View Full Version : GEN: Superman Returns shot on Panavision Genesis


Pages : [1] 2

Heath McKnight
April 27th, 2005, 03:03 PM
You'll need broadband for the Superman video (http://www.bluetights.net/video_large.php?id=9).

Press release of the camera (http://www.bluetights.net/video_large.php?id=9), which I believe Sony only did part of, vs. the Panavision CineAltas, which just have the Panavision lenses and that's it.

heath

Richard Alvarez
April 27th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Interesting, especially since the workflow pipline is LONGER than film. This relates to the other thread re: HD and 16mm workflow. Digital is not necessarily faster than film.

Heath McKnight
April 27th, 2005, 10:46 PM
That doesn't seem right. It's digital, not on tape--they just plug drives into the computer and go. Dailies can be done instantaneously, not the next evening. There's no 4k DI done for editing and f/x, and only one real film out at the end. Seems shorter to me.

heath

Richard Alvarez
April 28th, 2005, 08:00 AM
The editor is not getting the footage as fast as film, because it is being "CORRECTED" before he gets it. In other words, it still not good enough to even EDIT with. He's getting it a full day later.

This goes back to my post about how much "Post work" is being pushed up in the production flow compared to film. It's the reality of the workflow.

Heath McKnight
April 28th, 2005, 08:16 AM
I understand they do corrections later.

heath

Richard Alvarez
April 28th, 2005, 08:18 AM
Heath,

In the video, the editor expressly complains that' he's NOT getting the footage as fast as he should because the corrections are taking too long.

Heath McKnight
April 28th, 2005, 08:27 AM
What are the corrections?

heath

Kevin Dooley
April 28th, 2005, 08:57 AM
It sounds like color corrections are what they were referring to.

Though it is interesting that Bryan clearly says at one point that he thinks it looks better than film...

Richard Alvarez
April 28th, 2005, 09:21 AM
I've watched that clip three times now, and I still say it points out the workflow bottlenecks. Part of it is personal. One guy, (I'm guessing the line producer?) Says "We could speed things up if you didn't print every take..." To which the director responds he's not going to work any differently ... that is, not going to change his workflow.

I've seen sets grind to a halt, with people huddled around a monitor, adjusting the camera settings to get the look 'right'. This is the sort of thing that is normally done in post with film. As I mentioned, HD tends to push post processess ON TO the set, which can slow down the workflow dramatically.

I don't know what the workflow is in the Superman set in the link. I know that the color corrector is getting the footage BEFORE the editor, which is slowing the editor's pace down by an entire day... which, as the director points out, is unacceptable. Holding onto a set for an extra day is cost prohibitive... (Here again, you savings over film seems to start slipping away.)

IN terms of pure resolution, HD still does not match film. Though, subjectively it can "look better than film". I don't know if what they were screening was a digital projection, or an actual FILM PRINT... it was not made clear. Perhaps someone else has a different take on that?

Yes, in THEORY, digital workflow should be faster than film, because you are eliminating the 'processing'. But if your setups are slower, and you need to color correct the digital stuff before the editor gets to work with it... you've got problems.

Eventually, it will get worked out. Digital IS the future. So is tapeless. But, as I said in another thread. It's not there yet. In terms of special effects shots, it's much better and faster than the film workflow, no question about that.

Kevin Dooley
April 28th, 2005, 09:27 AM
Well then the question begs to be asked, "Why do you have to color correct first?" I mean in film color corrections happens later in the post pipeline... so why not with digital? I know the digital video I shoot (and it by no means is anywhere near this level), that the color correction is one of the last things I do...

Richard Alvarez
April 28th, 2005, 09:57 AM
Indeed. Why DO they need to go to color correction? ... UNLESS.

They don't trust how the image will look TRANSFERRED TO FILM.

This is the only reason I can come up with. Perhaps Charles Papert will comment on this. I am just guessing here... but I am thinking that what they are looking at in the clip, is a FILM PRINT of their digital image. In other words, they haven't eliminated the processing and printing part of looking at dailies..

