Jump to content
Keith Walters

The end of film for TV production?

Recommended Posts

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/...rmat_wars_0909/

 

“For me, it started around 2004, when Panavision introduced the Genesis camera,” Devlin says. “Suddenly, we weren’t dealing with a medium trying to look as good as film—we were moving into a medium that was able to surpass film in a sense. That’s when the whole world changed. Suddenly, we could produce image quality with the familiar look of film, but with more flexibility. For instance, with film, we had maybe a three-stop difference in post. Suddenly, we had a five-stop difference. In film, we could blow up our image maybe 10 percent before it would start to degrade. Suddenly, we could blow up our image 250 percent before it was degrading. It was a real game-changer. And now, with the Red workflow, we have a new pattern of working, where we don’t have to wait to lock picture to start working on sound, or lock picture to start on color correction. We can work on things as we feel a need to creatively, and that is a big difference.”

 

250% blowup from a Genesis "before it was degrading"?! What was he monitoring on - his iPhone?

And "maybe 10%" for film. What sort of film was that: super-8?

As for the Red Workflow ... Err... Wha?

 

Aside from this, there is actually some pretty good stuff on there about Super-16 and 2-perf 35mm as an alternative to video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For instance, with film, we had maybe a three-stop difference in post. Suddenly, we had a five-stop difference. In film, we could blow up our image maybe 10 percent before it would start to degrade. Suddenly, we could blow up our image 250 percent before it was degrading.

 

This is, of course, dead wrong. It's the other way around in both cases.

 

Film has more dynamic range than Red, but you can only access it for TV in telecine. Comparing tape to tape correction of film originated material with Red raw to tape might be how this mistake was made. Just look at the ASC/PGA tests.

 

If you do a blowup in telecine, you can go farther with it. Comparing a tape to tape blowup with a blowup from Red raw, weighted with a dash of enthusiasm, might lead to the other conclusion. I think what we're seeing here is the view of someone who doesn't use telecine.

 

OTOH, for TV, where the final product is digital, going digital all the way works fine. Where I work, twelve out of twelve shows are doing exactly that. It's the most cost effective path.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OTOH, for TV, where the final product is digital, going digital all the way works fine. Where I work, twelve out of twelve shows are doing exactly that. It's the most cost effective path.

 

A lot of shows are now doing that. As of *last season* it was at 30% 35mm, I think ~15% 16mm, and ~55% HD capture for U.S. originated TV shows.

 

35mm has probably taken more of a hit with CSI going digital now too, as well as some other big 35mm shows.

 

So we are down to probably about 40% film origination now. Can't see it being better in any other market.

 

 

Dean Devlin may be spouting a bunch of nonsense, but unfortunately, it doesn't take this sort of ignorance for a production to go digital.

 

At least RED can look decent. I've yet to see a Genesis movie or TV show that doesn't look like garbage. That camera consistently makes skintones look BAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of factors need to be taken into account here.

 

First of all, in just about every case, one way or another the motivation to use digital capture was financial, not quality-related. (That includes the spoutings of born-again digital "evangelists" whose principal motivation seems to be convincing production companies that they are still a technically-hip and valuable resource, although all they really seem to achieve is convincing people that they might be in need of the services of an optician :lol: )

 

Many of the shows that have swtched to digital acquisition are already well past their use-by date anyway. CSI Miami used to be a be a pretty reasonable, if sometimes silly, show, but I mainly just liked the gorgeous cinematography. But lately the scriptwriting has become more and more amatuerish, and once they move to video cameras, that will be the end of it for me. (Painted-in "blue" skies - Yuk!)

 

Another factor is that shooting with video cameras has political advantages to do with Actors' contracts and so on.

 

We have also seen very similar cycles to this before. Back in the late 1980s I was recruited by Samuelsons Australia (later bought by Panavsion), to maintain the large fleet of BVP-3 Betacams they had just spent a fortune on, because "film is/was dead" (at least for TV production). Well by 1990 you literally couldn't give those things away, because the new SP betacams had come out, even though the BVP-3 was still a perfectly capable camera. So they spent more money on SP Betacams, and after an initial flurry of interest, they turned into dust collectors as well. The rental market rapidly moved back to film origination, and more CEOs mysteriously "retired" overnight...

 

Much the same story with overseas companies too of course.

 

The current financial crisis (if there ever really was one) is slowly drawing to a close, which means financial restraints will be less of a factor in the future.

 

The greatest irony of all this is that just as large-screen true HDTV displays are starting to proliferate in people's homes, production companies are turning to lower-quality capture systems. The difference between 35mm film and HD video origination is painfully obvious, even on my not-particularly-expensive 42" LCD TV.

