Tom Sigel talks Genesis

[Michael Most]

Being a post supe at Lorimar in the mid 80s, you must have been right in the thick of THE LAST STARFIGHTER- no wonder you are so optimistic about the new technology! :)

 

I was in the television post production department, and had absolutely nothing to do with Last Starfighter or any of the feature releases Lorimar did at the time. My "optimism," such as it is, is no different than it's been since I got into this business. New tools bring new possibilities, if you keep you eyes and mind open, and you don't limit your thinking to doing things the traditional way simply because it's always been done that way.

 

I just hope one day HD can be used to flagship a film of some artistic merit, because with the heavily publicised schlock it's so far being used to churn out, is it any wonder few are warming to it?

 

Personally, I'm looking forward to Miami Vice. But that's just me. Having said that, I do believe that Sin City had quite a bit of artistic merit, and enjoyed it very much as a movie, not just a visual exercise.

[Michael Most]

When moviemakers talk about 65mm, and say that digital is the only way to get something close to that though, I fiind that laughable.

 

What Singer said was that it could be blown up to Imax and projected on a large wall. And he's absolutely right. Digitally generated imagery blows up far cleaner than 35mm film original, in part because of the lack of any grain in the original image. If you don't believe this, then you haven't participated in various tests that have proven this out, like I have.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

You would need to point out to me any instance of the people involved in "Superman Returns" claiming that digital technology lets them "shoot faster." What they have said is that after shooting and viewing various tests, they preferred certain characteristics of the Genesis produced images. Based on that, clearly their belief is that it **is** contributing to the picture being better technically and artistically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know that they haven't claimed that.

 

I did say that in my opinion the only advantage about shooting this kind of film with a camera like the Genesis would be that they could shoot faster. With the proper care, an anamorphic film should look better but lighting for those lenses and slow film stock -the way Superman - The Movie was shot- is more time consuming. And forget about 65mm, as it would require even more time and light since it uses longer lenses to cover the same field of view, thus requiring deeper stops to achive the same focus.

 

I'm not criticizing Singer & Sigel for choosing the Genesis, I criticizing them for choosing a format that will bring less quality to the big screen. I haven't seen the Genesis in action yet, that's true, but looking into its technical data it's a fact that it won't look as good as a well shot film stock. But it's my two cents, just as Singer & Sigel say the Genesis looks sharper, cleaner and grain free or even George Lucas praised the F-900 over 35mm photography. I have seen a few films shot with the later and they didn't come close to film in any way.

 

I still think that new technology should be applied to achieve what the "old" can't achieve. Digital is great for low-budget films or certain shooting conditions such as low light, but IMHO it's not ready yet for high-budget studio films cause film still looks better.

Edited July 18, 2005 by Ignacio Aguilar

[Michael Most]

I haven't seen the Genesis in action yet, that's true, but looking into its technical data it's a fact that it won't look as good as a well shot film stock.

 

I wouldn't say that. I would say that the technical data shows that certain technical characteristics will be different. That's an objective statement. Saying "it won't look as good" is a subjective statement, a personal opinion. It's not based on fact. There are many issues that separate the "final look" of film origination vs. digital origination, and resolution is only one of them - and it's not the sole determinant. They saw something on the screen during their tests that they felt represented the look they were after, and that's why they chose it. And if that's the case, it **will** look "better," at least as far as the filmmakers are concerned, because it represents their creative intent better. Technical data is only that, technical data. Film resolution is effectively reduced when diffusion is used, but nobody claims that using diffusion makes a picture look worse, only creatively different. This is effectively the same thing.

 

I still think that new technology should be applied to achieve what the "old" can't achieve. Digital is great for low-budget films or certain shooting conditions such as low light, but IMHO it's not ready yet for high-budget studio films cause film still looks better.

 

The new technology is letting them shoot a picture that has 1500+ visual effects shots without having to scan any images, thus using the original imagery without any loss and without having to deal with grain for any of the roto or matte work. I'd say that's definitely achieving something something that the "old" technology can't. As for it "not being ready," people with more experience and knowledge in that area than you or me are putting up a lot of money to do it because that experience and knowledge is telling them otherwise. Besides, you have already said that you haven't actually seen any imagery from the Genesis. How can you make these statements without having any basis for comparison? That's like saying don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind.

