I Love You, Genesis
Oh baby…Ladies and Gentlemen, I have seen the future. You can too, in ten days. On April 14, Scary Movie 4 will be the first major motion picture release to have been filmed with the Panavision Genesis HD system. It’s not the first film to go into production with the Genesis, but because we’re so damned speedy, we’ll be the first to the marketplace. This summer, you can see another small film shot on Genesis called Superman Returns.
First, let me apologize for this essay, which has absolutely nothing to do with screenwriting. I’m just so damned enthusiastic about this thing, and I want to sing its praises.
The Genesis uses standard 35 mm lenses, and the image quality is exceptional. It doesn’t look like video. It looks like incredibly detailed film. What’s more, when the digital files are ultimately scanned to film, they look exactly like film…because they are film.
The real benefits of the Genesis are in the way it makes production and post-production so much easier.
With film, you’re always checking the gate after your setups. You still check “the gate” with the Genesis, but it’s not really a gate (the chamber through which the film travels). It’s the gap between the lens and the camera body. As such, there’s almost never any hairs or dirt in there to necessitate do-overs.
The HD tapes are long, so you don’t waste as much time changing mags, and you never have to worry about spooling out during a long take. Watching dailies is a joy. With film, you can usually “rock n’ roll” backwards and forwards, but sometimes the projector won’t even let you do that, so it’s once through and then back to work. With HD, you can freeze frame dailies and replay moments at will. The Genesis dailes also look much much much better than your typically under- or over-lit one-light 35mm daily transfers.
But the real benefits are in post. All visual effects are less lossy; instead of going from 35mm to digital back to 35mm, you stay in digital until you’re ready for the final film out. Opticals are not lossy at all…no need to do optical fades, optical dissolves, etc. Also, you have a TON more latitude when it’s time to color correct. Digital images are much easier to manipulate and adjust than photochemical ones. It’s the difference between using a laser and a shotgun.
There’s no such thing as negative dirt or film scratches, and because there’s no film travel, the registration is perfect, so the subtitles and credits don’t dance around.
There’s no negative cutting! Think about that! No splices to deal with EVER.
Maybe the single greatest benefit of the Genesis, however, is the way it allows you to blow images up. The need for blow-ups is almost inevitable. There’s a boom that dips into frame, or maybe there’s a flag peeking in, or maybe you wish you had gotten a more extreme close up than the one you shot…etc.
With 35mm, you can blow stuff up about 15% before it starts to get really grainy and milky and take you out of the movie.
With the Genesis? We blew one shot up by 250 percent. We can barely tell. The audience? Not at all…especially after you film-out all of the HD so that the blown-up shot gets the same proportion of grain as the non-blown up shots. 250% vs 15%! The media is unbelievably versatile.
One thing to be aware of is that the viewfinder on the Genesis isn’t a reflex lens like the kind you find on a 35mm camera. It’s actually a video tap, and as such, there’s a (very) slight delay between reality and what the operator sees. Therefore, if you’re shooting things like sports or car chases where you need perfect precision operating, the Genesis might not be for you. Of course, this will be perfected in the near future (it’s currently like this because of shutter and light issues…give it two or three years and they’ll have a new system with a reflex viewfinder).
In about 15 years, when the studios and exhibitors finally get their acts together and come up with digital delivery systems and digital projectors, it’s my belief that film will be dead. Images will never touch emulsion again. And from what I’ve seen, abandoning film will cost us little or nothing in warmth and quality, and gain us so very much more.
It’s nice to hear real life stories about HD taking big steps. I fought the advancement from film to video for a long time for sentimental reasons. I still think traditional 35mm looks beautiful but the new high end HD cameras (the Viper for one) are impressing me more and more not to mention the workflow is just easier, plain and simple. It’s just a matter of time.
craig
i was to be a photog but lost the bug. film was the bane of my existence. always worrying what frame i was on/how many i had left. monumental cost of film/processing. hours in darkroom (oh, wait. that was something else).
anyway, agree. flim is history. flimflam. good riddance. goodbye silver emulsion, hello 10101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010
z
Ah, Craig, Thanks, man. I love you, too.