This dovetails with another article I read, where DP's are very unhappy with looking at digital dailies, because they are not seeing what the projected image will look like. Perhaps, what this clip reflects, is an effort to merge the two workflows? Remember... while film has been eliminated in the production process... it's still IN the delivery format. At some point, you have to see what your images are going to look like projected on a big screen. Again, my point being that the workflow of HD production, is causing what are normally POST processess to be pushed earlier into PRODUCTION processess.

Granted, I have limited experience in terms of feature productions, but this is my observation both first hand, and as relied to me by my creative partner, who shoots both film and HD.

IN a small budget production, you will forgoe many steps. But in a major production, when holding onto a set is a matter of enourmous time and money, you need to KNOW you've got what you need, before you strike and move on... hence the need to get a film-out on your digitals before striking.

Pete Wilie
April 28th, 2005, 11:02 AM
Richard,

You seem to be acceptiing the Superman workflow as the optimum workflow for digital. I'm not sure this is a good assumption.

Several points:
At the beginning the DP stated that they were all new to the digital workflow, and would undoubtedly make some mistakes
They stated that the film workflow would usually take at least 2 days, and this is with expensive rushed processing
It sounds like the director is requiring film prints of the dailies
The need/purpose for color correction before reviewing the dailes is not clear
They talk about flying the dailies somewhere - why?
I'm not sure your comment that much of the "post work" is being pushed up to production being "the reality of the workflow" is necessary how it must be.

So it seems to me that the workflow could be greatly sped up by

Print only the first one or two dailies to convince yourself that the digital will produce the ultimate look you want
Setup larger HD monitors or digital projection on location for INSTANT review of the dailies
Take one sample through the entire workflow process in the beginning to be sure you will get the final product you want
After that you should be able to rely on just reviewing the raw HD footage


I think your conclusions that digital shooting is slower than film shooting my be premature. It may be that the crews experienced with film may not have fully adapted their workflow to be optimized for digital. The director requiring a print of the dailies is one example.

Best Regards,
Pete

Kevin Dooley
April 28th, 2005, 11:07 AM
I'm going to have to agree with you Pete. It's not like there aren't plenty of view mediums for HD content... even uncompressed or whatever it is that the Genesis gives you. I think the problem is printing the dailies. If Singer and his DP would do the research to make sure that their source will end up like they want, then they could easily go to, like you said, instant dailies. It's a matter of research (preproduction) and confidence in the choices you've made. If you do that, then you are saving the cost of printing dailies and you're saving the time...

Richard Alvarez
April 28th, 2005, 11:20 AM
My assesment is not "premature" it's based on my personal experience on sets, and on the experience of my creative partner and DP.

I'm waiting on some rendering right now, as I'm editing, but if I can find the articles that state the problems I've pointed out, I will. Many DP's are unhappy with "instant dailies". I've SEEN sets slow down, while everyone gathers around the HD monitor, and keeps adjusting the camera settings. These are facts, not assumptions.

The need for color correction of the dailies before filmout is not made clear as you said... let me venture an explanaiton.

With a properly exposed negative... you have the option of getting what you want in the processesing of the print. In the digital workflow... if the information is NOT IN THE DIGITAL NUMBERS it's not going to show up in the print, follow?

But perhaps someone with more on set experience than me, or those represented in the clip, would like to chime in. The HD workflow has been around for... what, going on ten years?

Pete Wilie
April 28th, 2005, 11:53 AM
Many DP's are unhappy with "instant dailies". I've SEEN sets slow down, while everyone gathers around the HD monitor, and keeps adjusting the camera settings. These are facts, not assumptions.
The question is WHY?

Why are the DP's unhappy?
Why is EVERYONE gathering around the HD monitor?
Is the crew still trying to operate like film crew?
Did they do their homework in pre-production to test the workflow?
Don't they trust the DP?
Don't they trust the cameraman?
Has the crew really tried to optimize their workflow for HD?

