Jump to content
Phil Rhodes

Come on, Star Wars

Recommended Posts

While his movies are all pretty good, they are all also mainstream flicks with the purpose of filling his pockets and making a good movie, not just the ladder.

They are borderline art films and always have been. You need to do your research, read a few books and study his releases more carefully. I'm a pretty big Kubrick aficionado and he fits my "quantification of a filmmaker" pretty good. He falls inline with Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino and the like.

 

it's still nothing like a cinema experience, even standard 2D screens at a cinema are usually 5-10x bigger than mine

Screen size has NOTHING to do with it. People still don’t understand the only thing that matters is how far you sit away from the screen. I have not measured my system diagonally, but I have two “options” for my setup, one is 6 ft wide and the other is 13 ft wide. For the 6ft wide setup, I sit around 10 feet away from the screen and it’s just as big as local cinema’s screen if I’m sitting dead center, in-line with the center of the screen on the stadium seating. With my 13ft setup, it’s like watching an IMAX movie, you have to turn your head left to right in order to catch the action and it’s very immersive. When I get a 4k projector someday, I’m going to do the 13ft setup more often and maybe even permanently re-configure the room that way because it’s so nice.

 

If you’re one of those people who sits down below the screen and looks up, I can’t help that argument. However, the vast majority of people do want to sit square center and up high enough so they aren’t tilting their heads at all. If that’s the case, your home theater should suffice if you sit close enough.

 

Isn't Kodak still trying to cling onto Super 8 as their last line of defense?

Not at all actually. The super 8 binge is all about a low-cost entry level system that will get students and art people alike to shoot film for little money. The idea is to have a prepaid package which contains the cartridge, throw it into any super 8 camera, send it back to the lab, process/transfer and the files are put on the FTP server. The mail-in service for Super 8 stopped ohhh maybe 2009? I don’t recall the final date, but it was a long time ago. Kodak just feels it’s time to start a new system because there really isn’t a national mail-in system like that in effect. I’m personally not a fan of this concept at all, but ohh well.

 

What Kodak should have done is followed suit with the other manufacturers and jumped on the digital bandwaggon. If they had done that, they might well have had the funds to support both a digital and a celluloid division. Kodak, while I have respect for them, was badly managed.

Kodak actually developed much of the digital technology we use today. They actually have a digital division, doing R&D which until this year, was pretty profitable. They actually recently laid off much of their staff in that division.

 

Unfortunately, Kodak is a poorly managed company. They still act like it’s the 80’s with lots of competition and that film is still strong. The sad part is, film is not strong and there is no competition thanks to Kodak having exclusivity deals with the studio’s which forced Fuji to stop making camera negative. The problem isn’t camera negative, they sell gobs of the stuff. The problem is print stock, that’s where manufactures like Kodak and Fuji made their money. Making prints is really the only way to keep Kodak alive for the long-term.

 

I don't foresee them having enough funds to 'Kodakize' a large majority of cinema screens. Besides that, the theaters have now all already invested in digital projection. There MIGHT be some market for large format stuff on 'film', but hell even IMAX has turned away from film - toward 4k projection.

I’m glad you brought up these points, because clearly there is some confusion.

 

First off, 92 screens in the US have already been “kodakized” with 70mm projectors. Currently Warner brothers owns them, but they are in negotiations with Kodak to run other people’s movies on them. I know for fact, their end game is putting Kodak logo’s on those screen’s and releasing standard cinema fodder on 70mm. It’s just a very long-term project. They don't have a 70mm lab setup or a way to make cheap 70mm prints from digital. Right now it takes 16 - 18 days to laser out a 70mm IP or IN at FotoKem and once the proper hardware is developed to make a print in a day (totally possible), then the costs will reduce substantially and the sky's the limit.

 

IMAX is an entirely different story and it’s quite interesting, with lots of little issues. First off, 15/70 IMAX projectors are VERY expensive to run. Back when they were first developed, it all made sense, but now that most IMAX theaters are struggling, they don’t have the cash to keep the projectors running. Prints are also expensive, IMAX charging the theaters for each print PLUS a licensing fee. Another big issue is licensing and IMAX charges millions of dollars per theater and the contracts have been coming to an end, closing MANY IMAX theaters and those who don’t close, are being FORCED to upgrade to digital. You may ask why… well, they aren’t renewing “film” licenses, period. So when your license expires, if you can’t afford the 3 million dollars for 2 laser projectors, you are no longer getting IMAX movies. Now, there are some caveats to this. Many theaters are in science museums, those theaters are “grandfathered” into an older program where they don’t have to pay as much for licensing evidently. So this is why 15/70 ain’t going away anytime soon. Also, those theaters use the older MKI style projectors which are single lamp and easier to maintain then the 3D projectors. Plus, because they are in science museum’s, they have guaranteed traffic, unlike IMAX theaters in cineplexes.

