KNOWING director Alex Proyas on RED camera

[Andy_Alderslade]

My only point in bringing up Technicolor was that some would say that it was a superior color process replaced by an inferior color process, that it was a case of convenience and cost savings outweighing any aesthetic concerns, that changes in the industry are not always improvements, or sometimes they only later rise to the quality level of what was lost. The switch to digital camera technology is not being driven primarily by image quality concerns, and the transition from film may happen before true parity is achieved. That may sound depressing, but it's just the way things often work.

 

The thing is I can imagine how liberating single colour negative film must have first been, suddenly you could use much smaller, more available and more transportable cameras to attain useable colour images rather than extremely specialist and bulky 3-strip cameras.

 

I don't really see digital camera technology as liberating as that, if anything it can be just as bulky, production heavy and slow as 35mm, the images can be good but are perhaps not as flexible. Seems like the major advantage is financial but even that is an ambiguous advantage considering the grand scale of productions cost.

 

Where I would say there has been a big liberating development in the last 10 years is in the lower end of prosumer digital cameras - where people can literally make a film carrying a suitcase of equipment; I find it hard to believe films like 'In This World' or 'Iraq in Fragments', would have been impossible without the inventions of PD150s, DVXs and now the V1 or EX1. These cameras may not produce images as great as their professional digital cinema counterparts but they allow film-making or storytelling in a way previously not possible.

 

IMHO,

Andy

[Thomas James]

Lately with all of this emphasis on High Definition I think 70mm film pretty much rules as being the highest quality aquisition format. However the problem with 70mm film is that it is just too expensive to be considered for use in all productions. So what this means is that digital which is more or less equivalent to 70mm film will have to be developed simply because real 70mm film is not always economically feasable.

[georg lamshöft]

Lately with all of this emphasis on High Definition I think 70mm film pretty much rules as being the highest quality aquisition format. However the problem with 70mm film is that it is just too expensive to be considered for use in all productions. So what this means is that digital which is more or less equivalent to 70mm film will have to be developed simply because real 70mm film is not always economically feasable.

 

Camera rent (ARRI) and film costs (Kodak per meter) are actually the same as with 35mm! A film called "Nanga Parbat" about Reinhold Messner was actually shot (partly) in 65mm - and it cost a fraction of "Knowing"... I don't see costs as a real problem, but cutting costs on such thing as the film format is easy, and if you give them a chance to cut 50000$ on a 1000 times (!!!) bigger project, they will do it...

 

I hope "Inception" will be shot entirely IMAX...

 

As for "Knowing", well it didn't look like Betacam and most of the time it looked more like a telecine from 35mm (I think we are used to this kind of quality and certain digital artefacts, even if it's far away from the potential of 35mm) but is this really "good enough" for a 50Mio$-movie? I think there are better tools available for those projects - Micheal Mann's HD-movies might look strange, but at least he doesn't try to imitate the look of film (poorly).

[Thomas James]

Yes the cost per foot of 65mm may be the same as 35mm but 65mm uses twice as much footage because the frame size is 4 times as big so that means your costs double. Since IMAX uses 15 perfs rather than 5 perfs your costs are about 6 times the cost of 35mm film. IMAX HD which shoots at 48 frames per second is even more expensive which is 12 times the cost of 35mm film. A 3D stereoscopic and your costs go to the roof.

[Antti Näyhä]

65mm uses twice as much footage because the frame size is 4 times as big so that means your costs double

Um, no. The "conventional" (that is, non-IMAX) 65mm uses 5 perforations per frame. Compared to 4-perf 35mm, this means just 25% more footage per frame.

[Bob Hayes]

These larger budget effects films is that they are doing a huge amount of post work. And this work is really expensive and done by really good folks. So just because “Benjamin Buttons” or “Knowing” looks good doesn’t mean your film is going to look that way.

[georg lamshöft]

Mr. Cage's Hairstylist propably costs more than the additional cost of 65mm compared to HD... :blink:

 

So hire Bruce Willis and shot 65mm... :lol:

[Joseph Arch]

With all due respect Joseph, I don't believe you know what you're talking about. You won't believe me now but, to prove my point, bookmark this topic and make a note in your calendar to come back here in 5 years time. Reread this topic and pay special attention to your posts. You'll see what I mean then.

 

Fairness Disclaimer: I've said/written/done quite a few things that I'm now properly embarrassed about. As the saying goes, 'we do better when we know better'.

 

Evan W.

 

When I learn cinematography on a professional scale my mind will still not change between digital and film. I may not know much about the topic now but when I do you will wish I did not.

[Valeriu Campan]

I think 70mm film pretty much rules as being the highest quality aquisition format.

