a few directors have said they're huge movie fans.

Yeah, THEY might be, because they're the ones who have to come up with the ideas to make a movie work. The other 99.9% of people you see in the five minutes or so of credits at the end, basically do what they're told...

[Tyler Purcell]

For example Nolans movies after (insomia, the prestige, incepiton batman trilogy especially dark knight rises) colors and image texture not look organic ..

Pta movies (magnolia-boggie nights-Punch-Drunk Love) looks fantastic but (the master) color looks punchy and movie was too sharp. (There will be blood) doesn't have that intense looking (magnolia-boggie nights) has.

If you watch these movies at home, you aren't seeing the movie. Once it's scanned, you lose all of that photochemical beauty because ALL movies are re-colored for digital release. So when I refer to a "photochemical finish" I'm actually refering to viewing prints of these movies, rather then watching them at home.

 

So in recent years is something changing in photochemical process??? like printer lights technology or machine they used to i don't know and there's not much info about process that's why i want to ask maybe you know something.

I see, so I guess there needs to be some explaining. Photochemical finished movies means... the camera negative was cut, and color was done using print lights onto new stock, either an IP or even direct printing like Dunkirk. The technology hasn't changed, even though I do have an amazing device that would update this technology. However, nobody is spending money developing machines for the photochemical workflow, those days are over unfortunately.

 

In recent years only movie i satisfied was (Inherent Vice) as you said it's kinda s16 because of pushed hard but you should look again from bluray maybe 70mm prints make the movie more grainny than exist.

They would have used some serious noise reduction on the BluRay release. Again, can't really compared the two.

[Manu Delpech]

"You aren't seeing the movie", I give up, too much face palming at this nonsense. Well, I guess none of us are seeing any movie then since it's just an interpretation huh? Look, I get that guys like Tyler are hardcore purists who believe that only a film print has any value and the rest is dogs***, but this is getting ridiculous. So much cynicism.

 

Yeah guys, all the photochemical beauty is lost with a DI, why shoot on film amirite?! WHICH FILMS shot on film lately look like digital? Seriously? Sure, the stocks are better than they've ever been, which @fatih, explains why there is a textural difference btw films shot in the 80's, 90's or whatever and those shot now. I do wish they would bring back some of the older stocks, but the idea from some that those stocks are so clean that they sometimes look digitally, I just have to shake my head considering I've seen zero major film shot on celluloid look that way these last few years. Hell, just push it if you want more grain.

[Simon Wyss]

No dogshit. A video should be called video, not film. You don’t see a film on a monitor, be it a tube, an LCD or a LED array, nor in so-called digital projection. Tyler may have cited me, he is not to blame. I am the hardcore purist, if you want so.

 

Don’t lie with your words. A book is made from paper. An e-book is not a book and the e(lectronic) suffix doesn’t change that. It is simply disrespectful to give an electronic device the name of a professional and cultural achievement of half a millennium age. Same with film, the invention from 1887, you should know about.

[Aapo Lettinen]

This is starting to get interesting again, even if we have stepped on a 10 year old forum loop again :lol:

 

But shall we return to Camera Porn again on page 15? :lol:

 

 

Just changed to verifying the LTO archive I made today. Will have couple of dozen more tapes soon to continue archiving the raw materials of this shooting block

Edited October 18, 2017 by aapo lettinen

[Paulo Arellano]

I've been reading this whole thread this morning during work and I wanna throw in my opinion, even though im not a professional or like those who have made legitimate technical posts.

 

I feel like cinema as its own art form has been lacking something for the last 17 years. That's not to say there hasn't been great films made but one has to assume that the rise in digital filmmaking has increased the amount of garbage made since its become easier to produce mass quantity of movies at a rapid rate and for much less than before.

 

Does shooting on film make a film better? In my opinion the limitations and certain preparations required for a shoot on film does put everyone on a higher level of attention, more excited for the outcome and actors tend to take things more seriously as well (learning lines, rehearsing, blocking) Does film look better than digital? Digital filmmaking has come a long way, sometimes I myself cant tell the difference if its been shot on film or not but that's very rare. Most of the time young filmmakers will spend a lot of time color grading their raw files to make it look like film, even kids taking pictures on their phones!

 

Digital filmmaking just looks way too clean, it needs layers upon layers to reach that look that film gives (and sometimes its not achievable) Television has changed, amazing filmmakers like Fincher, Scorsese, Campion have been making great television shows. It doesn't matter what format it was shot on, the best original material is coming out of television shows and that's why the quality of cinema is declining. Television is the new art house cinema. If cinema wants to survive it needs some sort of new wave or some sort of rebirth. Theres gonna come a time when people are gonna say enough with the marvel and star wars movies.

