Tom Sigel talks Genesis

[Max Jacoby]

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

 

That is completely wrong and missinformed statment. I don't know about the cinemas that you go to, but whre I watch my films, the film projection is top notch, much better than 2K projection that is also offered there.

[Michael Most]

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

 

Not really. Grain is one aspect of the "digital aesthetic." Others are different colorimetry, different MTF's (thus producing a different rendition of "sharpness" across the frequency scale), and in some cases (not the Genesis or the D20) deeper depth of field on most shots. The total lack of some other film artifacts, such as dirt (both negative and positive) is also a contributor, as is the total lack of gate movement in a static shot.

 

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.

 

While there is some truth to this, I don't hear rap "songs" because I can't stand listening to it. In fact, the only time I hear it is either when I accidentally call up MTV on my DirecTV remote, or when I'm sitting next to some pimped out SUV blasting it out of a 2000 watt sound system.

[Tenolian Bell]

At this point its possible to put together a montage of interviews about why someone shot digital and in every interview someone will mention grain.

 

"its sharp and grain free, it has no grain, the lack of grain, in low light situations the absence of grain...."

[Filip Plesha]

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.

 

 

 

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think it IS fair because they are both in the same medium. And regardless of where in your opinion digital looks best, it is ment to be printed as film is printed. Photography is printed, regardless of what is the capture technique. No still photography medium is designed to be viewed on a monitor. The best comparison is if you either print them both, or view them both on the same monitor.

 

Now you say the "original" look of negative film is if you scan a print. That is really not accurate. Because of some reasons:

 

1. Other than shanging simple photoshop dynamics of image, print paper gives the image a certain look of its own. So you don't have the look of your film anymore, you have the look of film+print

 

2. The change of image dynamics in printing is as subjective as tweaking it in photoshop. There is no "proper" look that you get in printing.

Every paper will make a different image out of your negative. You can't say an optical print is THE way it is supose to look, because opticals are as subjective as digital scans.

 

 

P.S. If you wish, I'll give you different versions of both images, I'll give you lower contrast versions, if you think that will be more fair. Just tell me, and I'll replace the files, so you can go back to that post and take a look.

 

you seem to connect high-contrast with digital. I'll give you a more "raw" version of both then.

[Filip Plesha]

here it is:

These are a bit bigger too, but this is as far as I'll go regarding size because of grain.

 

 

Flowers

 

Woman

[Sam Wells]

Who cares, what's her phone number ? :D

 

 

OK I can't say that here can I, so... If I had to guess I'd say Flowers = Film, Woman = Digital

 

And I am pretty much guessing, I don't care if I'm wrong.

I'd *love* to be wrong in telling the difference with 24 projected moving images per second.

 

And let me add, 24 fps projected (or other high quality display) in varying and even relatively uncontrollable light.

 

(yes I know how to control light when neccesary)

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't find enough of a difference to be worth anything myself...

[Filip Plesha]

Who cares, what's her phone number ?  :D

OK I can't say that here can I, so... If I had to guess I'd say Flowers = Film, Woman = Digital 

 

And I am pretty much guessing, I don't care if I'm wrong.

I'd *love* to be wrong in telling the difference with 24 projected moving images per second.

 

And let me add, 24 fps projected (or other high quality display) in varying and even relatively uncontrollable light.

 

(yes I know how to control light when neccesary)

 

-Sam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think If you put these images in motion at 24fps and 1/50s exposure (not the longer video shutter exposure), it would be very difficult to distinguish digital from film, specially with subjects such as flowers.

 

It is easiest to distinguish when people are photographed I think for some reason. Maybe because human face and skin is something we know best of all things in the world. It is the first thing we remembered when we were children, so any change in rendering of a human face is what we most notice.

 

The whole point of this was to show to Film4ever that distinguishing the two mediums is not so easy as he shows it to be.

 

In every discussions he talks as if the difference is so obvious that you can take one short look at know for sure.

 

And here we are, a few days and he is not 100% sure.