Jeff Patnaude
April 28th, 2005, 02:10 PM
I'm ignorant as to film work-flows. My first question is...WHY don't they view the HD dailies, and give the raw footage to the editor, and then color correct only the shots included in the final cut of the film? THEN go to make prints.
It seems that -as stated earlier- if they did testing ahead of time to insure the look they were striving for, they could take advantage of not needing time to process footage.
Okay, I'm going back to my audio mixer now......

Jeff Patnaude

P.S.
They could in fact edit and color correct at the same time. Just replace the old footage with new color corrected files and they would fit in the timeline seemlessly (one would hope). View and edit quick, watch color corrected stuff later.

Kevin Dooley
April 28th, 2005, 02:14 PM
That's my point as well. The crew should not be hudled around a monitor on set. Dailies should be watched at the same normal time that dailies would be watched on a film set... except you're actually watching what you shot that day. Not what you did 2 days ago. Again, it seems to me that there's a need to rethink workflow. No, don't stand around on set second guessing yourself... but work with HD intelligently, don't stand by the hard and fast way of doing things when you shoot a different format (ie: film).

Heath McKnight
April 28th, 2005, 02:21 PM
I can say one thing about a digital workflow--color correct AFTER! I think going off the video isn't accurate, because things moved faster on the two Star Wars digital shoots, much faster. I am sure they're second guessing themselves.

heath

Luis Caffesse
April 28th, 2005, 02:26 PM
"With a properly exposed negative... you have the option of getting what you want in the processesing of the print. In the digital workflow... if the information is NOT IN THE DIGITAL NUMBERS it's not going to show up in the print, follow?"

Richard, that doesn't seem to make sense in terms of why they would be color correcting the footage before editing.

You are right in saying that if the information is not in the numbers then it won't show up on the print...but if the information is not in the numbers it's not going to show up during color correcting either.

I can't see what sort of 'correcting' they need to do before editing.
The ides of correcting ALL of your raw footage seems terribly wasteful both in time and money. I'm sure they have their reasons.

Dean Bull
May 5th, 2005, 04:51 AM
One major mistake is to think that just because these people are spending millions that they have the right answers.

Much of what happens in la-la land is very counter intuitive because they have the money to pay for it!

You would be amazed at how much more many of these people know on this board than many of the high paid guys working.

Now, I'm no poet, but in some ways the biggest freak out about HD is that the mystery is lost on set that is created by shooting negative film.

I am going to let it out of the bag! 35mm negative looks awful before it gets colored and timed!

Some random thoughts --

Lastly, consider this... Much of making movies is about making the movie. If Superman can boast about anything to any trade or publication and get any press its worth it.

And

Panavision may have brought them a killer deal on the kit

And

Even if the process saving are a wash between film and the genesis think of the savings that will present itself on the NEXT batch of films made by the studio using the camera.

And

Just imagine the exciting EPK stuff about "Superman Speeds Into the Cutting Edge"

G'day

Dean

Richard Alvarez
May 5th, 2005, 08:19 AM
Okay, I'm going to jump back in here, and make an educated guess on their workflow bottleneck.

It goes back to DP's NOT being happy with screening "Digital Dailies". What you see on a High Def Monitor, or on a digital projector screen, is NOT what your image will look like, once it's transfered to negative, printed and projected.(The forums here and all over the net are full of posts like "Anyone seen what the footage from XYZ camera looks like when transfered to film?) In looking at a monitor, "what you see, is NOT what you get". Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse. Untill it is projected, it's an unkown. (I'm still scouring my back issues of magazines, for a great article called "Digital Dailies... can we trust them?" or something like that. It might have been in AC magazine, I read it about a year ago...)

This makes DP's uncomfortable.