 

Truthfully, there are two divisions of IMAX… true IMAX which is what is shown in science museums. Then there is the bullshit nonsense LIMAX which is shown in digital cinemas. The difference is night and day. Real IMAX is a 15/70 format, which resolves around 12k worth of resolution. LIMAX is a 4k digital system which in most cases is a blow-up from 2k sources. It looks good because they trick the audience by one projector being in focus and the other being slightly out of focus. This creates the illusion of a really nice filmic image because it doesn’t have the same crispness and digital noise you see on normal DLP screens is gone. Also, the laser lamp source is brighter and more even then the older DLP system, so it’s over-all a better experience. It however, has zero relation to the 15/70 format. The problem is that, IMAX went public a while ago and their investors are no longer interested in quality, they only care about how much money they can make. They almost went out of business a few years ago and were saved by striking lucrative contracts with the studio’s to distribute their movies in IMAX theaters, even though NONE of them were formatted properly for the format. This kept the company in business, but at a cost of the company basically diluting it’s brand. IMAX now is a complete and utter joke in the industry. They now charge $20 dollars for a movie, more then ever before and in most cases, deliver worse resolution then UHD. They got rid of active 3D, which is by far the best 3D technology. They installed parallax 3D screens into all the digital IMAX theaters. So now 2D movies look like poop on IMAX laser, which is why they don’t show them! Have you ever noticed that almost ALL IMAX Laser movies are 3D? There is an actual technical reason why that’s the case.

 

Anyway, most of this information I learned from IMAX projectionist and “installer” friends of mine. So it’s not public, don’t bother looking it up.

 

Hell, even Arri - the classic film camera company, saw it coming...

Arri was making $120 - $150 film cameras. There is NO WAY they could keep making them. Ceasing production was smart, ceasing service was not. So one part of me is happy they’re still in business, making the best looking digital cinema cameras around. The other part of me is pissed they removed themselves from their heritage so heavy handedly. Again, Arri’s push away from film was a business board of directors move and it wasn’t done properly in my opinion.

 

 

It's a niche market, just like film has become. It will also enjoy a special place in the hearts of many people, and some people will pay extra to experience it that way.

The difference is that with vinyl, it doesn’t cost much to make a disk and it costs nearly nothing to play them back. With motion picture film, you need specialists all over the place to make it work from manufacturing the film, processing and projecting. It’s a very different thing and if we say to people it’s “boutique” or “niche”, then it will simply die. It won’t die because it’s not good, it will die because people like you, tell your friends that it’s irrelevant. It will die because nobody cares and right now, that is absolutely not the case.

 

Again, you live in a small town and you have no direct experience with what I’m discussing. When you live in a media city like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, these things change… and they change in a big way. Heck even Boston has a pretty big revival cinema business going on with modern films being shown on film. You have the chance to actually see movies on film and it’s YOUR decision to visit the digital cinema instead. It’s all about saying to yourself, huh maybe I’ll try seeing it in film.

 

Look, if you want to make an art-house movie on celluloid that will be cherished among film scholars for 100 years, by all means do it. Don't expect that it'll pay your bills, though.

Wait, you think Paul Thomas Anderson didn’t get paid to make “The Master”, “Inherent Vice” or “The Phantom Thread” all three movies shot on 35mm, all three movies, finished 100% photochemically, all 3 movies distributed on film (and digital).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we know about Kubrick is that he was a perfectionist. I imagine the immediacy of digital, and the ability to play back takes would have been extremely appealing to him.

Kubrick pioneered video playback, he used it starting on The Shining.

 

I do think Kubrick would have followed the likes of Spielberg and Scorsese. Shooting on film, but distributing digitally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry to bring this up Tyler but Scorsese is shooting on digital nowadays.. he started with the night sequences on Silence and he is doing it now all the way on The Irishman.

