Dumbing down of the Industry

[Jacob C Ross]

camera = just a tool for telling a story

 

film, HD, DV, stills.... all these have their own aesthetics and you can successfully tell a visual story with all of them.

[Ralph Keyser]

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...>

Nicely done Rick. Some great points that are often forgotten.

[Tom Jensen]

These new cameras are impossible to use.

 

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

 

Technicolor Camera on Rope 1948

 

Many died trying and gave up quickly on going hand held.

[Chris Keth]

Many died trying and gave up quickly on going hand held.

 

Really brings home what a feat Rope is when you see that fridge with a lens. :blink:

[Chris Fernando]

11. If it's good enough to get you noticed (in front of or behind the camera), then it's good enough.

[Chris Durham]

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.

 

Please tell me you're taking the piss.

 

What is the point of a digital 65mm equivalent and how do you imagine it will reduce costs?

1. There are a few reasons for 65mm capture, but most will be described in terms of resolution. Either you're capturing more detail for even more detailed integration into visual effects, and/or you're capturing higher definition for projection onto a bigger screen. Problem is now you need 4K minimum projection for the detail to be worth it, and Ideally 8K. So there's an infrastructure issue; not to mention that half the videots in the world are celebrating the decline of theatrical release in which case something like a 65mm equivalent is once again pointless. Do you think you'll get anything out of 8K in your living room?
   
2. The costs to manufacturer buses that can put that much data through, cards or drives with fast enough i/o, and drivespace to store it all are still pretty high and won't come low enough for a little bit. Of course there's compression that either degrades your images or increases your necessary onboard hardware (and cost) and heats the camera like crazy. Look at the challenges Ikonoskop face in just getting a 1080 RAW image on a chip, or look at the shortcomings of Red. Not saying Red's bad, just know that you're not buying a camera, you're buying a codec. Now couple that with the fact that you want 30-120 FPS at 8K and tell me it's affordable.
   
3. Say you don't want 8K. Say you want a 65mm capture plane. Fair enough. Why aren't they making them now? What reasons could there be that folks like Red, Panavision, and Arri are making digital cameras chasing the 35mm standard? I mean, why not make bigger chips? Using chips at 4x the size but with the same number of photosites would get you larger photosites which means a greater dynamic range, and probably a lower manufacturing cost. But the cost of manufacturing a camera with a larger sensor, whether you increase resolution or not, whether you decrease storage and tech costs or not, does not decrease the expense of peripherals, nor does it decrease - in fact it likely increases - the manpower required to operate. Most notable would be glass, because now you have different lenses to use. You've got a larger camera that requires more maintenance and takes more hands. It requires a bigger tripod and doesn't fit on your skate wheel dolly. You don't have a wonderful piece of high definition equipment that further democratizes filmmaking by reducing cost and making large format accessible. You've got a very big, expensive to run camera that doesn't gain you very much and in truth probably doesn't look half as pretty as super 16 film!
   

 

So please tell me you're joking. Because there's no well thought-out reason that a potential 65mm equivalent has a place even in a film vs. video argument, much less a sincerer dialog as to whether the digital "revolution" is good for the craft of cinematography.

[John Brawley]

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.

 

Hi Will....

 

Edit Droid ( non linear editing system using laser discs) and a couple of wireframe animations aren't really introducing digital filmmaking though are they ? They are post production and VFX. We're on a cinematogrpahy discussion forum talking about the difference between electronic and film acquisition.

 

jb

[Satsuki Murashige]

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

Which in turn is why I wrote this:

 

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.

 

In truth, I'm not necessarily talking about real experienced shooters...

Exactly. But don't you think that would be a more interesting conversation? One we haven't already had before a million times over? I don't mean to pick on you Chris, I'm just frustrated because I thought the conversation had turned toward a more positive direction and now we're just rehashing the same ground again.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

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.

 

What about The 1995 Bob Hoskins directed RAINBOW, photographed by Freddie Francis? I think it's a bit poor how there's hardly any publicity out there about the tech specs on that movie and it never seems to be referenced in any academic texts about HD.

[F Bulgarelli]

Ellen Kuras mentioned on the commentary track of Personal Velocity, for which she won best cinematography at Sundance, that she felt DV was tougher than film because of the limited exposure. You have something like 1/2 a stop over or under before skin tones look wierd. With HD you have a little more room but it's nothing compare to film. I'm just getting tired of this perpetuated misconception that film is so much more professional and serious when the reality is that on the biggest features, film is almost idiot proof. The cameras, lenses and accessories just work. Everything works. On the other hand when you're working in this new pro/consumer world with HD and especially lens adaptors, it's a constant war of attrition.