Awesome. I do get why many filmmakers want to hang onto to traditional 35mm shooting, but ultimately, when I’m one day making films, I want to make them look as good as possible, for as little money as possible. And even when I was just doing my degree, shooting on DV, someone else in my class lost 4 mins of 16mm footage due to a processing screw-up. I don’t want to take the chance of that happening to my real work one day. HD is the way to go.
(PS, Craig, I was never a fan of (read: despised) the first 2 Scary Movies, but I caught the new 4 trailer the other day and laughed my ass off. Well done, Sir)
Why are we so quick to throw out the past? Good riddance is a little extreme and I don’t think we should throw out an entire 100 years of recorded history and film techniques just because a new $6,000 DV camera comes out every year. Not that the Genesis or the Viper is that DV camera but let’s face it, it might be a while before I or most of us get our hands on one. I’m all for the advancement of the art of filmmaking but just because you buy a camera doesn’t make you a DP.
Michael Mann used the Viper on Collateral. It looks great but there are some scenes that have a lot of motion in them and you can just see the flaws of video. It doesn’t record motion all that well. Not yet.
How much film is shot during a typical movie, and how much does that film cost to process?
Amazing. Thanks for the education.
Film is still superior. Video is just cheaper. Another example of cost cutting at the expense of quality.
15% vs 250% blow up. I don’t think film is superior there.
The conversation about quality is moot. If digital isn’t there now, it will be there and surpass film soon enough. The digital age isn’t a possibility. It’s an inevitability. You can doggedly, and in my opinion, foolishly cling to old technology or push forward and embrace the new.
From a mass viewing perspective, film can’t hold a candle to digital projection even now. This isn’t a criticism of film quality as much as it is a condemnation of the quality of release prints, the unavoidable fading of celluloid along with the dirt, scratches, and sometimes uneven focus that accompany 90% of all movies exhibited throughout this country.
The moment I saw Phantom Menace exhibited digitally, I knew the future was here, and that was 1999 technology.
As far as making movies goes, I only need to read Craig’s post to know that digital filmmmaking frees the artist with more possibilities.
Marianne:
On a typical studio film, you’re looking at anywhere from 500,000 to a million feet of film stock. Occasionally, someone will go over a million, and every now and then someone will go over a 1,500,000.
Titanic was something like 1.3 million feet of film.
The cost of the film has to be measured incrementally.
There’s the cost of the stock. Then there’s the labor cost of the loaders who mount the mags, then unmount them, remove the film in a dark room and seal them into cans. Then there’s the initial film processing to expose the negative. Then the dailies must be made. The workprints. The interpositives. The answer prints. The negative cutting.
I can’t give you a precise number for all of that, but according to our bean counters on Scary 4, we saved about a million dollars by using the Genesis system.
That’s a million dollars…for a system we all found to be more creatively advantageous than film.
By all of us, I’m also including our cinematographer, who loved the system.
And how much does one finished print that is sent to a theater cost to make?
Marianne:
I’m not sure what the cost is per print, and I’m sure it changes per the number of prints you make, but figure about 5 million bucks or so? I did see one stat…that the industry spends about 2 BILLION on prints each year (including film prints and trailer prints).
It’s been interesting to watch the guinea pig films come out. I’ve never seen something shot on HD that wasn’t instantly identifiable as not being shot on film. The first few films didn’t convert me to the cause.
Episode 2 was a much uglier film than The Phantom Menace (but it wasn’t horrible). Spy Kids 2 was infinitely uglier than Spy Kids (but, it was bearable). Once Upon a Time in Mexico suffered a lot from the amateur HD cinematography (and the lack of super-crazy-no-way slo-mo killed every fucking action scene in the entire film).
Collateral was a beautiful film and the first great use of HD. It didn’t look like film, but it had a great, seemingly organic look all its own. I was really impressed. The choice to shoot on HD seems best made when it’s an aesthetic choice, like the difference between shooting in color or in black and white. Some cinematographers are working wonders in HD (even though it still looks different) like Matty Libatique.
