A Sea Change for the Motion Picture Industry

[cmo]

Myself, I'd rather rent a BNCR package for little or nothing and pay extra grips to move the camera between shots...

It's all a matter of costs and efficiency in the movie business, I believe, and that's why no major studio will invest millions to help developing a new technology that is not working reliably yet. Maybe they run a test project, but not more. It's the same with all digital cameras: they are expensive, and you need a lot of equipment for post-processing, and you might need a different staff than before.

One of my favourite directors, noted for his alter ego Jack Horner in "Boogie Nights", put it in a nutshell: "Before you turn around, you've spent maybe 20, 25, 30 thousand dollars on a movie."

Depends on genre, of course...

 

[Andy K]

I knew things were pretty much going downhill when I saw bottled water labeled as having "No Trans Fats"

I knew things were going downhill when I saw bottled water.

 

[Solarize]

Film has a response that is a curve, with an entry and exit toe in the profile. Most video is very linear, and altering the curve tends to crush or expand tones, often in a way that seems somewhat unnatural. I find the differences more evident in low light and night shots; often those types of scenes are daylight shots altered later. One of the new Kodak Vision films is actually very good in low light conditions, which can allow some very interesting shot set-ups in certain scenes.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

Ditto the crushed tones. I've been DP'ing on an ultra low budget feature (10K) shot on HDV with a 35mm lens adaptor. I had been more concerned with how easy it is to blow highlights, but shooting night scenes brought just as many problems. I for one am excited about digital improvements and lowering costs, as film is just not in reach of low budget indie's and young filmakers - but I certainly wouldn't like to see it fade away from use in productions which can afford it.

The trailer for what we have shot is available on the home page of www.carpathianfilms.com if anyone is interested. It's a bit stretched and hasn't been graded properly... but it is in black and white! lol

 

[eddym]

I knew things were pretty much going downhill when I saw bottled water labeled as having "No Trans Fats"

So THAT'S why it tastes so... bland.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, to address a number of comments here, I don't have curves of the digital work. I have pictures for side-by-side comparison of the edge effects and digitization which "confuse" us visually. I'm going to try to look it up today and perhaps post it here in a stand alone thread.

Next, both digital and analog have traditional curves! They both attempt to use the straight line portion! Negative films have a huge straight line portion. However, digital is more like a transparency which has a truncated straight line. Reversal film has a short latitude as a result. We are fooled by digital which has a short latitude but a compensating sensor which gives us a variety of ISO ranges just like the human eye.

So, traditional negative has a toe and shoulder, but we avoid that by using the zone system and staying in the "middle of the zone". Positive has no such flexible zone. It is there, but it is inflexible with no slop on either side, but the case is the opposite with negative film.

The bottom line is that a digital camera has a curve much like a slide film, but a variable ISO, so we always see a toe and shoulder which is not always seen on a negative. When printing a negative, we can compensate, but that is the only stage of a neg-pos system that has a toe and shoulder that we percieve in a final print (either MP or on paper).

A scanner digitizes a negative, but it can "see" the entire scale and it does reproduce the original more faithfully than any other digital process.

PE

 

[Kino]

The real problem here is the conversation "devolved" from an article on the RED camera and its a mess of assumptions and cross-talking, wandering all over the place, without even agreed upon specifics.

Everyone is pushing their thesis (including myself) without a moderating principal or thesis to argue against or for; in other words, its a typical forum discussion!

If everyone wants to get down in the trenches and blast away, at LEAST let's have and understanding as to WHAT we are discussing and WHY we are discussing it.

Oh, and we should probably move it over to the hybridphoto.com site so we can really fling the alphabet soup around...

 

[BetterSense]

From what I read about in WIRED the 'red' is not a 3-chip camera but rather uses one full frame sensor with color filters and Bayer interpolation, much like a (high-end) DSLR that can just shoot really fast. This kind of sounds like a step backward to me but if they are using a full-frame sensor rather than 3 smaller sensors, well it might even out.

They went on to say that for some reason, 3-chip cameras don't allow flexible DOF adjustment like the 'red' does. Can anyone explain to me why that should be? I don't know much about 3-chip cameras but I don't understand why DOF would be effected.

 

[filmamigo]

Sony have always had a burning desire to get movies shot on video (analog or digital.) They have been working towards it for 40 years. But they also wanted to change other fundamental parts of the image at the same time -- with smaller imager areas (resulting in deep DOF), frame rates faster than 24fps, interlace, etc. Sony has really continued down that path until very recently.

