Thoughts on Film and Digital

[Bill DiPietra]

Here's a couple of frame grabs. Alexa Pro-Res 444 Log C originals. Straightforward 709 transform in Resolve. No adjustments other than to black levels.

 

 

 

Lovely images, Stuart! They look ready for broadcast, as you said.

[Shawn Sagady]

Here's a couple of frame grabs. Alexa Pro-Res 444 Log C originals. Straightforward 709 transform in Resolve. No adjustments other than to black levels.

 

 

 

Stuart if I may ask, since this is just a log to 709 what techniques did you use to get the creamy warmth in the top image and the cool bluegreen in the bottom one. is that just the color balance and saturation levels or did you do any basic tinting in post?

Edited June 29, 2016 by Shawn Sagady

[Stuart Brereton]

Shawn, the warmth in the first frame is just down to production design. It was lit with HMI and camera was balanced for Daylight. It's possible that I added 1/4 CTS to the lamps, but I don't think so. The practical lamp was of course tungsten. The second frame was mostly natural light from a north facing window, with a daylight kinoflo to help it wrap more on the actor's face. Camera was set to 4300k. The slight green tint is due to sunlight bouncing off the leaves on the trees outside the windows. The only post-processing that was done was the Arri 709 LUT in Resolve, and a minor tweak to the black levels.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tyler apparently has to spend a week polishing material just to be able to view dailies tells me that the fault lies with whoever is shooting it rather than the camera system.

Ya know the material looked ok at rec 709 but when I dove into it, there was so much more to be had, I was kinda surprised. The more I dove, the more I found. So it was several passes before I was remotely confident in showing it to the producers. I wasn't in love with what the cinematographer shot. It was boring and very flat, I personally like a more contrasty image. I'll post a few clips when I'm done with this shoot.

[Stuart Brereton]

None of that sounds like the fault of the format. The same DP shooting film would likely have produced similar results.

 

As an aside, were you the Director, or otherwise involved in the hiring of that DP? If you weren't, then arbitrarily deciding to place your own look on his material seems a little presumptuous.

[Shawn Sagady]

Shawn, the warmth in the first frame is just down to production design. It was lit with HMI and camera was balanced for Daylight. It's possible that I added 1/4 CTS to the lamps, but I don't think so. The practical lamp was of course tungsten. The second frame was mostly natural light from a north facing window, with a daylight kinoflo to help it wrap more on the actor's face. Camera was set to 4300k. The slight green tint is due to sunlight bouncing off the leaves on the trees outside the windows. The only post-processing that was done was the Arri 709 LUT in Resolve, and a minor tweak to the black levels.

Thanks Stuart, appreciate the time to write it up.

[Tyler Purcell]

As an aside, were you the Director, or otherwise involved in the hiring of that DP? If you weren't, then arbitrarily deciding to place your own look on his material seems a little presumptuous.

Working with directors notes/complaints. I always color to the director and/or DP's notes. Since recently I've been on set with them during production, it's easy to identify problems and figure out solutions before we even get to post.

 

BTW your stuff looks great, but those are examples of situations where digital shines. I can see why you wouldn't need to do any correction.

[Stuart Brereton]

So, it sounds like the situation you're describing is not that Digital requires a lot more work to look good, it's that certain DPs are relying on post work to fix issues that normally would be dealt with on set. It's an approach which may save time, and they may have no choice if they're working with limited resources, but all they're really doing is shifting the workload from one department to another. Both film & digital require work to look good, it's just a case of when that work is done, and who by. I've always been one for getting it right in camera, then I know it's done, and I'm not relying on someone to 'fix' my images later.

[Freya Black]

Not on the cintel itself no but it was common to have a da-Vinci in the suite. I guess you worked with a more limited setup for some reason.

[Satsuki Murashige]

The fact that Tyler apparently has to spend a week polishing material just to be able to view dailies tells me that the fault lies with whoever is shooting it rather than the camera system.

Exactly, well said Stuart. Lovely shots btw, thanks for sharing!