The Genesis camera (or it’s future knockoff or upgrade — or the new Viper for that matter) may change a lot of things, and it may possibly make film obsolete. I’m holding out to see if Zodiac looks half as good as the previous Fincher films. If it does, then I will embrace it wholeheartedly. It will be interesting to see if someone like Terence Malick ever shoots a film in this manner.
i can throw my two cents in. i used to starve in order to keep (slide) film in my cameras - that’s $12 a roll plus $10 for processing x at least 3 rolls a week (all i could afford, pros can shoot 30 rolls in a day without thinking about it).
when a movie is prepped for showing it must be converted from negative film into positive film. the cost per foot is unreal - but the real cost is labor. the machines that process positive film cost up to a few million (i guess) and take a crew to maintain - probably 24/7 if your operation is in la. the solutions (there are 10-50) must be kept to within 1-2 degree tolerances. also, the time in each bath is controlled to within a 1 second +/- tolerance. if you go outside that the color or density will shift and, poof, thousands of feet of film made useless. these machines are giant - like, say, 100 feet long - filled with gears, tanks, monitors, gauges, etc. all calibrated to the nth degree.
anyway, the movie you see at the theater costs much more than the stock it was shot on (and that’s one print for every screen the movie shows on). plus - movies are shipped overnight/air. they are packed in metal canisters that weigh several pounds. if a movie shows on 3500 screens - that’s 3500 hundred prints you have to ship out (overnight/air at say 10 pounds each). you do the math. after movie’s run, the prints have to be shipped back. do the math again.
film is history - i’ll bet you several million dollars per movie made. go ahead. bet me.
Anyone know the pixel dimensions of a frame shot by that thing? 250 % would make it something like… 914000 X 666000? 17 gigs per frame? More? Nuts, I say.
I bet a significant part of that calculation owes heavily to the oh-so-magnificent post-production facilities available these days. And there’s a thing to consider: Magnificating film, you get what really is there, e.g. the grain, if you go far enough. Magnificating pixels, well, you get what the machine invents for your. Some algorithms are better than others. But still, the difference is there.
And then there’s colour depth. I always understood that film has more of it than we could hope to produce digitally. Quite understandable; the emulsions and whatnot work on a molecular level. Which would make film-to-digital-conversion lossy only on the level of the digital being unable to reproduce the colour depth of the film. Ditching film for a digital alternative because of this… Maybe not so smart.
Though this is all blather, really. I’m as digital as they come, so more digital is good news for me, and every other ravenous recent graduate out there.
Verzon:
Each frame is 12.4 megapixels.
Eek! If I only had a brain… (I don’t know what I was counting, and ‘magnificating’ is not a word, is it?)
But 12.4 is still far from film.
Verzon:
We sat with our D.P. and did a side by side test of 35 mm vs. the Genesis. Same image, shot with two different cameras in the exact same way.
Virtually identical.
C.
I share your enthusiasm, Craig. I love the look of film, but digital video has come such a long way. And I cringe at the thought of all that money wasted on film prints that are destroyed after the initial run.
One are where I disagree with you is on your time line. 15 years? I think it’ll be a lot shorter. Maybe as little as 5.
Michael:
There’s no doubt that the technology for delivery exists right now.
The problem is dragging the exhibitors, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Digital reception and exhibition requires serious investments on their part, and frankly, they’ll see none of the savings.
Clearly, some kind of subsidies from the producers are in order. But how much? And for whom? And so it goes. That’s why I think it will take 15 years…but hey, I’d love to be completely wrong. Let’s go with your number instead. :)
A new camera prototype from the creative team behind Oakley will be displayed at NAB at the end of April, 2006.
The RED Camera, preliminary specs blow everything else on the market away.
A full discusion has been going on for some time at DVXuser.com. If even half of what is predicted comes true, all the majors will be scrambling to catch up.