Red comes from a different place. It was designed by enthusiastic (rich) moviemakers who wanted to leverage DSLR technology to get the same kind of performance you get from 35mm MP film. i.e. large imager area, frame rate control, modularity, etc.

Whether Red succeeds as a product is almost not the point. Red redefined the digital cinema conversation, and Sony/Matushita et al have to respond.

Two things worry me about the long term viability of MP film for capture. First is the number of Reds purchased by motion picture rental houses. The menu of gear provided by these folks really determines the viability of any image capture system, because that's where the rubber hits the road. They get all the business supplying gear, and they get the responsibility to make sure it all works as a system. There seems to be quite an investment into Red on that front.

Second -- blind willingness to embrace digital no matter what. Many have rightly pointed to Batman as a good omen for large format film capture in Hollywood. Unfortunately, IMAX have publicly committed to switching to digital capture ASAP.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have posted the comparison I mentioned earlier, FWIW.

PE

 

[Paul Howell]

In yesterday's Arizona Republic bussniess section there is a rather long article on theaters going digital, the cost of a duplicate film is 1200 to 1500 while a hard drive in 200 to 300. So far only new theaters are digital, but the 3 large chains expect to retro fit all theaters, nation wide, by 2011. I have a link, I read the paper.

 

[FilmIs4Ever]

In yesterday's Arizona Republic bussniess section there is a rather long article on theaters going digital, the cost of a duplicate film is 1200 to 1500 while a hard drive in 200 to 300. So far only new theaters are digital, but the 3 large chains expect to retro fit all theaters, nation wide, by 2011. I have a link, I read the paper.

OK, so where's the link?

Not doubting what you've said is what you read in an article (doubt that it is true though, probalby really bad reporting, as theatres have no incentive to replace 35mm projectors, just incentive to build new digital theatres), but we would all like to read it, no doubt.

 

[Paul Howell]

OK, so where's the link?

Not doubting what you've said is what you read in an article (doubt that it is true though, probalby really bad reporting, as theatres have no incentive to replace 35mm projectors, just incentive to build new digital theatres), but we would all like to read it, no doubt.

The Republic reported that the incentive to retro fit comes from lowering labor costs, offering live performances from the Met, for Opera, as well as rock concerts, and tax write offs. Dan Harkins is the owner of the largest local chain, he was interviewed. If intrested you might find the page on AZ Central.Com. A new digital theater just opened up near me, has the live broadcast of the Met, hours are crappy, but the image quaility is excellent.

 

[Davesw]

What about archival issues? What if classic movies such as Casablanca or Vertigo were only stored digitally? As long as the vault is fire proof a master negative is just about fool proof.
It seems to me that a digital master even if backed up multiple times could de edited or altered. Changing the work forever.

 

[JBrunner]

In yesterday's Arizona Republic bussniess section there is a rather long article on theaters going digital, the cost of a duplicate film is 1200 to 1500 while a hard drive in 200 to 300. So far only new theaters are digital, but the 3 large chains expect to retro fit all theaters, nation wide, by 2011. I have a link, I read the paper.

The RED gizmo is for production. Distribution and exhibition are nearly unrelated to production, especially where film is concerned, because it can become any format it needs to be. There is no question that distribution and exhibition are moving more rapidly towards digital than production. The misnomer is that people infer that means production is moving to digital too. Except for highly hyped but few and far between examples, and the very low end, that isn't currently the case. It will be at some point, but not yet, and RED isn't that camera. It's the camera for commercial producers (TV) who want to put more margin in their pocket, and/or want to rub the shiny thing.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a link, I read the paper.[/QUOTE]

Should have read, I dont have a link, I read the paper.

 

[Kino]

What about archival issues? What if classic movies such as Casablanca or Vertigo were only stored digitally? As long as the vault is fire proof a master negative is just about fool proof.
It seems to me that a digital master even if backed up multiple times could de edited or altered. Changing the work forever.

Yeah, as I have pointed out in the past, even copying the file from one system to another, say from a 16 bit Windows platform to a 64 bit Apple platform, can introduce rounding errors when the files are opened by a graphics program in 64 bit OS.

There is somewhat of a backlash in the archival community, mp that is, that has those who can afford it, returning to film based archiving.