[K Borowski]

Filip: send me two prints, and I'd be happy to tell you which is which. EVERYTHING looks equally bad on the monitor I'm on, an 11-year-old, 10 inch monitor that only does 256 colors. Only one of the two pictures loads completely on this Mac anyway, and that took a lot of patience on my part. 66MHz just can't handle both at the same time ;-) The best way to do a fair test of film vs. digital though, all kidding aside, is to print each on the media that is best suited to the origination format. With digital that would probably be some sort of high-res monitor or whatever sort of inkjet or dyesub printer claims to give you the best photos at the moment. With film, that would be a traditional photo-optical enlargement onto RA-4 paper. Scanning a frame of film onto a computer, manipulating it, and then asking me to compare two jpegs, one coming from a slide or negative is a very biased comparison. I think this sort of bias is just as bad as comparing Genesis footage projected on DLP to a 2- or 4K scan of film projected also by DLP. The best film gives you is going to come from a film print IMHO. As for slide film, which many still photogs swear by, I find its latitude as limiting as I find digital's. I like shooting negative when I can afford to make prints when I shoot 16mm, and I always make prints from stills. Scanned slides are even more difficult to tell apart from digital-originated images.

 

~Karl

[Filip Plesha]

:D oh, come on. The sort of difference that you are talking about all the time (and which I do recognize most of the time), is easily seeable in any web jpg file, or on an old TV screeen. I know what you are talking about, and with some cameras you can see it from an airplane.

 

This is a high-quality jpg (lower compression), 24-bit, printing quality.

If the pictures were higher in resolution, you could easily feed them into a laser recorder and make prints.

 

If you see difference between any film and digital pictures on your computer, you'd see in this case.

 

Or are you saying you can never tell between film and digital on your own computer?

 

 

with years, you can loose contrast to your monitor, and sharpness can be lower than with new monitors. But these things do not affect film look in any way.

Low contrast film scan looks like low contrast film scan, high contrast film scan looks like high contrast film scan.

 

Now give me a honest opinion. which of the images has those cheap digital tones?

Surely you must have a first impression.

[K Borowski]

Like I said, I can only get one of them to load. The second loads half-way and then gives me the "broken frame" icon. I am on a computer with an 8" screen and a 14.4kbps modem. Even TEXT gives it trouble :-) I'll look at it at work tomorrow and give you my final answer with a decent LCD monitor and DSL internet connection. Again, you're you're not doing a fair test by scanning a film-originated picture onto a computer. Was it from the negative, or scanned? Was it slide or negative? Was it manipulated? All of these factors can unfairly bias my perception of film on a good monitor, let alone this one.

[Filip Plesha]

ok, you go on, at take a look wherever you like..

 

and as for comparison itself. If it were so easy to manipulate digital images to make comparison unfair, then why does digital pose a problem at all? You could just tweak a thing or two and make ti look like film.

the difference you are talking about is untweakable

 

The film frame is scanned from negative (it's negative film), digital is from a tiff file.

 

 

 

Of course it had to be manipulated, you can't view unmanipulated negative images. You have to remove masking, invert and increase contrast, clip some shadow and highlights detail etc.

 

But again, any manipulation of basic image properties such as contrast should not affect the "film look", otherwise nobody would ever complain about the look of digital (they could just tweak it in photoshop in 5 minutes)

 

 

take your time.

 

p.s. If the images were any larger, you would be able to analise film grain or lack of it. this way you can take a look at tonality which is unchanged from the original size, and would be the same in prints too.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Besides, you have already said that you haven't actually seen any imagery from the Genesis. How can you make these statements without having any basis for comparison? That's like saying don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind.

 

I think that I have said a million times that I'm just GUESSING based on what I have read about the camera and on my previous experience with digital moviemaking. You don't even know either why they ended up choosing the Genesis over film. You're just guessing about that, too. We only know that they shot some tests on film and finally they decided to go "on the opposite direction" with digital. So please, don't tell me what I should state or not.

 

This is an open forum, isn't it? So let me express my OPINIONS freely as long as I don't hurt anybody.

 

I'm not going to argue anymore with you or anyone about this subject, but I want to add some comments by Allen Daviau -who shot the Genesis vs. Film test and is a 5 time academy award nominee- about the new Panavision camera: click to read the article.

[Michael Most]

I'm not going to argue anymore with you or anyone about this subject, but I want to add some comments by Allen Daviau -who shot the Genesis vs. Film test and is a 5 time academy award nominee- about the new Panavision camera:

 

I don't see any of this as an argument, I see it as a discussion.

 

As for the article, I've talked to Daviau about these things, and basically what he's saying is not very different from what I'm saying. It may not capture exactly what film does, but my point is that it doesn't matter. Allen was shooting tests which were intended to compare the two directly. Singer and Sigel are shooting a particular project for which they tested various capture methods and settled on the one they happened to think gave the most appropriate look to the project, given what their vision was. They don't really care whether it looks exactly the same as it would have on film, because the look they got on film wasn't the one they wanted. This isn't a guess, it's the fact of the matter, given what they're doing. On a budget of more than $120 million, believe me, they could have shot whatever they wanted.