 

I suppose that he is not a real filmmaker anymore based on your description? Allen is not a filmmaker either! Nor is Richard, even though he is the producer, director, editor and etc of his movies? He sure gives two shits about his movies and knows the audience he is making the movies for, as well as Scorsese or Allen do.

 

So maybe we should stretch the term real filmmaker a bit?

 

My point on bringing this up is that if you really have a story to tell you will make it happen regardless the acquisition and distribution format because what you will care about is the fact that youre going to be able to tell the story that you want to tell and it will be seen by the world.

In my opinion, It doesnt make you less of a filmmaker to shoot your story on an iPhone or a DSLR. What matters the most is the story.

 

Have a lovely day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick comment on when we discussed a couple of days ago, what makes a true film-maker....

Story yes, so important. And the look of the cinematography. To make on chemical film or digital? Whatever suits the story and the cinematography. Ideally the cost shouldn't be a factor.

We shouldn't forget the role of the editor as a film-maker. Lawrence of Arabia would have looked rubbish if badly cut :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry to bring this up Tyler but Scorsese is shooting on digital nowadays.. he started with the night sequences on Silence and he is doing it now all the way on The Irishman.

 

I suppose that he is not a real filmmaker anymore based on your description? Allen is not a filmmaker either! Nor is Richard, even though he is the producer, director, editor and etc of his movies? He sure gives two shits about his movies and knows the audience he is making the movies for, as well as Scorsese or Allen do.

 

So maybe we should stretch the term real filmmaker a bit?

 

My point on bringing this up is that if you really have a story to tell you will make it happen regardless the acquisition and distribution format because what you will care about is the fact that youre going to be able to tell the story that you want to tell and it will be seen by the world.

In my opinion, It doesnt make you less of a filmmaker to shoot your story on an iPhone or a DSLR. What matters the most is the story.

 

Have a lovely day.

Miguel, actually the Irishman is being shot on Film not digital. Whatever people prefer and are allowed to shoot on is what one has to make work - whether it is digital or film. Happy holidays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screen size has NOTHING to do with it.

 

This is ignoring the audio issue --- A cinema speaker pumps out as much sound as my entire system does. That cinema-rumble from the bass is almost impossible to do at home - unless you want your neighbors calling the cops on you.
Not to mention the fact that you need to wait 3-4 months or even longer to see something on your home cinema…
You make a somewhat valid point about screen size. There is a generally accepted sweet spot where the screen fills your field of vision. No matter how big the screen is. In such a case, the perceived size of the screen is similar, since it fills your field of vision either way.
However, are you really going to sit here and tell me that a 42” TV is really just as large as 70’ cinema screen? For starters, the smaller the screen - the closer you need to sit to it for it to fill your field of vision. For a 42” TV to fill my field of vision, I’d have to sit about a foot away from it. My 140” screen fills it at about 9 foot.
When I go to a cinema, I sit ⅓ the way back, center. In general, that fills my field of vision. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the cinema screen still appears a lot larger than my home screen does. While the field of view is almost the same, the screen is still 7x bigger than my home screen, and you can tell the difference.

 

The difference is that with vinyl, it doesn’t cost much to make a disk and it costs nearly nothing to play them back. With motion picture film, you need specialists all over the place to make it work from manufacturing the film, processing and projecting. It’s a very different thing and if we say to people it’s “boutique” or “niche”, then it will simply die. It won’t die because it’s not good, it will die because people like you, tell your friends that it’s irrelevant. It will die because nobody cares and right now, that is absolutely not the case.

 

I’m not talking about the cost, I’m talking about the market. Much like the market for vinyl, the market for ‘seeing a film projection’ is a niche market. It has nothing to do with how much it costs to make or how technically complex it is to do. Something is niche when a majority of people don’t use it as a decision point. For example, if only 5 people out of 100 proclaim that seeing a film on film is the only way you can see it, that is niche - they don’t share the opinion of the vast majority. THAT is the definition of niche, it’s not my opinion or debatable. You can dislike the term, and think its leading to the death of film - but that doesn’t change the term or what it means.

 

 

Again, you live in a small town and you have no direct experience with what I’m discussing. When you live in a media city like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, these things change… and they change in a big way. Heck even Boston has a pretty big revival cinema business going on with modern films being shown on film. You have the chance to actually see movies on film and it’s YOUR decision to visit the digital cinema instead. It’s all about saying to yourself, huh maybe I’ll try seeing it in film.

