Dumbing down of the Industry

[Satsuki Murashige]

I'm seeing a lot of discussion, especially about digital capture and it's limitations vs. film, by some who can not tell the difference between a medium's limitations and a poor use of the medium from lack of control of the tool. I'll propose that cinematographers should be able to set-up and "Paint" their cameras or "LUT" themselves to truly understand the advantages and disadvantages of the medium.

I very much agree, Bruce. Of course, it's difficult to keep up with every new camera that comes out since things are changing so quickly these days. I see production cameras falling into three basic types: film, broadcast video, and digital cinema. There are many experienced film shooters and video shooters who know their medium and have command of it. But I think most DPs do not yet fully understand digital cinema and are trying to mentally fit it into one of the two previous categories.

 

Just today, I overheard one of the most highly regarded DITs in the business complaining about how even he is trying to wrap his brain around exposing for the Red camera. And even a brainy guy like Stu Maschwitz of of the Prolost.com blog can only conclude "expose to the right and protect highlights." We need something more precise than that. A truly proven and reliable system for digital cinema exposure has not yet been discovered, or at least widely standardized - everyone has their own system and none of them are the same. No one has yet come out with "the zone system" or "the waveform/vectorscope/paintbox" for digital cinema. I find this as exciting as it is frustrating. I think the "monitoring LUT" approach combined with light metering and a deep knowledge of the sensors used in the major cameras has promise.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Satsuki Murashige

[Cameron Preyde]

Can it not just be agreed upon that both formats have their pros and cons. Video is better than film for certain things and film is better than video at certain things. Plain and simple. In my opinion, the importance and purpose of the moving picture format is lost among the technical aspects. Story telling and message matter far more than how the movie looks. Great looking movies can still be pieces of crap and some movies with great stories look like garbage.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Cameron Preyde

[Annie Wengenroth]

....This thread makes me hurt...The end is nigh!

 

Somebody asked me why I want to work with a dying technology. Oh come on, like I've EVER said, "Hey I know! I'm gonna do the easiest, most popular thing, that everyone else is doing!" Ha...yeah. I was born that way, I can't help it. I read stuff like this and this is where I have to bite my tongue from calling up the producers who call the shots on this stuff and being like, "SERIOUSLY?!! WHY YES. I THINK YOU *WERE* BORN YESTERDAY. p.s. hire me." Ugh. Argh. And other incoherent noises of frustration and sadness. I get people who graduated from NYU yesterday telling me, "Yeah, well, you know, digital looks pretty good, and, it's cheaper!" Okay, buddy. I'll take your word for it. Did I tell you I got rid of my perfectly decent plaster walls in my apartment and put up sheets of cardboard instead? I mean, it looks pretty good, and it's cheaper. We can thank the digital world for causing 9 out of 10 film students to operate the sexy Panavision camera off the 8" monitor and not through the eyepiece. Yes, this actually happened. It was baffling.

 

Can you imagine if they stopped making jeans and started making pants out of plastic because it's cheaper and it "looks pretty good"? I mean, I get it. I understand that people think in dollar signs. I understand that most people wouldn't know a good-looking image or a good camera, if it stood outside their door and then kicked them in the a$$. I understand that we need to work with the tools we have instead of fighting them. But it still makes me sad and a little angry because yes, I do think that HD, and especially the RED, has come upon us as an excuse for SOME PEOPLE, not all, to be even more ignorant about what really makes a worthwhile day on a film set and what we really pay these people for.

 

And yes, I still find myself thinking that the people who- and I'm NOT trying to offend anyone, I swear- have only worked with video and digital formats, are NOT on the same level as the people who have worked with film. And part of that seems to be the inherent academic structure of most film schools, so I'm sure we'll see this changing in the next 5 years. But part of it is also this sense of disproportion and crumbling structure in this industry that I'm starting to become really aware of. Three years ago I took the test for Local 600 and it was challenging- not impossible, but still challenging. They had not yet added HD cameras. So for a $325 I got to gamble with the union and let them see if I was good enough for them. I was, and I joined, and that's that. But I just remember sitting on the train studying, dreaming about threading the Panaflex, notes upon notes of information, my stomach in knots all summer.