SO, on a regular film set, you expose and shoot, (With a hundred years of knowledge behind you that tells you what to expect from that awfull looking negative.) Next day, you look at the images projected on the screen. If all looks good, you move on... if not you go back and reshoot. (And yes, you have a video tap on set to check between shots for continuity, performance, and framing.)


Enter HD. You expose... and look at the monitor... and adjust the monitor, and adjust the camera... and re-calibrate the monitor... and recalibrate the camera because it's changed temperature.... IF you are shooting some sort of FX heavy shot with green screening... you can even do a quick real time composite, and look at what you've got on the set! Great! This will save you from having to reshoot because the composite isn't going to work. You find out right away, if you got what you need... but you've moved what was normally a bit of 'post' into what is now the 'production' workflow. This may or may not be an acceptable trade off... it all depends on what's more expensive, recalling the actors, rebuilding the set, reshooting the shot, or fixing it in post. (This is one reason why people huddle around the monitor. And by people, I mean the DP, the Director, The Engineer, the Gaffer, PERHAPS the actors, people who NEED to see the image. Obviously, the prop guy and greensman don't need to see this - unless they've screwed up)

So, because DP's like to see images projected on the screen for dailies, you take the HD images, send them to a lab to be TRANSFERED to a negative, then developed into a print to be projected. You have, in effect added at LEAST one more step between shooting the image, and projecting it. I am not entirely savvy on what the process is, but I am assuming that you want to get as close to the final image possible on the projection, so that the director doesn't call a re-shoot.This is probably why the color corrector is looking at it. She is, in effect, responsible for the image that is captured on the neg. This goes back to the difference between lattitudes of film and video. IF the colors or lattitude is NOT present in the data she has to work with BEFORE it goes to film, it simply won't be there afterwards. Sure, they will be looking at a rough color transfer... but SOMEONE has to sign off on what is on the DATA before they strike and expensive set, or actor. I am assuming here is where SUPERMAN is losing the extra day in getting their dailies.

Dailes, by the way, are not always seen that day, or even the next... it depends on the location of the shoot, and the nearest LAB or transfer house.And if the lab and transfer house are in two different cities, add in the travel time between them. You don't get this stuff done at your local fotomat.

SO, by virtue of adding the need to transfer from data to neg, you increase the ammount of time to get the daily.

What I hear people complaining about in these posts, is "Why don't they trust what they see on the monitor on the set, and just use raw digital data as a screener?"

The simple answer would be that the workflow is still in it's infancy, and still not 'trustworthy'. That's a tough call. I suppose, when the entire process from exposure to projection is digital, then it will be a done deal. But as long as film is still the preferred projection medium, it's a bit of a conundrum.

Of course, in a real low budget, indy situation, you don't have the luxury of looking at dailies. Your "dailies" are used for performance, and continuitay and framing checks. So you are forced to trust what's on the tape. You shoot as best you can, and hope it's picked up for distribution,and the studio will spring for the extra money to transfer and 'correct' your captured data.

Nick Hiltgen
May 27th, 2005, 01:41 AM
I'm going to jump in here because I think there's some misinformation. Fisrt let me say I'm not intimately familiar with the genesis cam (few people are) but I do know the f900, the 950 (the "front of the genesis") and the work flow for the viper (sort of like the genesis). The issue they are probably facing is that if it's like the viper the image is raw data, if you view it on the monitor it's green. So they have to send it in to color correction in order to get an idea of what it will look like. This is a problem that has already been corrected and implemented in SCRATCH which allows real time color correcting and editing on the D.I. The other issue I believe is the genesis was not designed to shoot an entire movie with, it was designed to show pick up scenes that needed to be shot in 4:4:4 for special effects. Panavision for a while was only renting it to people that already were picking up a film package from them. Also I'm positive it's not an issue of the inofrmation not being there because it is RAW there is no compression, no information to be lost. So what happens is the footage which is green is going to the color correctionist who then removes that green, it's then printed to the D.I. and possibly to be printed to film. The bottle neck is more likely a human one then a problem with workflow. (it also looked like the editor was a little drunk and may have used the thursday example as a worse case scenario... but none of that is actually said)

