Tom Sigel talks Genesis

[Filip Plesha]

The question is of course do we really want images/films to look like reality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well many imagemakers don't, but that is unavoidable, as technology progresess, it gets closer to reality. this is true for both chemical and electronic imaging.

In future we will have to modify our images to make them look different from reality.

 

But the plus of that is if your images look like reality, you can make them look like ANYTHING.

 

Images that look like reality only give you more choice, they don't take anything away from you, you can always degrade them or twist them and make them look like something else.

 

Some things are hard to emulate, some things are even impossible to emulate today, but by the time electronic imaging looks like reality, we will be able to emulate any past technology.

[Filip Plesha]

Hi,

 

Exactly, thats what 50i and 60i video is all about!

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interlaced video and progressive video get image data from the same kind of sensors, so they both look the same when you freeze the frame. One is higher in resolution and sharper than the other, but that does not define any particular look.

 

No matter how good the image technology gets, you can always run it at 24fps to get the film motion.

[Stephen Williams]

Interlaced video and progressive video get image data from the same kind of sensors, so they both look the same when you freeze the frame. One is higher in resolution and sharper than the other, but that does not define any particular look.

 

No matter how good the image technology gets, you can always run it at 24fps to get the film motion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi,

 

IMHO I don't agree that progressive and interlaced video look the same. 2 Interlaced fileds of any movement do not look the same as a progressive frame.

 

IMHO film motion at 24FPS looks different from electronic capture at 24 FPS

 

Stephen

[David Mullen ASC]

IMHO film motion at 24FPS looks different from electronic capture at 24 FPS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But not dramatically so -- you've got the same number of motion samples with the same exposure time per frame (if you use a 1/48th shutter) so the only differences will be subtle due to contrast, depth of field, and the "crispness" of an electronic shutter.

 

Certainly it looks much closer to 24 fps film than something shot at 60i with no shutter!

[Filip Plesha]

Hi,

 

IMHO I don't agree that progressive and interlaced video look the same. 2 Interlaced fileds of any movement do not look the same as a progressive frame.

 

IMHO film motion at 24FPS looks different from electronic capture at 24 FPS

 

Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

don't you read the whole posts?

I said when you freeze the frame.

[Stephen Williams]

don't you read the whole posts?

I said when you freeze the frame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

Yes I did read your whole post, thats why I replied. A frozen frame of video is made up of 2 Fields.

Thats why I said "2 Interlaced fileds of any movement do not look the same as a progressive frame."

 

Stephen

[Filip Plesha]

It gives fuzz, but it doesn't change the "look" (tonality)

[Greg Gross]

Hello mmost,

 

I just wanted to post and tell you how much I've enjoyed your posts here.

80,000 feet of film shot for 4000 feet to be shown,wow!!! I always read M.

David Mullen's posts and consider them to be a source of integrity and au-

thority. I will now add you to my list of sources with integrity. 25 years of

tv drama, my hat is off to you! I have 3 years as an independent filmmaker.

I'm writer,producer,director,cinematographer all in one. Have been a pro-

fessional photographer for many years and also a medical professional. I

owe you an apology as a long time ago I clashed with you on the forum. It

was one of those days when I thought I knew everything. In reality you were

the master and I was the aspiring idiot. I did not know who you were at the

time. Sometimes I think the downside of not ending post with your name,is

that at times we miss a source of integrity,authority. However I respect your

privacy sir. Thank you so much for your wonderful posts here. I'm one of

those guys paying out of my own pocket to be instructed by a cinematograp-

her/instructor. He comes from Philadelphia 3 days a week to teach me and 2

other professional photographers the art of cinematography. We have about

18 months left to complete this private course. Believe me he does not talk

about the things you talked about in your posts. Once again, thanks for your

very informing posts.

 

Greg Gross

[Michael Most]

In reality you were the master .....

 

Hardly a master, but I'm glad you've found some of the posts informative.

 

One thing David Mullen and I have in common (besides being friends) is that we both like to help separate assumption from reality. With the rise of "do it yourself" approaches to a lot of things, and the availability of much less costly gear that can produce remarkably good results, many here and elsewhere make assumptions about how the industry actually operates that are very inaccurate to say the least. We're both here (as are others) to try and impart some of what we have learned and continue to learn. Sometimes that requires correcting misconceptions, sometimes it is just discussing experiences we have had. Either way, it's all meant to inform.

