Jump to content
Stephen Perera

Dream 'job', massive budget - would you shoot digital or film?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

No, it's not that easy to get a deal on Hawks, but besides, we we are talking dreams, I'd rather get the bigger 4-perf 2X anamorphic negative, or shoot 3-perf 1.85.  3-perf 1.3X is more of an economic / practical choice to get 2.40 with slightly more negative than cropping spherical Super-35 to 2.40.  Other than the longer mag times and other practical considerations of 3-perf, I'd rather shoot 4-perf anamorphic if we are talking dreams here.

Yea, those are the same  stumbling blocks I've run into. There is a lot more interest in 1.3x anamorphics recently and a few lens companies are coming out with alternatives to the Hawk's for much less money. My problem is that all of my equipment is 1.66:1 or 1.75:1 aspect ratio, so for me personally, using 2x would mean more cropping. Also working with 3 perf when all you've got is 400ft mags, is a blessing. 

But yes, if it's dreams I agree, go with 4 perf 2x anamorphic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are crazy, digital is much cheaper... oh wait we are on another topic.

 

Well then, I would shoot in IMAX, do the effects, as much as possible in camera. I myself would not be shooting, I would hire David for that, I would write, direct, supervise the effects, and editing.  Editing would most likely be done digitally, as most of the presentation would also be digital. I would have film prints made to show in theaters that could accommodate 70mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

off topic-ish.......well I am the OP so indulge me haha........just watching the APPLE TV show 'For All Mankind'...I'm really enjoying it....the storyline is entertaining and I like the historical alternative to the moon landings......but it just so......digital.....it does not immerse me into the 'world' they are creating, I'm all the time thinking about them acting and the crew around them etc........compare that to First Man which immerses me.....or Ad Astra...the same.......even with the obviously fake grain they've added.....they just don't achieve 'the look'.......e.g the full on sun moment (in S1, Episode 3) when the women are lined up with their aviator glasses (minute 23)....its so 'perfectly' digital.....anyway.....99% of the viewing public don't even think about it I guess....or do they.....I for one think an audience knows when something looks right and when it doesnt.....would be hilarious if someone actually reveals it was shot on film hahahah.....no way thats film...the Kodak colours are not there

Edited by Stephen Perera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stephen Perera said:

off topic-ish.......well I am the OP so indulge me haha........just watching the APPLE TV show 'For All Mankind'...I'm really enjoying it....the storyline is entertaining and I like the historical alternative to the moon landings......but it just so......digital.....it does not immerse me into the 'world' they are creating, I'm all the time thinking about them acting and the crew around them etc........compare that to First Man which immerses me.....or Ad Astra...the same.......even with the obviously fake grain they've added.....they just don't achieve 'the look'.......e.g the full on sun moment (in S1, Episode 3) when the women are lined up with their aviator glasses (minute 23)....its so 'perfectly' digital.....anyway.....99% of the viewing public don't even think about it I guess....or do they.....I for one think an audience knows when something looks right and when it doesnt.....would be hilarious if someone actually reveals it was shot on film hahahah.....no way thats film...the Kodak colours are not there

general audience does not care what medium the movie or series was shot on unless they have to pay something extra for it...  even then they will forget about it after watching the first couple of minutes if the story and characters and themes are interesting. 

The problem is, most of the films are not as good as they could be so the audience may start to notice the visuals or lazy composing or over the top sound design or bad acting performances and writing at some point (it is like removing all the explosions and car chases and battle scenes from a Michael Bay film, no one would want to watch it anymore no matter what format it is shot on) . then it may benefit a lot to have a bad film which at least looks nice even when it is otherwise horrible. (though it would still need some xplosions to save it in the eyes of the audience 🙂 )

Edited by aapo lettinen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stephen Perera said:

no way thats film...the Kodak colours are not there

You can usually tell it's digital with the shitty skin tones that have no life. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

You can usually tell it's digital with the shitty skin tones that have no life. 