 

Fast forward to last winter when I was working on a reality show that happens to be union. And here are all these AC's who have ONLY done reality shows before- so, no focus-pulling, no loading, no slating or paperwork, no camera check-outs. And they're getting walked into the union, based on this reality show. I mean, wow, I guess that's ONE way to do it. I felt like such a snob for thinking: "Oh, so I have to work at a rental house and bust my a$$ and kill myself for $325 to get in, and all they have to do is carry around some tapes and batteries with a walkie?" Who the hell am I to decide who works hard in this business and how they got where they did? What right do I have to comment on that? I don't know. But I couldn't help thinking it.

[Thomas James]

I think it is film that is holding back the industry but this is mostly due to films high costs.

[Thomas James]

For example say you want to shoot a movie in 65mm. The producer can easily shoot you down if he does not want to pay for the extra costs. But when a digital eqivalent to 65mm arrives on the scene the cost will no longer be an object because digital will be affordable.

[Demian Barba]

You can disagree all you want but the high edge sharpness of digital video formats does create the illusion that the depth of field falls off faster than it is supposed to. I'm not talking about f900 shoots. That sensor is too much different in size than 35mm film to ever make a fine approximation of it's depth of field characteristics. I'm talking about 35mm size digital sensors.

 

I'm not the only person who has observed it firsthand. What firsthand evidence do you have to support your stance?

 

 

i completely agree with Chris. i actually had the same discussion with my 1st AC on a RED shoot a month ago. at the beginning it didn't make sense because, yes, depth of field is inherited in the lens so then mathematical a 50mm lens should have the same depth of field on a 35mm film gate or a 35mm HD sensor, but yet I was looking at it and he was rght, i looked shalower than what the depth of field chart said. Then it hit me: after all focus falls off gradually. long time ago some film elders decided when those circles of confusion where big enough and decided that was the end of acceptable focus, therefore determining the size of the depth of field. The same principle doesn't really apply to HD because of it's hard edges (which is what makes HD look that sharp even tough film is actually sharper, just without the artificial extra sharp edge). So perhaps some new elders should re-establish what is acceptable focus in certain HD cameras in order to have accurate depth of field charts.

 

softness, focus, sharpness are all relative... like everything else

[Bruce Greene]

Three years ago I took the test for Local 600 and it was challenging- not impossible, but still challenging. They had not yet added HD cameras. So for a $325 I got to gamble with the union and let them see if I was good enough for them. I was, and I joined, and that's that. But I just remember sitting on the train studying, dreaming about threading the Panaflex, notes upon notes of information, my stomach in knots all summer.

 

There's a test? I only had to prove I wasn't color blind...

[Bruce Greene]

I very much agree, Bruce. Of course, it's difficult to keep up with every new camera that comes out since things are changing so quickly these days. I see production cameras falling into three basic types: film, broadcast video, and digital cinema. There are many experienced film shooters and video shooters who know their medium and have command of it. But I think most DPs do not yet fully understand digital cinema and are trying to mentally fit it into one of the two previous categories.

 

Just today, I overheard one of the most highly regarded DITs in the business complaining about how even he is trying to wrap his brain around exposing for the Red camera. And even a brainy guy like Stu Maschwitz of of the Prolost.com blog can only conclude "expose to the right and protect highlights." We need something more precise than that. A truly proven and reliable system for digital cinema exposure has not yet been discovered, or at least widely standardized - everyone has their own system and none of them are the same. No one has yet come out with "the zone system" or "the waveform/vectorscope/paintbox" for digital cinema. I find this as exciting as it is frustrating. I think the "monitoring LUT" approach combined with light metering and a deep knowledge of the sensors used in the major cameras has promise.

 

What a thoughtful and well written post!

