Jump to content

The end of film for TV production?


Keith Walters

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 298
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Site Sponsor
And all this stuff about NFL films having unlimited funds is also nonsense. Do you think that the NFL can afford to shoot 15 perf 65mm IMAX at 120 frames per second?

 

 

NFL Films is a not for profit subsidiary of the NFL, a bastion of capitalistic decadence if there ever was one. NFL Films could shoot 65mm if they wanted to perhaps if the application required it, they may already have done so. As for 120FPS 65mm I am not sure if there is such a camera.

 

As to "Upconverting" video to HDR that must be some quality Hawaiian sensimilia your smoking we just don't see that stuff too often up here in the northeast, maybe they have some of that down in Miami???

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did I know you were going to say that?

 

Uhhh .... because as you have often demonstrated, you never let facts get in the way of your need to convince others that you know more than anyone else here? Or that your own experience - whatever that is - is more significant than anyone else's, even if the other person's experience is directly related to the question being asked?

 

Than again, maybe you had already decided that I don't really know anyone connected with that particular show, and that I'm making up the whole "colorist is a friend of mine" thing. In either case, I gave you the benefit of the information I got directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I'm not saying that anyone has to agree with it, I'm just reporting what the guy who's most directly responsible for and familiar with the material thinks. The notion that there's a night and day difference between HD (especially "big chip" cameras) and film origination when both are shot by high end professional cameramen and shown on broadcast television, or that the audience cares, is a misnomer. That IS my opinion, but it's backed up by many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same old guys bitching and moaning and decrying digital imaging. How long before you guys finally throw in the towel and embrace the future? :lol:

 

We can obviously see digital sweeping through the TV world with breathtaking speed. Even a year ago most of the digital deniers here would have scoffed at the idea.

 

The same thing happened with digital still cameras. One minute everyone is shooting film, and then you wake up one day and realize that digital has completely swept the entire industry.

 

Guess what? Feature films are next, and it's going to happen MUCH faster than most realize. My bet was that by Jan 2011, more feature films would be shooting (in production) with digital rather than with chemical film. I may or not win, but it looks like I will be close.

 

I have it on good authority that Red One shots will make final cut on Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life." If digital is good enough for Terrence Freekin Malick, I'm sure it's good enough for James Murdo.. I mean, Keith Walters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I have it on good authority that Red One shots will make final cut on Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life." If digital is good enough for Terrence Freekin Malick, I'm sure it's good enough for James Murdo.. I mean, Keith Walters.

 

Nobody really cares about Terrence Malick on here except you, friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
LMAO. No one cares about Terrence Malick.. on a cinematography forum??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

This forum is about Cinematography concepts and facts. Not about the opinions Terrence Malick has about the RED One camera. Caring about such a thing is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Use empirical data or at least realize that it's just his opinion and not scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is about Cinematography concepts and facts. Not about the opinions Terrence Malick has about the RED One camera. Caring about such a thing is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Use empirical data or at least realize that it's just his opinion and not scientific.

 

Camera looks are subjective. Cameras are the tools of artists. And there are no higher artists in the art form of motion pictures than Terrence Malick and Emmanuel Lubezki. It is not a logical fallacy to point out that they used Red One for portions of Malick's upcoming epic, "The Tree of Life." It's a fact.

 

If you want to talk more facts, let's talk about the stunning rise of digital cinematography in the television series world. Many of us here predicted it. Some of us here said it wouldn't happen for "decades." If you want to make informed speculations about the future of feature films, look at both stills and television in terms of the rapid replacement of film with digital. To somehow argue that motion picture features will be immune to the rise of digital is an argument that will be lost, and lost very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

We can obviously see digital sweeping through the TV world with breathtaking speed. Even a year ago most of the digital deniers here would have scoffed at the idea.

 

The same thing happened with digital still cameras. One minute everyone is shooting film, and then you wake up one day and realize that digital has completely swept the entire industry. ...

It's actually lower-end photographers who embraced Digital in order to cover up their lack of skill. With Digital they can cheaply take hundreds of pictures in order to get a few good ones. Film requires skill to use -- whether you be a photographer or cinematographer. Lower-end cinematographers will be the ones to eagerly embrace Digital. It will make them look more skilled than they are. However, they'll regret it in the long run as they suffer retrieval problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact remains, folks, that film is still roughly 50% of dramatic television. 15% of that is on "sub-HD 16mm." NFL Films, as has been mentioned in this thread already, entrusts their vast archive of footage to this same "inferior" format, in spite of all of these other superior acquisition formats.

 

People have been saying film's days on television were numbered since the '50s. There are episodes of the Twilight Zone that were shot on tape; they look horribly dated today.

 

The same arguments were made when TV news transitioned from VNF to tape in the late '70s early '80s.

 

The whims of individual cinematographers are irrelevant, just as these analogies to still photography.

 

These are union sets where everyone is making a pretty penny for their time. People's time is the cost factor in film and television production, not rawstock.

 

So any analogies to still shoots, where unions are nowhere near as prevalent, are flawed at best.

 

 

There is clearly a place for film in high-end dramatic production on TV in the 21st century.