[Tyler Purcell]

Not on the cintel itself no but it was common to have a da-Vinci in the suite. I guess you worked with a more limited setup for some reason.

It was davinci, but the rank cintel imager was limited in its ability to correct. I've also used a spirit for my own projects and never was impressed.

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

That said, I still prefer film and I still can’t quite say why.

 

I know why. Excellent overexposure latitude, pleasing color palette and organic texture even when it falls apart in dark shadows. High ISO digital noise, even from the better sensors, looks like wet poop. But then again, digital technology is constantly moving forward.

[Brent Powers]

I have no doubt that digital will finally replace film altogether. Either we'll stop noticing the difference, or digital will become sophisticated enough to wander into any old look as needed to further the narrative project and no one will even care. For me, for now, I like the look of film and will stay with it.

[Manu Delpech]

Who cares if nobody else cares. Just because 99 % of the audience has no idea that the movie they're watching is shot on digital or film doesn't make it a reason for you not to shoot film. I know myself that film is what I love, not digital, I can't find the magic in the latter, film is what speaks to me, and even if no one else cared, I do care, that's the most important thing.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Manu Delpech

[Brent Powers]

Yo!

[Peter Bitic]

I have no doubt that digital will finally replace film altogether. Either we'll stop noticing the difference, or digital will become sophisticated enough to wander into any old look as needed to further the narrative project and no one will even care..

Some people do care if stuff they are watching is fake, even (or especially) if it's indistinguishable from the real thing.

 

IMO digital should never try to emulate film.

[Brent Powers]

Some people do care if stuff they are watching is fake, even (or especially) if it's indistinguishable from the real thing.

 

IMO digital should never try to emulate film.

 

 

Oh, but it will. Everyone misses film.

 

Digital isn't fake, by the way. It's another medium.

[Peter Bitic]

I know digital isn't fake. Fakeing a film is fake.

 

I also know people will fake film (as they already do). But there will be people who will care that what appears to be a scan of real film is not actually a scan of real film, so I disagree with you that no one will care.

[David Mullen ASC]

The thing is that cinematography goes beyond the origination format -- beautiful lighting and composition, for example, is not dependent on using film, so it seems odd to say that the magic of movies rests in the origination format when that is only one element of the image, let alone the movie. Certainly I would understand someone saying that something is lost without film, just as something was lost when we stopped using 3-strip Technicolor or Kodachrome, etc., and what replaces those things is never quite the same, but movies are greater than just what the image was captured on.

 

I'm never comfortable with taking the "audiences don't see or care..." sort of arguments very far; audiences expect the filmmakers to care about the finer details of making films so they can just sit back and enjoy the movie. On the other hand, as a cinematographer, what details I care about go beyond film -- it's not that I don't care, it's just that I care about a lot of things.

[Satsuki Murashige]

So, I recently shot a camera test/spec spot on 35mm and I have to say, I've fallen in love with the look of film all over again. We shot this very quickly over one morning with just the director, myself, and the actress. We used one bounce board and a 1x1 mirror. Film stock was old 5299 that I bought on this forum from Tyler, with lab work and scan done by Cinelab.

 

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.

 

[Shawn Sagady]

Love that look, especially the really organic motion blur of her walking. Digital has never quite gotten the motion blur right.

[David Mullen ASC]

I never got to shoot '99 -- wasn't it designed without the orange color mask?

[Jay Young]

I never got to shoot '99 -- wasn't it designed without the orange color mask?

 

Wasn't this stock used on Desperate Housewives, Bones, &c.?

 

Best I can research it was intended to be used with a special Digital processor on the Telecine machine which would effectively apply LUT's or the like to correct for different exposure environments. I can't find anything specifically written about the color mask.

[Satsuki Murashige]

I never got to shoot '99 -- wasn't it designed without the orange color mask?

That is my understanding. It can't be printed and is a telecine/scan-only stock.

[Phil Rhodes]

Very nice - but if I put stuff up on digital that's that noisy, I'd be shouted at!