 

If I live in a small town, I’d hate to see what you consider large. The CSA of the area I live in has around 4.5 million people, making it one of the largest CSA areas in the United States. Many films are shot here, though not as many as might be shot in Atlanta. If you want to say it's not a ‘media’ city, that is fine. True, we don’t shot late night TV shows or have a CNN broadcast center. We do have plenty of an art-house scene though, and we still have art-house theaters that show film prints.

 

I do think Kubrick would have followed the likes of Spielberg and Scorsese. Shooting on film, but distributing digitally.

 

Scorsese shots digital now. Has for while. At least on most of his projects.

 

I have said all I have to say on this subject. If you really feel the need to ‘rebuke’ my thoughts some more, go ahead. I’ll just leave it up to the people who read the forum to draw their own conclusions.

However, I do want to say - and I’m not trying to be rude here, only helpful - that the way you go about trying to prove people wrong who don’t agree with you is very annoying. Film vs. digital is a very personal debate, and there isn’t many facts around it - only opinions. You have your opinion, which we have heard. I have mine, which you have heard. Some agree more with me, some agree more with you. That’s perfectly fine, and how its supposed to work.
Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we know about Kubrick is that he was a perfectionist. I imagine the immediacy of digital, and the ability to play back takes would have been extremely appealing to him.

Well, he did invent video assist, so I'm with you on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, he did invent video assist, so I'm with you on that one.

I thought Jerry Lewis is the one who got that started? I remember a very basic book I got as a 13 year old on filmmaking that mentioned Lewis and specifically cited this technique for finding out if takes worked right away.

 

I know that Kubrick's vfx people on 2001 used a video monitor to aid forced perspective modelbuilding, but that wasn't directly related to shooting a scene, just a technique to facilitate the construction.

 

EDIT ADDON: Right after I posted, I remembered about the centrifuge stuff being viewed by him on closed-circuit TV, so yeah, you're right.

Edited by KH Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miguel, actually the Irishman is being shot on Film not digital. Whatever people prefer and are allowed to shoot on is what one has to make work - whether it is digital or film. Happy holidays.

 

They are using both, aren't they? Same as in Silence as far as i know.

 

Anyways, the point was that Tyler was referring to "real filmmakers" as those who only shoot on film, amongst other things.

 

He wrote that for him, Scorsese, was a real filmmaker because he was shooting on film. Well, he doesn't shoot on film now all the time and he is still a real filmmaker, isn't it? although he is not if we take Tyler's definition of what a "real filmmaker" is!

 

Have a lovely day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kubrick pioneered video playback, he used it starting on The Shining.

 

I do think Kubrick would have followed the likes of Spielberg and Scorsese. Shooting on film, but distributing digitally.

There's a world of difference between watching playback in full color on a 1080 monitor and watching a U-Matic replay of a B&W SD monitor tap.

 

I think Kubrick would have used whatever format allowed him to work in his own way. If digital offered him the quality and flexibility he desired, I'm sure he would have adopted it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I think we should have ONE topic for this and get it pinned by the admin, like "The Great Film vs. Digital Debate". Then whenever someone starts up something they get moved there before it completely derails the thread. People who care about this issue tend to be passionate and will not be able to resist arguing.

 

We are on page 8 of this and none of it has anything to do with Luke Skywalker being out of focus in a movie shot on film.

 

Edit: Now page 9.

Edited by Samuel Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I think we should have ONE topic for this and get it pinned by the admin, like "The Great Film vs. Digital Debate". Then whenever someone starts up something they get moved there before it completely derails the thread. People who care about this issue tend to be passionate and will not be able to resist arguing.

 

We are on page 8 of this and none of it has anything to do with Luke Skywalker being out of focus in a movie shot on film.

 

Edit: Now page 9.

 

We had one back in 2007! :D :D :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think that is how it took on a digital vs film edge... Someone mentioned that if it had been shot digitally, maybe focus peaking would have prevent the out of focus shot - or something like that. How it morphed where it did, I have no time to go back and check. The film vs digital thing doesn't need a thread, because its no longer relevant. I'm not arguing film vs digital, I'm simply saying that story and talent is more important than either one.

 

As for the out of focus shot - I mean, we can nitpick it all day long. The focus doesn't look that bad, and honestly it only looks as bad as it does because we are looking at in still form. No filmmaker is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sorry to bring this up Tyler but Scorsese is shooting on digital nowadays.. he started with the night sequences on Silence and he is doing it now all the way on The Irishman.