 

What people should be worrying about is what is going to happen to film in theatres when this recession ends. That is where Kodak and Fuji's real money are, not in negative stock but in print stock. I'd say the money they have lost due to slashed television budgets is more-than-recouped in the money they are still making on 35mm prints in theatres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real conflict is occurring between the dramatic television production form and that of the reality show. The soap opera is dying completely. Longest running, one, forget the name got cancelled today here in the U.S. It'd been on the air for 73 years.

 

As the television drama is going to be the last bastion of film on TV if things continue to proceed as they have been proceeding, it had better come up with something more creative than these continual police and medical spinoffs. It's not the format that has grown tiresome, it is the ridiculous string of repetitive story lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually lower-end photographers who embraced Digital in order to cover up their lack of skill. With Digital they can cheaply take hundreds of pictures in order to get a few good ones. Film requires skill to use -- whether you be a photographer or cinematographer. Lower-end cinematographers will be the ones to eagerly embrace Digital. It will make them look more skilled than they are. However, they'll regret it in the long run as they suffer retrieval problems.

 

Oh yeah, all those "low end" DPs like Lubezki, Mullen, Semler, Miranda, Beebe, Toll, Prieto...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Camera looks are subjective. Cameras are the tools of artists. And there are no higher artists in the art form of motion pictures than Terrence Malick and Emmanuel Lubezki. It is not a logical fallacy to point out that they used Red One for portions of Malick's upcoming epic, "The Tree of Life." It's a fact.

 

It is a fact is they used a camera or not. What isn't fact is that anyone should really care whether they did or not. Technically, it's only your opinion that Malick is the best...I'm sure someone somewhere doesn't think so. I still think you have yet to address the issue that I've said from the get go which is "If digital is to become the new benchmark, why are so many digital shooters trying desperately to mimick the look of film?" How can something be greater than something else if it's trying to mimick it? I really don't understand this concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Uhhh .... because as you have often demonstrated, you never let facts get in the way of your need to convince others that you know more than anyone else here? Or that your own experience - whatever that is - is more significant than anyone else's, even if the other person's experience is directly related to the question being asked?

"Facts"?

If we were talking about a totally new product that whose results have yet not had time to filter down to real-world viewing situations, well yes, your input might have some value.

But the Genesis came out five years ago, and everybody has had ample time and opportunity to see what it can and can’t do. I've seen any number of TV programs and movies shot with it, and I have never seen a single one that I thought looked quite as quite good as something originated on 35mm film. Not saying that the footage was unwatchable or anything, just not as good as it could have been.

That’s just my opinion, but it is based on my actual observation, not hearsay.

But now you come on here quoting the classic: “Infallible-But-Inaccessible-Authority-Who-Unfortunately-Chooses-To-Remain-Anonymous” who “feels” that a program he is working on is somehow going to be different.

If you could give us some insight into what he has done to achieve this seemingly impossible technological breakthrough, well that could be useful too. But you have really contributed nothing to the conversation but noise.

I seek information; you have failed to provide any.

Like the good Mr Lowe, you have an answer for everything, just not a terribly meaningful one.

 

If I hadn’t also been hearing almost word-for-word exactly the same crap for the last 20 years or so, I might have been a bit more diplomatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And lets not forget Steven Soderbergh who created "Che" which was the first Red film and iconically symbolizes the Red revolution.

Iconically or ironically?

I've been keeping an eye out for it at my local multiplex, no sign of it yet. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Oh yeah, all those "low end" DPs like Lubezki, Mullen, Semler, Miranda, Beebe, Toll, Prieto...

Who?

I could list all the DPs who haven't used digital cameras for their productions, but I've already used up too much of my upload allowance this month :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I'd say the money they have lost due to slashed television budgets is more-than-recouped in the money they are still making on 35mm prints in theatres.

You don't actually think all this has anything at all to do with saving money?

It's generally known as "Justifying one's existence" in this case convincing shareholders (or those directly accountable to shareholders at any rate) that you are doing something to improve the bottom line. And to be successfully seen to be "doing something" about reining-in costs, it helps if it's something that the average dickhead investor (or bureaucrat) understands, (or thinks they understand at any rate).

Everybody knows that it's vastly cheaper the shoot your party snaps on a digital camera than on film, so the same must apply to making TV shows (or movies), surely.

So you have this vast army of Mom & Pop investors tossing and turning all night, fretting that their precious dividends are being eroded away by this scandalous 19th century practice of shooting shown on film, and something MUST be done about it. And {insert name here} is just the man to do it….

Same as just about any other f*cking industry really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think you have yet to address the issue that I've said from the get go which is "If digital is to become the new benchmark, why are so many digital shooters trying desperately to mimick the look of film?" How can something be greater than something else if it's trying to mimick it? I really don't understand this concept.

 

Well, for starters, we all grew up watching 24p film projected at theaters, and we associate that with magical memories, etc, so it's only natural to want to mimic that to some extent. There is much to admire about film.