 

That's a perfect example of a good film, good script, well directed, well photographed and shot with a small video camera.

It's about the story, if you have a good story, the format is not that relevant.

[Jim Carlile]

Quality goes down because now we can just shoot the rehearsals, tape is cheap you know.

 

I agree-- several months ago there was an article somewhere extolling the idea that now with HD, the directors can get into the action and into the scene and work with the actors while the camera always rolls--- no such thing as 'cut' any more.

 

My response to this is--- yuuck.

 

All this will lead to-- with most people-- is amateur hour, with actors (who already think they write the movie) emoting their way through hammy performances, usually yelling at each other in close up.

 

In other words, think soap operas, where everything is bad actor-centric. They've already had an insidious effect on films the last 20 years, but now that "performances" will be front and center, I can only imagine the junk we will be getting.

 

One thing I like about film is that it delivers an inherent gravitas that you don't find with most video. Video + improvisation + weak scripts + clueless, subliterate directors will = a big mess, IMO.

[Jim Carlile]

P.S.

 

To quote one of our director's, "If I could have two HD cameras on steadicams I would be overjoyed."

 

Perfect. That's not a director, that's a stage manager, at best.

 

See, these guys-- the ones who extoll this nonsense, this uncritical pathway to glunk-- keep me awake at night. They really are bad, aren't they? If it were the Rose Parade that would be one thing, but to stage movies like they are live events just shows how dumbed down our sense of possibility has become.

 

Think of it this way-- this kind of mentality is the exact opposite of Kubrick. I'm not saying everything should be totally formalist and sober, but critical discipline -- to all aspects of the film, not just the actors-- is important.

 

This is where TV has destroyed the art-- something learned critics and directors warned us would happen.

[Will Earl]

Edit Droid ( non linear editing system using laser discs) and a couple of wireframe animations aren't really introducing digital filmmaking though are they ? They are post production and VFX. We're on a cinematogrpahy discussion forum talking about the difference between electronic and film acquisition.

 

They are introductions into using digital means to make films, however primitive those developments may seem now - they are rather influential to the way we make films today.

 

If your classification for digital filmmaking is digital acquisition only, then sure the examples you cited were very much introductions to digital filmmaking and were certainly before Lucas ever embarked on shooting feature films digitally.

 

Although I have an odd factoid in the back of my head regarding the production of the Young Indiana Jones series (1992 to 1996), which used the precursor to the Canon XL-1 (was it the L-1? it shot on hi-8 I think) to shoot certain parts of the series, now I'm not sure if this is true or not (I can't remember where I heard it and a quick google doesn't seem to suggest anything) or how it was used. I imagine it was quick cutaways or vfx elements, but I'm very unsure on this fact - so don't hold me to it.

[John Brawley]

If your classification for digital filmmaking is digital acquisition only, then sure the examples you cited were very much introductions to digital filmmaking and were certainly before Lucas ever embarked on shooting feature films digitally.

 

 

Hi again Will.

 

The assertion was made in the context of a discussion on acquistion platforms on a cinematogrpahy based forum so it goes without saying that "george lucas introduced digital filmaking" is about his use of digital acquisition on star wars as opposed to other digital methodologies and workflows, which along with THX and others, Lucas certainly pioneered.

 

jb

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I would say that as a DP, you ought pick the format that works for the story; not that the format is irrelevant if the story is good/great.

[Chris Durham]

Which in turn is why I wrote this:

 

I guess that's what you were trying to say with the "in capable hands" part...

 

Sorry Satsuki, I guess I just somehow focused on the first part of your response. Probably due sleep depravation shooting numerous takes on an absurd number of setups the night before. Really - 9 hours shooting just over a page of dialog, and so many setups that using them all in the scene will mean cuts coming fast enough to trigger an epileptic seizure. Just another example of faltering discipline in film making - and against my better efforts to persuade the director to a more sensible and well-thought path. It's ridiculous when you watch these guys work.

[Thomas James]

I think it is appropriate to mention The George Lucas as The pioneer of digital high definition film making. His films are well known and George Lucas is a known futurist. Just as Christopher Columbus is regarded as having discovered America when in reality others beat him to it can we not also regard George Lucas as the pioneer of HD digital film making? George Lucas who is a futurist was adamant about pointing out that new technologies no matter how ground breaking and revolutionary are not always accepted. In his films he even pointed out that new technologies could have negative consequences. George Lucas in one of the most significant movie he ever made which was THX 1138 coined the term "It is a technology that they could not understand". These simple words have profound meanings with regards to technology and civilization.

