Landon D. Parks

In the URSA Mini range, I've seen the EVA-1 footage, and it looks really, really good. Plus, you have the professional video division of Panasonic behind it, with literally tens of years of experience in making cameras durable, and exhibiting great QC. The dual native ISO is a great feature. As much as I want to like Blackmagic, they don't have the same experience in making professional cameras as the big manufacturers do.

Hopefully BMD have fixed the fixed pattern noise issue they have had on their sensors. I hear the 4.6K is less prone to FPN, while the original 4K (including the one still available as an URSA option) is still the king of FPN. That is one issue I have always had with BMD - why their cameras, in general, as so prone to this FPN issue.

I don't mean to say it looks bad, it just doesn't stick out as particular impressive to me. Perhaps 'flat' was the wrong word to use. It looks average, much like other similar drama series. They all seem to be overly heavy on the HBM filters, warmly-lit, teal-orange graded, and very conservative camera angles. Then again, I never was a fan of the 'dramatic' cinematography look. For something to be impressive to me, it needs to do something out of the ordinary, which I why I said it looks good, but not impressive. Perhaps I'll regret my words once I see the show. The trailer itself doesn't show much variation.

Exactly, which is why I made that known here "Maybe once I get around to watching the series I can judge from something other than the trailer, and change my mind." There is just something about what I see in the trailer that just doesn't pop out to me.

I have not yet seen 'The Crown', but given that its from Netflix - it's probably a good series. As for how it looks - the cinematography is okay, but it also feels somewhat soap-operishly flat to me. Maybe its just the fact that the look never seems to change under any circumstances. I personally like cinematography that switches up a bit where appropriate - and the problem here is that all the light setups appear the same. I know that seems like I'm nitpicking it, and maybe I am... But it still looks good, maybe even great in a few cases - but it just feels someone flat to me. Maybe once I get around to watching the series I can judge from something other than the trailer, and change my mind.

If you continue with the project, you want to match your URSA footage to the film - and your primary weapon in that should be Film Convert. As for rather you're willing to walk, that is up to you. If you truly believe in the work, but also can't image working with nasty digital at all - then you're going to have to make that known to the producer. He will either say yay or nay. If it's nay, then you should do whatever your conscience tells you to do. If you refuse to work with digital at all, as it sounds like you are saying, then there is no choice but to walk away from the project. If it were me, I'd just shoot it on digital and then match it in post - which if you shoot correctly with the URSA, should not pose any problem at all. Blackmagic already has amazing, Arri-level film color science, so matching color and DR should not be an issue. Like I said, finding the same grain pattern might be a little tricky depending on how grainy the film stock was - but Film Convert includes grain scans for pretty much all major stocks. Ultimately, its a bad situation all around. It's not a good time when you need to match any footage shot with other cameras. A project should retain the same format for its entirety unless there is a stylistic choice, since it makes the post process a lot harder. But as the old saying goes, 'You get what you get - take it or leave it'.

As someone who is working on an original web series right now, I'd say the force is the people watching it - just like with anything. If its not good - people aren't going to watch it. And if they don't watch it, whats the point? With web products, especially serial stuff, if you don't make each episode good - no one will watch the next. Same thing that drives TV. Now one-off products can sometimes be made to fool people into buying a ticket, but if you do that enough - people are going to put two and two together and figure out the common denominator between the products - and avoid that common denominator.

Probably just as likely as the focus puller being bad at his job. I don't see many out of focus shots in that movie, so it leads me to think it was a mistake on someones part - be it Mark for not hitting the marks or the focus puller missing a crucial tight focus shot, or hell - maybe an error in placing the mark in the first place. Could be anything really.

Yeah, that is a bad AD who allows a director to film something 200 times. A schedule is a schedule, period - and regardless of format. You act as if the only cost of this is 'extra labor', which is absurd. Taking longer to film than allowed causes budgets to go up in every department, not just crew. You need your locations for longer, you need to add shooting days which mean extra equipment rental days, etc. And the other things to mention, like easier setups - I fail to see how that is a bad thing? That is a budget saver. It allows you to spend more time getting the shot, save money on lighting, etc. Of all the complaints I have heard about digital filmmaking, I don't think I have ever heard the easier setups being one.

No matter how much the movie cost, it's still one guy pulling that focus shot; and one guy is capable of making a small error every once in a while. I might regret saying this, but its probably film that caused this to be released into theaters out of focus. Digitally shot, someone should have seen it was out of focus and ordered a re-take. With film, you can't be certain until the dailies are back - and probably too late to do anything about. Is that an excuse? No - but it certainly shows one way in which digital can help out filmmakers.