 

And given the unbelievable speed with which the standard large-screen TV display ramped up to 1920 x 1080, I would not be in too much of a hurry to rule out the possibility of 4K home cinema displays in the near future, possibly based on OLED technology.

 

But it's going to be the same old story; people who go the extra mile with 35mm film origination will still have a marketable product decades down the track, even if it does mean re-editing from the original negatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35mm has probably taken more of a hit with CSI going digital now too, as well as some other big 35mm shows.

 

CSI Miami is being shot digitally (Genesis, I believe). CSI Las Vegas and possibly NY are both staying on film for the time being.

 

At least RED can look decent. I've yet to see a Genesis movie or TV show that doesn't look like garbage. That camera consistently makes skintones look BAD.

 

In that case, you should take a look at the features "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" and "Get Smart," or the television shows "Smallville, " "90210", or "United States of Tara." And if you want an example of what Dean's company is doing, take a look at "Leverage" - shot on Red and, in my opinion, looking awful. I'm not necessarily blaming the camera for that, just as I'm not necessarily claiming that the choice of the Genesis "created" the productions I just mentioned. The fact is that every single one of these devices is capable of producing very nice images when in capable hands.

 

And in reference to another post, the final colorist on CSI Miami is a very good friend of mine. He feels that there's been essentially no significant change in the look of the show this season (on the Genesis) when compared with any previous season (on film). And he's got one of the best pairs of eyes I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The current financial crisis (if there ever really was one) is slowly drawing to a close, which means financial restraints will be less of a factor in the future.

 

You had me until this remark Keith...they have a name for this...it's called "recession denier!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's really going to be interesting is how Leno does tonight. Replacing our expensive scripted dramas and comedies with a five night prime time strip that costs so very little to make could be a game changer. He doesn't even need great ratings to be more cost effective.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's really going to be interesting is how Leno does tonight. Replacing our expensive scripted dramas and comedies with a five night prime time strip that costs so very little to make could be a game changer. He doesn't even need great ratings to be more cost effective.

 

I'm sure Leno will do great tonight. What matters is how he's doing a month or two from now. Or even a week or two.

 

"Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" tried essentially the same thing, and succeeded big time - for a few months. Then it was over. My preliminary guess is that the Leno experiment could easily suffer the same fate. Not to mention that stripping Leno has absolutely no back side potential, unlike scripted shows. But NBC knows all of this. We're all going to just have to wait to see how it plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CSI Miami is being shot digitally (Genesis, I believe). CSI Las Vegas and possibly NY are both staying on film for the time being.

 

 

 

In that case, you should take a look at the features "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" and "Get Smart," or the television shows "Smallville, "

 

!! At what point did smallville switch to video!!??

 

I'm a little suprised!

 

love

 

Freya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!! At what point did smallville switch to video!!??

 

I'm a little suprised!

 

All of last season (2008-2009) was shot on Genesis. I'm not surprised you didn't notice any change, but quite frankly, I though it looked a bit better after they went to the Genesis. And I don't consider myself a zealot in either direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of last season (2008-2009) was shot on Genesis. I'm not surprised you didn't notice any change, but quite frankly, I though it looked a bit better after they went to the Genesis. And I don't consider myself a zealot in either direction.

 

I've not followed it recently I have to confess. I used to be something of a fan but I lost track of it somewhere.

I guess it's been running for a long time but I feel a little sad they are winding it down. I did feel it was actually quite a high quality programme and the boys in it were kind of cute. ;)

 

Must catch up with it sometime.

 

love

 

Freya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of last season (2008-2009) was shot on Genesis. I'm not surprised you didn't notice any change, but quite frankly, I though it looked a bit better after they went to the Genesis. And I don't consider myself a zealot in either direction.

 

You're Fu* %ing nuts if you think the Genesis looks better than 35mm film, ever PERIOD

 

 

And, you may not consider yourself a zealot. I do, a lot of other people do. You are.

Edited by Karl Borowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CSI Miami is being shot digitally (Genesis, I believe). CSI Las Vegas and possibly NY are both staying on film for the time being.

 

 

 

In that case, you should take a look at the features "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" and "Get Smart," or the television shows "Smallville, " "90210", or "United States of Tara." And if you want an example of what Dean's company is doing, take a look at "Leverage" - shot on Red and, in my opinion, looking awful. I'm not necessarily blaming the camera for that, just as I'm not necessarily claiming that the choice of the Genesis "created" the productions I just mentioned. The fact is that every single one of these devices is capable of producing very nice images when in capable hands.