 

You've hit the nail, right between the eyes. ;)

[Thomas James]

And let us not forget because of films enourmous costs you are pretty much limited to shooting and projecting at 24 frames per second which really can hold you back if you want to faithfully portray motion. With digital you can shoot and project up to 120 frames per second which makes digital ideal for action movies yet with digital you can still shoot and project at 24 or 30 frames per second by repeating each frame 4 times which is ideal for the dramatic portions of the movie.

[Stuart Brereton]

And let us not forget because of films enourmous costs you are pretty much limited to shooting and projecting at 24 frames per second which really can hold you back if you want to faithfully portray motion. With digital you can shoot and project up to 120 frames per second which makes digital ideal for action movies yet with digital you can still shoot and project at 24 or 30 frames per second by repeating each frame 4 times which is ideal for the dramatic portions of the movie.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. None whatsoever.

[John Sprung]

Then it hit me: after all focus falls off gradually. ..... So perhaps some new elders should re-establish what is acceptable focus in certain HD cameras in order to have accurate depth of field charts.

 

Yes, exactly right. Focus doesn't suddenly fall off a cliff, in spite of all the arithmetic. The critical point is that there's one "squishy" number in there, the size of the circle of confusion. Put in a smaller circle, and you'll get tighter DOF limits.

 

Being 61 years old, maybe I qualify as a new elder. ;-) So, what I'd suggest is that everybody can have their own DOF tables, based on their personal taste and the camera and lenses they're using. Here's how to do it:

 

1. Shoot some tests and keep careful notes.

 

2. Look at the tests, and choose the DOF limits you like for each shot.

 

3. Work the math back from those choices to get the C of C's.

 

4. The C of C's should all be fairly close together, re-examine any that land far from the group, maybe discard them.

 

5. Average your set of C of C's, then pick a number close to the average. (You may want to play safe, and go a little low.)

 

6. Plug that number into the math, and grind out your personal DOF tables.

 

7. Compare your tests with your new tables to be sure that you're getting what you want.

 

The math involved is all simple algebra that can be mass produced using a spreadsheet program.

 

Another idea: You could pick two circles, for tight and loose DOF limits. Tables showing both sets of limits would tell you how fast DOF is falling off.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Thomas James]

And don't give me that spiel about that "cheesy soap opera look". If need be to avoid the soap opera look I will only shoot and project 10 percent of the footage using fast frame rates. Oh and by the way with fast pans and high shutter speeds 60 frames per second can strobe just like 24 frames per second.

[Dimitrios Koukas]

Hi,

I have been working for more than twenty years now in different types of formats from S16-S8-35 but also beta, u-matic, betaSP, dvcam, HD and so on.

Nothing compares to the dynamic range the film gives to ones image, or nothing compares to looking through a reflex viewfinder.

 

But when it comes to ergonomy, tight budgets, and quick shooting (wich means less crew), why not go with a digital format...

 

It is just two things that we try to compare, that aren't comparable. Just beacuse both medias are producing images, doesn't mean that they have to be similar in everything. It is like comparing painting with cinematography.

It's another thing and different tools are used for.

 

How many times people buy a cheap video camera and add so many accessories onto it, to make it look (even externally) as a film camera?

 

IMHO always I will just adjust to the tools I have to make a film, than try to avoid every new technology.

 

A coin always have two sides...

 

Dim

[Chris Durham]

At its worst, in capable hands, film looks good. At its best, in capable hands, digital looks good enough.

 

What I see so often these days is somebody throwing up a camera and a monitor and fiddling with settings until they have an acceptable image. That's the dumbing down of this profession. Pure and simple. And you can't do that with film. And you shouldn't do that with video. Digital cinematography can be exciting on a number of levels, particularly to a beginning or very low budget filmmaker. It creates a lot of opportunities. But it has two major pitfalls: 1) without a wide technical standard DPs have to spend energy becoming familiar with varying technologies - energy that could almost certainly be better spent creatively; and 2) it creates the illusion of less discipline, craftsmanship, and experience being necessary than actually is.

[Satsuki Murashige]

At its worst, in capable hands, film looks good.