70mm is used for the release prints. Maybe you want to refer at 65mm as aquisition format

[Ayz Waraich]

true, it wasn't...about 4 minutes of the 166 minute run time was shot on film...Those four minutes really made the difference to you , yes?

 

After reading this thread, I'm very curious about this as well, and think Joseph needs to address this -- especially after raving about the cinematography of Ben Button, and then going on to declare that Digital has no place in cinema. Err -- what? Since button is more than 95% digital, there's either some hard to ignore contradictions here or some major misunderstanding.

 

Btw, I'm not anti-film at all here, but i am pro-making-sense...

[Joseph Arch]

After reading this thread, I'm very curious about this as well, and think Joseph needs to address this -- especially after raving about the cinematography of Ben Button, and then going on to declare that Digital has no place in cinema. Err -- what? Since button is more than 95% digital, there's either some hard to ignore contradictions here or some major misunderstanding.

 

Btw, I'm not anti-film at all here, but i am pro-making-sense...

 

I looked at BB from a viewers point. Hence why I could not tell the difference between digital and film. After seeing it again I can see this time that it was all digital. Unfortunately. Your argument seems to be that if I was tricked into thinking it was a masterpiece of cinematography then film is dead. My praise about it being a great work of cinematography is invalid because I am not qualified to give a technical review on it. Unfortunately. Seriously, when you try and trick people into thinking something is good when it is really bad, then a backlash will step on you. When I am qualified to debate with you about film vs digital is for future time.

[David Mullen ASC]

It just sounds like he was questioning your statement that digital has no place in cinema.

[Joseph Arch]

It just sounds like he was questioning your statement that digital has no place in cinema.

 

Maybe. However, from countless arguments about film vs digital the digital people think that if the audience can't tell the difference between them then it's time for film to die. That is the perception they have. Look at RED forum. All you can see is "bye bye film", "die film die". Complete ignorance. I would like learn as much about film first more then digital. Someone that makes a jump into photoshop and skips hand drawing will be useless with drawing. I do stand by my statement that digital has no place in cinema at the moment. It will sometime but not right now. I am not a technical person at cinematography yet but I am so passionate to learn that I have to at least fight for it.

[K Borowski]

I just got a chance to catch the 7:25 showing last night. I arrived at 7:33, hurried into the theatre, and still had to endure at least another 5 minutes of trailers :blink:

 

Just to make absolutely sure I would be fair and unbiased about this film, I sat in the very front row, which actually made it hard at times to see the whole screen at once. I almost had to do a "pan and scan" with my eyes at times when they stretched the composition across the frame.

 

This film is, by far, the finest example of digital cinematography I have seen thusfar. I was really looking hard, at times, to find something objectionably digital to criticize, without success. Even the "noisy blacks" people here seem to keep griping about was far better than the push-processed film grain look.

 

One thing, though this is more an artifact, I'm sure, of the Fuji film print I saw, that did bother me was the very pinkish hues of the skintones. Of course, it's not surprising they printed on Fuji. RED is, after all, out to "bury" Kodak, right? One more comment about RED, and then I am done: their logo, at the end of the credits, looked like a 5 year old with early '90s digital graphic arts software made it. Might look alright next to all the Fanboys names here, but it looks like a poorly-done cartoon on print stock. . .

 

The trees being digitally tweaked were objectionable; they looked like really bad HDR. Why the hell didn't they just *shoot* in October, and save the posts houses a lot of needless work.

 

And, for a film set in October of 2009, that is about predicting the future, they made two CRIMINAL mistakes: Posting gas prices in plain sight in the film ($3.69^9/Gal. by Fall? I highly doubt it. . .) and posting, again in plain sight a Dow Jones Industrial Average of 8300 and change. . .

 

For a film that is about predicting numbers in the future, you'd think they would have known better than to try to predict gas and stock values.

 

There was even a short news blurb when Nicholas Cage was watching the television about "new record oil price gains". OOPS!

 

SPOILERS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The plane crash was CGI at its worse, as were the cities being destroyed and the subway crash. Come on guys! Independence Day looked ten times better and it was made 13 years ago! CGI really looked like some bad, surplus video game graphics at times.

 

Especially the clouds of smoke: you could literally see the blocks where they tiled the same smoke pattern together repeatedly.

 

 

 

 

They did an absolutely beautiful job clothing their NYC extras though; it was literally a sea of black suits, all complacently walking around oblivious to the impending subway accident.

 

There was something very haunting about it, seeing Nicholas Cage in amongst this sea of black suits.

 

This movie was actually quite hard to be objective about. I immediately felt a connection between myself and the Nicholas Cage character. The story was totally immersive. I was glued into my seat (almost) the entire time. I think it was a great touch making him a functional alcoholic.