Yeah, I think that is how it took on a digital vs film edge... Someone mentioned that if it had been shot digitally, maybe focus peaking would have prevent the out of focus shot - or something like that. How it morphed where it did, I have no time to go back and check. The film vs digital thing doesn't need a thread, because its no longer relevant. I'm not arguing film vs digital, I'm simply saying that story and talent is more important than either one. As for the out of focus shot - I mean, we can nitpick it all day long. The focus doesn't look that bad, and honestly it only looks as bad as it does because we are looking at in still form. No filmmaker is perfect.

It depends on the camera. As David said above, some cameras can actually record ratios different from the standard DCI and HD standards. However, for the sake of example, lets say you are shooting and recording at 4K DCI (4096x2160), and you're goal is for a 2.39:1 release. Yes, you would crop off the top and bottom of the DCI image to get the ratio you need. You'd generally 'frame' for this on the set with frame markers on your monitors. This of course doesn't take into account some cameras that can shoot native scope (though they still tend to just crop the sensor), and some cameras and lens combinations that allow anamorphic recording on a 4x3 sensor, in which case you wouldn't crop anything, you'd squeeze it into the correct ratio. Ratios and formats are rather complicated subjects, because there are so many variables involved.

It depends, do you want to keep the scope ratio? Generally speaking, its rare for a film to be made with scope in mind, and then later make it 16x9 for release. More often than not, if a film is envisioned for 2.39:1, it is shot with that in mind - and released on ALL formats - including television, in that ratio. This done by 'letterboxing' the 16x9 frame to match the scope ratio. There is a technique called 'pan and scan', which is what you would need to do if you where converting a 2.39:1 ratio into 1.78:1 - since cropping would be required. The 'Pan and scan' technique allows you to 're-frame' the film in the proper ratio. However, like I said, the more common way now is to release a 2.39:1 shot film in 2.39:1 across all platforms, in which case no cropping is needed at all - only letterboxing on consumer displays. 1.85:1, or flat release, can be different though. Since 1.85:1 is so close to 16x9 ratio, its just as common for the filmmakers to shave a few pixels off the top of each frame, and bring it natively into a 16x9 format so no letterboxing is needed on TV's. This works in this case because the difference between the two is so small. The difference between 2.39:1 and 1.78:1 are so vast that pan and scan is needed to really make it work, unless you are also framing for the 16x9 ratio when shooting. Another important factor to remember here: as long as your aspect ratio is stating the same, you'll never need to cut or crop any part of your picture, no matter the final output size.

This is ignoring the audio issue --- A cinema speaker pumps out as much sound as my entire system does. That cinema-rumble from the bass is almost impossible to do at home - unless you want your neighbors calling the cops on you. Not to mention the fact that you need to wait 3-4 months or even longer to see something on your home cinema… You make a somewhat valid point about screen size. There is a generally accepted sweet spot where the screen fills your field of vision. No matter how big the screen is. In such a case, the perceived size of the screen is similar, since it fills your field of vision either way. However, are you really going to sit here and tell me that a 42” TV is really just as large as 70’ cinema screen? For starters, the smaller the screen - the closer you need to sit to it for it to fill your field of vision. For a 42” TV to fill my field of vision, I’d have to sit about a foot away from it. My 140” screen fills it at about 9 foot. When I go to a cinema, I sit ⅓ the way back, center. In general, that fills my field of vision. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the cinema screen still appears a lot larger than my home screen does. While the field of view is almost the same, the screen is still 7x bigger than my home screen, and you can tell the difference. I’m not talking about the cost, I’m talking about the market. Much like the market for vinyl, the market for ‘seeing a film projection’ is a niche market. It has nothing to do with how much it costs to make or how technically complex it is to do. Something is niche when a majority of people don’t use it as a decision point. For example, if only 5 people out of 100 proclaim that seeing a film on film is the only way you can see it, that is niche - they don’t share the opinion of the vast majority. THAT is the definition of niche, it’s not my opinion or debatable. You can dislike the term, and think its leading to the death of film - but that doesn’t change the term or what it means. If I live in a small town, I’d hate to see what you consider large. The CSA of the area I live in has around 4.5 million people, making it one of the largest CSA areas in the United States. Many films are shot here, though not as many as might be shot in Atlanta. If you want to say it's not a ‘media’ city, that is fine. True, we don’t shot late night TV shows or have a CNN broadcast center. We do have plenty of an art-house scene though, and we still have art-house theaters that show film prints. Scorsese shots digital now. Has for while. At least on most of his projects. I have said all I have to say on this subject. If you really feel the need to ‘rebuke’ my thoughts some more, go ahead. I’ll just leave it up to the people who read the forum to draw their own conclusions. However, I do want to say - and I’m not trying to be rude here, only helpful - that the way you go about trying to prove people wrong who don’t agree with you is very annoying. Film vs. digital is a very personal debate, and there isn’t many facts around it - only opinions. You have your opinion, which we have heard. I have mine, which you have heard. Some agree more with me, some agree more with you. That’s perfectly fine, and how its supposed to work.