[Tenolian Bell]

It does seem however there has been for the last five years a search for that one killer aspect of digital that can be taught as better than film.

 

HD was not introduced as a companion to film, but as its successor.

 

Since that time many of its advocates have attempted to come up with a logic for why the industry should completely switch to it. Up to this point most reasons have been proven flat wrong or mild advantages to film.

 

It seems the latest proponent gimmick of how HD will replace film is through 3D capture and projection. That is so 1950's.

 

Film and HD both have advantages and disadvantages. We are able to choose between either to fit our needs. Which is a good place to be.

 

But at this point there is no one real compelling aspect of HD that makes it better or more useful than film. Even though its proponents are working hard to find it.

 

The one place I do see HD's advantages is in television. I think with the Genesis, Viper, and D20 we can begin to number the days that 35mm will be used so widely in television.

 

Also with improvements in Super 16 film stock as well as improvements in film scanning. 35mm for television is not as necessary as it has been.

 

From a pure cinema standpoint. I have not seen many HD films on the big screen that have impressed me into thinking of HD as a pure cinema format. I feel 35mm still remains king in that aspect.

[David Mullen ASC]

HD goes back thirty years so it was not thought of as a replacement to film, but a replacement to NTSC.

 

What you are talking about was the intro of 24P HD with the Sony F900, which some promoted as a replacement to 35mm.

 

But the truth is that I don't really fault Sony for having such unrealistically high expectations for their product; you can't really fault the parents for thinking their child is a genius afterall -- they can't be expected to be objective.

 

It's some of the users out there who were to blame more for believing and passing along any hype about the product.

 

My reaction when I saw the original Panavision demo in 2000 of the F900 was amazement that digital had seem to jump so far in quality and in being more film-like. This was just after I had seen some demos of standard-def interlaced-scan material transferred to film. I was more of a skeptic until then, but the F900 pointed the way to the future, that eventually digital technology would achieve parity with 35mm. Until then, I didn't really believe it would happen. Combine that with the explosion of digital still cameras, and the improvements in quality over the past five years, and now in 2005, it's more clear than ever where the trends are going.

 

But to be truthful and objective, the cameras today that are closest to the quality of 35mm are the most expensive and least practical to use. The other thing that is becoming clear is that digital images simply have a different texture to them, and as new technology begins to match film better for resolution, color, and exposure latitude, I think we'll find that it still looks different than film but that we'll start to get used to that. Truth is that there will be a halfway meeting place, just as with digital projection technology: it will get close to 35mm and we'll get used to the cleaner digital look. Someday we'll have practical 4K or 6K movie cameras, but even though it might then be possible to transfer them to camera negative stock or use other tricks to add film grain, many people might opt out of that and let the digital images be what they are, have their own aesthetic.

[Tenolian Bell]

From a pure cinema standpoint. I have not seen many HD films on the big screen that have impressed me into thinking of HD as a pure cinema format. I feel 35mm still remains king in that aspect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just saw on CML one of the members got to meet with Sigel and has seen tests from Superman.

 

From what he says Sigel's lighting flat and relying more on post color grading. Therefore there had to be extensive set up with the colorist for dailies. Sounds as though the primary look of the film will be mostly in post and very little in camera.

 

Another interesting statement.

 

"Tom said the grade and treatment of Superman was heading towards a Comic book look

that probably "wasn't going to be the best advertisement for Panavision

or Genesis".

 

I have to say it takes more artistry to create the look of "Man On Fire" than to play it safe and grade the entire look in a post suite.

[David Mullen ASC]

I have to say it takes more artistry to create the look of "Man On Fire" than to play it safe and grade the entire look in a post suite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All that matters is the end result. Whether a DP's tools are filters, or lights, or also post techniques, doesn't matter if he's in control of the look that's finally created.

 

Afterall, a skip-bleach print is a pretty dramatic effect and one might have to shoot the original negative on the flatter side to compensate -- does that mean the DP doing that was less artistic than the one who put the contrast into the original? And why is a photochemical lab technique more artistic than a digital post one?

