Jump to content

Thoughts on Film and Digital


Brent Powers

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Btw, I heard a great anecdote on the 'Wandering DP' podcast where a DP was talking about how to convince clients to go for an unusual look. I think in this case, he and the director came up with a look that involved underexposing digital footage by a crazy amount and cranking up the ISO for an extreme amount of noise.

 

He says he and director watched dailies with the client and immediate started telling each other what a bold fresh look they had come up with, and how it was better than what they had hoped for. Once the clients were convinced that this look was a mark of high artistic quality, then they were fine with it. Pretty eye-opening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

He says he and director watched dailies with the client and immediate started telling each other what a bold fresh look they had come up with, and how it was better than what they had hoped for. Once the clients were convinced that this look was a mark of high artistic quality, then they were fine with it. Pretty eye-opening.

 

Sounds like they work in advertising.

 

Here's a tip... reference famous movies when describing a look. "Ya know, like that scene in Taxi Driver..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may add to the discussion:

 

First, I am getting a bit tired of the idea of a "film look" as if celluloid film only has one look. I think it is safe to say that 8mm and 15-perf 65mm have very different characteristics. Second, there are many variables that affect the look of a project beyond the camera/film (I would like to think the artistry of the director, DP and art director)

 

I personally like spherical 35mm over spherical Alexa because of its color rendition, texture and smoother tones (among other reasons), but even that depends on the story, the limitations of the project and what you are trying to achieve.

 

I can only agree with David. There are tons of variables that contribute to the cinematography of a film beyond the origination format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really looking forward to hearing from Mr Spielberg and Mr Kaminski on how they found the Alexa on the BFG- has anyone seen any articles or interviews?

 

Both were holdouts on film for a very long time and I'd be really interested to hear their thoughts and whether they'll be going back to film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing about it, which is surprising, but I have no doubt Steven and Janusz and going to be shooting film on Ready Player One (which is shooting right now), and his next two films.

 

Spielberg in an interview about Bridge Of Spies said something like "shooting on film, and I mean film kids, not digital", so yeah, it's easy to understand why they shot the BFG on the Alexa. I saw it yday, and basically, the first ten minutes are live action and all the rest of the movie except for the scenes at the Queen's residence and a few shots at Sophie's orphanage is full CG land with Sophie and probably location plates being real.

 

You can see the behind the scenes on Youtube, I don't see how Steven & Janusz could have shot the BFG on film considering it's performance capture heavy with Mark Rylance, with the scale variations, and all the VFX, being able to see all that live on monitors (like we often see in the b roll) is really a huge benefit here. Film wasn't an option really.

Edited by Manu Delpech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of what I'm talking about here comes out of heritage and social inertia. The heritage of digital cinematography is live TV and video tape. In the '50s of the last century we saw live broadcasts of shows and plays, sports of course, and often prerecorded shows which looked the same as live, and I remember always thinking this was second best, especially with dramatic programs. Of course it was TV. We didn't expect anything like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones back then. We went to the movies. To the theater. We wanted movies to look like movies, like film. This is an earlier mind set which is where the inertia comes in. We resist change, always, because it is usually change for the worse, or it is perceived as worse for quite a while. I don’t think the debate of film vs. digital will continue for very much longer. I give it a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think it's great for filmmakers to use digital image capturing systems when making special effects movies. It makes life SO much simpler on set and since the "quality" of the image usually is down to the CG artists, rather then the plate photography, it just makes no sense to deal with film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Simply put, the film image has balls. Digital can look great too, no question. But there's a richness and life to the film image that reminds me why I fell in love with celluloid in the first place 18 years ago. I expect I will be shooting film more often now that I remembered what I was missing. Will post the final 30sec cut when it's finished.

Looks fantastic Satsuki! As I've said many times, the film image is just a winner right away, before you do any tweaks.

 

I have a few cinematography buddies who are doing a lot more shooting on film now because they want that look and they understand how easy it is to create that look by simply shooting on film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks fantastic Satsuki! As I've said many times, the film image is just a winner right away, before you do any tweaks.

 

I have a few cinematography buddies who are doing a lot more shooting on film now because they want that look and they understand how easy it is to create that look by simply shooting on film.

Again Tyler, you're assuming that the look of those stills is purely down to film origination. You assert that any good looking digital image must have been heavily reworked in post, but you refuse to apply the same criteria to film originated images. Perhaps Satsuki can enlighten us, but that certainly doesn't look like a simple one-light transfer with no alterations.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The film vs digital debate will never stop, unless someone somehow comes up with a kind of film/digital hybrid that allows you to bypass the film process or whatever. They need to make more of those (super expensive) mobile film labs, that's the dream, having the lab right next to the set, getting your dailies right here & then, the dream.

 

I do find though regarding what Tyler is saying, that film inherently has more life to it, when similar shots shot digitally would look quite dull and boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Again Tyler, you're assuming that the look of those stills is purely down to film origination. You assert that any good looking digital image must have been heavily reworked in post, but you refuse to apply the same criteria to film originated images. Perhaps Satsuki can enlighten us, but that certainly doesn't look like a simple one-light transfer with no alterations.

No, I'm merely agreeing with what Satsuki said in his own comments.