By my personal experience the lighting and color grade affect skin tones more than most digital cameras themselves. If there is time in grading the skin tones are handled separately anyway if there seems to be a problem with them...

Might this be a problem with digital productions as a whole? if the shooting medium dictates lighting and color grade so much that it makes these "flat and dull looking images" but we blame the camera technology for it when it is really more about the different artistic choices which are made in various stages of the production and have been above the (in the end pretty trivial) shooting medium/camera system choices all the time? 

The formats can be made look as good or bad as you want them to look. You can make film look like crap with lifeless skintones and you can make digital look like crap as well. Sometimes it may be good for the story to have the crappy skintones, maybe they were more into nice looking interiors or cityscapes or explosions and vfx. Maybe the skintones were just not important to them and they concentrated on other thing. They could have make them look good if they wanted, there was just other reasons why they were made look like that. 

The cameras don't make movies, people do. If you don't like their artistic choices maybe you should look for alternative options rather than trying to claim the poor camera manufacturer because the director and producer and DP wanted to make everyone look like zombies. I don't blame Venice for the look of that new Bad Boys trailer either, someone wanted it to be graded that way because of reasons and on some other production the exactly same camera system and workflow would produce completely different results.

 

It is difficult to hear that someone purposefully made the movie to look bad to tell the story the way THEY liked? Don't pay for it if you don't like it. They will adapt and change if they learn that audience does not like what they are doing. They transferred from 3D to large format and anamorphic again because audiences did not see enough value in 3D to justify it in every production. People are paid to do stuff which audience likes and if the audience loses interest the industry will change and adapt. They don't use much that crappy extremely low contrast and grey "log look" grade on movies or commercials anymore either, it went to the same garbage bin than digital 3D, most VR productions and full-greenscreen virtual set movies 😛 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, aapo lettinen said:

it went to the same garbage bin than digital 3D, most VR productions and full-greenscreen virtual set movies 😛 

or using dubstep music in commercials

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

......compare that to First Man which immerses me.....

I agree. Film really suited that picture. It was gritty and risky, like the on-screen events. Now, digital is great too, for what it's best for.

 

6 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

general audience does not care what medium the movie or series was shot on ...

I'm still not convinced. I think it's true they don't care to know what the thing was shot on/with. But as I see it, it's the responsibility of creative people to put on the best show they can. It's the makers who have to know what is going to affect the audience the most, for that picture, and take the leadership to make that show as great as they can. The audience, while not knowing why the film has affected them so, will simply benefit from the expertise of the makers. The audience themselves just want to sit back and enjoy it. Only a tiny few technician geeks in the average audience will know what's going on with how the thing was shot.

But not knowing how or why a creative thing moves you doesn't mean that technical differences aren't important. Story alone isn't enough. It's how the thing is stitched together, how the story is told, that plays a huge part. Think of fireside stories, back when that was the main entertainment. There's a great story, sure, but it's how that story is told really well that makes the big difference. I think that format really comes into that, with movies. But the audience doesn't know that, or care, but it is still important, and the makers need to step in and know what is going to work best for that particular picture. It's the maker's responsibility.

Put a truly good meal in front of someone and they will love it. Okay, some filmmakers want to shoot digital. Some would like to shoot film. Just put on the best show you can. If you are a producer, you should have a say in how that product is made, so that you are inspired to make it as best you can. To use a musical analogy, a violinist must be inspired by the music and by his/her instrument in order to put on a great performance. It's not going to happen otherwise. The audience benefits from that artist's inspiration. But they don't know why or how they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

By my personal experience the lighting and color grade affect skin tones more than most digital cameras themselves. If there is time in grading the skin tones are handled separately anyway if there seems to be a problem with them...

From my experience, it doesn't matter. If you were to shoot with the vast majority of digital cameras and film side by side, using the same lenses, you'd see a smoothness in the skin tones that generally doesn't exist on digital. I remember a video Shane Hurlbut did a few years ago, comparing the C500 to 35mm. His commentary on the film vs digital look was so funny. He was blown away how nice the skin tones looked on the film over the digital, a much more even image across the board. 

