Revenant/Mad Max prove digital is better?

[Aapo Lettinen]

you really should also shoot a lot with both film and digital to understand the practical decisions the crew has made when making the film. For example, if you simply watch the Fury Road movie in a theatre you will probably whine that "this would have been so much better if shot on film!!" but if you even somewhat know the equipment they used (mostly Alexas) and the alternatives for that job which they could have used if shooting film ( Arricam ST + 235 +435 combo OR Millennium XL2 +235+435 combo probably) and watch couple of behind the scenes shots and read some articles, THEN you can probably understand why they chose digital on that movie.

Same thing with The Revenant or any other movie.

 

It is easy for film critics to invent great theories how the movies should be done but without actually being there and doing that you can't really know what are the best choices, nor can criticise those people about their decisions and equipment/workflow choices

[Peter Bitic]

 

So you're not a film-maker?

Correct (but I plan to be).

[Aapo Lettinen]

"only the look is important" is mainly film critics point of view and that's because they only see the final product and don't know how much and what kind of work was needed to make the movie.

a film critic might for example think that only real movies are those shot with a mithchell bnc non-reflex without blimp but still completely handheld with zoom lenses. or using 3-strip technicolor cameras on steadicam :lol:

[Ari Michael Leeds]

"ARRICAM ST" LOL, you claim to know so much about cameras, then why would you use an ST (stands for STUDIO) outdoors on location where you'd ideally want to use the LT ( stands for "LITE" as in lightweight)?

I know, it's terrible, you have a camera that weighs all of 22 pounds and you can't shoot for an hour in continuous takes with it.


It must be terrible being limited to 29 minute takes, too, with a 2,000' magazine on 3-perf. How did they ever do it!


We used an ST once instead of an LT on location because that's what ARRI had extra and they cut us a good deal on the rental. Still not a big deal. These aren't 250# IMAX cameras we're talking about here.

[Stuart Brereton]

Correct (but I plan to be).

 

So what are you currently?

[Peter Bitic]

"only the look is important" is mainly film critics point of view and that's because they only see the final product and don't know how much and what kind of work was needed to make the movie.

a film critic might for example think that only real movies are those shot with a mithchell bnc non-reflex without blimp but still completely handheld with zoom lenses. or using 3-strip technicolor cameras on steadicam :lol:

If you are talking to me: I am not saying that only look is important, quite contrary. If that was my position I would be fine with digitally faking film as long as it looked close enough, but to me that is one of the worst things you can attempt do as a filmmaker.

 

As for "not knowing what kind of work was needed to make the movie". Look, they made better films back in the day (especially in 70s) with old technology, it's not like we are seeing some rise in quality now that people can shoot digitally. If that was the case, I could concede your point that there might be something behind the scenes that I as an outsider don't understand that makes shooting digitally worthwile. But as long as filmmakers are making worse films that they used to I think it's more of a convenience thing for them. There are some stuff that they couldn't do back in the day, of course, but nothing that really makes the movies better as a whole. Jurassic Park from 1993 was better and more real than Jurassic World. Blade Runner, 2001: Space Odyssey and Alien run circles around all Sci-Fi movies done today both in terms of realism, atmosfere and general quality. And I am not even going to talk about dramas.

 

I really don't care if you fiddle with lightning masks on an actor all day in postproduction or if you can continuosly shoot more than 15 minutes if we are not getting any better movies.

[Peter Bitic]

 

So what are you currently?

Student (not a film one). Is there any point to your questioning?

[Aapo Lettinen]

As for "not knowing what kind of work was needed to make the movie". Look, they made better films back in the day (especially in 70s) with old technology, it's not like we are seeing some rise in quality now that people can shoot digitally. If that was the case, I could concede your point that there might be something behind the scenes that I as an outsider don't understand that makes shooting digitally worthwile. But as long as filmmakers are making worse films that they used to I think it's more of a convenience thing for them. There are some stuff that they couldn't do back in the day, of course, but nothing that really makes the movies better as a whole. Jurassic Park from 1993 was better and more real than Jurassic World. Blade Runner, 2001: Space Odyssey and Alien run circles around all Sci-Fi movies done today both in terms of realism, atmosfere and general quality. And I am not even going to talk about dramas.

 

I really don't care if you fiddle with lightning masks on an actor all day in postproduction or if you can continuosly shoot more than 15 minutes if we are not getting any better movies.

 

people have made good and bad movies throughout the history, I think the main reason you think that way is because people only remember the classics and other "good stuff".

 

Haven't seen the Jurassic World, the trailer's been enough :rolleyes:

maybe the screenwriters and directors have got a little bit more lazy nowadays though, or the producers and investors demand simpler and "dumber" films because they sell better :lol:

that's not technological issue, just creative one and can't be corrected even if all the digital gear is destroyed so that we would be technologically back in the "old times"

[Freya Black]

Lets do Alexa Blue:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Freya Black

[Tyler Purcell]

Umm, you do know that bridge of spies and Wolf of Wallstreet were both 35mm eh?

 

Or is that the joke? ;)

[Aapo Lettinen]

"ARRICAM ST" LOL, you claim to know so much about cameras, then why would you use an ST (stands for STUDIO) outdoors on location where you'd ideally want to use the LT ( stands for "LITE" as in lightweight)?

 

I know, it's terrible, you have a camera that weighs all of 22 pounds and you can't shoot for an hour in continuous takes with it.

 

 

It must be terrible being limited to 29 minute takes, too, with a 2,000' magazine on 3-perf. How did they ever do it!