 

that was my point.

 

 

Now, I'm going to wait for his response on the new low contrast versions, and then I'm going to reveal the truth.

[K Borowski]

I'd have to say that from my impression of the first set of pictures, it looks like the flower may be film, the girl may be digital. By lowering the contrast, you are making film look even MORE like digital in your second set. I like film BECAUSE of its contrast and BECAUSE of its grain as opposed to a patern of pixels, so you are now taking away BOTH of the reasons I like the look of film to begin with. Again, we are missing the entire point here because movie film is much different than still film in our perception of grain. Also, the best way to view stills is on paper, not on a monitor, and there it is quite evident which is which (at least to me). Watch something that is originated on SD TV as opposed to something done on video, and there is a world of difference. On HDTV I can only imagine how drastic the difference must become, like night and day. You aren't proving anything unless you show me prints. You could say both are film, both are digital, or the first is digital and the second is film and none of your statements would surprise me. First off, you need to provide a film and a digital picture of the same exact subject, both printed in the matter that suits each best on paper, with motion picture you'd need to project your digital and your film images in the manner best suited to each (with film via a print and with digital via DLP). One of the final reasons that I like film so much, which I believe is the reason why so many of you on this board hate it, is that it FORCES you to scrimp on stock and it FORCES you to put what you want on screen in front of the camera, whereas the digital attitude these days that prevails for music, television, still photography, and is starting to make headway in movies is that you can FIX IT AFTER YOU SHOOT IT, which, IMHO, is the worst possible attitude that any artist can take towards his vision. What is funny about all of the film bashing that is done in still photography is that digital is almost always pitted against 35mm cameras, which represent the worst quality stills in the professional photographer's arsenal. We cinematographers all know that 35mm was developed as movie film, hence the reason that about 20 percent of the usable imaging area of 35mm is wasted on sprockets, which are totally unneeded in most types of still photography. I still shoot some 35mm, but for stills I usually shoot 6x7 cm these days, which has roughly 5x as much picture information. When Kodak came out with their last model of DCS digital SLR, I remember Popular Photography[and Imaging :rolleyes: ] running an article saying "Digital Beats Film!". What'd they compare the DCS to? Kodak Gold 400, one of the grainiest 400 speed color negative films manufactured. As usual, the digital camp is content to compare their finest to film photography's lowest common denominator. In stills it is Gold 400. In cine it is probably some expired shortend of EXR 500T, or Vision 800T. And of course, they compare the digital to some 2 or 4k transfer on DLP, rather than an optical contact print of the camera original.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[K Borowski]

Filip, I thought I had posted a response saying I thought the first was film, the second was digital the other day. In that original post I also mentioned that it was unfair to do the second in controlled lighting and the first in what appears to be daylight becasue you can make digital, slides, 2 speed film, whatever look good with enough screwing around in a studio. What you say about a scanned print giving a different look is absolutly right. What my thinking is behind scanning prints is this: My negative scanner is a $400 scanner, not terrible, but not as good as the $85K one that Kodak makes for stills either. I also like the look of analog RA-4 paper prints the best. They are better IMHO, than 400 dpi prints, such as you would get on a Fuji Frontier, and they are better than a digitally originated file. CMOS is absolute garbage. Do you know what a pain in the ass it is to try and make someone whose entire face is a big pink blob after it is rendered by a CMOS look normal again? Anyway, I like the look of an RA-4 8x10, and my cheap flatbed just picks up better detail from an 8x10 print, which I think is the optimal print of a 35mm negative, so I scan that for stuff I post online as a good scan looks about as close as possible to that original print.

 

~Karl

[Guest Kai.w]

One of the final reasons that I like film so much, which I believe is the reason why so many of you on this board hate it, is that it FORCES you to scrimp on stock and it FORCES you to put what you want on screen in front of the camera, whereas the digital attitude these days that prevails for music, television, still photography, and is starting to make headway in movies is that you can FIX IT AFTER YOU SHOOT IT, which, IMHO, is the worst possible attitude that any artist can take towards his vision. Regards.