 

[darinwc]

I knew things were pretty much going downhill when I saw bottled water labeled as having "No Trans Fats"

How bout M&M's labeled "fat free"? =]

 

[3Dfan]

If there are any Stargate fans on this forum, check out the latest direct to DVD movie and watch the extra features. Even though the movie was mostly done on video cameras, the arctic scenes were done on 16mm film because only a film camera is reliable in those extreme weather conditions.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Our newest multiplex (2007) installed both 35mm and Digital. The screens in older theatres around here that offer digital also have film capability in same auditoriums. The mom and pop theatres in small towns (less than 10k pop) will never have the funds to install digital, unless it is consumer grade.

 

[Ross Chambers]

Admittedly it was few years ago that I worked for Peter Jackson, but Avid for picture cutting and Protools for sound post were the weapons of choice, and of course all the computer generated visual effects were, well computer generated, and what a relief it was to get away from the tangles involved in the usual endless changes that are made daily in post on any feature film. The only slowdown was transferring 35mm film to Avid files in real time and conforming and printing negs for theatrical assessment.

And as one who had some responsibility, in another job, for the condition of release prints I can only say bring on digital projection and distribution as soon as possible. I had to check a print of "The Piano" for the Sydney premiere and was appalled to see a huge jump cut; the projectionist happily told me that he had had an accident, so he whipped out 20 feet, but he had spliced it well, so it would be OK on the night! (unlike his, and my, private parts if the director had seen that) So digital projection keeps those few projectionists left away from their ripping and scratching techniques.

regards - Ross

 

[Photo Engineer]

However, see my post above. Accountants are not happy to find that preservation of full digital masters runs 10 - 100X more / year than preservation of film masters, and the digital masters deteriorate more rapidly.

PE

 

[Kino]

Admittedly it was few years ago that I worked for Peter Jackson, but Avid for picture cutting and Protools for sound post were the weapons of choice, and of course all the computer generated visual effects were, well computer generated, and what a relief it was to get away from the tangles involved in the usual endless changes that are made daily in post on any feature film. The only slowdown was transferring 35mm film to Avid files in real time and conforming and printing negs for theatrical assessment.

And as one who had some responsibility, in another job, for the condition of release prints I can only say bring on digital projection and distribution as soon as possible. I had to check a print of "The Piano" for the Sydney premiere and was appalled to see a huge jump cut; the projectionist happily told me that he had had an accident, so he whipped out 20 feet, but he had spliced it well, so it would be OK on the night! (unlike his, and my, private parts if the director had seen that) So digital projection keeps those few projectionists left away from their ripping and scratching techniques.

regards - Ross

Don't worry Ross, the 16 to 18 year old "master projectionists" that most multiplex hire to run their establishments will find an equally dreadful and creative way to degrade your digital images.

You won't get off that easy.

 

[wildbill]

The article makes the Red out to be the only thing out there of it's kind. It doesn't mention Arri's D-21, http://www.arri.com/entry/products/D-21.htm, or Panavision's Genesis.
They say how cheap the camera is but they don't mention what a set of Cooke or Arri primes to go with it costs. AFAIK, the first Red's sold didn't have a viewfinder available for purchase, only an onboard monitor. I've been told that of the three, the Red is best model for a boat anchor. The majority of large productions won't invest in a camera package, it's just not smart in the long run. The small production companies buying these cameras may think they are getting a great deal compared to what their latest Sony hd cam costs but they now also need to hire a focus puller and 2nd assistant cameraman on top of all the accessories if they're going to shoot efficiently. While the majority of what i work on is captured on film, these cameras are being used more for tv and certain feature films. Ten years ago i was being told that film would soon be replaced by video. How many video formats have come about in the last ten years?
I'd take the article with two grains of salt.

 

[Kino]

Its all marketing spin and wishful thinking, because at the end of the day, you can just unplug the RED and plug in the Panavision and the costs are not that different (all in all).

As you state, who in their right mind would BUY either type camera IF they are shooting a typical feature film? It only makes sense for a very small indy filmmaker and even THAT is debatable, with few exceptions.

In the end, I think a lot of people are in love with the novelty and allure of new technologies rather than just wanting something to work well in an established way; and I can understand that to a degree, but the older I get, the more I just WANT IT TO WORK AND WORK RIGHT.

 

[domaz]

Yeah, as I have pointed out in the past, even copying the file from one system to another, say from a 16 bit Windows platform to a 64 bit Apple platform, can introduce rounding errors when the files are opened by a graphics program in 64 bit OS.

This makes no sense. For one there hasn't been a 16-bit Window platform since Windows 3.1 and DOS. And how can you have rounding errors going from 16-bit to 64-bit? Maybe you are talking about Little Endian vs Big Indian formats? But that is not exactly a hard problem to solve either.