 

I know this is a tired genre, folks, but I haven't felt that sort of cinematic connnection in a long time, since the action films of the '90s maybe.

 

This film was really well done. Even the alien ships were fresh, new, different.

 

I went into the theatre really wanting to hate this film, but came out loving it. Nicholas Cage the film's weak link my ass. He was really brilliant here. The script really sparkled., and the story really departed from the tired time-travel/predict the future/destiny-vs.-random chance mold out of which it was no doubt cast.

 

One final aside: WTF is up with all of the digitally-shot films being set all or in-part in or around MIT? Do they give special cut rates for shooting digitally there, or are they just really gung-ho about digital because they are a total techie geek school? First "21" and now "Knowing" were shot on the exact same bridge :rolleyes:

 

It was interesting, though that, Nicholas Cage, despite $3.70/gal. gas is still driving around in a Ford F-150, and they filmed the bulk of this supposedly-Massachusetts-set film in Victoria Australia.

 

I'm definitely going to see this one again in DLP. But, once again, I tip my hat to Mr. Proyas. Far more profound than just a stupid popcorn flick. Worth a trip, at least to a matinee or 2nd run showing at least.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Karl Borowski

[Ayz Waraich]

It just sounds like he was questioning your statement that digital has no place in cinema.

 

As David said...

 

I looked at BB from a viewers point. Hence why I could not tell the difference between digital and film. After seeing it again I can see this time that it was all digital. Unfortunately. Your argument seems to be that if I was tricked into thinking it was a masterpiece of cinematography then film is dead. My praise about it being a great work of cinematography is invalid because I am not qualified to give a technical review on it. Unfortunately. Seriously, when you try and trick people into thinking something is good when it is really bad, then a backlash will step on you. When I am qualified to debate with you about film vs digital is for future time.

 

 

I think I made it pretty clear that I'm not anti-film -- you know, by actually saying that I wasn't anti-film. I'm actually a big fan of film, and made no implications about its death. I was pointing out the fact that you RAVED about the cinematography of Benjamin Button before you found out it was digital, so your argument doesn't really hold any solid ground. It has nothing to do with your technical know-hows....

 

And btw, you weren't tricked into anything since they haven't hidden the fact that its digital -- instead promoted it quite well.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Ayz Waraich

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Just to make absolutely sure I would be fair and unbiased about this film, I sat in the very front row, which actually made it hard at times to see the whole screen at once. I almost had to do a "pan and scan" with my eyes at times when they stretched the composition across the frame.

 

 

SPOILERS

 

The plane crash was CGI at its worse, as were the cities being destroyed and the subway crash. Come on guys! Independence Day looked ten times better and it was made 13 years ago! CGI really looked like some bad, surplus video game graphics at times.

 

Especially the clouds of smoke: you could literally see the blocks where they tiled the same smoke pattern together repeatedly.

 

I find the 4th row to be best. Screen fills the eyes with out having to "pan and scan".

& in arena seating thats the row where one can stretch out one's legs.

 

The crashes looked amazingly bad in the TV spots. I thought they might have been an early low-rez version. But you've set me straight, Karl.

 

I very much like Proyas' 'Dark City', but nearly every element seems to have been taken from an episope of the 'Outer Limits'. In a sense it was the ultimate 'Outer Limits' episode, or maybe pastiche.

[K Borowski]

The crashes looked amazingly bad in the TV spots. I thought they might have been an early low-rez version. But you've set me straight, Karl.

 

Yeah, it is pretty amazing that such poor SFX shots made it all the way into the final cut of this "film". What were they thinking? How can things go from excellent in 1996 to poor in 2009???

 

IDK. Maybe I am spoiled by filmmakers blowing up real movies in a certain summer blockbuster from 2008!

[Keith Walters]

I finally got to see “Knowing” last night, on a well-focussed film print (well-focussed in that occasional scratches were in sharp focus, the images themselves were anything but sharp).

 

Overall, the picture quality could best be described as “workable” but it certainly wasn’t outstanding. Same bloodless plastic-ey faces that have been typical of video origination since day 1. If film is really dead, this particular movie is unlikely to be brought in for questioning.

 

The outdoor scenes also all had that same “overcast day” look, except that every now and again you see a bit of pale blue sky which gives the game away. The dynamic range is simply not good enough.

 

I had a terrible time getting past that shriekingly fake “Autumn” look they obviously wasted a good 10 minutes of post time plastering that onto an obviously green forest.

 

Earth to Proyas: Not all trees turn orange or brown, some of them turn yellow or red, and particularly note that quite a few stay green. Pine trees in particular. It looked like someone had sprayed the whole place with Roundup a couple of weeks back. What the hell was that about? Didn't somebody mention that the seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

As for the movie itself.