I disagree Chris. At its worst, film looks terrible. If you've ever gone to film school, you know what I mean. *(also see: the new "Indiana Jones"). Simply knowing how to expose a piece of celluloid does not a DP make. I guess that's what you were trying to say with the "in capable hands" part, but that renders the first statement meaningless. Pixelvision in "capable hands" would look good too. Let's turn this thread into a "how can good cinematographers get better images" debate rather than yet another digital newbie beatdown dogpile where nobody wins and everyone comes out dirty.

 

I think you make a good point about how twiddling with camera settings rather than twiddling with lights is fundamentally changing the role of the cinematographer. Part of the problem is that for broadcast video cameras, you NEED to twiddle camera settings to get the best out of the camera because there's so little room to correct in post. But I think that good video shooters (ie. light twiddlers) with a trusted DIT painting their image do great work on a regular basis. Again, I feel that applying that model to digital cinema cameras is a mistake and we need to figure out a standardized repeatable way to get good images out of them.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Satsuki Murashige

[Bob Hayes]

These new cameras are impossible to use.

 

1. The operator can barely see through them

2. They are enormous requiring mobile platforms designed for loading bombs just to move them

3. They are so unwieldy you need to used a geared mechanism designed for milling or moving anti-aircraft guns just to operate.

4. The three strip system takes forever to load.

5. Cameras were so simple before the arrival of sound and color.

6. As a DP it is impossible to move quickly or find room for the camera on the set.

7. Producers are often requesting the cameras remain stationary to aid in the mikeing of the actors for sound.

8. Hand held shots which used to be a staple of films are impossible with these new cameras.

 

Technicolor Camera on Rope 1948

[Stuart Brereton]

And don't give me that spiel about that "cheesy soap opera look". If need be to avoid the soap opera look I will only shoot and project 10 percent of the footage using fast frame rates. Oh and by the way with fast pans and high shutter speeds 60 frames per second can strobe just like 24 frames per second.

 

Are you contributing to the same topic as everyone else? Seems it's just the usual gibberish we get from you

[Thomas James]

No I am just introducing an opposite point of view and that is that it may be that film is actually dumbing down or holding back technological progress in the industry. When George Lucas first introduced digital film making it was certainly intended because George Lucas was a futurist that digital would be an attempted technological advance over film that would obsolete film both in quality and economy.

[John Brawley]

When George Lucas first introduced digital film making it was certainly intended because George Lucas was a futurist that digital would be an attempted technological advance over film that would obsolete film both in quality and economy.

 

 

Clearly you're a Lucas acolyte.

 

I think you're wrong.

 

Lucas certainly did not introduce digital film making and this reveals your very narrow and US-centric view on filmmaking. Von Trier's "The Idiots" and Vinterbergs "The Celebration" both trump your ridiculous assertion and Im sure there are others. (celebration was also shot by Slumdog DP Anthony Dod Mantle)

 

I know an Australian film called "Dust Of the wings" (97) was controversially ruled ineligible for an AFI award because it was shot digitally (they later changed the rules).

 

The first HD feature production shot in Australia was an Australian / Japanese (NHK)TV movie, "The last Bullet". Date of production ? 1995.

 

Digital filmmaking has been an option for a long time, and was available before George jumped on the digital bandwagon to market his films. At least Von Trier et al are taking genuine advantage of the digital filmmaking revolution you claim to champion, that is, lower cost acquisition. How much did star wars cost again ?

 

How is it that film is holding this back ? Digital has been on the table as a cheaper lower cost option for at least a decade. Why do YOU think productions still choose to shoot film ?

 

jb

[Rick Garbutt soc]

As someone doing some post-secondary teaching, it's been fun and illuminating refereeing some of this debate as voiced by students (some of whom completely missed what's below). There are actually several issues, including, but not limited to:

 

1. The "film vs HD" argument makes as much sense as arguing whether water colors are better than oils for painting. Film/HD/watercolors/oils are ALL image capture vehicles, and each has its strengths, weaknesses, champions, and detractors. Anecdotes are a dime a trainload.

