Max Jacoby

Today I got a 1992 backissue of American Cinematographer Magazine. Under 'What's New' there is an annoucement for a new Sony HD camera that just made my day: 'The new Sony HDC-500CCD camera, according to Sony, outstrips any known 35mm film in the combinationof three key performance parametrrs: sensitivity, noise and dynamic range' and quoting the one and only Larry Thorpe: 'With one high-definition camera we have the speed of the fastest T-Grain 35mm film (EXR 5296) combined with the grain performance of Kodak's slowest speed 65mm film (EXR 5245)'

There was rumor some months back that they were testing 65mm, but that was for the 'Che' project, which Malick isn't doing anymore.

Most DOPs I've worked with increase the strenght of the diffusion filter when they move into close-ups. On 'Girl with a Pearl Earring' Eduardo Serra shot most of the studio scenes with a 1/8 Promist, except for the occasional close-up of Scarlett Johansson, where he went to 1/4 Promist. The only exception so far was Benoit Delhomme, who stopped using a 1/8 PM when we went on longer lenses (135mm and 180mm UP)

On the subject of Russian lenses, has anyone tried the Elite 35mm spherical lenses?

What is it with HD that seems to attract these idiots?

In 2001 I saw a new print and I don't remember any of the problems you described. But that was a premier screening by Warner bros, where Kubricks family were present (and Terry Gilliam as well, who is a big fan), so presumably that was one of the prints struck from the original neg. '2001' is great date movie as well by the way...

The trick with the mags is to ONLY put your filmcan in the changing-bag. You open the can, pull out some film and seal the can again, leaving the film you pulled out hanging from the can. The you take the can out of the changing-bag, and in daylight you lace the film through the mag and go back in the changing bag where you just put the roll into the mag. Voilà.

I too thought it was a very nice Super35 blowup. One thing needs to be said about Wolfgang Petersen though: Ridley Scott he ain't... I found the battles very boring, especially the one which starts off the movie: it's shot in such a pedestrian way, it doesn't look exciting or imposing at all when these two armies face each other.

I have nothing against the concept of DIs. I think it is a tool that offers fantastic possibilities, but to me right now the loss in picture quality is just not worth it. Like I said, I have yet to see a DI where the skintones are as good as in a optically timed print. I do not mean to imply that in an optically timed print skintones always look good, but in my opinion DI just isn't ready yet. To be fair, I have seen a noticeable improvement in DI quality over the last years. The best DI I have seen so far was 'Blueberry' by Jan Kounen. The fact that it was shot on 79 pushed one stop gave it a nice grainy quality and the muted color palette certainly helped the skintones. And I do find it extremely worrying that so many people seem so taken by DIs. I mean if I read in AC that in 'Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind' Ellen Kuras first used DNR, and then sharpening to counteract the effects of DNR, just all bells go off. Or if Philippe Rousselot sings praises of DI for 'Big Fish' and when I go to see the film, it's a big smeary mess.

I think art works both ways. Just as a filmmaker has the right to make creative choices for his/her film, the audience also has the right to give their opinions on these choices. In the case of DIs, if people who use it state that they think it is good enough, it is also my right to argue why I don't think so. My opinion is just as valid as theirs.

To me cinematography is about faces. I expect faces to look right. At this moment in time, if you use a DI, faces will simply not look as good as they do if you time the film optically. I would like to point out that I am certainly not the only person who feels that DIs are not yet ready. I spoke to a lab recently where they do DI work as well. But they said to me that they don't think it is as good as an optical blow-up. Also I would like to refer you Mitch's posts regarding the Kodak Vision2 demo and the difference between DI and Optical Print. I have yet to shoot Super16 for my own projects, but if I would, I would only use an optical blow-up. I don't mind the grain or a lack of sharpness compared to 35mm as long as it FEELS right. That is why I'd rather use dupes than DI for optical effects. Even if they are more grainy, once again they still FEEL better. This is simply a discussion of what is acceptable for each one. If you feel that DI is good enough for you, go ahead and use it. I certainly feel it isn't there yet, although I hope that one day it will, because it has the potential to be a fantastic tool.

