Tyler Purcell

A dream come true for WHO? Certainly not the people who OWN digital cinema cameras. Rental houses and camera owners are loosing their shirts on digital technology because it's changing so fast, people who invested heavily in last years technology can find it hard to get jobs using it next year. Worst part is, the "advancement" in technology is only getting faster and the pricing for these more advanced cameras, even more then the previous models. Also, democratizing cinema through digital technology has it's benefits and detractors. Now everyone with money can buy a decent digital cinema camera and put themselves on the market as a 'DP'. Most low-budget shows, the stuff the vast majority of US cinematographers are bidding on, have been taken over by a bunch of people who have the money to own the right equipment. It's not about talent as much as it's about what you have in your equipment locker. Since digital cinema has taken over, I've seen day rates go from $500 to $100 here in Hollywood. People just EXPECT you will work for $100/day or even free. This was not the case 10 years ago and it's only getting worse. So no, I don't see ANY real benefit to digital technology in the long run. Piracy has skyrocketed. Theaters charge more then ever thanks to them being forced to buy digital cinema projectors. Job rates have decreased tremendously. There is more competition then ever in the job and content markets. MANY phenomenal movies have been overlooked because there are just too many films out there for sale since everyone can make one in their back yard and make it look great today for little to no money. Camera owners constantly have to update or not get work. Technology buzz forces equipment owners to constantly buy new tech. Digital media is extremely volatile and very easy to delete/destroy with the flick of a finger. Did I mention the complete lack of long term storage without data loss? The vast majority of digital cinema projectors/theaters look like crap due to low-resolution, out of calibration, old and dusty projectors which haven't been replaced since theaters can't afford to. AND!!! Has content really gotten better? Has digital cinema IMPROVED the stories we tell to the point of it being worth the $20 ticket price? Personally, I don't think so because currently, there are really no movies worth watching at the cinema. I can't think of a time in my past with so few "interesting" films to watch. There are the technology driven films which in 5 years will look completely outdated and there are the story films, most of which feel they need to use technology in some way to tell their story. So yet again, even they will look outdated in a few years. What humors me the most about this whole thing is the fact those filmmakers who choose to stay away from artificial manipulation, tend to make the best content today. Yet, most of it isn't available in the theaters, it's only available on streaming/web or broadcast. With the studio's only willing to fund tentpole films, many top filmmakers have given up cinema and moved to other markets. The only reason those tent pole films exist is due to digital technology. Please show me a single tent pole film that isn't based on technology. Umm, most of us can tell between digital and film, that's super easy. Heck, I can usually tell exactly what digital camera was used as well because each of them have a unique visual signature. It's sad you think that's the future because all I see is another year where cinema attendance was down. Flat means no dynamic range. It's a technical term referring to the camera, format and projector system not having to work quite as hard to deliver the image, which is one of the reasons it looks acceptable. I wasn't referring to the content of the movie. I was referring to the quality of the 70mm cinematography and projection which wasn't touched by a single computer. If you didn't see the film in 70mm, you have zero place to comment on what I was talking about. Quentin used Ultra Panavision 70 for Hateful Eight in order to help keep Kodak in business AND built a fleet of 70mm projectors to be used for future presentations. It had very little to do with the actual movie, it had more to do with a vision to keep film around. Without people like him and Christopher Nolan, film would surely die and to loose film, is probably the worst thing that would happen to cinema. I live in Hollywood, which is the home of cinema in this continent. I work in the industry and what I've seen over the last 10 years since digital has taken hold, is the massive reduction in work. I've seen true craftsmen and artists be let go and hundreds more retire. In this country alone, 150,000 people lost their jobs due to the shift from film to digital over 10 years. Over 500 theaters closed their doors, most of them small-town. We've seen the quality of cinema decrease to the point where we honor movies without any dialog! (Mad Max/Revenant) To the point where individual (non-repeat) attendance as at an ALL-TIME LOW! All of this in the name of "experimentation and innovation" Cinema is a powerful form of story telling and today, filmmakers are more interested in messing with technology then telling a story, fueled by studio's who manipulate the content so it will work for the masses. Cinema is also an art form and no matter what you or other film haters think, FILM is the ONLY true artist representation. You don't go to an art gallery and stare at digital monitors of art do you? No... you look at the actual object made by the artist. It's exactly the same way with film done photochemically. What you see in the theaters is an exact replication of what the cinematographer captured on set. There is no manipulation of the image. Yes, I'm pessimistic but I'm also a realist. I personally don't see very many benefits to digital technology outside of selfish ones like MY ability to own a digital camera and shoot things for no money. That is truly the ONLY BENEFIT to this precipitous technology leap for the average joe. On the flip side, digital technology has been the first nail in the coffin for cinemas and studios. The smart ones are moving very quickly to other mediums and when that happens, the cinemas will slowly start to close (or turn into amusement rides) since the vast majority of good content people are talking about, won't be shown there. Sure, the big chains will always stick around, but who will bother going to the theaters when you can watch UHD streaming content at home?