 

2. The English have a great saying in "horses for courses." The sense of it is that you wouldn't do well to rent a Clydesdale to give pony rides at a kiddie party, nor would you harness up a pair of Shetland Ponies to plow that 1000-acre estate of yours. A less quaint way of saying essentially the same thing is "the right tool for the right job." Leading us to

 

3. Far too many people (often clients of some stripe) expecting ANY system to be able to be all things to them all the time. If I'm shooting for the big screen, that's one thing. Shooting for direct-to-video's another. It is naive to tell me I'm shooting something for your website, and then expect that this low-budget stuff will look boffo for your international anamorphic theatrical release. Leading us to

 

4. A piece of advice that should be etched on plates of bronze erected between granite pylons all MUST pass under on the way to every production meeting: "Your project can (a) be cheap like borscht; (B) be ready last week; © look like IMAX™. Pick any TWO." It's the way the world works, and if there's a court of appeal, I've yet to hear of it.

 

5. I am beyond weary of doofuses yapping on about how "expensive" film stock/processing/telecine is. You betcha, there's costs there. But because video is perceived as somehow magically "free," some people shoot it as though they're on a divine mission to fill every available byte of memory on the planet with raw footage for their 10-minute magnum opus. And the next time someone tells you it doesn't "cost" anything to shoot TAKE 526 because you're shooting HD, don'tcha know, remind them that the crew/cast/location costs (and the meter on those is running continuously) can be easily $12,000/hour, and that little ol' "only 5 minutes" it took to go back to ones and do another take also set the budget back $1k. Do that 20 times a day, and just you watch how it adds up. Add in all the postoroduction costs of even just logging this stuff! "Free"? Hardly, at the end of the day. It's astonishing the number of folks that just don't seem to grasp this concept. Good PMs and Producers and 1st ADs do, and will become ogres about keeping to schedule. But, guys, most/all of them would rather NOT have to be ogres. Bottom line is out-of-control overshooting can easily make a video shoot as expensive as film, maybe moreso. "Expensive" film seems to garner more respect, and folks (painting with a VERY broad brush, here) seem to be a bit more careful about crossing Ts and dotting Is before the camera rolls. In the old days, they called that "bringing craft to the set." There's still a lot to be said for some of the Old Ways. [Addressing the shooting of Dwama here: of course the dynamic in documentary shooting is rather different. But overshooting HD is NEVER "free".]

 

6. Does the image capture vehicle augment the story? We're sort of back to the horses-for-courses consideration here. Since the days of colloid plates, photographers have cultivated a fine-grain fetish. And there are sometimes you don't want that. Robert Wise and his crew deliberately went for a coarser grain look for his version of Andromeda Strain. The reasons are ably set out in the American Cinematographer article on the film. Do you want absolutely razor-sharp resolution? I dunno: why not ask your 40-year-old leading actress who's plaing a 22-year-old character? I marvel at the vidiots who prosteletyse about "how much BETTER video is than film," then invest a lot of time and money going for a "film look." Poster children for double-think.

 

7. If 80% of your target audience cannot reliably see any difference on the screen, IT DOESN'T MATTER what you shot it on. If I can screw a photosensitive hamster onto a tripod and get a great image on an anamorphic theater screen, that's my Special Trick. I've spoken with folk who don't have the visual acumen to spot lighting continuity errors of really ugly sorts who'll lecture at length about equipment minutae they've read in a pamphlet somewhere. I've had someone tell me I was probably glad I shot a project on 35mm, the while I had to just smile, nod, think to myself, "how glad I am I had the 12-120 serviced on my Arri 16BL at the start of this one," and think, further, "what a noodle!" Years ago, there was a transcription of a 35mm for national TV broadcast discussion in the SMPTE Journal. A gentleman from ABC (as I recall) allowed as their premiere airing of THE ROBE ended up being 12th generation by the time it hit the home TV screen, as they had to run (for reasons I forget) a de-anamorphed 16mm print. "Were there complaints about image quality?" he was asked. "Yes," he replied. "About 8, nationwide, and all from guys at network stations who were watching vectorscopes, and not the movie." Quo erat demonstrandum. Unless you're making movies targeted at the apparently burgeoning geek demographic, the cumulative act of production should be transparent to the audience, leaving only the story - a point well-voiced in other postings.