Where I agree the Alexa has the best skin tones of the digital cameras, its still not quite "film" sadly. 

3 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

Might this be a problem with digital productions as a whole? if the shooting medium dictates lighting and color grade so much that it makes these "flat and dull looking images" but we blame the camera technology for it when it is really more about the different artistic choices which are made in various stages of the production and have been above the (in the end pretty trivial) shooting medium/camera system choices all the time? 

Maybe, but this theory can be proven in an A/B comparison demo. Digital vs Film, same lenses, same lighting, etc. 

3 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

The formats can be made look as good or bad as you want them to look. You can make film look like crap with lifeless skintones and you can make digital look like crap as well. Sometimes it may be good for the story to have the crappy skintones, maybe they were more into nice looking interiors or cityscapes or explosions and vfx. Maybe the skintones were just not important to them and they concentrated on other thing. They could have make them look good if they wanted, there was just other reasons why they were made look like that. 

Oh there is no doubt that "artists" like to muck with their images. It's not easy to make either format look good, you actually need to try. So there are PLENTY of examples of film looking like shit. It's just more common to see digital look like shit these days due to "creative choices" that have gotten out of hand. 

Then you watch a 70mm print of "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" and you're reminded very fast, what movies are "suppose" to look like. 

3 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

If you don't like their artistic choices maybe you should look for alternative options rather than trying to claim the poor camera manufacturer because the director and producer and DP wanted to make everyone look like zombies.

You're making the assumption that my issues stem from content I watch. I don't have time to watch much, I'm constantly shooting and editing/grading. That's my "business" and that's where I get my information from. Literally using the same techniques with both digital cinema and film. 

So before you go all hog wild on why I feel the way I feel. Why don't you go out and do an A/B comparison video of an Arri Alexa and 35mm. Then YOU sit down and grade the clips yourself and put together and nice side by side comparison from the raw source material. I've done this already, I don't know why the people who paid me to help them create the content, don't want them released to the public, but I'm going to ask one of them for the material we shot and try to release it myself. I mean I shoot A LOT of film and I grade A LOT of digital. So I know the differences first hand, not from the perspective of a "viewer", but from the perspective of a technician. 

I'm also not saying it's impossible to make Digital look good. There are plenty of TV shows that look fine. 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

So before you go all hog wild on why I feel the way I feel. Why don't you go out and do an A/B comparison video of an Arri Alexa and 35mm. Then YOU sit down and grade the clips yourself and put together and nice side by side comparison from the raw source material. I've done this already, I don't know why the people who paid me to help them create the content, don't want them released to the public, but I'm going to ask one of them for the material we shot and try to release it myself. I mean I shoot A LOT of film and I grade A LOT of digital. So I know the differences first hand, not from the perspective of a "viewer", but from the perspective of a technician. 

I'm also not saying it's impossible to make Digital look good. There are plenty of TV shows that look fine. 😛

There is no need for me to do a A/B comparison by myself. they are stupid anyway because cameras are chosen for other reasons than how they look side by side in exactly the same shooting scenario. If you would really shoot that scene in real life production you would tune it to look nice on the particular setup you are using, NOT making an approximate all-around setup which is OK for everything but not good for anything . Those A/B comparisons are mainly made to just justify camera purchases and for entertaining creative people and there is not much other use for them. They are not even much use for comparing noise levels because you are not using all the camera systems on their ideal territory, the scene setup is only made for one system and the other cameras just try to get by without dragging behind too badly. The thing is that you will always optimize the setup for one type of system which is required to standardize first to make the test interesting. Like using the same lenses which are NOT optimal for all the camera systems in that scenario. The whole test procedure is flawed because you are not using the camera systems for work they are best suited for and thus will never get optimal results from more than one of them which, of course, happens to be your favourite camera in the first place because you made the testing conditions and lens choices and lighting setups for it.