The dailies issue is a curious one. It seems to me that they probably did there homework (most LOW budget movies would do a test film out to see what the image is going to look like afters it's transferred) and god knows this project has been around long enough to where they didn't "not have time." As far as tweaking the camera on set. On the similar camera "the viper" there really isn't much tweaking that can be done except to how it goes out to the monitor because all of the raw information is laid down regardless. In the case of the f900 you would only tweak the camera and you would do that from the D.I.T. work station. If the D.I.T. is worth his money and my guess is whoever did this job was probably top of his game they should just pull the downconvert out of the camera or the deck (which I'm told is an SRW1 deck the same decks they used to store data from a 950 which is what lucus used) So the interesting thing then becomes the digital dailies in that I find it odd that there is such a long wait. technically all that needs to be done is a single tweak so that the dailies aren't green they can then be passed onto the DP, director whomever who can view them. Then later on when the movie is wrapped will they do the REAL color correction to get an idea of what the film will look like projected. I think if the DP feels the need to see every daily color corrected and printed to film (which it doesn't sound like is the case for the record) then that is a fault of the DP not the camera or workflow. It's really difficult to pinpoint the problem (if there is one as such) from such a short clip but I think it's inaccurate to say that there is a problem in workflow.

The typical HD workflow is Image is acquired, while being laid down to tape it is simultaneously being downconverted to digibeta or beta, and looped through to video village for director producer D.P. to see. that is then taken and used as the digital intermediate directly to the editor, once it is cut the color correctionist then does his or her job and the movie is telecined to film.

I think it's just a waste of money to do actual finishing for your dailies because then they're not really "dailies."

Heath McKnight
July 16th, 2005, 10:10 PM
You'll need broadband:

http://www.bluetights.net/video_large.php?id=19

heath

Heath McKnight
August 1st, 2005, 07:29 AM
http://www.panavision.com.au/News/SupermanGallery01.htm

heath

Joe Carney
August 1st, 2005, 10:39 AM
Looks sort of like a TOW missle launcher.:)

Lorinda Norton
August 1st, 2005, 10:57 AM
Do those guys look like they're having a blast, or what?? Gosh, that looks like fun.

Thanks so much for finding/sharing the link, Heath. That camera is amazing.

(....now I've got to do a Google search to see what a TOW missile launcher looks like, Joe...) :)

James A. Davis
January 2nd, 2006, 08:38 PM
This works for me. I love that big budget movies (Star Wars II&III, Collateral) are being shot High Def. Supes is going to look good.

Richard Alvarez
January 2nd, 2006, 08:55 PM
Collateral wasn't all shot in HD, only parts of it.

The vast majority of films are still.... film.

HD is coming, but it's not here yet.

Tyler Fillmore
January 2nd, 2006, 09:17 PM
Don't Forget Sin City

Ben Gurvich
January 2nd, 2006, 10:11 PM
Spy Kids 2 & 3,
The Hebrew Hammer,

Sin City 2

Krystian Ramlogan
January 2nd, 2006, 11:11 PM
None of those films are great however, not even Star Wars Ep III, though they are interesting for technical reasons, and speak volumes for advancement of video technology and CGI/Post Production.

Superman Returns looks good, I follow the production diaries, etc. But, HD is an easy solution to what is already available, film, without the knowledge and hard work it demands. It still does not come close to what you can do with film.

I'm all for advancements however, and I would use anything to make my story once it was available. In the end it makes things a bit easier for those of us coming up.

Film is still King though.

Charles Papert
January 3rd, 2006, 10:58 AM
But, HD is an easy solution to what is already available, film, without the knowledge and hard work it demands..

(strangled cry of anguish!) Krystian, fall not into this trap--shooting good looking HD requires as much as skill as good looking film, and believe me it's plenty hard work!