 

I think the idea would be to take the best of what film offers and incorporate it into digital. That way, you get some of the benefits of film (greater DR, for example) with all the benefits of digital (clean, high-ASA imagery, instant playback, full-def onset monitoring, full-frame "Vista Vision " sensor, RAW, etc.) Like it or not, digital will replace film soon. You can bitch and moan about it, or you can head over to Reduser or talk to your Sony, Canon, Arri, or Panasonic rep and start bitching and moaning to THEM about the features you want. As far as I know, there is no major cinema camera company on earth that is even working on new chemical film camera designs. They are only working on designing digital cameras. That tells you something right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, all those "low end" DPs like Lubezki, Mullen, Semler, Miranda, Beebe, Toll, Prieto...

 

 

Uhh, last I checked, none of them are still photographers, at least professionally.

 

Weren't you the one that brought up still photography in this thread?

 

Don't pretend now that you were talking about motion picture photography all along now.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with shooting digitally. I will work with both media.

 

But I am not arrogant enough to pretend that the only reason people that use film use it is because they are elitist snobs.

 

If cost cutting in dramatic television sounds a death knell for film though, it won't be, at least at the present time, because they have finally realized that digital has gotten to the point that it is better than film.

 

Rather they will have embraced it because they realize that it has gotten to the point where it is "good enough."

 

That is what most people here object to, not that film is on the way out but rather the reasons why it is on the way out (saving money rather than being better).

 

Imagine if the early filmmakers had taken this route instead of the route toward higher-quality imagery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But now you come on here quoting the classic: “Infallible-But-Inaccessible-Authority-Who-Unfortunately-Chooses-To-Remain-Anonymous” who “feels” that a program he is working on is somehow going to be different.

If you could give us some insight into what he has done to achieve this seemingly impossible technological breakthrough, well that could be useful too. But you have really contributed nothing to the conversation but noise.

I seek information; you have failed to provide any.

Like the good Mr Lowe, you have an answer for everything, just not a terribly meaningful one.

 

This will be my one and only post to you, because quite frankly, you're just not worth having a conversation with.

 

The colorist in question is Mark Wilkins, who works at Technicolor in Hollywood. We worked together at Encore for over 10 years. He was one of the best commercial colorists in town, and is also one of the best longform colorists as well. He's not after publicity so he doesn't exactly seek out press, but over the years he's colored many hundreds of hours of television (so have I, but you don't seem to care about that either) and probably more than a thousand high end commercials during his time at Encore, Riot, and Technicolor. He is one of the most talented, if not the most talented, colorists I know. For the past 2 seasons he has handled final color on CSI Miami, Ugly Betty, Reaper, and a number of other shows. His tests with the CSI Miami directors of photography and producers convinced them (and himself) that the switch to digital shooting would not materially affect the look he's helped give the show over the last few seasons, and at least as of a conversation we had about a week ago, that's proved to be the case.

 

I don't feel I'm obliged to provide this level of information because I think I already possess enough credibility (look me up in IMDB if you want), but I did as kind of a parting gesture. If you want to waste your time proving how great you are and how useless everyone else is around here, be my guest. As for me, I'm done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Like it or not, digital will replace film soon. You can bitch and moan about it, or you can head over to Reduser or talk to your Sony, Canon, Arri, or Panasonic rep and start bitching and moaning to THEM about the features you want. As far as I know, there is no major cinema camera company on earth that is even working on new chemical film camera designs. They are only working on designing digital cameras. That tells you something right there.

 

Well, for one, it tells me that the demand for film gear may be low because all the old gear still works so why buy new when you can get a good deal on old? You have to love how film gear doesnt get obsolete since it's the stock that's mainly important.

 

I would LOVE it if a digital camera had all the advantages of film but with instant playback, cheaper stock, etc. And I USED TO BE one of those digi-heads that would bitch to reps and even JJ himself about the importance of DR. Sadly, all I got in return was half-promises that RED One would have more DR than film. It's obvious that it didn't happen. As it stands, there is nothing in the works from any company I can think of producing digital cameras that seems to be gaining on film in the DR department. Resolution...sure, cost...definitely, lens options, depth of field...without a doubt, DR...I hate to say it harshly but film just kicks the living poop out of digital in that department and that's the cold hard truth. Until digital can compete in the DR department, it's just not gonna happen man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one, it tells me that the demand for film gear may be low because all the old gear still works so why buy new when you can get a good deal on old? You have to love how film gear doesnt get obsolete since it's the stock that's mainly important.

 

I would LOVE it if a digital camera had all the advantages of film but with instant playback, cheaper stock, etc. And I USED TO BE one of those digi-heads that would bitch to reps and even JJ himself about the importance of DR. Sadly, all I got in return was half-promises that RED One would have more DR than film. It's obvious that it didn't happen. As it stands, there is nothing in the works from any company I can think of producing digital cameras that seems to be gaining on film in the DR department. Resolution...sure, cost...definitely, lens options, depth of field...without a doubt, DR...I hate to say it harshly but film just kicks the living poop out of digital in that department and that's the cold hard truth. Until digital can compete in the DR department, it's just not gonna happen man.

 

Matt, have you heard about the new Arri? They are saying it will get a significant boost in DR. In fact, that's the main selling point.

 

http://www.arridigital.com/teaser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...