[Tyler Purcell]

"You aren't seeing the movie", I give up, too much face palming at this nonsense. Well, I guess none of us are seeing any movie then since it's just an interpretation huh? Look, I get that guys like Tyler are hardcore purists who believe that only a film print has any value and the rest is dogs***, but this is getting ridiculous. So much cynicism.

You aren't seeing a photochemical finish what-so-ever, when you watch something on video. The moment film is scanned by a digital device, a flatbed scanner, a drum scanner, a multi-pass RGB scanner, heck even a telecine for gosh sakes, the color and dynamic range have to be modified to fit into the home video standards, which is still Rec709. Where it's true, there are a few UHD BluRay's heading down the pipe with Rec2020 HDR content on them, very few displays will actually work with that content. Even if they did, pretty much every movie has NR applied and has major clean up work done on home video.

 

Let me put it to you a different way... I have a REALLY GOOD home theater projector that's calibrated. I have a REALLY GOOD stereo system that's over-kill for my apartment. I also have a BluRay player and lots of modern content. I bought "The Master" on BluRay not that long ago and watched most of it the night before I saw it on 70mm. The difference was STAGGERING, I mean night and day. It felt like watching an entirely different movie, not just in the color reproduction, but also in the depth of the image. The BluRay looked like a DI and the film print looked like a "movie".

 

Yeah guys, all the photochemical beauty is lost with a DI

Did you read my post about meeting Christopher Nolan and discussing subjects like this? Nolan has the money to pay for tests, he told me flat to my face that the reason he still projects film is because digital isn't there yet. He's the most technical savvy Hollywood filmmaker I've personally talked to about this issue and we are both on the same page. If ya shoot on film, you finish on film. If you shoot on digital, you finish on digital. That should be how things are done, but they are't because studio's don't get it. They don't see the validity of proving an "alternative" experience in the cinema to that at home.

[Tyler Purcell]

I feel like cinema as its own art form has been lacking something for the last 17 years. That's not to say there hasn't been great films made but one has to assume that the rise in digital filmmaking has increased the amount of garbage made since its become easier to produce mass quantity of movies at a rapid rate and for much less than before.

Ehh, you'd think that but actually the studio's are spending so much money on these big blockbusters that the difference between digital and film acquisition is nothing, literally wouldn't even be a blip.

 

What happened is a paradigm shift between making lots of 10M movies, to making fewer 100M + movies. This is due to the increased cost of advertising, actors and even crew. So the studio's are literally "blowing their wad" on these few expensive movies because otherwise, it's just too expensive. So those movies have to be winners, they have to satisfy everyone and when you make movies by committee like this, you basically get crap out the back end.

 

At the same time, the increased quality of home video content from HBO, Cinemax, Netflix and now Amazon video, has really changed the Studio's behavior even more so. They're more scared than ever, willing to risk it all for the potential billion dollar payout. In fact, I'd beg to say, the studio's today are so scared, they're purposely making poop content just to make megabux.

 

Sure, there are still some great movies being made, but they're rarely hitting theaters and if they are, they're being bought by studio's to distribute and they don't have the legs for the advertising campaigns necessary to be successful. Who is going to spend $50M on a marketing campaign for a $10M movie?

 

So this is part of the reason why we have poop movies these days. Sure there are some "technology" reasons... but not film vs digital, more like 2D vs 3D and filmmakers messing around with 3D poop for fun, which is all just such a joke and waste of time. Heck look at Dolby Atmos and laser projectors, gimmicks that have been nearly complete failures. Nobody cares, you could have an old 35mm projector in that same theater and NOBODY WOULD GIVE TWO SHITS. Everyone wants to innovate, nobody wants to tell stories.

[Tyler Purcell]

But shall we return to Camera Porn again on page 15? :lol:

I'm game

 

 

[Aapo Lettinen]

Great! :lol: :lol:

 

here is some modified Soviet stuff :lol:

[Tyler Purcell]

"Modified" :P

[Aapo Lettinen]

"Modified" :P

 

yep, and interesting model as well :D

 

[Tyler Purcell]

Cool toy! I'm gonna start a thread for "Film Camera Porn" in the General Discussion area because I got a lot of stuff to share :)

[Samuel Berger]

Cool toy! I'm gonna start a thread for "Film Camera Porn" in the General Discussion area because I got a lot of stuff to share :)

 

Can you call it Camera Spam instead so that those of us reading from work don't get annoying pop up warnings? ;-)

[Tyler Purcell]

Can you call it Camera Spam instead so that those of us reading from work don't get annoying pop up warnings? ;-)

Sure! Workin' on it now! :)

[Jon O'Brien]

Guys, now cool it, everyone get back to work. Aren't we supposed to be working? Just kidding. I think this has been an interesting thread.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Jon O'Brien