It's actually easier to make film look good; 35mm can look gorgeous in available light, whereas HD usually needs some help to look gorgeous. Most of the hard work in making pretty pictures comes well before the image is captured; it's the lighting, blocking, camera movement and framing choices, which are the virtually the same for 35mm and HD. Until the dynamic range of HD catches up to film, though, there's an additional challenge with HD of managing the highlights--most people don't like the look of "blown out" HD which can look great on film.

Where one might consider it easier to shoot HD is that one can use monitors to check the lighting vs the light meter and experienced eye that is required for film, and that is certainly a factor, assuming that your budget allows for a properly calibrated HD monitor in a controlled environment for every setup (not always possible). I shot a feature with the Cinealta last year that occasionally required me to go "untethered" and work film-style--it's an important skill to be able to do both.

Jesse Bekas
January 3rd, 2006, 01:16 PM
My friend works on the newest (currently) unaired, L&O show. I think it's called Conviction (?).

Anyway, they're the first TV show to be using the Genesis.

They've had a couple of issues, but, all in all, he said using the camera has been smooth sailing.

I'm hoping to catch a day or two there to check it out first hand ;)

Krystian Ramlogan
January 3rd, 2006, 02:52 PM
Lol, (startled cry of chagrin) :-)

Aww, I'm sorry, I know that, and I think I rushed that post before re-reading it, lol.

I fully agree with what you've said Charles, and actually I think I will revise my statement above to: HD requires as much technical knowledge as film, maybe more with that video village concept (navel string in my slang), and it can produce great images once that knowledge is brought to bear. Film is much more forgiving because of its latitude and inherent organic look; someone can do some crap and if it works, say "that was my intention, I was being artistic."

So, I do not disagree.

Hmm, I think I was really trying to say, for an Iconic Film like Superman Returns I would have loved to see Anamorphic 65mm FILM, or a return to the glory of what FILM can achieve. I think going with HD was a slight cop-out, and perhaps demonstrates that unless people invest in maintaining the skills to shoot with everything available: Film and HD (and whatever else may arise in the future) we will all lose something very valuable in the world of cinema: spirit.

I know it's hard with Studio pressure, and return on investment, but trailblazers of yesteryear didn't curtail their creativity or desire to explore and push the envelope of what existed to raise the bar, to achieve new levels of visual imagery, in effect to show that it could be done because they had the vision and confidence in themselves to work with FILM and it's difficulties.

I've always believed it's the journey, not the destination, and while I'm on this ride we call life I'm going to use everything I can to tell my stories, whether Film or HD or SD, or CGI, etc.

So, no more cries of anguish!!

:-)

Heath McKnight
January 4th, 2006, 09:08 PM
We've been talking about Superman on the Genesis for a while. Besides, I think the Genesis will make Supes look like gorgeous 65mm film.

What I'd like to hear is, who is shooting on the ultra-pricey 4k camera, the Dalsa Origin (http://www.dalsa.com/dc/origin/origin.asp).

heath

Michael Stevenson
January 4th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Star Wars Episode III was shot entirely, from beginning to end, using the Sony CineAlta HD video camera. Film did not enter into the "picture" until the final release prints were made. I agree with Charles, good story telling, reguardless of the technology, begins with the the essentials: Script, Direction, Lights, Camera, Action! Great Films are few and far between and their greatness has nothing to do with the media that they are captured on or the haydays of hollywood.

Michael:)

Heath McKnight
January 4th, 2006, 11:36 PM
Episode II was the second film shot on the F900; some indie film was shot a few weeks before in June 2000 with it.

heath

Krystian Ramlogan
January 4th, 2006, 11:49 PM
As a film student and someone who has worked with media for over 13 years (35mm to VHS) in various capacities, I agree that all good films share a common foundation; good storytellers understand these elements and can go beyond them to tell their story because they understand them totally.