He had no choice but to shoot digital on Hugo. He also had no choice but to shoot a few of the very dark, fire-lit night scenes on digital in Silence.

 

The Irishmen is 100% film BTW. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302006/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

 

I suppose that he is not a real filmmaker anymore based on your description?

He fits the description nearly perfectly.

 

When you need to make a VFX heavy "technology" (3D) movie, you have NO CHOICE but to shoot digitally.

 

When you make a standard 2D dialog affair, there is NO REASON to shoot digitally.

 

He sure gives two shits about his movies and knows the audience he is making the movies for, as well as Scorsese or Allen do.

Umm... if your audience is watching your movie online, there are less reasons to be shooting on film.

 

My point on bringing this up is that if you really have a story to tell you will make it happen regardless the acquisition and distribution format because what you will care about is the fact that youre going to be able to tell the story that you want to tell and it will be seen by the world.

You're right, this is why I classified "filmmaker" as a writer, producer, director. People who take that next step need a "qualification" don't they? I would say "real" is a good qualification as for the last 100 years the ONLY qualification necessary was that your movie be on film for distribution. People who continue that tradition, need to get more then a hand shake in my book.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No filmmaker is perfect.

Wondering if the focus puller got fired. It goes back to Phil's point which is, at 200 million dollars, it'd better be in focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kubrick would have used whatever format allowed him to work in his own way. If digital offered him the quality and flexibility he desired, I'm sure he would have adopted it

Well, Digital doesn't at this moment in time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, this is why I classified "filmmaker" as a writer, producer, director. People who take that next step need a "qualification" don't they? I would say "real" is a good qualification as for the last 100 years the ONLY qualification necessary was that your movie be on film for distribution. People who continue that tradition, need to get more then a hand shake in my book.

I can't figure out if you're using the word 'real' to denote a purely semantic definition, ie. A filmmaker must use film to fit the narrow definition, or if you're using it as judgement of quality, ie. Chris Nolan is a better filmmaker because he uses film.

 

If it's a semantic definition, then I can kind of see what you're saying, although there is another argument that says that while 'Film' is clearly defined, 'A Film' is a broader term which could easily include digitally originated material.

 

But, if it's a qualitative judgement, I really fail to see how shooting film makes your a better filmmaker. You could certainly propose that in order to be a 'Real' DP you must shoot film, as the choice of format has a direct effect on the nature of a DPs work, but the same cannot be said for a writer, producer & director. The only way that I can see that a director is affected by shooting film is that they may not be able to afford to do as many takes as they would like, but that is a budgetary issue, not intrinsic to film itself. Other than that, I fail to see how the job of the filmmaker is any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm simply saying that story and talent is more important than either one.

I agree, story is #1. Unfortunately, #2 is acting and #3 is production design.

 

Those second two things benefit from a smoother, softer and more noisy image. If you knew what filmmakers got away with during the film days and today, they're forced to spend so much more time on details as a consequence, it's pretty amazing.

 

One of the reasons people shoot film is for the beautiful SMOOTH skin tones. It's very hard to get that on ANY digital camera, especially lower-end ones.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't figure out if you're using the word 'real' to denote a purely semantic definition, ie. A filmmaker must use film to fit the narrow definition, or if you're using it as judgement of quality, ie. Chris Nolan is a better filmmaker because he uses film.

It's not a judgement on anything. It's a quantification of using historically proper workflow and equipment for the audience. Again, if your production is to be seen online, then who cares.

 

Tthe VAST majority of movies are NOT made by "filmmakers", just hired guns under contract to churn out money making fodder.

 

If it's a semantic definition, then I can kind of see what you're saying, although there is another argument that says that while 'Film' is clearly defined, 'A Film' is a broader term which could easily include digitally originated material.

A "film" can be pretty much anything; short form, long form, documentary, narrative, pretty much anything with a story.

 

A "movie" is generally something feature length.

 

I personally try not to use the word "film" for anything outside of discussing products shot on celluloid, but that's just me.

 

I really fail to see how shooting film makes your a better filmmaker. You could certainly propose that in order to be a 'Real' DP you must shoot film, as the choice of format has a direct effect on the nature of a DPs work, but the same cannot be said for a writer, producer & director. The only way that I can see that a director is affected by shooting film is that they may not be able to afford to do as many takes as they would like, but that is a budgetary issue, not intrinsic to film itself. Other than that, I fail to see how the job of the filmmaker is any different.