Jim Jannard, the founder of Oakley has the experience in optics to pull this off, and has gone into markets before, disrupted them, and won.
Here is what Studio Monthly had to say:
Will RED be Worth the Wait?
For months now on tech message boards, the buzz has been growing to nearly a fever pitch over the new camera being produced by the somewhat mysterious company RED, the brainchild of Oakley Sunglasses’ owner Jim Jannard.
Specs released so far boast a true 35 mm size image sensor of 4520 x 2520 pixels, 4k/2540p/1080p/720p/480p, variable frame rates from 1-60fps, ability to output 4:4:4 through dual fiber channel outputs, 4:2:2 out the HD-SDI output and recording options of the RED Flash system, external hard drives, Blu-ray or tape.
And what is causing just as much anticipation as these specs are the rumors of the price. While no definitive price has been set Jim Jannard has claimed that this will “radically change the price/performance ration of video cameras.”
While there will not be a shipping model at NAB, there will be a demo model and the rumors are that the RED camera will be available in the fall.
Finally, an HD4NDs Exclusive Interview with Jim Jannard, founder of RED camera (scroll to near the bottom of the page - February 01, 2006)
Enjoy! The future of film is digital.
Grrrrrr.
I put in HTML links for my above post, but they didn’t work. Even though they show up as underlined when you mouse over them. Double-grrrr.
Here are the links (we’ll see if it works this time, no promises):
Red Camera: http://www.red.com/ DVXuser.com: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=58 Studio Monthly: http://www.studiodaily.com/studiomonthly/currentissue/6269.html HD4NDs Exclusive Interview with Jim Jannard: http://www.hdforindies.com/archivedarticles/20060201archivedarticle
There’s nothing like being in the theater, eyes glued to the screen at the climactic moment, and the film burning off the screen. Then waiting for them to respool the film and when they start it up again, those three lines of dialogue that explain everything are gone. Is there a way they can preserve that in the digital future?
Verzon:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
11 Megapixel Digital vs Medium Format Film (which is higher res than 35mm film, I think)… The Canon 1Ds wins convincingly. Of course, the Genesis resolution isn’t 200% better than film—but probably at least equivalent?
Jesse: RED looks pretty damn impressive. There’s a great team behind it so I’m really interested on how it will hit the market and more importantly how we can all use it. If it lives up to the claims a lot of manufacturers are going to be shaking. Especially when hearing about the rumored price.
There’s nothing like being in the theater, eyes glued to the screen at the climactic moment, and the film burning off the screen. Then waiting for them to respool the film and when they start it up again, those three lines of dialogue that explain everything are gone. Is there a way they can preserve that in the digital future?
I didn’t realize there was so much dissatisfaction with 35mm film. Maybe you should have a word with your local theater owner not Kodak.
Okay Craig, I’ll bite. How much did Panavision pay you? ;)
My wife (a movie producer) and I were talking about the subject last night, and we both agree that HD, at least for now, doesn’t compare to traditional film in terms of something I like to call “warmth”. To date, of all the movies I’ve seen shot in HD, the only one that I didn’t mind looking as much was “Collateral“, although at times it bugged me. There’s something about film grain that makes a story more interesting.
Of course I agree that costs will tumble down with HD, giving us amateurs access and means to shoot our stories. But if by doing so means a lower-grade product, I’d rather hold on for some more time.
I’ll look forward to see “Scary Movie 4″ in a big theater screen and let you know my opinions.
Problem is that I was thinking in print. Thou Shalt Not Resize is a big thing in the print world.
But still, the idiot in me persists:
I think using a simple “X times Y” would be easier all around - though megapixel does sound so much more ultra-super-cool! Apparently 12 megapixels is 2848x4288 (on a Nikon D2x). Divide by 2.5 gets us somewhere around the true resolution of a resized frame: rounded up, the width would be about 2000.
Now, consider this: 2000 pixels is less than three TV screens, side by side. And the silver screen - of a sensible size - is wider that any three TV’s - of sensible size.