Actually I enjoyed it in a sort of "B-Movie" way as Tim Tyler put it.

Except ... am I the only person on Earth who has noticed that the whole premise of the film, ie the 50 years of disaster predictions, had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome?

 

SPOILER ALERT: Highlight the section below to read further.

The plot moved along nicely with not a wasted frame for the most part, and it really looked like it was heading toward to a satisfyingly thrilling climax. If it had been VHS recording where the tape ran out 5 minutes early I would have been pretty pissed off.

 

But...basically, somehow Cage's character eventually works out that the final disaster predicted is that the Earth is about to get comprehensively fried by a gigantic solar flare, whose radiation will penetrate a mile into the Earth's crust, destroying every last vestige of life, so there's no use hiding in tunnels etc.

There are these weirdo aliens who have been hanging around in the woods generally frightening the kiddies but not really doing much otherwise, and at the end he discovers the GPS co-ordinates to - he doesn't know what, but he knows it's reeeeally important to take his kid and the mother and kid of the daughter of the woman who wrote the list 50 years ago there, whereupon a big CGI spaceship appears and takes the kids (sorry Dad, kiddies only) off to some planet that looks like something out of a crappy music video, presumably to singlehandedly restart the human race afresh.

 

OK I could buy a plot notion that it was vital that Cage deliver the kids there himself, but that's not what happened. The girl's mother took them off in another direction and it was the Aliens who stole her car and drove them to the ship site! So, what did they need him for?

 

Cage calmly goes home to meet the end with his estranged family, and gets evaporated on cue a few hours later without further comment.

 

All of the of the CGI Pootertoon stuff looked interesting, but, I can't see that it had any relevance to anything. Cage ran around and shouted a lot but really achieved absolutely nothing in the end.

 

Seems to be all common a plot device these days: Can't figure out a satisfactory ending? That's easy, throw in a CE3K spaceship sequence. Hey they're ALIENS, man, nothing HAS to make sense....

Edited April 22, 2009 by Keith Walters

[Adam Garner]

The article doesn't say very much about anything other than he's a "convert." Wired isn't so much of a camera mag, so I think the perspective is a bit skewed. But whatever... it's another great tool for film-making, right?

[K Borowski]

The article doesn't say very much about anything other than he's a "convert." Wired isn't so much of a camera mag, so I think the perspective is a bit skewed. But whatever... it's another great tool for film-making, right?

 

It's certainly much better than the Genesis. Every Genesis shot I've seen on the big screen has looked, well, bad. Maybe a few have been OK, but the colors are just wonky.

[Stuart Brereton]

"An Arricam ST NEVER has a bad boot, never drops frames and shoots footage far beyond 4K" - quote for truth.

 

RED can have a bad boot, it can drop frames, and it can just do outright weird poop. The work flow is still pretty tedious and wonky.

 

True, but an Arricam can have feed jams, torn perfs, scratches, pressure marks and sparkle

 

I can tell a difference when HD is used because certain looks it gives off.

 

Except you've already admitted to thinking Button was shot on film, so you obviously can't tell the difference.

 

Honestly, the whole Film vs Video argument has been so done to death. If you're serious about learning about cinematography you should be looking to learn & embrace all formats, old & new, instead of dogmatically sticking to just one idea. Truth is, by the time you get working professionally, film may not be around.

[Marcus Joseph]

It's certainly much better than the Genesis. Every Genesis shot I've seen on the big screen has looked, well, bad. Maybe a few have been OK, but the colors are just wonky.

I agree.

[Joseph Arch]

True, but an Arricam can have feed jams, torn perfs, scratches, pressure marks and sparkle

 

 

 

Except you've already admitted to thinking Button was shot on film, so you obviously can't tell the difference.

 

Honestly, the whole Film vs Video argument has been so done to death. If you're serious about learning about cinematography you should be looking to learn & embrace all formats, old & new, instead of dogmatically sticking to just one idea. Truth is, by the time you get working professionally, film may not be around.

 

 

I can tell the difference based on my experience. When I am able to earn more experience, there will be no need for me to lower my self to digital.

[David Mullen ASC]

I can tell the difference based on my experience. When I am able to earn more experience, there will be no need for me to lower my self to digital.

 

That's nonsense. You cannot be a professional shooter in the year 2009, let alone later, and avoid shooting digitally. For someone starting out in the industry today, the majority of what you shoot will be digital. Unless your goal is to work outside of the industry shooting your own personal little projects -- then you're free to shoot whatever you can afford to shoot.

[K Borowski]

That's nonsense. You cannot be a professional shooter in the year 2009, let alone later, and avoid shooting digitally.

 

You *can*, but you are right; it will definitely cost you work.