[Michael Most]

I think this sort of bias is just as bad as comparing Genesis footage projected on DLP to a 2- or 4K scan of film projected also by DLP.  The best film gives you is going to come from a film print IMHO. 

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but the truth is that you're now seeing very few pictures that are done solely on film. Anything that is finished via a digital intermediate is not pure film anymore. Under these circumstances, the digital projection should theoretically be a "better" way of looking at these pictures. I'm not saying it is or it isn't, I'm saying that the world has become very, very blurry, and the momentum has clearly swung away from film finishing towards digital finishing, even for film originated projects. It's rather telling when a picture receives more attention for NOT doing a DI (i.e., Batman Begins) than for doing one.

[Keith Mottram]

Dont mean to be controversial here, but Michael is right in every aspect of this thread.

 

1) you cannot judge the merrits of shooting with the Genesis, by two very esteemed industry professionals (who are trusted with $120 m+), based on some old millimeter articles and gossip.

 

2) Film projection is rubbish regardless of aquisition medium (unless you like wiggly pictures, scratches and indifferent quality).

 

3) Sorry to burst your bubble, but the aquisition medium must suit the project and as a world class cinematographer Sigel chose the Genesis. That's it. Full stop. No conspiracy.

 

4) The fact that this film is a sequel of sorts to the original Superman does not mean that it should look like a period film. However much you might admire the original Superman that is what it looks like.

 

5) Why did Panavision name their camera after a really bad band? I mean take these lyrics:

 

"She seems to have an invisible touch yeah,

She reaches in, and grabs right hold of your heart"

 

What the blazes is that all about?

 

Keith

[Filip Plesha]

I don't see scratches in the first week or two. There are some, but no more than a late 90's DVD transfer. Exept for the end of reels, but that's like a few seconds only.

There are ocasional horisontal lines on one frame maybe once or twice in the film (splices?)

I always sit in the 5th row, and it is hard to see grain these days too.

 

Some theaters have screens that are not reflective enough, so thecontrast is low, and shadows are contaminated. But that has nothing to do with film projection. If you put a video projector there it would have the same problems.

 

 

There is one thing though, when I was watching episode 3, the film broke or at least I think it did. The electricity was there, but the screen was blank and you could hear the sound of the projector working. Then they fixed it and the picture and sound came back.

But before that, never in my life have I experienced such a problem in cinema.

 

I think there are a lot of lousy operators out there that treat film really bad, and then a lot of people blame film technology for it.

 

If you see scratched prints, then find another cinema where they deal with more care.

[Guest Kai.w]

I always sit in the 5th row, and it is hard to see grain these days too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I sort of agree but in the rare occasions when there really(!) is no grain (digital image digitally projected) I still find it makes a huge difference.

 

-k

[Filip Plesha]

you have to has some kind of image structure behind all these images, it can be pixels, or it can be grain, but it can't be a fractal image, it is a movie after all.

 

So, no matter what the format is, there is a point where you can see thios structure (if you sit too close). Personally, I find grain to be more natural than pixelization, and furthermore, grain is a part of 20th century culture and has often been put on purpuse. And I've never seen anyone put pixelization on purpuse, other than to hide someones face.

 

 

And speaking of digital image: they don't really have a smooth texture. Sure, they don't have the grain of negative film, but their noise is no less visible than grain of reversal film (which is softer than grain of negative)

[Filip Plesha]

here is an example of best digital technology pushed to the limit:

 

this is from the best of the best Kodak 22Mp CCD sensors, from Imacon Mf back, which works on 50% power and thus has even less noise than this sensor is supose to have.

this is the sensor at the most demanding kind of image capture: soft shadows

It was caputred at 400ISO. The result is similar to 400ISO film.

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see it has a structure similar to film grain.

 

this example is considered excelent for photography because you wouldn't get better results with MF film anyway (regarding noise/grain).

 

but my point is that digital is not all that cleaner from film, because some of the film grain IS noise (not all of course, film grain is also image structure itself, but the larger grains ARE noise)

 

So if film can't get rid of noise in all these years, digital will get rid of it even harder because electricity is in question. It is hot, and affected by all kinds of influences like radiation. Basically every wire is an antenna picking up noise from somewhere.

 

 

I think digital noise should be accepted as a part of image, just like film grain is a part of film image, becuase in reality, digital images are not all that cleaner unless you compare them to something like 16mm film.

