Tenolian Bell

The image is created as much in your minds eye as it is created with the physical eye. I think that is a better description than shooting blind. I recently saw a documentary on piloting submarines. There are no windows in submarines. The pilots cannot not physically with the eye see where they are going. They depend on mastered skills to navigate the seas. They depend on sonar beeps, water depth gauges, deep sea charts, and their mastery of the skill of oceanic navigation. I guess in a technical sense the crew of a submarine is blind, because you generally cannot see with the physcial eye where you are going, but they still accurately make the trip from A to B. Even more they navigate and fight war, without being able to see what's going on around them. I'm saying all of this to say with the proper mastery of skill certain jobs can be done without being able to see exactly what the final product will be. Ultimately the real key is your knowldge of what you are doing. The ability to previsualize in your imagination, and the skill to make that vision tangible is the real key.

Shooting blind is a pretty definitive statement and not a good one when dealing with a medium that requires sight. Sure there can be surprises especially when shooting a new film stock with unfamiliar characteristics. It may crush the blacks a little more than you thought, or a little more magenta in the skin tones than you thought, or saw into the highlights more than you thought. There's even the possibility of human error such as hair in the gate, or some other failure in the film chain before you see the print. The other quirk of today's society is we like to take complex topics and whittle them down to simple phrases that fit on a t-shirt. I've had many many coversations about shooting film blind with Director's and Producer's. Those who have little to no knowledge of shooting film wonder how do you know what you are going to get back. Especially director's, many are obsessed with monitors, they will trust the monitor and what it shows more than they just the DP. I've seen some take the shooting film blind seriously as in no one literally knows what the final product is going to look like because you have to wait to see it. I've had to explain several times, why shooting film is not really shooting blind. I mean in the context that you have to wait to get it back from the lab, you literally can't see the film until then, I guess you can call that part of it blind. But the whole scope of shooting is not a blind process at all. And many take this statement as it says, shooting blind, or guessing. Overall I would say when you know the film stock, you've shot it under many circumstances and know what it is capable of. When you know your equipment, you've tested it and know it functions correctly. When you know your lab and trust they will deliver you a quality negative and print, 90% of the time the process is predictable and repeatable. Otherwise Rodriguez would be correct why shoot film if you didn't know what you were getting in the end.

I don't agree. Whenever Rodriguez makes this arguement, its obvious to me he doesn't know very much about shooting film. The truth is film works under predictable and repeatable laws that govern focus, lighting, and exposure. To expose film is to work within the very laws of physics, electromagnetic energy, mechanics, and chemistry. Once you master these laws you have a great deal of control over the final image. I think what you are really trying to say Matt is that to be a great film photographer you actually have to master the skill. In our instant "I want it right now" culture very few people have the patience to practice and learn. Which to a degree is ok. Sometimes I just want to snap a picture and be on my way. Sometimes I don't want to have to deal with focus, lighting, and exposure. But I vehemently disagree with shooting film as blind. I'm not guessing at all. Most of the time I've ploted everything about the shoot before the set is constructed. Because of these laws if given the proper amount of information: a good cinematographer can decide what lens to shoot, how to will light the scene. The quality, quantity and source of light, what the F stop will be, and what the depth of field will be. All of this on paper before stepping foot on set.

Yes certainly the original point I was trying to make is being missed. I wasn't trying to raise another tireless film vs digital debate. What I realized from my conversation with the fashion photographers everything is falling into its most usable market. There are places where film is not a benefit and where digital by its inherent abilities is more of an asset. And in those work flows digital thrives, and will continue to improve. At the same time there are work flows where film is an asset and digital is less so, and in those places film thrives and will continue to improve.

I just found out drum scanners can scan film up to 8000 dpi at 24 bit. True resolution, that means before any interpolation or sharpening. That is insane.

An example of this is in fantasy pictures. Where they take a picture of a real person and then draw a fantasy realm, dragons, or space ships, or whatever around them. These pictures are many times (not all of the time) digital, naturally because they will be manipulated in a digital realm. But what I'm being told by pro photographers. When you are sitting on a set with a model being paid ridiculous amounts of money, 90% of the time film is in the camera. Because of the very nature of what it does and the image it produces. Of coursed art is created with digtial stills and video. Funny though the purpose of fashion is really more commerce than art.

I think what?s most important in film/ digital still photography is that each one is used in a place of its greatest strengths. Such as digital being used in photo journalism, an appropriate place where the strengths of digital out weigh benefits of film. Most would find it pretty ridiculous to try and shoot network news on film today. I believe the same will happen with digital/ film in motion photography. They both will find their place in the market where the strengths of each will be used most appropriate. I believe this will be the reality and not so much the winner take all as many who argue for one format or the other.

Quality wise the complaints I've heard about DSLR's is that they are pretty slow in comparsion to film. I was told for premium quality from a DSLR you have to rate it at 100 to 200 ASA, and it still didn't have as much dynamic range.

Sounds cool, can't wait for more information.

My prediction is that the lower contrast stocks will become more popular. At first glance you would like a more saturated/ contrasty film. But as Vision 2 becomses more widely used and we will see the advantages of wider latitude and neutral color reproduction. The fact that blacks can be crushed, whites can always be blown, and colors saturated, we will appreciate the freedom to choose which we want.