As an individual anyone can decide what these elements are because we all have different values and experiences which determine what is most important to us. However, the medium used is essential to a stories inherent logic, mood, aesthetic, period, style, etc. Of course technology is advanced enough to rival the film stock first used so long ago in the early 1900s till the mid-1900s, but it is misleading and inaccurate to say choice of medium plays no part in telling the story.

As I have already said, I do agree all formats have their place, and an example I have used before in this forum is painting; whether oil, water colors, acrylic, charcoal, pencils, ink, india ink, etc. each of these requires different skills and produce different images. As a sometime painter who was pretty good, oil is a very demanding discipline, like film is, but other mediums are just as good depending on the desired outcome. For moving pictures, the medium determines the final look and what can be achieved or what vision can be brought to light.

I never implied that HD was not viable, but to be honest Star Wars Ep III is weak in many areas and it cannot match modern day film in terms of clarity, resolution or texture (nor the originals in my opinion) as yet. When that day comes however I will be right there with everyone else.

Again, technology advances are great and I for one love to see how far along things have come, as a future storyteller I want as many options as I can have to tell my own stories. So please do not misintrepret my intent and imply that I was saying HD is not viable, it's just not there yet: for wide vistas, long sweeping shots which have more actual sets and props, than CGI.

Also when I spoke to a return of the glory that film can achieve I was not referring to the heydey of film as something mystical, I was referring to the fact that these days filmmakers get so caught up in techology they forget it's the spirit and passion they bring (and their cast and crew) that bring life to their vision, working beyond the technology available and being innovative and creative with little to create more (KONG is an example of that in my opinion), and film has withstood the test of time.

Just my opinion once again. Feel free to disagree, I don't mind. Makes for more interesting conversation anyway. :-)

Heath McKnight
January 5th, 2006, 12:37 AM
Would you be shocked to learn a bunch of Sundance films this year (the fest is weeks away) were shot partially or fully on HDV?

heath

Brian Duke
January 5th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Star Wars Episode III was shot entirely, from beginning to end, using the Sony CineAlta HD video camera. Film did not enter into the "picture" until the final release prints were made. I agree with Charles, good story telling, reguardless of the technology, begins with the the essentials: Script, Direction, Lights, Camera, Action! Great Films are few and far between and their greatness has nothing to do with the media that they are captured on or the haydays of hollywood.

Michael:)

AMEN FREAKIN TO DAT!!! Too many DPs and tech people are way too concerned with look rather than story, but then again I think its their job to be =) Personally I couldn't care less of the media if what i watch grabs me.

Heath McKnight
January 5th, 2006, 01:51 AM
I agree. I've seen plenty of films shot on film that stink (ALEXANDER comes to mind).

heath

Krystian Ramlogan
January 5th, 2006, 06:21 AM
Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven, and tons more. But, why judge the medium, obviously these films are flawed, although the images certainly looked great in many scenes. :-)

I didn't particularly find Sin City to be a good film, but there were some great images in there.

No I would not be surprised about Sundance, I have a friend going with her mini DV film and I worked on an HDV film this last summer which is being prepped for Cannes this year. Why assume I have some mindset against HD or Video? I already said I didn't.

As for these films, how many have wide panaromic shots? Very long shots? I would guess none. Choice of format also determines look, style, etc. And film has, at this point, greater clarity and resolution hands down.

My point is Film is here and its great, but I doubt very many will remain as skilled at its use if everyone decides they rather stop learning how to use it to its full potential or continue pushing its barriers.

HD is also here, but still has to prove itself as capable as film, but time will tell that tale.

I remain willing to learn both, and whatever works for my story when I decide to tell it.

J. Stephen McDonald
January 7th, 2006, 05:06 AM
(strangled cry of anguish!) Krystian, fall not into this trap--shooting good looking HD requires as much as skill as good looking film, and believe me it's plenty hard work!