the thing is, as a cinematographer you need to know how a camera or shooting format or lens approximately looks like in all your upcoming shooting scenarios and what are the operating limits of it, especially the physical limits like size, XYZ dimensions, weight, connectors, monitoring options (especially if using viewfinders whether optical or electronic) , how much time it takes to change setups with it. Also subjective limits like how much noise you can stand which affects both low light capability AND available dynamic range. You will choose the best setup from your options which suits those scenarios. If it happens to be a film camera or digital camera does not matter because you know that you are using the best camera system and workflow for that particular project with those determined shooting scenarios and no other available system would deliver better results if shooting that same project on those exactly same conditions, same schedule, budget, director, sets, lighting, vfx, etc etc.  If you would change the camera you would also change how you shoot it, light it, what type of setup times you need, what type of camera moves can be made and how much time it takes now. The camera choice is always more practical than aesthetic no matter what they claim in the making offs (the making offs are not real btw, it is just marketing material made to raise interest)

I have a test for you as well 🙂  Next time you shoot a longer project, first do everything normally and pre plan and choose the best camera system and lenses etc. for it and then when actually shooting, do first half of the movie with the system you chose. AFTER THAT, go to the rental house, blindly pick random camera package with random lenses and shoot half of the remaining movie with that and try to adapt to still make the best out of it without changing anything from your pre plans!  THEN, go to another rental house and pick camera system and lenses which are not either one of the previously used but now they are ones you have NEVER used before and this remaining quarter of the movie is a test run for them to see how they behave and what you can get out of them! now you can change anything you want from the pre plans to adapt the best way possible.     - How it went? Did you get the best possible results all the time? how much changes you had to made because of the changing camera systems? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this whole  "great cinematographers overwhelmed by flawed camera technology" case is very absurd but it is of course very entertaining even at 4AM here with no booze available 💩

Edited by aapo lettinen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just personally don't believe there is a reason to change styles to benefit a camera system. 

The camera SHOULD NOT DICTATE the cinematographers job. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I just personally don't believe there is a reason to change styles to benefit a camera system. 

The camera SHOULD NOT DICTATE the cinematographers job. 

why change styles if they can just change to another camera system which better suits their working style and the material they are after? it will make both the job easier and the end result better looking because the camera system suits the project perfectly 🙂 

 

sometimes projects are made to suit a specific camera system, that is called a Camera Test Project and it is sometimes done even on feature films though normally it is a low budget thing where friends scrape some money together to be able to rent an Alexa and some nice anamorphic lenses for one day and then they shoot whatever half-assed script they can make up at short notice so that they can have a woman and a man who have a romantic evening outside and they walk around so that the friends can shoot street lights and some dusk shots and such where there is some people on the foreground. The main purpose is just to show that they can setup an Alexa and focus it properly and maybe get one or two OK looking shots for their reels. Otherwise those projects tend to be pretty much garbage which is not even suitable for vimeography release 😄

 

that is what I meant, the project chooses the camera and not the other way around. If you find a better working alternative then you switch to that and there is no reason to always stick to only film or digital origination unless there is some marketing advantage to it 

Edited by aapo lettinen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

I just personally don't believe there is a reason to change styles to benefit a camera system. 

The camera SHOULD NOT DICTATE the cinematographers job. 

There is no reason to change the final intended look you are going for based on the choice of camera system. The camera is just a tool, a means to an end. It would make sense to choose a camera system that makes it easier to get to the final look, but sometimes budget or politics or necessity forces your hand.

It’s not the camera that dictates how you shoot. It’s the final look you want in combination with the strengths and weaknesses of the camera system that will determine that. If you need unclipped highlights for your look, you don’t lower the ISO on a Blackmagic Ursa Mini and give a rich exposure like you would with color negative. If you need a lot of shadow detail and you’re shooting on an AJA Cion, you need to add a lot more fill light than for an Alexa. If you don’t adjust your approach for the format, you will end up with an unintended look by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

why change styles if they can just change to another camera system which better suits their working style and the material they are after?

At a consequence of quality? 