 

And in reference to another post, the final colorist on CSI Miami is a very good friend of mine. He feels that there's been essentially no significant change in the look of the show this season (on the Genesis) when compared with any previous season (on film). And he's got one of the best pairs of eyes I know.

 

 

Didn't say anything about "CSI: Miami." Don't assume that I am too lazy to differentiate between the two.

 

I've seen all the shows you mention, and I will repeat, I have yet to see a show [or movie] shot on the Genesis that doesn't look like shĦ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're Fu* %ing nuts if you think the Genesis looks better than 35mm film, ever PERIOD

 

 

And, you may not consider yourself a zealot. I do, a lot of other people do. You are.

 

Karl, I don't know what your problem is with me or anyone else. You're entitled to your opinions, I and anyone else here are entitled to theirs. It doesn't make me "Fu* %ing nuts" and it doesn't make you right. But I'm going to stay above the fray a bit and offer some reasonable, intelligent answers.

 

I said that I thought in many ways the show "Smallville" looked better on the Genesis than it did on film. I didn't make any generalizations, nor did I make any comments as to the technical or aesthetic capabilities of either medium. I said what I said because in my opinion (and only my opinion), Smallville is a show based essentially on a comic book, and as such, has always been designed with a rather bold color pallette and a lot of detail, particularly in the blacks. The cast is all relatively young (especially since they got rid of the Kent parents), so it is shot very "clean." I felt that when the show switched to the Genesis, these characteristics became even more pronounced, and the overall look became a bit cleaner and sharper, typical of electronic origination. In many cases, I think these things would be a hindrance. In the case of "Smallville," I felt they were appropriate, and helped to achieve what was probably intended all along a bit stronger. Not a night and day difference, but a few changes for those who are paying attention. In a conversation (admittedly second hand), I found out that at least one of the two directors of photography agreed with that assessment.

 

If I've ever been accused of zealotry, it's been on the film side. I've been accused of being a film zealot a few times in Internet forums simply because I've pointed out that to this date, there's no electronic capture device that can equal it - a simple statement of fact. But I'm also open enough as a person and as a relatively experienced "industry insider" to appreciate digital cameras and the enormous progress that's been made with them. I'm open enough to see some of these new cameras as essentially another film stock, another tool with an attendant look and feel, that might be very appropriate for some projects, and less appropriate for others. I'm also intelligent enough to understand the world as it really is instead of wasting time dreaming about the world as I think it should be, and in the real world, economy is an important driver. Put all of this together and, at least to me, what it means is that we live in a world with a lot of choices, both aesthetic and financial, and if anything, we should embrace the diversity and try to take advantage of it. If that makes me a zealot in either direction, I'm not seeing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must agree with Karl, although I wouldn't insult you or call you nuts.

 

Watch "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans" and compare it witht he first Underworld which was shot on film. The new UW looks terrible and it was shot on Genesis and RED One. The skin tones look vomitous and not in a way that anyone would want on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must agree with Karl, although I wouldn't insult you or call you nuts.

 

Watch "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans" and compare it witht he first Underworld which was shot on film. The new UW looks terrible and it was shot on Genesis and RED One. The skin tones look vomitous and not in a way that anyone would want on purpose.

 

Since the two pictures were also shot in different locations by different cinematographers, I think it's a bit presumptuous to attribute the difference solely to a camera.

 

But that aside, I think I did just say that I don't believe there is any current digital camera that can equal 35mm film in terms of pure image quality and latitude. But I also said that it doesn't mean there isn't room for digital cameras on many projects when deemed appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I also said that it doesn't mean there isn't room for digital cameras on many projects when deemed appropriate.

 

I keep hearing this all over the place but I keep wondering what is the practical reason anyone would choose to accept a downgraded image? The RED One fans used to talk about resolution. In fact, there is still attempt to carry resolution to ridiculous levels. But it seems the makers of digital cams still dont get it. It's not the resolution...if it were then there wouldnt been people willing to shoot Super 8 and 16mm over 4k cams. Film simply has characteristics that digital doesn't. I could explain some of them but some of them are hard to quantify...they're just there. Latitude is one factor but not the only one. It's also color rendition, depth (which isn't just a latitude issue), grain patterns vs. pixels (film is much softer), the truly progressive nature of film vs. simulated progressive capture of digital. Then there is just the fact that film is more surreal than digital. It's like going from reality to something much better.