 

Any decent DP considers the shooting and the post as all part of his job in creating the image. The artistry doesn't just lie in what gets recorded onto the negative (which afterall is a low-contrast original that needs to be converted into a positive image.) Ansel Adams said that the negative was the score and the print was the performance, so why does the artistry that goes into the negative the only thing that matters.

 

If Tom Siegel has determined a way of shooting that gets him where he needs to be in post to end up with final image he wants, I don't see what's so wrong with that. Just seems like smart thinking. Remember that Bruno Dubonnel shot "Amelie" in flatter lighting, some on the lower-contrast 5277, because he felt that it worked better for the D.I. process -- which is just another case of thinking of the shooting and the post as one artistic effort combined.

 

I'm planning on warming up my movie in the print timing rather than use a Coral filter -- does that mean I'm being less artistic?

 

And don't forget that "Man on Fire" ended up doing a D.I. so the look wasn't entirely created in-camera...

 

The Genesis records a rather flat log color space image; that's not a fault of the system nor the DP just as the fact that a camera negative is also a low-contrast element in the chain leading to the final print. There's no real reason to add the contrast to the original Genesis recording.

[Tenolian Bell]

All that matters is the end result. Whether a DP's tools are filters, or lights, or also post techniques, doesn't matter if he's in control of the look that's finally created.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't see it.

 

Many of the in camera photochemical techniques you actually have to know what you are doing.

 

Pushing, flashing, cross processing, bleach bypass all take a combination of knowledge, skill and practice.

 

It goes back to one of the touted advantages of shooting HD. With film you cannot see what you are doing to get immediate feedback whether it is right on not.

 

With these extreme looks there is less room for error between the right or wrong choices.

 

The electronic realm is far different. I do not consider that as much of a challenge. You have much more room for error, and much more room to clean up mistakes.

 

In the photochemical world the DP is bound more by the laws physical light and chemistry in a way that he/she is not in the electronic world.

 

Taking a flat uncompressed HD image into millions of dollars of post with colorists, rotoscopers, etc, you can make it look like anything. I just cannot see that as being the artistry of the DP.

 

I'm not taking anything away from Sigel. But at the same time I would not want the majority of the look of the film being dependent on post.

 

In the case of Amelie. Lots of tests were shot and unusual alterations were made in production design, wardrobe and make up to accommodate the look that was created. Even though the lighting in the photography was flatter, photographic choices were made in the physical space that created the color and mood of the image, which was then enhanced using digital post.

 

Man On Fire from what I understand at least 80% of the look at that film was done in camera. Pushing, shutter ramping, light flares, cross processing, hand cranking. The DI was necessary because they were shooting at times with five cameras. The DI was used to smooth out the look for consistency.

[Guest Kai.w]

I don't see it.

 

Many of the in camera photochemical techniques you actually have to know what you are doing.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats craftsmanship not artistry.

 

Taking a flat uncompressed HD image into millions of dollars of post with colorists, rotoscopers, etc, you can make it look like anything. I just cannot see that as being the artistry of the DP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why not? You said the one thing would be easier to do than the other... again thats craftsmanship not artistry.

If he has the artistic vision and he knows how to achieve it... whats the fundamental difference between sitting beside the colorist and telling him what he wants to achieve or giving instructions to the gaffer on set...?

 

-k

[Keith Mottram]

boohoo, the DI it takes away my talent, boohoo, when are people going to get over this? DP's are paid to shoot a film and create the base image for manipulation- be that photochemical, optical or digital. thats it, always has been, always will be. If you want to keep creative control over your shots then change profession, become a still photographer or become a director. but quit moaning about post and DIs, its friggin boring.

 

keith

[Tenolian Bell]

thats craftsmanship not artistry.

 

Are they not one in the same?

 

When a sculptor takes a block of wood, a chunk of clay, or a slap of bronze and molds it into a form. Is that not craftsmanship and art?

 

When an architect designs a structure that may take on a bold or unusual form but to be made of materials that resist gravity and wind, is that not craftsmanship and art?

 

whats the fundamental difference between sitting beside the colorist and telling him what he wants to achieve or giving instructions to the gaffer on set...?

 

Ansel Adams was mentioned earlier in this thread. From my study what made Ansel Adams unique and great for what he was able to accomplish was because of his mastery within limitations.