Well then it is really just a question whether you find the quality loss acceptable or not.

Because this is a discussion about digital intermediates. Before I take this discussion any further I would actually like to ask you if you recognize the differences between a DI and an optically timed film when you see it in a theatre. Because if you don't, then I don't see how we can discuss the advantages and disadvantages of DIs.

I am not 'anti-digital', I am pro-quality. But from a psychological point of view you are right of course: as long as I see something which is of lower quality, I will not like it and complain. There's nothing wrong with that, is there? If people didn't push for things to get better, we'd never get anywhere.

The WHOLE of 'Passion' was DI. I don't mean to offend you, but I do find it a bit funny that you are against DIs, yet you didn't recognize it in 'Passion' which was a really bad and obvious DI. I personally don't like DIs either, but at least I recognize one when I see one. :D And no, Filipe, the difference not in my mind. It is on the screen. :D Honestly, if you had to pick between grain/sharpness and lack of grain/softness, which one would you chose? The choice seems quite obvious to me.

That's the whole point: Although skanning and recording should be invisible, it isn't. Because it usually takes me less than 2 minutes to recognize if a film is DI or not. And I ALWAYS recognize it (and I don't like it, as you might have guessed by now). I think the difference would be much more obvious to most people if you had a side by side comparison between a regular print and a DI. All I can say is that when I explained the problems I had with DIs to a friend of mine, who is an sound engineer in the music industry, he knew exactely what I meant. He said the music indusrty went (and is still going) through something similar: they have digital recorders that theoretically are good enough (they cover the whole latitude of audible frequencies), but people still prefer to use analogue recorders, who record 'more' than one can hear. They can still hear a difference, although there shouldn't be any anymore. Funnily enough, for all my DI bashing, in a film that I made recently on 35mm anamorphic, there is a DI shot in it: we had to extend the lenght of a shot and it got done digitally. I didn't mind, because neither I nor the Dop (who hates DIs as well) didn't notice any difference. But that was because it was the close-up of an old teddybear :D But for another shot (fade out of a close-up of a boy) the lab did it digitally first, but we asked them to do it optically, because we didn't like the way the DI shot looked.

I spoke to JDC today, they only have adapted Cooke S3s and Superspeeds. Although they are hoping to adapt Cooke S4s as well, but they need the cooperation from Cooke for that.

It had the usualy DI Problems: wrong, plasticky skintones, weak blacks. On top of that it was really grainy. Using Super35 with 500 Asa on wide, exterior sunlit shots is not a really good idea. I am not a big fan of John Seales work in general, but in this film his approach of using only 500 Asa, even if it is the 5218, hurt the look of the film. Especially one shot during the battle in the beginning looked like blown-up Super8.

'Cold Mountain' was scanned on a Northlight and I found it had the same problems as any other DI out there

That seems far more likely, especially since Spinotti was supposed to do the film from the beginning, but had to step down because of a scheduling conflict. I have yet to meet Douglas Milesome, but he worked several times with Stanley Kubrick, who was one of the most demanding directors out there. That deserves respect. I know several people here in the UK who got offered jobs on Kubrick's films but were afraid to take them. One other famous Dop that I have worked with freely told me that he quit a job, because the director, who started out as a Dop and still lights features, kept on telling him how to light the scenes.

I work mostly with Arricams (LT and ST), Arri 535B, and the Arri 435 for highspeed/stunt work.

Really? What is the reasoning behind such a move? I have no experience with American union rules, but it sounds incredibly narrow-minded that if your film goes union, and your Dop isn't in it, you cannot keep shooting with him. And if they had $35M, why didn't they go union from the beginning?

The same thing happened on 'Last of the Mohicans', where Dante Spinotti replaced Douglas Milesome after some 4 weeks. Emmanuel Lubezki didn't exactely have the greatest time on 'Ali' either, but I felt his cinematography in that film was extraordinairy nonetheless.

That's why I am looking forward to Mann's next film, 'Collateral', which he shot mainly on the Viper. I am not a fan of HD at all, but I am curious what he will do with it.

It can, if your theatre is using two projectors and needs to switch from one projector to the other during a reel change.