2K and 4K are generally DCI terms. You’ll see these used when referring to a DCP package for cinema release. There is also UHD (Ultra HD) and HD, which are Television formats. In terms of the “K” variety, 4K and 2K come in either scope or flat ratio; 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 respectively. Here is a handy little chart: 2K Scope | 2048x858 2K Flat (1.85:1 crop) | 1998x1080 2K Native | 2048x1080 4K Scope | 4096x1716 4K Flat (1.85:1 crop) | 3996x2160 4K Native | 4096x2160 In the world of Television, you only have two really accepted 'standard' formats - HD and UHD, with UHD being closest to the cinema equivalent 4K. The TV aspect ratios are generally standardized at 16:9 and 4:3, though some odd aspects have been making their way in, like 2.00:1 used on some of the Netflix stuff like Stranger Things.

Another little interesting fact about aspect ratio's: The 2.39:1 cinema-scope (widescreen as we think of it today) was designed to make movies stand apart from Television. I'm also of the opinion that aspect ratios should be selected according to the material being filmed. 2.39:1 rarely works for a drama or comedy, while it works great for epics and fantasy films.

Look, all I'm saying here is that real filmmakers don't put all their focus on the technology, they put the focus on making good films. No one is going to convince me that "2001" would have been any inferior of a film if it had been shot on an Arri Alexa and projected in 4k, or any other film for that matter. We can be all hipster about if we want, but reality is reality.

I'll respond in order: #1: So wait a second, 'Sparticus' is what you're going with as mainstream? I'll raise you "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Shining" as two of his most popular works, and both are fully mainstream. "Full Metal Jacket", "A Clockwork Orange", and "Eye's wide shut" are very good contenders, and also extremely mainstream films. Hell, even "Lolita" is fairly mainstream. Let's face is, Kubrick is a bad example of the so-called 'filmmaker', as you'd define the term. While his movies are all pretty good, they are all also mainstream flicks with the purpose of filling his pockets and making a good movie, not just the ladder. #2: I also have a really nice home theater. 140" projection screen and Klipsch powered 7.1 surround, pushing over 1,000 watts. While it's nice, it's still nothing like a cinema experience, even standard 2D screens at a cinema are usually 5-10x bigger than mine, and are pushing out a lot more sound. Home theaters, while nice, do not yet fully replace the experience of a cinema. It might to some people who are less picky. #3: Isn't Kodak still trying to cling onto Super 8 as their last line of defense? What Kodak should have done is followed suit with the other manufacturers and jumped on the digital bandwaggon. If they had done that, they might well have had the funds to support both a digital and a celluloid division. Kodak, while I have respect for them, was badly managed. I don't foresee them having enough funds to 'Kodakize' a large majority of cinema screens. Besides that, the theaters have now all already invested in digital projection. There MIGHT be some market for large format stuff on 'film', but hell even IMAX has turned away from film - toward 4k projection. Hell, even Arri - the classic film camera company, saw it coming... #4: I'm arguing from a pure reality point of view. Cinema now is not what it was 60, 40, 20, or even 10 years ago. It will probably never be that way again. Yes, there are always the purist who demand old-school stuff. Look at the vinyl popularity in the music industry surging now... However, it would be a joke to assume that all of a sudden, all music is now going to be available in vinyl, and everyone is going to start buying it in droves. It's a niche market, just like film has become. It will also enjoy a special place in the hearts of many people, and some people will pay extra to experience it that way. Look, if you want to make an art-house movie on celluloid that will be cherished among film scholars for 100 years, by all means do it. Don't expect that it'll pay your bills, though.