Even the almighty Roger Deakins admits, film looks better than digital in most cases. It's just, with digital he can see instant results. However, imagine if there was a camera that shot both film and 4k digital? Then would guys like Deakins be OK with shooting film again? Is it really that simple? It's not sensitivity, it's not cost, it's not roll length, it's not weight, it's really only "instant" results, on productions with budgets. 

3 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

that is what I meant, the project chooses the camera and not the other way around. If you find a better working alternative then you switch to that and there is no reason to always stick to only film or digital origination unless there is some marketing advantage to it 

So using an IMAX camera as a go pro in Dunkirk is normal? 
How about using an iPhone for  an A camera in "Tangerine" normal? 

No, those are situations where the filmmakers wanted to muck around with the wrong camera for the job and they made it work. If Dunkirk had been shot on standard 5 perf 65mm or Tangerine with a Red Dragon, the "cost" would have been very similar. They choose the camera systems because they wanted to play with something, rather than using the right system for the job. 

There isn't a single instance on a normal, budgeted narrative feature where a "film" camera of any kind would NOT work. People push 500T two stops ALL THE TIME and it looks great. If you really need 1500 ISO, maybe you should watch Taxi Driver, which was shot on 125. So really the only excuse is "cost" or "the lab isn't near us". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

At a consequence of quality? 

Even the almighty Roger Deakins admits, film looks better than digital in most cases. It's just, with digital he can see instant results. However, imagine if there was a camera that shot both film and 4k digital? Then would guys like Deakins be OK with shooting film again? Is it really that simple? It's not sensitivity, it's not cost, it's not roll length, it's not weight, it's really only "instant" results, on productions with budgets. 

So using an IMAX camera as a go pro in Dunkirk is normal? 
How about using an iPhone for  an A camera in "Tangerine" normal? 

No, those are situations where the filmmakers wanted to muck around with the wrong camera for the job and they made it work. If Dunkirk had been shot on standard 5 perf 65mm or Tangerine with a Red Dragon, the "cost" would have been very similar. They choose the camera systems because they wanted to play with something, rather than using the right system for the job. 

There isn't a single instance on a normal, budgeted narrative feature where a "film" camera of any kind would NOT work. People push 500T two stops ALL THE TIME and it looks great. If you really need 1500 ISO, maybe you should watch Taxi Driver, which was shot on 125. So really the only excuse is "cost" or "the lab isn't near us". 

Quality can also be one aspect of it. Why the more practical solution should be visually or technically worse option? you would choose the best possible package for the job and that has many aspects to it. 

Using IMAX camera for shots which would be more practical to make with other cameras is partially an aesthetic choice and partially a marketing gimmick. It's the same with Tangerine style productions or Soderbergh using Red One on the "Che" movies or shooting some other projects with iPhones.  People do this with 3D too and did extensively only couple of years ago, the story might have been better told in 2D but they wanted more marketing potential to it so they chose unsuitable technology and style to get more money out of it. 

It is a business after all. Movies are not high art, they are entertainment for the masses and they have to sell well if you want to make them in the first place. The easy way is to add these "tricks" like IMAX and 3D or over-the-top VFX to sell a mediocre product which would otherwise fail in theaters. That is what most Hollywood films are anyway, people just come to look the incredible production design and their favourite characters and actors (Like every superhero movie out there, all the action films, the Hollywood "dramas", etc.) and the script can be anything they fished out of the sewer in 5 minutes. I don't claim all the Hollywood films are bad but they don't have much to them if you remove the stunning visual elements and well-known actors you like. By my opinion the incredible production design is the only thing most Hollywood films are worth watching for :)  yesterday I even watched the After Earth movie which is generally pretty bad flick but most of the production design was great and the main monster was well made as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Even the almighty Roger Deakins admits, film looks better than digital in most cases.