[Thomas James]

Now getting back to the original topic which means inexperience drives HD over film in a way I would have to be in agreement. The most revolutionary aspect of high definition occured when consumer HDV high definition cameras first appeared in 2003. Now for the first time in history an inexperienced consumer could purchase a HDV camera and shoot a high definition movie just like George Lucas and maybe someday become the next George Lucas. The same concept occured when the personal computer was first introduced and everyone wanted to be the next Bill Gates. Of course there can only be one Bill Gates and there can only be one George Lucas but that does not stop people from trying.

 

Of course because of inexperience my footage looked like crap because it was a stroboscopic mess and I could not hold the camera steady and the white balance was screwed up and the highlights blown out. But the potential to produce mind blowing high definition footage was quite evident even in the very beginning and the technical challenges were far from being insurmountable but rather hinged on simple solutions such as the purchase of a tripod which improved the quality of my footage tremendously.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Tom, people had the ability to do this with all formats, though; film included... was not super-8 designed to be the "consumer" film much as HDV is the consumer video? And did not Spielberg get his start that way?

[Thomas James]

35 years ago when I was in the seventh grade my art teacher insisted that 16mm film was the only acceptable format for serious amatuer film makers. I questioned her and asked what was wrong with 8mm film and she told me that you do not show up at the Indy 500 driving a station wagon.

[Tom Hall]

35 years ago when I was in the seventh grade my art teacher insisted that 16mm film was the only acceptable format for serious amatuer film makers. I questioned her and asked what was wrong with 8mm film and she told me that you do not show up at the Indy 500 driving a station wagon.

 

Sorta like how you don't watch compressed HDV in 4k projection.

It's not a question if you could, it's a question of if you should.

[Annie Wengenroth]

I questioned her and asked what was wrong with 8mm film and she told me that you do not show up at the Indy 500 driving a station wagon.

 

You're f*ckin A right you don't, now give me film or give me death!

 

Srsly guys, can we beat the dead horse anymore?

 

I mean, THIS is what I resent about The Digital Age. This whole circular, pedantic debate about which is better, apples or oranges. We could go on and on. I enjoy participating in this forum, but it's obvious that 1) things are changing so fast, no one really knows who/what will go down first or when...2) everyone has a different opinion about these things based on how long they've been in the business and what they do...so it's pointless to go around and around about it. Thus, I have completely exhausted my array of sentimental anecdotes and definitive statements about what I will do with my life when film dies. It is really disheartening for me just to read this thread and to see the conflict between all these people who all essentially do the same goddamn thing for a living.

 

At the end of the day, we're arguing format, money, and personal preference. We would need statisticians to tell us what will happen to film over the next 10-20 years. I'd be curious to see some numbers: how much money is saved on a production by choosing to shoot with the RED over say, a Panaflex camera or whatever. I think we're all set in our opinions and passions and the only way to really draw any concise conclusions now, is to present the cold, hard facts. (

....Which is the part that gets depressing. :P)

 

 

For what it's worth, I've been on jobs where people have (unfortunately) wasted film as frivolously as they waste tape/hard drive space. Maybe it's all the same in the end. If you give inexperienced amateurs with no creative vision a camera, they'll probably make a hot mess out of whatever format they shoot.

 

I'm not trying to sound like an a$$hole, I'm just really sick of hearing everyone chattering about how film is dead and HD is so much better, and then on the other side we have people debating which "looks better", which easily turns into splitting hairs.

 

Too Long; Didn't Read: Yes, film is dying. I have accepted this and I'm currently in therapy about it, but I think that if you're a sh*tty filmmaker, you're a sh*tty filmmaker no matter what format you shoot...and THAT's where we see the dumbing down of the industry. As an added bonus, thanks to the RED and the HVX, it is now EASIER AND CHEAPER to totally fail at filmmaking! :thumbs up:

 

...Which is really sad.

 

I'm sorry, I'm kind of in a bad mood because I just did my taxes. :-D

[Ram Shani]

"There is no point in having sharp images when you've fuzzy ideas." Jean-Luc Godard.

[Ram Shani]

" there is no point in having sharp images when you have fuzzy ideas" jean-luc godard

[Steven Boldt]

The digital versus analog debate is 100% elitist crap. Bring on the ugly-go digital.