~Karl Borowski

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but a real artist would not care where and at which stage his/her vision gets realised as long as it does work...and thats the important point you seem to miss!

 

-k

[Filip Plesha]

I'd have to say that from my impression of the first set of pictures, it looks like the flower may be film, the girl may be digital.  By lowering the contrast, you are making film look even MORE like digital in your second set.  I like film BECAUSE of its contrast and BECAUSE of its grain as opposed to a patern of pixels, so you are now taking away BOTH of the reasons I like the look of film to begin with.  Again, we are missing the entire point here because movie film is much different than still film in our perception of grain.  Also, the best way to view stills is on paper, not on a monitor, and there it is quite evident which is which (at least to me).  Watch something that is originated on SD TV as opposed to something done on video, and there is a world of difference.  On HDTV I can only imagine how drastic the difference must become, like night and day.  You aren't proving anything unless you show me prints.  You could say both are film, both are digital, or the first is digital and the second is film and none of your statements would surprise me.  First off, you need to provide a film and a digital picture of the same exact subject, both printed in the matter that suits each best on paper, with motion picture you'd need to project your digital and your film images in the manner best suited to each (with film via a print and with digital via DLP).  One of the final reasons that I like film so much, which I believe is the reason why so many of you on this board hate it, is that it FORCES you to scrimp on stock and it FORCES you to put what you want on screen in front of the camera, whereas the digital attitude these days that prevails for music, television, still photography, and is starting to make headway in movies is that you can FIX IT AFTER YOU SHOOT IT, which, IMHO, is the worst possible attitude that any artist can take towards his vision. What is funny about all of the film bashing that is done in still photography is that digital is almost always pitted against 35mm cameras, which represent the worst quality stills in the professional photographer's arsenal.  We cinematographers all know that 35mm was developed as movie film, hence the reason that about 20 percent of the usable imaging area of 35mm is wasted on sprockets, which are totally unneeded in most types of still photography.  I still shoot some 35mm, but for stills I usually shoot 6x7 cm these days, which has roughly 5x as much picture information.  When Kodak came out with their last model of DCS digital SLR, I remember Popular Photography[and Imaging :rolleyes: ] running an article saying "Digital Beats Film!".  What'd they compare the DCS to?  Kodak Gold 400, one of the grainiest 400 speed color negative films manufactured.  As usual, the digital camp is content to compare their finest to film photography's lowest common denominator.  In stills it is Gold 400.  In cine it is probably some expired shortend of EXR 500T, or Vision 800T.  And of course, they compare the digital to some 2 or 4k transfer on DLP, rather than an optical contact print of the camera original.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

In a filmless future (wherever and if ever that may be) you will never be shown side by side comparison with film. You will take a look at a picture, and only your memory will be able to compare it with film.

 

First you said high contrast makes both pictures look digital, and now you say low contrast makes them look more digital. Hmmm, interesting

[Filip Plesha]

well anyway, enough of this..

 

time to say the truth.

 

It was a trick, neither of the pictures were made on film. They are not even mine.

I picked up from Japanese size for Pentax digital SLR cameras. They are demo photos.

I superimposed grain on both of them, just in case, too.

 

After all your talk about how DSLR images look like night and day compared to film, I thought you will come, take a look and say: "come on, they are both digital, it is a s clear as a day" But obviously distinguishing those is not as easy.

 

 

Now, I do understand what you mean. I too see a difference, but not in every lighting and subject combination.

[Michael Most]

One of the final reasons that I like film so much, which I believe is the reason why so many of you on this board hate it, is that it FORCES you to scrimp on stock and it FORCES you to put what you want on screen in front of the camera, whereas the digital attitude these days that prevails for music, television, still photography, and is starting to make headway in movies is that you can FIX IT AFTER YOU SHOOT IT, which, IMHO, is the worst possible attitude that any artist can take towards his vision.