Of course the majority will not view the movie sitting in the front row. But 2000 is still an awfully small number of pixels to spread on a screen - the width of which would be measured in tens of metres.
I have left friendly Mr Algorithm out of this equation entirely, but I have a reason: Mr Algorithm is a liar. A big fat lying mofo - albeit a good-natured one.
Mr Algorithm says: “We have a black pixel. We have a white pixel. We need to multiply the amount of pixels we have. So there shall be also gray of different hues.”
It’s very good of Mr Algorithm to come up with such a creative solution, but Mr Algorithm wasn’t there, was he? Mr Algorithm is just a mathematical operation, and as such, he is blind. It makes frames into approximations.
There was a point somewhere, but apparently I’ve mislaid it. “There’s a lot more to pixels than first appears” might be one. G’night.
Robert Rodriguez has been shooting his films on digital for years. All three “Spy Kids” films were digital, for instance.
I don’t know what system he uses, but I do know that it doesn’t depend on video tape. The video is stored on a hard disc, and can be replayed immediately on a monitor. Rodriguez often uses that monitor to show his actors what they just did, whether good or bad, and he checks all his shots immediately to make sure they’re OK.
Which means there are no “dailies” as such; they would just be a waste of time.
Frankly, that system sounds better to me than the one described here. So why is this system being praised so lavishly? It’s later (the system Rodriguez uses has been around for at least five years), and not as good (because video tape isn’t as versatile as hard discs). Why is this new system so thrilling when it seems to be a day late and a dollar short?
During production and, of course, afterwards, I’m the post surpervisor on a picture. I used to be the Kodak Motion Picture rep for Eastern Canada, but that was many moons and technologies ago. That should give you an idea of why I’ve been reluctant to make the switch. Until recently that is.
I was at a screening during a film festival in Montreal and I swore that what I was looking at was 35mm. Boy was I surprised when I stood up afterwards and looked into the projection booth. I was staring into the lense of a HD projector! Amazed? Speechless? I was all those things and more.
The “film” was even shot on HD. My world had just crumbled before me.
Now I’m looking forward to shooting our next show in a digital format, which leads me to some confusion. When you refer to HD, what exactly do you mean? Aren’t there 2K cameras and, from what I’ve heard, even 4K cameras out there? I mean, we’re talking a major resolution difference here. I know post houses up here finish in 2K — upconvert and scan out to film. Isn’t it the same concept in digital as in film, the more picture information in your original material, the more definition and latitude? Man, do I have a lot to learn.
BTW, the average cost of a release print is $1200 or there abouts depending on how many you order. Not sure if that was answered in the comments above.
Also, when you’re talking low budget film, say under 8 mil, cost savings might not be that significant. I tried to budget our last picture for digital and the numbers weren’t that interesting. Of course, we didn’t shoot 1,000,000 feet of film (geez, we can shoot 10 films with that!), it was more like 150K, the average for that budget level. And to be fair, we were originating on 35mm and then going the DI route. I finally recommended we stick to traditional post, ie: neg cut, IP and IN. I guess the trick is to originate on digital which we weren’t prepared to do last year based on the state of the technology.
Steven:
Genesis looks better than the system Robert used for the Spy Kids movies, IMO.
We can also play back immediately on a monitor with Genesis. We watch dailies because we generally don’t have time while shooting to play back everything, and we like to watch everything from the day before.
Videotape isn’t as versatile as a hard drive? What gives you that idea?
Also, the argument that a technology is superior because it’s older is a new one on me.
I’m not arguing that it’s superior because it’s older, I’m arguing that it’s both superior and older.
A hard disk is more versatile than video tape because you can do selective deletes, and because a head seek is faster and more convenient than a tape rewind when you want to access material you’ve already recorded.
Steven:
I doubt even Rodriguez would agree with you at this point (and I just might ask him).
The HD cams that Rodriguez used were Sony Cine-Altas, and the Genesis is certainly a major advance over those.
