GEN: Superman Returns shot on Panavision Genesis

[Krystian Ramlogan]

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]

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

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]

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]

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]

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.

heath

[Michael Stevenson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Michael Stevenson

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]

I agree. I've seen plenty of films shot on film that stink (ALEXANDER comes to mind).

heath

[Krystian Ramlogan]

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]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

(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]

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]

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.