 

While I understand your sentiment, I really don't agree. In music videos, part of the style of these pieces is a bit of chaos - shots that are invented on the day, images that happen partly be design and partly by accident, and ideas that get changed when the artist becomes involved. The more freedom one has to keep shooting without financial penalty the better, at least in the hands of a director with a real sense of vision, who siezes those strange moments (after all, when you're working with a musician as your star, you're not usually working with a trained actor) and can make use of them to extend the original idea. In television, the director is usually not the one with the singular vision - that's the producer, or more commonly, the writer/executive producer. The director in many cases is a "hired gun" who is given some leeway to put his/her own stamp on the episode, but more commonly is asked to work within an already defined visual style, and to give the editors enough coverage to make tone changes during editorial. This is why even dramatic television programs shot on film often shoot rather high ratios, often 20:1 or more.

 

The ability to use post production as part of the creative arsenal is something that did not exist, at least to the current degree, prior to digital post production, simply because the tools did not allow that degree of manipulation. I don't see where the artistry should be defined by the choice of tools or combination of tools. It should be defined by the original vision and the final result, regardless of what methods were used to accomplish it. Painters can and very often do change their vision as their work progresses, in part because they can - their tools allow it - but also in part because the vision is sometimes altered by something unforeseen. Call it a "happy accident" or simply changing one's mind, but the ability to change things past the original inception of its creation is something artists have always had. Digital post techniques simply carry it to a new level.

[K Borowski]

The fact that they are on a COMPUTER MONITOR means that they are both digital images, no mater what medium you originated them on. Filmless future? Good one. Have you been reading too much Shutterbug again?

 

Kai.w, are you a real artist? You seem to know a lot about artistic philosophy for a digital imaging technician.

 

Film is about discipline, about creating art, and it always will to me. As for shooting at 20:1 for television, I highly doubt it's that high. I have friends who worked on television sets and they said that these days they shoot alot of their stuff at 5- or 6:1. Only time they went up as high as 20:1 was when someone couldn't get a line right. . . I have myself and know of people that have done wonderful work with ratios as low as 1.5 or 2:1.

[David Mullen ASC]

There's also a difference between "fixing it in post" and knowing post tools well-enough to understand how they can create the look.

 

For example, the look of a skip-bleach process to the release prints is a post technique, so how is that valid yet using digital techniques to create that look somehow invalid? Either way, the final look wasn't created on the original negative -- it can't be! Silver retention to a negative looks different than when done to the positive.

 

Even the old Ansel Adam's comment that the negative was the score and the print was the performance implies that post is half of the creative process. The notion that a photochemical post technique is artistically worthy but a digital one isn't makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I also don't agree that digital fixes are necessarily cheap so that everyone uses them rather that get it correct originally.

 

I agree though that there is a certain discipline that comes with working within the limitations of photochemical technology, but that doesn't necessarily make you a better artist, just a more disciplined one with a certain level of craft. But there are artists who work almost exclusively with digital media, so film does not have some sort of corner on the ability to express yourself creatively.

[Filip Plesha]

The fact that they are on a COMPUTER MONITOR means that they are both digital images, no mater what medium you originated them on.  Filmless future?  Good one.  Have you been reading too much Shutterbug again?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

are you suggesting that in year 2150 we will be having film projection and film origination?

[Michael Most]

As for shooting at 20:1 for television, I highly doubt it's that high.  I have friends who worked on television sets and they said that these days they shoot alot of their stuff at 5- or 6:1.  Only time they went up as high as 20:1 was when someone couldn't get a line right. . .  I have myself and know of people that have done wonderful work with ratios as low as 1.5 or 2:1.

 

I've worked on film based television dramas for over 25 years. It didn't used to be that high, but it is now. Part of it is more common use of 2 cameras, and part of it is simply style - there is more coverage shot on most dramas today than there was 15 years ago. We're not talking about number of takes here, we're talking about how much film is exposed vs. the 40 minutes or so that are in the final cut of the show. Most shows shoot 8 days and average between 8 and 10 thousand feet per day. There are some exceptions, but not that many. That's 80,000 feet of film for a show that will ultimately be under 4000 feet. Even at 8000 feet per day it's still about 17:1.