Right, but that's a film which wasn't stored properly and shrank because nobody bothered doing any maintenance. Constantly and guess what, copying digital data over and over again (like film) isn't lossless. Also... who is storing the entire camera negative for a feature film shot on 4k in RAW? The average cost to store a feature digitally is 10x more then film.

Why? because I expect them to do better? We have all the technology in the world, yet most of the cinema force fed to us at the theaters is of extremely poor quality. It doesn't matter if it's the story, acting, effects or presentation; the cinema use to be a sacred place and in my almost 38 years of life on this planet, I've seen it turn into an amusement ride. Any movie that is NOMINATED FOR BEST VISUAL EFFECTS, is an effects movie. I have friends who worked on the marketing for The Revenant and I've recently been able to see pieces of the rough cut used for cutting the first teasers/trailers. This is where I get my opinion from and it's why I call it a VFX film because frankly, it really is. Someday I hope you can come to Hollywood and start learning about this stuff in person, not thousands of miles away via magazines and the internet.

Actually they did. When they couldn't shoot in their first location due to lack of snow, they had to move to Argentina. In order to make that location look like the first location, they were forced to composite in backgrounds from the first shoot into the 2nd shoot. Had there just been snow, they would have been able to shoot in the first location and not needed to add those effect shots. Well, you liked Mad Max... For me, all I saw was a bunch of people sitting in a computer room. I guess there was something else to watch? I didn't find it. I'm just done with FX movies... I'm sick and tired of them because MOST filmmakers abuse the opportunity. They have zero restraint, so anything that pops into their heads, winds up on screen. Films that ARE ONLY VFX... Avatar for instance... that's OK. I'm going into a film that is specifically made to be about the effects. Films that "claim" to be all realistic and poop, yet are mostly VFX, that's what pisses me off. You will never see top notch work because it will be SO GOOD, you won't even know it exists! That's the genius of Ex Machina.

And the worst part is, DLP mirrors only move a few degrees between full black and full white. So there aren't very many steps between blown-out white and less than blown-out white. The imager in the camera is FAR BETTER at capturing the dynamics, but unfortunately our projection technology today is stuck using DLP which is VERY good technology, it just doesn't have the nuance film has. This new laser DLP technology is A LOT BETTER, but there are so few theaters with the system and/or can afford it, I doubt it will make the impact necessary to fix these issues. Honestly, my problem with low-light digital shooting comes down to motion blur. I think the digital motion blur looks like crap, it makes the product look like a soap opera. If you don't have much motion, you can get away with it. However, when lighting with flames, there is constant motion and you can tell right away. I remember seeing "Public Enemies" and wanting to puke. It looked like a syndicated broadcast television show with a bigger budget. Personally, these are just a few of the reasons I simply don't go to the theater anymore. If I'm going to see substandard projection of media content, I might as well watch it at home where I don't have to fork over $20. When someone finally figures out a better projection system then film, it won't really matter because then you'll have all the issues with the cameras and filmmakers trying to push them into doing something they aren't designed to do, all because it "looks cool". Please!