 

The film stock he was shooting with was far slower than what we have today and his print paper had far far less latitude than what we have today. He was able to produce a wide range of contrast with this slow film stock and latitude deficient paper. This was something that few people could do. This ability shows him as a master of his craft and of his art.

 

If currently Ansel was able to take a picture of Yosemite park. Take that photo into photoshop and achieve the same look. Something that at this point many people can do, and something practically anybody can learn to do. Would that still show him as a master of his craft and of his art?

 

DP's are paid to shoot a film and create the base image for manipulation- be that photochemical, optical or digital. thats it, always has been, always will be.

 

That is true in some ways and not true in other ways. Historically the DP has been the author of the image.

 

Its true the image on negative is generally only half complete and receives more manipulation in post whether it be photochemical or digital.

 

Also generally what has been the case is the DP builds much of the look into the negative during production and finishes or polishes that look in post. The problem I have with this newer system is essentially going into post with no look built into the negative or raw digital file. The entire look being created in post.

 

That has not been the job of the DP and in the future threatens to usurp the position of DP has the author of the image.

 

 

boohoo, the DI it takes away my talent, boohoo, when are people going to get over this?

 

Nice rebuttal, I'm glad we can all play above or below a fourth grade education.

 

I've heard from several DP's who have felt the sting of having their ideas taken over in the DI. Or at the very least being at odds with colorist who were not on set and did not understand what was originally planned.

 

The most extreme story I've heard so far was with Robert Richardson and Quentin Tarantino. After the color correction was done, Tarantino went back into the DI and recolored the film without Richardson.

 

Also from Kees Van Oostrum who shot Gods and Generals. On that film the dailies that went into editing were timed totally wrong. After looking at those imgaes for months in editing the editor and director fell in love with that look.

 

The DP went into the DI and timed it the way he and the director had agreed and the way he shot it to originally look. During the final edit the editor did not like the look and persuaded the director to change it back to the way they had been looking at it. And that is the way it was done.

[John Allardice]

Are they not one in the same?

 

 

The most extreme story I've heard so far was with Robert Richardson and Quentin Tarantino.  After the color correction was done, Tarantino went back into the DI and recolored the film without Richardson.

 

Also from Kees Van Oostrum who shot Gods and Generals. On that film the dailies that went into editing were timed totally wrong. After looking at those imgaes for months in editing the editor and director fell in love with that look.

 

The DP went into the DI and timed it the way he and the director had agreed and the way he shot it to originally look. During the final edit the editor did not like the look and persuaded the director to change it back to the way they had been looking at it. And that is the way it was done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

and y'know what? Thats the directors perogative. Like it or not, at the end of the day, we work for them.

 

John Allardice

Digital Domain

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, I admire anyone who masters a difficult process -- 3-strip Technicolor was a lot more difficult to shoot than modern color negative, and was only 3 ASA when it started out -- does that mean that the photography of all 3-strip Technicolor films are more artistic than all modern color negative films? Why is the artistry of a movie tied into how difficult it was to achieve technically? Is slow film stock more artistic than fast film stock? Was Kubrick being unartistic when he shot those candlelight scenes in "Barry Lyndon" with real candles rather than lighting the scene artificially to look like it was lit with just candles?

 

If that logic were true, then the most complicated lighting set-ups would be the most artistic, but we know that the inverse is often true: that the best lighting is the simplest. So is a DP being more artistic when he takes more time and effort to light a shot, versus, let's say, capturing natural light? Or is he just expressing a greater technical mastery?

 

Don't confuse the complexity and difficulty of a technique with its artistic value. If that were true, then oil painting would be more artistic than ink drawing.

 

I mean, this notion that electronic tools are less artistic than photochemical tools because they are easier is no different than those people in the 19th Century who said that photography was not a true art form because it captured reality so easily. It's the artist who makes something art, not the tools. The people who said photography could not be artistic look foolish today, and decades from now, people who say that digital technology can't be used to create art will also look foolish.

 

What matters is if the cinematography reflects an artistic vision.

[Tenolian Bell]

If Ansel Adams were today an unknown photographer.

 

Who created the exact same images using Photoshop.

 

Would his name be remembered through history as a master of his art

and craft as a great photographer?