 

8. No tool is any better than the craftsman wielding it. State-of-the-art cameras, either HD or film, made by leading manufacturers, are all capable of shooting lousy images in the hands of the inept. Sometimes a wannabe will luck out, but I wouldn't risk my $10M project to the hands of some ... <I'm searching for a polite noun, and you can probably guess it> Very modest equipment, in the hands of a Zen Master, can produce breathtaking results.

 

9. Life is a parade of compromises. Mathematically, you might express this as an overlapping of sets. For us CameraFolk™ this often involves trading off budget vs personnel available vs postproduction flow vs artistic requirements of the project vs budget (it keeps sneaking in) vs personal cameraman preferences vs technical requirements of the photography vs distribution/exhibition vehicle vs .... and EVERY project chooses its camera package and film/HD on a hopefully happy resolution of all those often conflicting things. Did I mention budget? The real Art for the cameraman here is to make the wisest possible choice, given all the constraints, and then making it all Work. Often, a far, far taller order than you'd think.

 

10. Regardless of HD or film, a Friendly Warning: immediately upon hearing the phrase "all you've got to do..." the careful cameraman will hold it right there. On account of it's NEVER, EVER "all" you have to do.

 

I'll stop at 10, because we're metric here in Canada. If you've read the whole sermon, there's a special reward waiting for you in Heaven, I'm sure; meanwhile, thanks for your patience and indulgence. I hope I've constructively contributed at least a couple of things for thought. <braces self for onslaught of indignation...>

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Rick. you only prove that good things can come from the Canadian Film Industry ;)

 

I think 1, 2, and 3 are the most important of your 10 "commands" [not quite commandments without the "thou shalt"].

[Satsuki Murashige]

If I can screw a photosensitive hamster onto a tripod and get a great image on an anamorphic theater screen, that's my Special Trick.

:lol: Thanks for the mental image, Rick! Now I want that on a T-shirt.

 

Bob, indeed sir, these new cameras are terrible. If I had wanted a telephone booth, I would have ordered one.

[Will Earl]

Lucas certainly did not introduce digital film making and this reveals your very narrow and US-centric view on filmmaking.

 

He might have been referring to Lucas's early involvement in things such as using digital editing and computer graphics animation to make films more than his use of digital cameras to make feature films.

[Chris Durham]

I disagree Chris. At its worst, film looks terrible.

 

That's why I said "...in capable hands..."

 

My point isn't necessarily that they have to adjust camera settings, it's that quite often they fiddle with them randomly until they find something that works rather than having a principal knowledge to know what they want and make adjustments to get it. That's not to say that a DP shouldn't need a DIT, because after all there is an awful lot of variety in cameras, but for goodness' sake know the fundamentals. What happens is that the novice digital DP isn't mastering his medium - he might have compositional skills, be able to obtain fluid motion, and have an acceptable eye for focus, but everything else is often turning knobs until something tickles his fancy. Worse, many feel they can put these softer aspects of image manipulation off until post.

 

In truth, I'm not necessarily talking about real experienced shooters - people working regularly in big film and TV. I'm talking about guys like myself who are coming up and cutting their teeth working mini- and micro-budget indie film and want to look at the Red or 35mm adapters or accessible grading tools as the Holy Grail instead of trying to cultivate a mastery over their craft. I think one advantage of film for a burgeoning cinematographer is that it made it more difficult for you to stumble or ease into a good image - you had to know your fundamentals.

[Thomas James]

But with film you do not have any room to grow because larger formats like 65mm are usually outside of the budget. As digital keeps getting better and better the dream of shooting your film in 65mm will soon become a reality.