 

I wasn't guessing at the number, I was stating facts.

[Guest Kai.w]

Kai.w, are you a real artist?  You seem to know a lot about artistic philosophy for a digital imaging technician.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since english is not my native language I guess you are being ironic. Well, I studied at a public art academy. Thats probably why I don't like the inflationary use of the term "artist" in the movie business so I feel quite alright with calling me a technician / operator now since compositing and fx is alot craft even if it does envolve quite some amount of creativity.

 

In any case, of course I can understand that there a certain occasions and concepts which would require limiting oneself to a certain medium / toolset. But again I'd guess then this concept is tightly bound to the artistic vision and (gasp) "message" but has no value of its own especially if generally applied.

 

-k

[K Borowski]

I really had no right to say you weren't an artist. I don't know. I'm sorry to spout off like that. It seems that people are becoming so fixated with shooting unlimited ammounts of footage and being able to take a take that is technically flawed and turn it into something that is usable that they have lost the quest for perfection, for making drama seem as real as possible. Today, there is this interesting group of people I know that think that everything analog is somehow bad and tainted, i.e. not a true representation of the moment it has captured. For instance, my one friend, a digital music technician insists that not a single good song was made before 1990 because the TECHNOLOGY was analog before then. When digital graphics first came out, they looked very different, and other-worldly. THey didn't really look realistic, but the ability to portray fantastic scenes that were almost impossible to do with models made them really cool. But this same group of people that thinks digital is more realistic and just "better" now insists that digital graphics are more realistic. I honestly still see right through most of them. I think it is disgusting that the people who do these graphics half-ass them so much that a 19-year old start-up moviemaker such as myself can see right through them. I WANT digital to wow me, to totally convince me that it is reality that I am seeing, to carry me off to fantastic places that exist only in the minds of those who first dreamt them up, but they DON'T convince me, and until they DO get really good, better than models, I don't want people to insist that they ARE convincing. The people that talk about the amazing thing that digital has done for movies often haven't seen the great optical effects of the past. How can they compare if they have never seen the best that analog has to offer? I think digital does some things better and film does some things better. I DO NOT think that the film industry should strive to reduce the costs of making films and reduce the costs of distributing films. I think it should push the boundaries of what a film is, doing what it has never done before in terms of the stories it portrays and the places that it takes people who flock to theatres.

 

I like film and photography because it is about capturing an image with that image being the most accurate possible depiction of what is in front of the lens at that given moment. Digital is like taking the realism out of films. Granted, films aren't real-life events (except documentaries) and people use filters and alternative processing all the time, but at its base, film is the art of depicting tangible-real world images in a way that is artistic. at least to me. I like film because instead of manipulating what is there, I concentrate on WHAT IS THERE and how to arrange actors and things and surroundings in a way that is artistic, in a way that is visually ironic perhaps, a way that makes the audience question the real world when they see a film of mine. Fantasy is wonderful. I would say that digital is very much akin to cartoons. I think that digital effects and digital capture is wonderful for places where film is impractical, but I think that there is always going to be film, maybe even in 2150. Daguerrotypes went out of fashion more than 100 years ago, yet I know of people that STILL make them. I love diversity. Digital should not burry film, it should complement it and add to it. Film is film; digital is digital. And that is that.

 

~Karl

[Jonathan Benny]

I DO NOT think that the film industry should strive to reduce the costs of making films and reduce the costs of distributing films.  I think it should push the boundaries of what a film is, doing what it has never done before in terms of the stories it portrays and the places that it takes people who flock to theatres. 

 

The film industry by nature, like any industry strives to stay competitive by keeping costs as low as possible while at the same time distributing products to the most people as possible using the easiest and cheapest available method. That is the industry's mandate which is different from the film artist's mandate.