It's actually easier to make film look good; 35mm can look gorgeous in available light, whereas HD usually needs some help to look gorgeous. Most of the hard work in making pretty pictures comes well before the image is captured; it's the lighting, blocking, camera movement and framing choices, which are the virtually the same for 35mm and HD.----------

Charles, what you say is so true and you can see this demonstrated on network HDTV shows. There is so much variation in quality in different programs and it can likely be attibuted to the relatively low production budgets they have, compared to major movies. Many HDTV programs show bad lighting in certain scenes, especially in indoor settings. It takes a lot of time and expertise, to give good illumination to all the facets of an indoor shot. You often see badly-exposed scenes, followed by gorgeous ones, as there's a good deal of inconsistency. The bigger-budget shows, many of them on CBS, show a lot more preparation in the lighting. Much of the better exposure you see probably comes from more careful staging of the actors and objects, to make the most of the light and to balance the illumination.

As time goes by, I expect that the greatly increased challenges of HD shooting will be offset by the collectively growing experience of the crews. They'll learn the tricks needed to make things come out better, even without a lot of time or money to spend. The directors want things arranged in a certain way, to tell the story exactly as they visualize it. But, in HDTV, they may have to compromise a bit, to facilitate better whole-scene exposure. Lighting directors have always been very important, but I think their role in HDTV production will become even more significant and the action directors may have to defer to their advice more often.

J. Stephen McDonald
January 7th, 2006, 05:45 AM
Brian Duke wrote: "Too many DPs and tech people are way too concerned with look rather than story------"
-----------------------------------

The masses of people, who for decades languished in their low expectations and thought VHS was all they needed, have finally awakened. Now, they are beginning to expect, I should say demand, both great stories and beautiful
scenes. Those who operated with only one of those values in mind, will have to rise up and bring together the best of both those things.

I put together what I thought was a nice and sharp-looking little video production of local wildlife. I did this just to send out DVDs of it to a number of my friends, during the holidays. One family couldn't get it to play on any of the equipment they had, so I offered to make them an S-VHS copy.
They said, "Nah, we don't ever watch videotapes any more, now that we've got DVDs of movies and HDTV on cable". This is the same bunch who five years ago, I had a hard job persuading to get an S-VHS VCR, so they wouldn't have to settle for 240-line VHS any longer. They were stunned by the visual improvement from what I put on an S-VHS tape for them back then and now, it isn't good enough for them to bother watching. I guess this is actually a good sign.

Jeff McElroy
January 7th, 2006, 09:13 AM
Regardless of what is most important… true cinema is at its apex only when stunning visuals and storytelling coexist. As a matter of conscience, I don’t like it when people separate the two, and what I think makes film so unique as an art form is the cohesion of elements required. At heart I would consider myself, and hopefully most of the people here, simply storytellers. Only the medium in which we tell our stories is a fundamentally aesthetic one, whereby a major part of the storytelling process is accomplished visually. Therefore I would argue that, as a means to tell a story, the visuals are just as important as anything.

Jeff Morrissette
April 24th, 2006, 04:36 PM
27 days later made alot of money and A liked the film as well. But it was shot in DV. The medium is the message. Using the strength of a medium with a good story will make any thing work, digital or film.

Tony Tibbetts
April 24th, 2006, 10:40 PM
It's the same thing the world over with filmmakers. You have your dilettantes who want everything to look professionally polished and you have your true artists who have a passion for telling a good story. Medium be damned.

To paraphrase Martin Scorsese "You don't make films because you want to, you make films because you have to, you have no choice"

Heath McKnight
April 24th, 2006, 10:55 PM
Scorsese once said "kids" can make a black and white film for $10,000 (this was in 1998 during an interview). I took that seriously and made my first film on DV (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BDCEWS/qid=1145940868/sr=8-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-4449835-0246410?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130) a year later.

I think a certain amount of skill and patience is required to make great films, along with a great cast and crew, and good gear.

heath

Rob Lohman
May 10th, 2006, 04:03 AM
I've split off the talk about Charles' experience with the Genesis:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=67040

Heath McKnight
May 10th, 2006, 06:38 AM
Thanks, Rob!

heath