 

Anyhow, like I said, I have yet to hear the benefits of shooting on these digital cameras over film. It's not really an issue of money because at the level of millions, film is a small cost anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the benefits of shooting digital is that it makes 65mm cinematography so affordable. And while high dynamic range is important it is about the resolution and because of resolution thats why 65mm cinematography was so popular during the epic film period of the 1960's. What the proponents of film do is that they know that 65mm cinematography is unaffordable so they try and hold digital back insisting that digital is inferior. Thats why directors like Steven Sodebergh of the "Che' fame have embraced digital because they want to recreate the nostalgia of 65mm film during the epic period of film making. Now of course I am not saying that we are there yet however there will come a day when 65mm film is replicated by digital and this will amount to a significant increase in motion picture quality.

Edited by Thomas James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the benefits of shooting digital is that it makes 65mm cinematography so affordable. And while high dynamic range is important it is about the resolution and because of resolution thats why 65mm cinematography was so popular during the epic film period of the 1960's. What the proponents of film do is that they know that 65mm cinematography is unaffordable so they try and hold digital back insisting that digital is inferior. Thats why directors like Steven Sodebergh of the "Che' fame have embraced digital because they want to recreate the nostalgia of 65mm film during the epic period of film making. Now of course I am not saying that we are there yet however there will come a day when 65mm film is replicated by digital and this will amount to a significant increase in motion picture quality.

 

Is this April 1st and I didn't get the memo? You can't honestly be serious. You truly think that the only thing that is important is resolution? Ok, let's see what happens when JJ makes a 28k camera. Maybe he can make a camera that can capture pixels at the atomic level. It matters not...until digital cams deal with the other issues, they will never capture the essence of film. It will just become sharper, more detailed, pictures that have blown out highlights and a live news footage look. I used to do computer programming and I will tell you that when I dealt with graphics, resolution was only part of things. An 800x600 pixel program could look better if it had 32-bit color depth than a 1024x768 pixel program would with only 16-bit color depth. This is oversimplifying things, but the same arguments took place way back when concerning resolution vs. everything else in computer programming. Ideally, you want both aspects. Regarding the film vs. digital debate, digital will not truly "win" in everyone's mind until it has the essence of film but with higher resolution, easier workflow, and lower prices. Until it "beats" film, it will never win. The new kid has to be BETTER than the old, otherwise why should we switch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to further clarify, film is the benchmark. If it wasn't then why are their endless digital forums that speak of getting a "filmlike look." Many people that shoot digital aren't content with the look, that's why they tweak the image til the cows come home to get the look that filmshooters get with raw stock. Some people might like the raw digital look but this number pales in comparison of the thousands that seek the film look on a digital budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not really an issue of money because at the level of millions, film is a small cost anyhow.

 

On major features, yes. But on TV budgets, no. Digital means that more of us have jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On major features, yes. But on TV budgets, no. Digital means that more of us have jobs.

 

-- J.S.

 

So is this the motivation for all of these "death to film" people? I figure something has to explain why they are trying to expedite films demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panavision says the Genesis is "12.4 mega pixel, true RGB sensor (not Bayer pattern)". They say it has a "Super 35mm-sized sensor " which is 3-perforation Super35. The CCD is 5760x2160 Pixels. However, this doesn't properly conform to the 1920x1080 Pixels of HDTV. Furthermore, the actual "resolution" of Genesis is only 1920x1080 Pixels. The Super35 size of the Sensor doesn't really help improve the HDTV image. When shooting on Super35 Film, and converting to HD, you are intensifying the image on the Film by reducing it to HD. However, this doesn't work with a Digital to Digital conversion. To convert Genesis to HDTV, you are just deleting the extra Pixels. You cannot intensify a Digital image. So, HD from Super35 Film will always be better than HD from a larger Digital CCD such as Genesis. The extra resolution of Genesis is not maintained through to the HD version. It is therefore not possible for HD from Genesis to be comparable to 35mm Film, and claims that it is are not credible.

 

The Red One Bayer Pattern CMOS Sensor measures 24.4 by 13.7 mm, and has 4520x2540 active Pixels. However, the camera only records from a 4096x2304 Pixel area in 4K operation. This is better than the Genesis, but the extra resolution is still lost once reduced to HDTV resolution. Furthermore, there is no way that a Bayer Sensor can provide the colour quality of Film. Any claims that this Camera is equivalent to 35mm Film are also not credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • FJS International



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Ritter Battery



    Serious Gear



    CineLab



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Glidecam



    Abel Cine



    Visual Products



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Just Cinema Gear



    G-Force Grips



    Metropolis Post



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Tai Audio



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Wooden Camera


×
×
  • Create New...