I do think shooting on film makes people better filmmakers, especially directors. Outside of time, there are zero restrictions on shooting digitally. If you want a 20 minute take with zero breaks, let the camera run. Your actors don't need to know anything because you can always shoot the scene 200 times, it just costs labor time. Heck don't wanna setup lights? Just throw a practical in the scene, kick the gain all the way up and "clean it up" in post. You can see exactly what you've got on a monitor, so there goes knowing anything about lighting or color balance. You can just tweak the image until it's perfect and shoot.

 

I really dislike this modern digital world we're forced to work in today. Yes, I do like the fact I can edit with an NLE system, but it wouldn't kill me to edit on film. Yes, I like the fact, I have a little digital camera I can take everywhere that does a good job for making youtube videos. Then again, there is a certain talent to shooting those same scenes with a bolex, editing on film and making a 16mm print for people to see your movie.

 

Again, when you democratize anything, the essence of what it was prior, goes away. As a practitioner of filmmaking and the medium of motion picture film, I feel saddened by the content we have available at our finger tips. No cost = tremendous waste and that's what 90% of the content available to us is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think shooting on film makes people better filmmakers, especially directors. Outside of time, there are zero restrictions on shooting digitally. If you want a 20 minute take with zero breaks, let the camera run. Your actors don't need to know anything because you can always shoot the scene 200 times

These bad habits are not intrinsic to shooting digitally. Directors could quite easily restrict themselves to fewer, shorter takes. You may be right in that the discipline of shooting film makes one a better filmmaker, but the important word in that sentence is 'discipline' not 'film'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering if the focus puller got fired. It goes back to Phil's point which is, at 200 million dollars, it'd better be in focus.

 

No matter how much the movie cost, it's still one guy pulling that focus shot; and one guy is capable of making a small error every once in a while. I might regret saying this, but its probably film that caused this to be released into theaters out of focus. Digitally shot, someone should have seen it was out of focus and ordered a re-take. With film, you can't be certain until the dailies are back - and probably too late to do anything about. Is that an excuse? No - but it certainly shows one way in which digital can help out filmmakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think shooting on film makes people better filmmakers, especially directors. Outside of time, there are zero restrictions on shooting digitally. If you want a 20 minute take with zero breaks, let the camera run. Your actors don't need to know anything because you can always shoot the scene 200 times, it just costs labor time. Heck don't wanna setup lights? Just throw a practical in the scene, kick the gain all the way up and "clean it up" in post. You can see exactly what you've got on a monitor, so there goes knowing anything about lighting or color balance. You can just tweak the image until it's perfect and shoot.

 

Yeah, that is a bad AD who allows a director to film something 200 times. A schedule is a schedule, period - and regardless of format. You act as if the only cost of this is 'extra labor', which is absurd. Taking longer to film than allowed causes budgets to go up in every department, not just crew. You need your locations for longer, you need to add shooting days which mean extra equipment rental days, etc.

 

And the other things to mention, like easier setups - I fail to see how that is a bad thing? That is a budget saver. It allows you to spend more time getting the shot, save money on lighting, etc. Of all the complaints I have heard about digital filmmaking, I don't think I have ever heard the easier setups being one.

Edited by Landon D. Parks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might regret saying this, but its probably film that caused this to be released into theaters out of focus. Digitally shot, someone should have seen it was out of focus and ordered a re-take. With film, you can't be certain until the dailies are back - and probably too late to do anything about.

But that was how it was before video assist. It's not likely that this STAR WARS movie was filmed without the latest in digital video assist. Granted that it is hard to pull critical focus off a video assist, but you should be able to tell if it is that far off.

 

Of course, there is always the unmentionable: what if Mark Hamill didn't hit his mark (no pun intended) as expected? This splits the blame, I'd think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably just as likely as the focus puller being bad at his job. I don't see many out of focus shots in that movie, so it leads me to think it was a mistake on someones part - be it Mark for not hitting the marks or the focus puller missing a crucial tight focus shot, or hell - maybe an error in placing the mark in the first place. Could be anything really.

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.



  • Ritter Battery



    Rig Wheels Passport



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Abel Cine



    Wooden Camera



    Just Cinema Gear



    Glidecam



    Tai Audio



    Serious Gear



    FJS International



    Visual Products



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    G-Force Grips



    Paralinx LLC



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    CineLab



    Metropolis Post


×
×
  • Create New...