 

 

We used an ST once instead of an LT on location because that's what ARRI had extra and they cut us a good deal on the rental. Still not a big deal. These aren't 250# IMAX cameras we're talking about here.

frame rates, needs less mag adapters in that use, a bit more sturdy... if shooting EXACTLY the same way (including couple of cameras on steadicam at the same time) then it would probably be better to choose LT if not needing to use larger mags very often. Probably they would make it a bit differently on film but who knows

[Ari Michael Leeds]

I have to admit, I've seen some FujiFilm movies that I thought were digital, of course, this is with 1080i TV, for what it's worth.


Both of those films are obvious 35mm Kodak examples, so not sure what Freya is meaning there, either.

[Freya Black]

Umm, you do know that bridge of spies and Wolf of Wallstreet were both 35mm eh?

 

Or is that the joke? ;)

 

Not sure how wolf of wall street got in there.

Going a bit too fast with the cut and paste there.

Has Martin Scorsese ever shot anything on digital cameras?

 

Bridge of spies keeps taking me in tho, over and over. I've mistaken that for Alexa when it first came out.

and then I keep mistaking it for Alexa again and again even after people say "Freya that was shot on film".

This will probably happen again in a while once I forget it was shot on film again.

I did mean to include those shots of bridge of spies.

 

Sorry about that. It wins the award for most alexa-y looking film footage for me.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Freya Black

[Ari Michael Leeds]

You realize that bodes very poorly for the argument that there is a lot of difference posting 35mm Kodak film movie stills as a reason why the Alexa doesn't cut it.

[Aapo Lettinen]

 

Has Martin Scorsese ever shot anything on digital cameras?

 

Hugo

[Freya Black]

You realize that bodes very poorly for the argument that there is a lot of difference posting 35mm Kodak film movie stills as a reason why the Alexa doesn't cut it.

 

Has anyone argued the Alexa doesn't cut it tho?

[Stuart Brereton]

Student (not a film one). Is there any point to your questioning?

 

Yes, there is. You've made some very sweeping statements about 99% of film-makers, and so I'm trying to decide how much merit there is in your opinions, given that you are not a film-maker, nor even a film student. You are just someone who watches films, which puts you in a group with 300 million other Americans, and I certainly wouldn't call them experts.

[Peter Bitic]

 

Yes, there is. You've made some very sweeping statements about 99% of film-makers, and so I'm trying to decide how much merit there is in your opinions, given that you are not a film-maker, nor even a film student. You are just someone who watches films, which puts you in a group with 300 million other Americans, and I certainly wouldn't call them experts.

You don't need to be a practical expert to have a theoretical opinion on film vs digital and on the specific practices in filmmaking. Nothing that I have said requires practical experiences.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Ari Michael Leeds]

@ Freya I'm paraphrasing, sure.


But you're pointing out Alexa yellow and Alexa blue as how digital doesn't handle color as well as film on shots from Kodak 35mm film. . .



Granted, Wolf of Wall Street had what I'd describe as a fairly HEAVY DI, not sure about the Hanks movie as I confess I haven't yet had the please of seeing it.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Ari Michael Leeds

[John E Clark]

 

Has Martin Scorsese ever shot anything on digital cameras?

 

 

There were ironies in "Hugo"(2011) 1) Digital Film depicting a story taken from 'early Film Film history'... 2) 3-D... both of which were 'new' to Scorsese.

 

A deeper irony, is that the subject of the film was Melies, who created films that had any number of 'special effects', and had the films 'hand tinted' to yield a more 'realistic', albeit unreal/fantasy stories and imagery... presentation.

 

In a word Melies had to wait almost 100 years for DI process to be invented...

[Ari Michael Leeds]

John I see a similar irony in the choice of format for "Hitchcock."

[Freya Black]

I'm paraphrasing, sure.

 

 

But you're pointing out Alexa yellow and Alexa blue as how digital doesn't handle color as well as film on shots from Kodak 35mm film. . .

 

 

 

Granted, Wolf of Wall Street had what I'd describe as a fairly HEAVY DI, not sure about the Hanks movie as I confess I haven't yet had the please of seeing it.

 

 

Wolf of Wall street is not just a heavy DI but was also shot on quite a mixture of 35mm film and various digital cameras including Alexa. It's a bad example for that reason because I can't prove that the shot is Alexa and not a Canon C500 for example.

I didn't mean to include that shot. Post in haste and repent at leisure.

 

You have made an assumption that I'm saying that the Alexa doesn't handle colour as well as 35mm film. Maybe it doesn't but I wasn't coming at it from that angle at all. I was saying that the Alexa is distinctive in its colours. I actually really like Alexa blue and Alexa red. It's clearly not so distinctive that I don't mistake Bridge of Spies for an Alexa movie again and again however.

 

You know I even like Alexa yellow, I just don't think it works in some contexts.

[Freya Black]

 

There were ironies in "Hugo"(2011) 1) Digital Film depicting a story taken from 'early Film Film history'... 2) 3-D... both of which were 'new' to Scorsese.

 

A deeper irony, is that the subject of the film was Melies, who created films that had any number of 'special effects', and had the films 'hand tinted' to yield a more 'realistic', albeit unreal/fantasy stories and imagery... presentation.

 

In a word Melies had to wait almost 100 years for DI process to be invented...

 

I've not seen Hugo and don't know much about it.

It's shot on a mixture of digital video and film you are saying?

[Freya Black]

BTW Ari, I meant to say that I can understand why you thought I was posting the frame grabs for that reason given the overall topic of this thread.

[Freya Black]

heh heh. Well that put paid to that thread then...

 

:)