 

 

edit: this is a crop of course from 4Kx5K original

Edited July 18, 2005 by Filip Plesha

[K Borowski]

I don't give a flying fu** about DIs and how common they are. DIs are great if your film is full of digital effects, but they are poop when you put the whole film through one needlessly. On that note, some of my favorite effects are in 2001, and the original Star Wars Trilogy. The artificial gravity effects in 2001 are still some of the most impressive and stunning that I have ever seen. The starfighter battle in Return of the Jedi made my jaw drop the first time I saw it. Needless usage of DIs and directors that seem unable to shoot on any stock other than Vision2 500T are two of my biggest irks with modern-day films.

 

Filip, as an educated guess (again you're not being fair; still film looks best as an RA-4 print made through an enlarger and digital looks best on a monitor) I'd say the first pic is film, second is digital. Again it is tough. The tones are both very digital-looking, suggesting you have used slide film or tweaked the film file. As for not doing any manipulation to your files after scanning, scan a print! I scan 8x10s all the time. I generally get better results that way than using my film scanner.

 

For everyone's information, Genesis is one of the greatest bands ever. I highly doubt they'd name a digital camera off of a very very analog band. Music is a perfect example of how digital technology has really ruined an industry. Pro Tools isn't the name of the software, but rather what most of the "musicians" of today are.

 

As for the "problem" of film grain, it is far less serious than the problem of pixilation from compression that is rampant all over television and now in movies too. I don't know how converting analog information into a series of aliasing, low-resolution boxes can be considered an improvement.

 

~Karl

[Guest Kai.w]

you have to has some kind of image structure behind all these images, it can be pixels, or it can be grain, but it can't be a fractal image, it is a movie after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was not necessarily speaking of real footage. Just saw madagascar digitally projected the other day and I can tell there was a difference (not just because it was computer generated as we all have seen quite a few prints of cg movies)!

In any case saw the digital enhanced version of alien and some other movies originally shot on film being digitally projected and there was less grain in it than what you used to see. However with movies shot with digital cameras (star wars)there was even less... and it was noticable by the normal crowd and I personally found it refreshing.

 

-k

[Mark Allen]

Did anyone happen to see the Superman footage at Comicon? Would be interesting to know what a trained eye might have thought of it.

[Guest Kai.w]

I don't give a flying fu** about DIs and how common they are.  DIs are great if your film is full of digital effects, but they are poop when you put the whole film through one needlessly. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Honestly I think this is total nonsense... What have DIs to do with fx? Thats just a economical but no artistic category. It's like saying commercials only need to have selective takes corrected in tk when there is lots of fx in them. I really think its funny that whenever it comes to DI the only thing most of the people here seem to mention is the artifacts. I mean the fact that in theory you have more or less total control of the colour of the image down to pixel level seems to excite nobody.

 

Music is a perfect example of how digital technology has really ruined an industry.  Pro Tools isn't the name of the software, but rather what most of the "musicians" of today are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No offence but this sounds so narrowminded I can't stand it. I don't give a #&%$ where a sound originated from and I think it weird that someone who is supposed to work in a creative job is so much backwards (i respect genesis for what they did long long ago but nowadays there are of zero importance and interest to me) and reluctant to new developments or lets put it this way, so little curious about he possibilities they offer. What do you mean digital technology ruined the music industry? I hope you are referring to mp3s / filesharing and its impact of the music industries business modell.... well I'd say thats partly true but its also the MIs fault in parts.

If however you are refering to impact of digital technologies on music I just totally disagree and its not even worth discussing. Its all nice if somebody can quickly move his fingers along a guitars strings but does that necessarily produce interesting music...? And thats what matters in the end.

The same is true for movies. You seem to put so much emphasize on some but maybe pointless quality category thereby ignoring that DI gives you lots of artistic control of the final image and I'd thought that everbody who is interested in creating something of interest would at least consider to sacrifice some very technical "quality" (and the gap is narrowing more and more)for more control and more possibilities.

 

-k

[Michael Most]

I don't give a flying fu** about DIs and how common they are.  DIs are great if your film is full of digital effects, but they are poop when you put the whole film through one needlessly.  Needless usage of DIs and directors that seem unable to shoot on any stock other than Vision2 500T are two of my biggest irks with modern-day films. 

 

I think you really need to calm down here, you're much too angry about things you have no control over and, in the scheme of things, really don't affect your life very much. Digital intermediates are here to stay, and no amount of ranting on your part is going to change that. They have many creative advantages that you probably haven't considered, and are very attractive to both cameramen and directors as a creative tool. As I said before, it's not always about getting ultimate clarity (unless that's one of the creative intents), and it's not always about achieving grainlessness (unless that's also one of the creative intents). As my friend David Mullen has said here before, the advent of tripack color stocks somewhat lowered the technical specs of what could be achieved on multi-strip color processes, but presented so many other advantages that it was inevitable that it would eventually supplant those processes. Today's situation is not much different.