Well, it was an amazing experience first time around, but in my comments of that thread, I did mention my displeasure for the use of ANY VFX. The shots with the cattle on the cliff side looked horrible, 2nd rate stuff. The horse and leo falling down the cliff was poorly done, it could have been done a lot better with less movement. That big snow pack slide with Leo at the bottom, lighting was all wrong on his face compared to the dark sky above, thus it was all composited together. I see all that stuff and it bothers me because they made a HUGE stink about using natural light and being "in the environment" yet they were forced to turn the movie into a VFX one due to the lack of snow. The film is so heavy on effects it was even nominated for best effects of the year! The bear does look pretty convincing during the initial screening. However, since my original screening, I have been able to watch the film again and study many of these elements more and honestly, I can see all of the effects, they stand out like a sore thumb. From the shot blends to the added snow to the fixed sky. Yes, there is some amazing in-camera imagery captured on location without the use of any FX. I also understand the problems the crew faced, having recently watched that little documentary that's been going around about the making. So I get they had to resort to visual effects, but to me that's just not right. If you make a mistake, you shouldn't cover up your mistake with effects, you should figure out how to make it right in camera.

Yea, I mean what do you expect? The Oscars have always been political, especially best picture. Plus as you pointed out Gregory, a lot of the voters don't actually watch the movies. I personally think there should be a voting committee and every year a new group of experts should be the people who vote.

There are a few good scenes in The Revenant. However, the vast majority of the film is a bore visually. Then add the incessant visual effects, some of which look atrocious and it becomes quite aggravating. For what it's worth, I still enjoyed the movie, but it won't be sitting on my DVD shelf.

I've done quite a bit of animation using Maya for modeling and compositing in Nuke, Shake or even AE. In the digital world, there are no barriers/boundaries. Sure, you have to still setup lighting, sure you have to make a camera path and select focal length lenses. However, it's an infinite world to work in, very much unlike our own. It's also a world which is manipulated by gangs of people, not just the cinematographer who may set the look of a particular scene, but the artists themselves are constantly manipulating the environment. If you look at award winning movies like Avatar or Life of PI, which mixes green screen stage work with CG environments, the "cinematographer" is given the keys to the castle and can do anything they want. Sitting in a chair manipulating objects on a computer monitor, is an entirely different way to work then on a sound stage or on location. To me, what makes the profession of cinematography so great, is finding great ways to get around the limitations we all face. It's about knocking down those challenges and coming up with great solutions using the physical world. The computer world is infinite, so you no longer are facing limitations. If you want a light as bright as the sun 3 miles away from the camera, you can drag the light source over and make it happen. If you want the moon to be a little bit brighter, you drag a lever across and raise it's luminance. Anyone can take their wildest dreams and make them a reality on a computer monitor with a bit of training and experience. As much as I love well-made 3D animated movies, I can't stand how every filmmaker must manipulate their content digitally and add fake/CG characters to real scenes and visa versa. It's ruined SO many potentially good movies because people over do it. Ex Machina is the best example of CG done right and it should go without saying, their award for best visual effects against Mad Max and Star Wars... really shows people are waking up to this problem.

One of the reasons both Mad Max and The Revenant look "good" digitally is that NEITHER FILM uses the color spectrum in a "normal" way. They both are highly manipulated. The Revenant is a completely flat movie, it lacks typical dynamic range due to the almost constant cloud cover during shooting. This means the technology doesn't have to work quite as hard to reproduce the image. Mad Max on the other hand, is a "tinted" movie and it's been heavily modified in post to create again, a flat look, but more at the top of the luminance level. They also added fake grain to the entire show, which kinda washes out most of the issues you'd see. In terms of digitally manipulating motion picture film... I'm absolutely in the camp of the DI process changing the integrity of the format. Personally, I think the profession of cinematography itself has been dragged down through these digital tools. Cinematographers can now be lazy and shoot whatever they want because they know in post, they can fix the problems. Plus, we've over-complicated post production in a huge way. Adding more "Artists" and all sorts of headaches/cost, that doesn't need to be there. Yet, everyone does DI because it makes your film "pop" and that's the look filmmakers assume the audience wants. When you watch movies like "The Hateful Eight" on 70mm, you start to realize these digital tools are unnecessary. That film was done completely photochemically and looked perfect. Even if your not a fan of the lighting or even movie, it very much validates photochemical finish in a way that even Nolan couldn't achieve. We need more filmmakers making products using the old school method and possibly developing new technologies to integrate more digital technology into the photochemical world. For instance, I have a white paper for a photochemical film printer which can generate mattes and color film at high speeds. Thus, making it much easier to use digital tools for color correcting film.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_of_Courage