It's not you.This Manos movie mentioned, while having never seen it, the consensus is that it sucks - with a 1.9/10 IMDb rating. Usually, IMDb is pretty accurate on the quality of a movie in general. Troll 2 holds a 2.8/10 rating on IMDb, and with good reason. It's about as good as Plan 9 is. I tried to watch it once, and only made it about 1/4 the way through and gave up - and I usually like bad movies. It's very campish, and I can see it being a favorite of those who also like very bad, campy movies such as Plan 9. Never was my cup of tea, but to each their own I guess. I call anyone into question though that uses Troll 2 and Plan 9 as examples of 'classic' filmmaking. The movies suck something terrible. They sucked when they where made, and they suck now. There is always people who will like anything, but using such films as examples of 'films done right' is a little off-putting to me. Tyler, the reality is, this 'guy' you mention makes up 99.95% of the cinema-going audience. Hell, he makes up 99.95% of the world. Yes, there is always the occasional person here and there that will enjoy some campy art stuff, but the average Joe wants a good movie that will transport you to a different world, without the need to invest hours of time trying to decode what the filmmaker is trying to tell you. You can make movies for these few people, but just like you admit, they will never be successful. So, I guess it depends on what target you're aiming for in life. As for Kubrick, I don't ever recall an interview where he mentions who he makes movies for. I certainly don't remember him making the statement that 'he doesn't make movies for X type of person'. Pretty much every Kubrick film is mainstream, and as such is targeted at the same audience 99% of other movies are targeted at - the Popcorn eating average guy. As for your claim that film screenings do better than digital: do you have any evidence of this? I have never heard not seen that trend. Yes, there is a small subset of the population who are film purists who will flock to a special screening of a film on actual film, but the important thing to keep in mind here is that it doesn't mean that screening is more successful. When such screenings appear, they are small and concentrated, and as such - while they might appear popular, that is only because its such a rare occasion. 99.5% of the public does not car about film vs digital. People don't flock to IMAX because of lazer projection - they flock there because the damn thing has a huge screen and booming surround sound - and experience you can't get anywhere else. It's also worth nothing, however, that some of the biggest 'up-sell' type cinema experiences like IMAX and DOLBY CINEMA are all digital technologies now, not film. Personally, I'm neither pro-digital nor pro-film - I'm pro-story. I don't care what you shoot it on, as long as its good. I'd say I make up 99.5% of the population. If you really feel the need to appeal to the 0.5% of the population who is a snob when it comes to such things, feel free - but you'll just waste your time.

$525 $500 NEW PRICE

I'll just leave this thread with one final comment: Make a good movie. No one of any importance cares what you shot it on if the movie is good. If it's a bad movie, you can shoot it on 65mm, but will still be a 'good looking bad movie' in peoples eyes. In my experience watching movies, I have seen no correlation between what people think is a good movie, and what it was shot on. From a filmmakers perspective, we need to stop thinking so technical and get back to the craft at hand: making movies. So much of how nice something looks comes down to the skill of the cinematographer, not the format it was shot on. I have seen many films shot on Arri Alexa's that are more beautifully shot than many other 35mm projects. BTW) I have taken it upon myself to rewatch all the original and prequel Star Wars movies... Episode 1 is on right now.

The thing is, most people care about a good story rather than the technical specs of how they are watching it. The reality is, while we in the industry can spot differences between 10-bit and 8-bit, HDR and non-HDR, 4k and 8k, etc - most of the general public cannot. They view stuff on what they have available to them - which happens to be their TV's, computer monitors, and phones. Even as someone who works with high-quality content through post, I still watch stuff on my phone and my crappy TV. Does it look as good as it might projected on a pristine film print on a 100 foot screen? No, but it looks plenty good enough. People care more about rather it is a good film, than rather its in 12-bit vs 8-bit color space. Only other filmmakers care about that - and maybe 0.5% of the population who are technical savvy to such things. Those people are not the audience we are aiming for. REAL filmmakers make films for the story, not to please the 0.5% of the viewership who might be pixel peepers. Make it a good film and people won't care what you shot it on.

So, I should start saying 'I'm going to see the latest video at the cinema" when referring to movies shot digitally? I'm a little lost here. Some here want to stick true-to-their-guns on definitions, but definitions change over time - that is just the reality of the world. As much as people want to conserve the past, it never works out. Years ago, 'film' was celluloid not necessarily because it was celluloid, but because that was what all movies where shot on. So the term 'film' came to mean a movie. Now, are we going to have to stop the presses and change everything to "video" instead of "film" when referring to the 98% of movies that shoot on digital now? It's a nice, quaint idea - but not remotely realistic.

I mean, technically, if we want to define what SHOULD be a 'Film-maker': A person who makes film Technically, this means the guy who makes a roll of scotch tape is a film-maker. Therein lies the inherent issue with trying to attach definitive terms to art forms. Of course, when the term 'filmmaker' is used - most people know that we are referring to people who makes movies. Same with the term 'film' - while it has a clinical definition (as David posted above), the general consensus is that 'film' means 'movie', as long as 'film' is used in the correct context. AKA: I'm going to AMC to see the new Star Wars film. So, you can argue all day about your opinion on the term 'film' and 'filmmaker' and what it should or shouldn't mean, but the reality is that there are preconceived notion that already exist - and your belief (or lack thereof) in those notions will not change the end result. You can argue that 'filmmaker' means an 'auteur director who shoots only on celluloid' till you're blue in the face, but the vast majority of the world is still going to see the term 'filmmaker' as someone who makes a movie. Period.