Shane Ramirez

What is curious to me is that any DI I have seen, regardless of how much or how little altered, looks so fundamentally different. Is there a way to digitally process without retouching anything, and have it come out looking just like the film it was shot on, only now just rendered through a computer? If you have seen deleted scenes on DVDs of late, most of them aren't polished and just look like the film they were shot on. Is it possible to keep the original look with any DI?

With my examples of continuity, from an aesthetic sense, the films were ruined. Yeah, Indy and DH 4 weren't very good. That's beside the point. Not DIing them, no matter the change in DPs or stocks or technology, would have retained some continuity with their filmic predecessors. Well, the first Lord of the Rings only partially digitally manupulated some segments, it was mostly Super 35. The other two were DI but well before the 2K and 4K formats that started with Spider Man 2 I believe. So they mostly still appear filmic to my eyes and are not wholly saturated. That look does not bug me. I was disappointed to find that Dark Knight was a DI. I read a quote somewhere from Wally Pfister where he really championed celluloid processing. Now, granted he is such a gifted DP that his talents weren't completely dilluted by the DI, but given his pension for soft, natural lighting, the Panavision process works better for his style at bringing out the details and out of focus backgrounds. If you take a look at all his other films, he really highlights the separation of background colors with foreground colors in selsctive focus shots, something that I feel the DI diminishes.

I truly feel that this new trend within the film industry is ruining our movies. Over the past few years, I have seen the slow death of all conventional telecine processing techniques like panavision (anamorphic), super 35, and spherical, and as such, am now being subjected to the ugliness that is digital. For me, the DI diminishes everything that felt cinematic to me about film processing, turning cinematography of most recent movies into a ubiquitous commodity. The elevation of color levels- blues become navy blues, orange become burnt oranges, yellows become mustard yellows, and the reduction of middle tones and flesh tones all amp up the intensity of the lighting, making every DI appear loud and ovetstylized. There is no softness in the process and because of it, films can no longer try to best mimic how the naked eye sees the world. Everything looks commercial with a DI. Movies are not even allowed to try to capture the color patterns, tones or shades of realistic lighting schemes. For example, the verisimilitude of a period piece is thrown off because the lighting looks obviously contemporary (like Atonement). Or franchises belie continuity because the disparity between telecine and DI is so great (Indiana Jones 4 compared to the other 3, Die Hard 4 compared to the other 3). I've tried best to describe why I don't like it. It's a little difficult for me becuase my understanding is more observational than technical. Does anyone here share my concern? Here are some related questions I have if anyone can answer me. Do the directors and DPs not have a say in this anymore? Is it that cheap over film that we have to finish movies like this? If they do have a choice, why have so many switched? Why isn't there any outrage in the DP community over this? Does a general DI of a film automatically increase the intensity of the color levels or is there such thing as a basic DI of a film that you can process with and not retouch?

Thanks. Myspace does suck for videos but so does the compression on iMovie which unfortunately is all I have right now. Audio for me is the hardest thing to achieve with minimal equipment. So yeah, I did focus more on the shots. Thanks for complementing the story structure. It is supposed to seem very distant (its a subjective POV from the main character who is recalling past memories). Anyway, thanks for taking the time to watch it.

Hey, I am new to this forum but I would like to receive anyones opinion on my work with a short film I made. It can be viewed here. You can view it at http://www.myspace.com/oneoftwins. Check it out! I work as a director but I have handled the shooting of all of my projects. Naturally, I have gained an appreciation for cinematography. My knowledge of it is self taught and therefore I have never played around with lighting kits, I have only ever used natural light. This might make me at a disadvantage down the way into a greater career or collaborative career, so I am intersted in what others think.