Welcome to the forum! This "discussion/debate" has been going on here for YEARS and comes around on a monthly basis. You will get a lot of varying opinions from people, some of which have a great deal of experience. What you won't get is an unbiased opinion because everyone has their preference. So here is mine! :) Technically the best digital, doesn't hold a candle to the best film (resolution/color space). What's unfortunate is that the best film (IMAX 15/70), is very difficult format to work with and extremely costly compared to any other film or digital formats. In fact, to this very day, only one narrative feature film has been entirely shot in 15/70 due to the cost and technical issues. Yet, the Alexa 65 which is a 6k camera, combined with a 4k finish and distribution using laser projectors on IMAX screens, looks pretty darn good for quite a bit less money then IMAX 15/70. Yet, there are only 6 screens in the entire world with these vey special dual laser IMAX projectors and rumors are only 2 more being setup in 2016. The reason is cost, as 1.5M per projector and 2 required for 3D, it's an expensive endeavor especially since each projector is only 4k. In the long run, film DOES NOT COST MORE then digital, when shooting a reasonable budget narrative feature. Rental houses practically give away 35mm cameras and Kodak has excellent deals on stocks. Labs are also slowly starting to cooperate with lower-budget features, helping them get through the post production process without having to sell a kidney. The only real detractor's with film is not knowing what you have before you process and sensitivity. Digital cinema cameras give you instant results AND are far more sensitive then pushing film to it's limits. To a LOT of filmmakers, these two things are FAR more important then shooting with old technology for some posterity reason. Line producers, directors and cinematographers make a lot of the decisions and a lot of the problems with film vs digital happen in pre-production. In most cases, it's not even considered as an option because the line producer has already budgeted for digital and even if the director and cinematographer want film, convincing the powers at be to get that, can be challenging. So a lot of movies don't get the ability to shoot on film. Then you have the long-distance processing and lab closure issues. This is what prevented "The Revenant" and "Beasts of No Nation" from shooting on film. Both movies tested on film and both switched LAST MINUTE to digital due to "unforeseen issues" in the workflow. This happens more then one could ever imagine and it's really sad to think of how many great films WOULD have been shot on motion picture film, had there just been someone else in film's corner during pre-production to solve those problems. So why does film cost the same (or less than) digital? Simple... - It lasts for hundreds of years sitting on a shelf. Digital costs tens of thousands to maintain over its life. - Film is resolution agnostic. Digital has a fixed resolution, film does not. - Good digital cameras have extreme value, so they're expensive to rent and own. Film cameras are low-cost alternatives today. - A photochemical workflow doesn't require any expensive scanning to digital or color correction for tens of thousands of dollars. - No monitors, video village, DIT or any "video" support on set REQUIRED for film. It's almost a pre-requisite for digital - When the film camera runs, people pay attention, so generally productions are faster. - Since film is less crisp, less detail is required on sets, makeup and effects, lowering the cost substantially over 4k digital. - We are making clean restoration negatives off 100+ year old films today, yet we've already lost countless movies shot digitally. Now, if you're just shooting small productions for low-money, which will be presented on the internet, VOD, BluRay/DVD and broadcast, digital is great. Those distribution formats are so compressed, you won't see a lot of the issues digital has. Plus, we still live in a 1080p world, so resolution really doesn't mean anything. A 10 bit 4:2:2 signal in 1080p resolution, is a much smaller file and likewise easier to deal with at home on cheaper systems then a RAW RGB 12 - 16bit 4:4:4 file in 4k - 6k. So there are a lot of benefits to shooting 1080p or 2k on digital productions where you can't afford the long-term storage space, but can afford the camera. This is where digital sings and it works great for those particular types of distribution methods. I do mostly documentary work, so digital has been a life saver. I don't regret making the move from film to digital, I'm very happy with the simplistic workflow and instant results for my low/no budget productions. Yet, I love film and whenever I can be involved in shooting, projecting or even watching film, I will be there. I've shot Super 8, Super 16, Super 35 and edited/projected all of those formats in my 20+ years working in the industry. So one could say, I'm pretty passionate about it, to the point of starting my own film school specially designed to teach youth about making movies on celluloid. In my eyes, what keeps film from growing is the ever new technology and filmmakers desire to play with it. Plus I feel lot of filmmakers are just tired of having to work in the confines of celluloid and I don't blame them. Yet, there are a bunch of filmmakers who have the financial whereabouts to shoot on film and are keeping the tradition alive. If you HAVE the resources to shoot on film, you SHOULD do it. In my low/no-budget world, it doesn't cost much to shoot on S16, but it does 'cost' something. Where digital (if you own equipment) is nearly cost-less in contrast. So the decision to grab the film camera or digital camera when walking out the door is pretty plain and simple, it's digital most of the time. Shooting on film require pre-planning and financial backing to make it reality. For some, this isn't a problem, but for struggling filmmakers, digital has opened up doors to a new dimension of filmmaking that we could never dream of until today. Does my use of digital prevent me from loving film? Nope... I LOVE film and have since I was a very small child. In my eyes, digital is just a tool for creating content for low/no money. I have zero love for digital technology, but since we live in a digital world today, I'm forced to partake in it, like everyone else. Ohh and film is far, far, far, far from being dead.