This is an actual quote..?   where you read this.. Ive read quite a bit of his articles and don't remember ever seeing this....if anything its the other way round.. I could be wrong but thats quite a sweeping statement .. and really TBH I doubt he said that..Im willing to be proved wrong though .. can you give evidence of were you read this..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robin R Probyn said:

This is an actual quote..?    can you give evidence of were you read this..  

Robin, Internet forums are fact free zones. Opinion, conjecture, and fabrication are the currency here. Tyler already explained this to us.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

People push 500T two stops ALL THE TIME and it looks great. If you really need 1500 ISO, maybe you should watch Taxi Driver, which was shot on 125. So really the only excuse is "cost" or "the lab isn't near us". 

5219 pushed 2 stops may ‘look great,’ but it does not look the same as, say, a Sony Venice at 2500 ISO in low-light mode. If you shot them side-by-side and intercut the footage, they will not match. One format cannot be a replacement for the other; they are two distinct looks that are both valid choices, depending on personal taste.

Yes, you can get a different look that might be just as aesthetically pleasing on 35mm. But it won’t be the same look. So it’s not just a matter of format cost, or immediate viewing, or peace of mind. The producer, director, and cinematographer are going to pick the tools that allow them to tell their story in the way they see it.

Arguing about how someone else’s work would look ‘better’ (i.e. suiting your own personal taste) if it was shot ‘your way’ is just silly (and somewhat rude, if talking about a colleague). Like or dislike the work, fine. But we should leave it there.

So, I propose an amendment to the Purcell Maxim: 

18 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The camera SHOULD NOT DICTATE the cinematographers job.

Other cinematographers SHOULD NOT DICTATE the cinematographer’s job. 🙂

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Robin, Internet forums are fact free zones. Opinion, conjecture, and fabrication are the currency here. Tyler already explained this to us.

Your quite right Stuart..  I was mistakenly thinking of the old forum, that was full of facts and correct advise, and opinions that were logically discussed , by very competent and professional  people ,who actually had real jobs in this industry..  people made incorrect statements ,even gave wrong advise ..I stand guilty as charged on many occasions .. others would flag this up is a polite way and the poster would  except they were wrong and make some sort of apology and thank the person who had noted their error..and added to their knowledge of said subject.. .. ah heady days.. I just thought they would never end.. such a shame ..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2019 at 6:18 AM, Robin R Probyn said:

This is an actual quote..?   where you read this.. Ive read quite a bit of his articles and don't remember ever seeing this....if anything its the other way round.. I could be wrong but thats quite a sweeping statement .. and really TBH I doubt he said that..Im willing to be proved wrong though .. can you give evidence of were you read this..  

"There are so many new ways of telling stories visually. I like digital, but I am a purist... I love film… I love the look of film but things move on....(digital) is the future and film may not be made very shortly, so its a done deal really, I wanted to be in a place where I felt comfortable shooting digital. " 

- On Hail Cesar-  "We had some stock issues and stuff like that, which was really disconcerting. And I’ve heard that’s happened to a lot of people lately, you know, stock and lab problems. That’s unnerving. I mean I never really remember having those kind of problems before. But it makes me nervous now. I don’t want to do that again, frankly. I don’t think the infrastructure’s there....As I say, just the technical problems with film, I’m sorry, it’s over."

"I was initially scared to shoot digital...but there wasn't a camera that persuaded me before the Alexa." 

 "I've never used filters, I'm use to shooting with tungsten stock and correcting in the lab...with the Alexa I had to start stacking filters on front of the camera, especially on a bright day... It's difficult to get use to." 

"You can get there -to the film look- with digital, you just need to add grain and de-focus it. I love film grain and with the films we did DI, I was able to add it anywhere I wanted." 

"What drew me to the Alexa, the falloff, the rolloff between the two. Every digital camera I've seen has this problem. Maybe once or twice if you get the exposure wrong on a bright day, it'll suddenly look too sharp and clean. It's that kind of subtly of image, is what I like about an image, comparing it with film and saying that's what I like." 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

but it does not look the same as, say, a Sony Venice at 2500 ISO in low-light mode.