No one deletes anything on a big budget movie set. Ever. You always end up digging through B-neg looking for a smile in the right direction or a particular look…and sometimes those are found in broken takes or even before the director says “action”. Deleting is a non-issue. In fact, it’s a reason to recommend tape.
Since most studio productions using Genesis also use simultaneous video assist, you have complete flexibility for replay without compromising your actual master media in any way. Far safer with a redundant system like that. Since the video assist systems are hard-drive based, you can even do basic edits on the spot to make sure your coverage is matching.
The Genesis might have 12.4 Megapixel on its chip, but it still only outputs 1920x1080 pixels (HD resolution), which is not even 2K. Film on the other hand has over 4Ks of resolution.
Just finished a commercial on the ARRI d20 (similar system to the genesis) and with anamorphics on the system is completely indistinguishable from film. It also has an optical viewfinder (so no visual lag for those of you shooting car chases or Robin Williams) , a stunning ten stops or so of latitude and (on the way) up to 150fps shooting speed. Looks like the future to me.
James…is that you? I mean, how many Irish DP’s with the name “James Mather” can there be?
‘completely indistinguishable from film’?
What is this opinion of yours based on? Did you see the material transferred to film and projected or did you merely see it on a monitor?
Here is what Rodney Charters, the cinematographer on the TV series 24, has to say about the Genesis, which he used for 2 episodes as the third camera (along 2 film cameras):
‘I thought the camera held up very well and did an amazing job, but it was not film. You can play spot the Genesis with a tiny number of shots in episode 23 and the rest of the 30 shots we used in episode 24.
� It was not as sensitive to low light as the F900 chipset. No �collateral�, which was often shot at a gain boost of +18 DB. � Pushing our negative one stop gave a better image. � Reduced dynamic range of stops compared to our film transferred on a Spirit. I felt we got at least another 4 or 5 more stops. This is important for the way we shoot handheld on camera A 95 per cent of the day, shooting over 20,000 feet of 3-perf a day on A and B. Film allows me to shoot out of an open door on a bright sunny day and to hold an interior figure without resorting to an aperture shift. I realised that it was necessary for the video to have its aperture ridden continuously. This on 24 would be impossible. � Significant lag on the existing electronic viewfinder renders operati’
Humpty:
Of course we did extensive camera tests before shooting. We shot three or four differently lit setups with 35, and then with the Genesis (using the same lenses to control the variables).
Then we reviewed them side by side.
While I respect Rodney Charters opinion, and I have no doubt that he and our D.P., Tom Ackerman, would probably agree on all of the plusses and minuses, to me, there was no apparent difference at all.
The opening scene of Scary 4 was shot on film because we did it in L.A. The inserts in that scene, however, were shot on Genesis up in Vancouver. That scene moves from film to HD probably 30 times, and no one (including me) notices.
I don’t doubt that to you there was no apparent difference, but I hope that your Dop could spot them.
Furthermore I’d like to add some comments about your article, especially about post. The only advantage of the Genesis is that the images are already digital, whereas with 35mm you need to scan them first. Shooting on 35mm and then scanning the film for digital color correction is not ‘lossy’ however. In fact 35mm get scanned at higher resolution (4K) than the Genesis is capable of delivering and the resulting fimages can be manipulated much more than HD files, simply because there is more information. That includes not just resolution, but also colordepth and latitude.
Well humpty, I notice that in your rebuttal you pick an article that deals with the panavision genesis not the D20 which is the camera I am referring to so I’m not sure what the purpose of that was.
At any rate if the digital image is good enough for noted perfectionist and early adopter David Fincher then I’m sure it’s good enough for most people.
I based my obsevation on the fact that I have been a working dp for fifteen years shooting on film for Tv and cinema screening. The D20s image is very film-like and, yes, on occasion the twelve stops that telecine can dig out of neg can bail you out of exposure/latitude issues but in general the d20 exhibits very film like quality that nobody can distinguish from film that I have spoken to thus far. I hope this meets your high standards of image excellence.
oh and yes craig - it is me. reuinted at last. Glad to hear the world is treating you well and looking forward to catching Scary Movie 4 when it is released here(although given local release patterns this may take a while - also must catch that new film “E.T.” - due out here late sept. )
Well James
My standards for image excellency are indeed higher than yours then. I have seen comparison tests between these new HD cameras and 35mm film and found HD very easy to spot due to its lack of color depth, especially in the skintones.