I'm hearing more and more those who advocate shooting digital video, speak of how digital has taken over still photography. As to say motion photography will be taken over by digital just as digital has taken over still photography. I know quite a few fashion photographer's in NY, and shoot quite a bit of photography myself. I asked a couple of professional fashion photog's I know about this whole thing, is digital taking over still photography? The answer is yes and no. The consumer market is quickly moving towards digital because of the obvious convenience. Photo journalism and news are largely digital now because of speed and the convenience of sending pictures electronically around the world. Pornography is also going largely digital, because quality doesn't really matter, and most of pictures are going to be shown on the interent any way. But the fashion market is the exact opposite. A lot of pro beauty photogaphy is shot with medium or large format. Playboy Centerfold beauty shots are large format film. Digital Medium format backs are thoudands of dollars and still don't produce as good an image as medium format film. However most fashion images you see have been scanned and digitally tweeked. But they scan film negative to far larger files than any digital camera can produce. I was told most of the professional fashion photographer's who shoot digital are sponsered by Canon and Nikon, sounds like a familiar Sony tactic. But largely all editorial, print, and advertising are still shot on film. Because agencies and clients demand premium quality.

So what about when you do record at 60P? Is this then processed at 100Mbps? What about when you record slow motion? What about fast motion? If you record at 4fps then does the bit rate go down to 10 Mbps? Is slow motion footage at a higher bit rate than fast motion footage. Is the bit rate as variable as the frame rate?

If a camera records 1080, it needs a high enough bit rate to process and move the information real time. Which is why they are really trying to increase the bit rate. The Viper is 1080, but to capture all of that 1080 and keep, doesn't go to tape.

You keep saying this about the Varicam, and I've never heard this from anyone else. When you go from 60fps to 24fps, why do you drop from 100Mbps to 40Mbps, when you've recorded more images than needed at 100Mbps to make the 24fps in the first place. That doesn't really make sense.

Well ok 1080 at 19, 25, or 50 Mbps ain't really 1080.

1080 after mpeg 2 compression ain't 1080 any more, especially at 19Mbps. Any aquisition device with an i after its resolution doesn't really inspire much excitment in me.

We still have the original Vision stocks which have more color saturation and contrast. But there is nothing to fear from the Vision 2 stocks. I've shot several music video's on 18. Color saturation still boils down to production design, wardrobe, lighting, and timing. Actually I think with 18 I get a smoother more brilliant reproduction to the color than with 79 ,because of less of grain.

I agree with Phil. People do act as though the juddery 24 fps motion started with the DVX, its been in film for the past 100 years. A converstation can go "I do like that new Panasonic camera but the picture is jittery, I don't like that." My answer is generally "what did you think 24 frames per second looks like?" I get a blank stare of confusion and we have to go into the whole persistence of vision explanation. I had someone come back with "well at the movies you don't see any jittering." Answer was "well at the movies you are not watching 24 frames per second, you are watching 48 frames per second." Blank stare of confusion. But then people do act as though 24P is a whole new format on its own which requires an entirely new set of skills. I'll hear low budget producers all the time announce, "must be able to shoot 24P" (generally the DVX). I told a producer "well I shoot film." Producer's answer "but can you shoot 24P?" My answer "film is the original 24P." Blank stare of confusion. So much half truth, so many blank stares of confusion.

I?m confused by your comparison. It seems as if your point is DVX pictures look just as good on DVD as 16mm pictures. But then admit that the film shot on 16mm had a poor job of encoding to DVD which resulted in digital artifacts. Which would then conclude how good a DVD looks is not just in the camera format but in how well it is compressed and encoded to the DVD. My reel is full of 16mm footage that has no digital artifacts and is utterly flawless. Actually many people are generally aghast when they watch my reel because the 16mm footage is so sharp and clean.

Actually you have to watch out for 77 it is a grainier film. I asked a Kodak rep about this he basically said the process that makes the film low contrast stretches it out and ultimately more grainy. What you really need to bring the film back to the transfer house is notes on what you did to the film. Especially a new stock you are just shooting with. If you know what F-stop or foot candles your highlights, midtones, and shadows are photographed, then you know where everything in the final image should fall. Generally after shooting a stock enough times, you instinctually know when you light how the final product should turn out. I've taken film back that I've felt had a bad transfer, to my experience most places will at least look at the negative because they want your business again. They will at least show you, you underexposed the film. Some post houses won't be so accommodating, and from there you can decide if you should try another post house.

I think you need to read again and learn about bit rate, its relationship to logrithmic and linear gama curves, then you will see why 10 bit does not equal 10 stops of lattitude. They talk all about it in the Quantel's Digital Fact Book. With the optimum word being FACT.

I'm a little confused maybe it works a little differently in Sweden but how do you ignore the colorist when they are the ones dong all of the work? Turning knobs, pushing buttoms, etc....

So untrue. 10 bit is a start but its only a start.

This is also a simplification. CRT and CCD are two tools that can be used in two different ways. I've been shooting a lot of music video lately. And as glossy and high produced as videos are supposed to be CRT's just don't work for me, I need a Spirit or Shadow. When I'm working on a narrative and going more for an organic soft tone then the Spirit CCD works a bit against me in that it's too sharp and too glossy. Then I opt for the CRT. I certainly wouldn't say CCD is crap. I agree with Phil in that this is electronic digital data helping film. Most film purists wouldn't want to admit to that, or even all out reject it. But honestly its a great tool to have. Being able to shoot film and digitally mainpulate the image is a powerful combination.

That was Harlem in the Reagan era... quite different today.