 

Music is a perfect example of how digital technology has really ruined an industry.  Pro Tools isn't the name of the software, but rather what most of the "musicians" of today are.

 

If you're going to live in the modern world, you need to accept and hopefully embrace new thinking and new technology. The only thing, in my opinion, that's "ruined" the music industry is the development of rap and "hip hop." But that's only my opinion, and it has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with my personal taste.

[Guest Kai.w]

Just btw.:

Phil Collins is quite famous for the use of the gated reverb snare that though not necessarily digital is quite some clever and creative use of (at that time) state of the art studio technology... Legend is, he actually invented this effect. I'm sure he would not care that much if the noise gate was analogue or digital...

 

-k

[Keith Mottram]

I don't give a flying fu** about DIs and how common they are.  DIs are great if your film is full of digital effects, but they are poop when you put the whole film through one needlessly. 

 

For everyone's information, Genesis is one of the greatest bands ever.  I highly doubt they'd name a digital camera off of a very very analog band.  Music is a perfect example of how digital technology has really ruined an industry. 

 

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"And checking everything is in place,

you never know who's looking on.

 

Young punk spilling beer on my shoes,

fat guy's talking to me trying to steal my blues.

 

Thick smoke, see her smiling through.

I never thought so much could happen just shooting pool

 

But I can't dance, I can't talk.

The only thing about me is the way I walk.

I can't dance, I can't sing

I'm just standing here selling"

 

How right you are Karl.

 

Keith

 

P.S. I do have a soft spot for 'Easy Lover' though.

[Tenolian Bell]

It seems the pro argument for digital now has come down to grain.

And to make that work grain has to be given a negative connotation in that all grain is bad.

I look at grain as as character, as surface, as texture.

 

I do agree however in that if someone chooses HD as their medium, that is fine and it is their choice.

 

But we must keep in mind also that leaning totally on an aestheetic of slick, glossy, smooth images can lead to sterile photography.

 

Having grain, I guess we can call it imperfection in many ways is far more interesting.

 

 

 

As far as music you can blame hip hop for the decline in quality of music the same way you can blame action adventure films for the decline in the quality of movies.

 

I would place the blame on corporate conglomerates who place the marketing team ahead of the artistic creative team. Snoop Dogg is no longer a rapper he is a brand to be sold in various cross functional products.

 

For every horrible rap song you hear there is an underground artist who is creaing great music that the record labels will never sign or promote.

[Guest fstop]

Just btw.:

Phil Collins is quite famous for the use of the gated reverb snare that though not necessarily digital is quite some clever and creative use of (at that time) state of the art studio technology... Legend is, he actually invented this effect. I'm sure he would not care that much if the noise gate was analogue or digital...

 

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What's with the whole underlying Genesis/Phil Collins factor to this thread anyway??!! Michael Most already mentioned Miami Vice, for which the original TV show used two big Phil hits, IN THE AIR TONIGHT and TAKE ME HOME.

 

Speaking of 80s music, ever since HD came to my attention with 1995's RAINBOW (shot by Freddie Francis), I always thought there was going to be a big electronic film revolution. I always felt it would be like when MIDI exploded in the 80s, when you had traditional music producers and musicians embracing synthesisers, almost going potty with them, till eventually a celluloid "grunge" would come along and strip everything down to the accoustic equivalent of cinematography. perhaps there'd be a mirror of the more successful music producers whose work didn't become dated beause they knew the classical elements; people like Trevor Horn and Quincy Jones who'd use MIDI without treating it like a drug. Sadly this really hasn't happened yet in cinematography! We are still pretty much in the "70s analogue synth area", where Moogs, Mellotrons, etc are being used sparingly to spice up very traditionally made work (DIs, the HD sections of Collateral) or isolated experiments like Pink Floyd's The Wall, Psychadelia, Kraftwerk, Wendy Carlos, Tangerine Dream and Jean Michel Jarre (Dancer in the Dark/Muller's work, Roidriguez's films and Star Wars Prequels). We really need the cinematographic equivalent of MIDI and drum machines to get HD popular and prolific! ;) then again, with their decks and electronic screens the Viper and Genesis seem scarily reminiscent of the Synclaiver when that first came out.

 

Going back to Rainbow- how come this movie is NEVER EVER mentioned in contemporary or historical HD debate? Is it even validly classed as an HD feature? There must be some reason why it doesn't qualify, especially as Freddie Francis shot it!

Edited July 18, 2005 by fstop