 

The film artist must strive to push boundaries and carry forward the evolution of the artform. Many of the filmmakers who are currently pushing those boundaries are using digital cameras and perhaps won't be horrified at the idea of their films being digitally projected.

 

film is the art of depicting tangible-real world images in a way that is artistic.

 

Personally, I feel that film can also be the art of depicting intangible-unreal, unworldy images in a way that is artistic (on any format). But I suppose that's another topic...

 

Digital origination, like film can be a valuable and absolutely valid way of achieving your definition of film. My most recent film was shot in 35mm. I'm shooting my next one on the sdx900. It seems unfortunate that one would assume that the 35mm one has more artistic merit by virtue of its format. That would be kind of like saying an oil painting has more artistic value than a charcoal drawing - and making that statement before even seeing the works themselves.

 

Just one opinion,

 

JB

[Michael Most]

I DO NOT think that the film industry should strive to reduce the costs of making films and reduce the costs of distributing films.

 

I don't know how you can state that this is the case when the cost of an average motion picture is now approaching $50 million.

 

Effects techniques are chosen by those who have to execute the effects based on the director's vision of what needs to be seen. The various alternatives, when there are alternatives, are discussed and considered, and the approach for each shot is decided upon based primarily on what is seen to present the best possibility for success in achieving what the director is asking for. When budget becomes a consideration, the methods aren't usually changed for this purpose, rather, the shot concept is changed or the shot itself is dropped. Use of CG is not about saving money, in fact, it's usually the most expensive of any of the available alternatives. CG is used to achieve things that can't be done any other way, at least on most substantial features (in television, it sees heavier use for various other reasons). Most visual effects supervisors working in features generally prefer practical approaches and practically photographed elements wherever possible, but given some of the concepts that are presented, that's not always the case.

 

but I think that there is always going to be film, maybe even in 2150. 

 

You are aware that film has only been around for about a hundred years or so, aren't you? Film is technology. All technology has a shelf life, and all technology eventually evolves or is replaced by newer technology that accomplishes the same task in a more efficient or superior way. Using silver halide crystals for capturing visual images is no different in a technological sense than using steam turbines for powering trains and cars. They were eventually replaced with internal combustion engines, which will ultimately be replaced by something else - fuel cells or some other near future technology - which will then be replaced by something else that we can't currently conceive of at an even later date. Video displays, once the sole dominion of cathode ray tubes, are now being replaced by various other techologies, such as LCD, plasma, and DLT. Videotape as a home viewing medium has already been effectively replaced by DVD's - which will likely be replaced by something else in the future. Cassette based portable music players have been replaced by iPods and other similar digital players. Floppy disks have been replaced by various other storage technologies, all of which are considerably denser and faster than any floppy ever was. Do you get the picture? There is nothing either magical or sacred about silver halide based film imaging technology, and it is foolish to try proving that there is. It is equally foolish to hang on to it with some kind of religious fervor simply because you happen to like it, when it is clear that like any other technology, it has its time and place, and like any other technology, it will eventually be supplanted by something better.

[Filip Plesha]

Digital should not burry film, it should complement it and add to it.  Film is film; digital is digital.  And that is that.

 

~Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

don't you think that one distant century in the future, when we send people to mars, and god knows where and make holographic imagery, photorealistic CG, cure for cancer, AIDS, or travel to distant stars..

that in such a future there will be no way of making digital images look like film?

 

Imagine some 10K+ digital medium that when projected to your eyebals with a laser can fool you to think you are watching reality.

Could such a high quality image not be twisted to look like film?

 

In future, you will probably not only get emulation of film, but get emulation of your favorite cinema too, all in front of your eyes.

 

with enough time for development, there is nothing that is not possible. This universe works on laws that can be mastered. doing ANYTHING is just a matter of how formiliar you are with the laws of the universe

[Max Jacoby]

Imagine some 10K+ digital medium that when projected to your eyebals with a laser can fool you to think you are watching reality.

Could such a high quality image not be twisted to look like film?

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

[Stephen Williams]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi,

 

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

 

Stephen