 

Besides, I do one light work all the time on film prints. In my eyes, I've ever seen digital hold a candle to a properly exposed one light print projected with a film projector. Lets face it, digital is very flat and stale. It does a job and that's all it does. Film MOVES the soul, it's energetic without the need for fancy camera moves to draw attention away from the staleness of the image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

No hyperbole there. Tyler, sometimes it seriously seems like your trolling.

Wait, one isn't allowed to express their opinion? I didn't start this thread. I'm not the guy who wanted yet another film vs digital discussion.

 

Furthermore, I believe you should re-read responses made by other members who go further then I do and say digital looks "dull and boring".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There is much about extremely underexposed digital material that's actually very nice. All the highlight nastiness goes away, colours are vastly nicer (especially if shooting to 709, and especially on single chip cameras) and blacks are dense. This is why people like Alexa at 800.

 

On modern, high-end cameras, which are characterised by very low noise, it's often no more noisy than 500-speed film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Roger Deakins, Bradford Young, Emmanuel Lubezki have all done dramatic, beautiful, emotional work in digital. Film is lovely and digital is not quite the same thing, but beauty, drama, being evocative or gritty, etc. is all possible in digital even if it's a different look.

 

I don't think one has to put down digital in order to build up film any more than a sculptor who carves in marble should insult a sculptor who carves in wood, or creates casts for metal sculptures.

 

It's certainly possible to be flat, overly polished, and boring with film as it is with digital, but the digital process from capture thru post to distribution does tend to encourage a certain overly-perfected look, but the fault is more with filmmakers who are lulled into that approach rather than the technology itself.

 

I also think the lack of contrast and deep blacks with digital projection tend to lend this impression of digital cinematography leaning towards the "dull" side, but film projected digitally can get the same dulling effect, and the cure is basically better digital projection technology because 35mm prints are not coming back, and they have their own problems as well.

 

I think the other issue here is that there are some things shot on subpar digital cameras (or some shots) which bring on all the things that so many of us dislike about digital. But we also forget that in the days of film, some of us complained about anything not living up to the gold standard of 35mm. In fact, it wasn't until the rise of digital that so many people started embracing all the artifacts of film that some people had spent so much time minimizing. It took digital for many people to appreciate the full breadth of what film could achieve rather than limiting it to some sort of notions of technical perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Roger Deakins, Bradford Young, Emmanuel Lubezki have all done dramatic, beautiful, emotional work in digital.

They sure have, but these guys can work with an iPhone and deliver amazing images.

 

If being one of the best cinematographers alive is the only way to make digital look good, then digital has a long way to go.

 

Well, I'm not a great cinematographer. In fact, on these last few shoots I've been on, I've really felt under-skilled. Yet, I've gone out and shot stuff on film for shits and giggles that blows the doors off anything I've ever shot digitally. Sure, I rarely take my digital cameras out for fun and shoot things like sunsets, but I look at the projected image and I say to myself; why does anyone spend so much time mucking around with digital when they could have THIS!!?!

 

But we also forget that in the days of film, some of us complained about anything not living up to the gold standard of 35mm. In fact, it wasn't until the rise of digital that so many people started embracing all the artifacts of film that some people had spent so much time minimizing. It took digital for many people to appreciate the full breadth of what film could achieve rather than limiting it to some sort of notions of technical perfection.

That's very true and it's absolutely part of the current film movement.

 

When digital came out, it was garbage, but people used it because it was unique. Now that digital is the mainstay, film has become the unique thing. As you say, people have embraced film's artifacts because they realize the merits of the format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Perhaps Satsuki can enlighten us, but that certainly doesn't look like a simple one-light transfer with no alterations.

Hi Stuart,

 

I got a Log 2K scan from Cinelab. The grade is a simple one-light correction to the entire camera roll in Resolve: S-curve for contrast + saturation boost to get back to Rec709-ish, and then Lift/Gamma/Gain correction to balance the grey card at the head of the roll. There is no correction shot-to-shot, it is a one-light. I was very careful with my exposures though.

 

FWIW, I use the Art Adams DSC Labs One-Shot chart which has matte white, 18% grey, gloss black, and RGB/CMY patches which make it very easy to balance in the color suite. I'll see if I can post some before/after images tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

FWIW, I use the Art Adams DSC Labs One-Shot chart which has matte white, 18% grey, gloss black, and RGB/CMY patches which make it very easy to balance in the color suite. I'll see if I can post some before/after images tomorrow.

Do you have to fill the screen to get enough resolution for it to work when you shoot, or can you simply crop it in and DaVinci figures out the rest? I haven't tried to use charts before, but I may on some upcoming projects if it helps with getting a base correction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Stuart,

 

I got a Log 2K scan from Cinelab. The grade is a simple one-light correction to the entire camera roll in Resolve: S-curve for contrast + saturation boost to get back to Rec709-ish, and then Lift/Gamma/Gain correction to balance the grey card at the head of the roll. There is no correction shot-to-shot, it is a one-light. I was very careful with my exposures though.

 

FWIW, I use the Art Adams DSC Labs One-Shot chart which has matte white, 18% grey, gloss black, and RGB/CMY patches which make it very easy to balance in the color suite. I'll see if I can post some before/after images tomorrow.

Satsuki,

 

Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't criticizing your images. I'm guessing you shot without an 85, hence the cool tones throughout, but the skintones, particularly in pic #4 seem as if they have been timed warmer.

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
×
×
  • Create New...