I think it's the political nature of the film AND it's award-winning ensemble cast. It worked well on many levels and lets face it, out of the nominees, what else would have won?

With all the 70mm prints going out this year, they should be "again" in the black! :) 2015 was a great year for Kodak! But I do agree that spending a lot of money on a camera body, isn't TOO smart. All the camera body does is move film. The money should be spent on lenses. This is why I don't mind using "cheaper" bodies because in the long run, what you shoot is far more important then what you shoot it with.

Sold! :)

Sold! I got someone local to grab it for $2500.

Yea, exactly! I was utterly shocked to learn that MOST "science" IMAX films which use to be exclusively shot on 15/70 are now shot at 2k or 4k, using digital cameras. So the format is a complete waste today. There is nothing like a photochemically finished 15/70 film on the big screen, they are quite amazing.

IMAX must have gotten a new director or something. They made a precipitous push towards digital few years ago and they've literally forgot about film. It's really unfortunate because the poor theaters had just invested in 3D film projectors and all of a sudden, had to invest in digital. IMAX like THX before it, is completely watered down technology today. With Dolby Vision offering petty much the same product for A LOT LESS MONEY, the writing could be on the wall for IMAX's future if they aren't careful! Ohh and yea, Nolan's films do have a lot of photochemical finish in them. Lots of shots were scanned though, especially in Interstellar.

I believe FotoKem can do 11k scans and 8k records. Since The Force Awakens was finished in 2k, I doubt they bothered to record it back at high res. Christopher Nolan's films are the only ones I KNOW, which use the full 11k scan and 8k record. There are quite a few films shot in color, turned into B&W and printed onto color interpositive stock. One of them would be "The Man Who Wasn't There".

Chivo for the win! I wanted Ed to win of course, but you've gotta admit Chivo did a great job. I was over-all happy with the oscar nods, though predictable to the end, even with Spotlight winning best picture.

Hey guys, just lowered the price! I sold a few more things, so I'm able to sell the camera for $2500, which is a killer deal.

This is what I have remaining and the price per roll. (2) Kodak Vision 3 5219 500T $100 (2) Fuji Eterna 8547 500T $100 (2) Fuji Eterna 8522 64D $100 (4) Kodak Vision 2 5299 500T $50

The reason why downres works better is because there are more pixels being used. It's still 4:2:0, but since there are more pixels being used, they are denser and those barriers between colors are less visible. You're still lacking TUNS of color information and the 8 bit recording makes it even harder to work with in post production. Plus, when you downres, you are actually compressing pixels, which means even more loss of information. I mean you're still dealing with MPEG recording as well, so it's really not much better. External recording in 4k in 10 bit 4:2:2, is the best solution with that camera. The moment you start coloring in 444 RGB 12 bit color space, is the moment you realize how BAD these little cameras really are.

Yep, The Fifth Element :)

Personally, I wouldn't... it's so easy to do in post production, why mess up your negative?