True, but the Venice has a VistaVision sized imager. So it's a MUCH larger imager than standard Super 35mm. I would hedge a bet that 500T pushed two stops would look pretty darn crisp in VistaVision. I don't know anyone who has done that test. 

I just don't know why anyone would need 2500 ISO. I get that it's nice to have, but it's a very different look. 

Edited by Tyler Purcell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

True, but the Venice has a VistaVision sized imager. So it's a MUCH larger imager than standard Super 35mm. I would hedge a bet that 500T pushed two stops would look pretty darn crisp in VistaVision. I don't know anyone who has done that test. 

I just don't know why anyone would need 2500 ISO. I get that it's nice to have, but it's a very different look. 

You have missed my point entirely. Even if you shoot the Venice in Super 35 mode and use the same lenses, you will have a completely different looking image than 5219 pushed 2 stops. They may both look aesthetically pleasing (in different ways), and perhaps you can grade the Venice to look more like the film image. But there’s no way to make the film look like the Venice image in that low light scenario, as there won’t be enough shadow detail captured on the negative. 
 

So if you are shooting available light night exteriors and trying to achieve that ‘pushed 2 stops’ film image look, then you have options. But if you are going for the smooth long tonal scale look in the shadows, then obviously there is a reason to consider a camera like the Venice instead.
 

Again, I’m responding to your comment: 

On 11/8/2019 at 10:54 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

There isn't a single instance on a normal, budgeted narrative feature where a "film" camera of any kind would NOT work. People push 500T two stops ALL THE TIME and it looks great. If you really need 1500 ISO, maybe you should watch Taxi Driver, which was shot on 125. So really the only excuse is "cost" or "the lab isn't near us". 

The problem is that you are applying a uselessly broad criteria (i.e. it works, or it doesn’t work) to the situation, presumably meaning that it, film,  will render an aesthetically pleasing image (in your opinion).

The reality is that the project’s DP will be making that aesthetic judgment call on the day, and ‘what works’ for them largely depends on the specific look that they are going for. You, the viewer, are telling the painters what kind of paint they should be using, when you don’t even know what they are trying paint! 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

"There are so many new ways of telling stories visually. I like digital, but I am a purist... I love film… I love the look of film but things move on....(digital) is the future and film may not be made very shortly, so its a done deal really, I wanted to be in a place where I felt comfortable shooting digital. " 

- On Hail Cesar-  "We had some stock issues and stuff like that, which was really disconcerting. And I’ve heard that’s happened to a lot of people lately, you know, stock and lab problems. That’s unnerving. I mean I never really remember having those kind of problems before. But it makes me nervous now. I don’t want to do that again, frankly. I don’t think the infrastructure’s there....As I say, just the technical problems with film, I’m sorry, it’s over."

"I was initially scared to shoot digital...but there wasn't a camera that persuaded me before the Alexa." 

 "I've never used filters, I'm use to shooting with tungsten stock and correcting in the lab...with the Alexa I had to start stacking filters on front of the camera, especially on a bright day... It's difficult to get use to." 

"You can get there -to the film look- with digital, you just need to add grain and de-focus it. I love film grain and with the films we did DI, I was able to add it anywhere I wanted." 

"What drew me to the Alexa, the falloff, the rolloff between the two. Every digital camera I've seen has this problem. Maybe once or twice if you get the exposure wrong on a bright day, it'll suddenly look too sharp and clean. It's that kind of subtly of image, is what I like about an image, comparing it with film and saying that's what I like." 
 

Lots of quotes, but in not one of them does he say that film looks better. Fact free zone, as usual. If you have a point to make, provide evidence. Otherwise, state that it is nothing but your opinion.

"I didn't state any facts" Tyler Purcell 10/30/2019

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.



  • Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    G-Force Grips



    Just Cinema Gear



    CineLab



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Glidecam



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Visual Products



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Paralinx LLC



    Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Abel Cine



    Ritter Battery



    Wooden Camera



    Metropolis Post



    FJS International



    Tai Audio


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...