Humpty:
You may be right. Your standards for image excellency may be better than James’ or mine.
However, your standards for image excellency are not relevant, because they are too high for the application, i.e. the general audience and production industry and at least a number of professional cinematographers believe the image excellence is sufficient or superlative.
well good for you hmpty. I’m sure you and your 12 bit skin tone will be happy. BTW excellency is a term used not to mean excellence but to refer to a foreign dignitary or high official so please don’t feel the need to use it with me.
Craig, spoke to a friend today who greatly enjoyed Scary Movie 4. Well done - he’s a tough audience. Shooting until saturday, look forward to catching it then. Enjoyed your post above - reminds me of a great quote “Wagner’s music is better than it sounds”.
SM4 Number 1 at the box office - delighted to see you are getting the success you deserve - revel in it, dude. I always knew you were 20% smarter than anyone else in the room. Hope Mel is good.
Well Humpty, good for you. I’m sure you and your 12 bit skin tone will be very happy. BTW the term excellency doesn’t mean excellence but is a term of address for a high official or foreign dignitary and I am neither of those so don’t feel the need to use it in our correspondences - James will do.
Craig, Good to hear all is well with you and enjoyed your post above - it reminds me of a great quote -“Wagner’s music is better than it sounds”.
Scary Movie 4 currently number one at the box office - Glad to see you’re getting the success you deserve - I always knew you were 20 percent smarter than everyone else. Hope mel is good.
“At any rate if the digital image is good enough for noted perfectionist and early adopter David Fincher then I’m sure it’s good enough for most people.”
That’s the same David Fincher who repeatedly uses CGI created shots where the camera pans through objects (especially ‘Panic Room’, but also ‘Fight Club’) which look horrible and fake, right?
I am reminded of sound men twelve years ago or so when DAT first appeared and they all bitched about how the “dynamic range” of DAT wasn’t as good as their shiny new stereo analogue nagras and how the discerning ear could tell the difference even if the morons couldn’t.
A year later they were all using DAT.
Sean - dont like David fincher? - okay then try Lars von Trier, Bryan Singer, John Boorman, Michael Mann, Robert Rodriguez. Other early adopters.
Noted oscar nominated DP Allen Daviau : � Compared to other digital cameras I have used, the Genesis has a much better top end, and it holds highlight details better. The 35mm-sized chip is very good. It matches up with film quite nicely � you have depth of field much closer to 35mm film.�
But hey, He was only nominated for five oscars so he may not know what he’s talking about.
Well James
Since you started quoting Allen Daviau, here is another comment of his that you conveniently ignored:
“This camera produced a very good quality image, no doubt,” he says. “But in terms of overall picture quality, you won’t easily be able to capture exactly what a piece of negative captures. Film will always capture tremendous highlights and shadow information that will always exist on your negative, even if you won’t be using it until sometime down the line, such as when you make new prints or digital transfers.”
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/videogenesistest/
Well Humpty, I didn’t “conveniently” ignore it - it wasn’t germaine to the point I was making - thats how people debate things. Look it up.
In reference to your point - I refer to my own earlier post : “(Digital) is very film-like and, yes, on occasion the twelve stops that telecine can dig out of neg can bail you out of exposure/latitude issues but in general the d20 exhibits very film like quality. “
Same goes for the Genesis.
You can split hairs if you like, Humpty - Monday I’m prepping a job (again) on the d20 and you know who chose the system - all of us. The producer and director saw a commercial I shot on the d20 and opted to shift to the new system and you know what - The D20 camera package costs more than twice what a 35mm panavison package costs - so it ain’t the money thats changing their minds. To them it looked the same and if it looks the same - it is the same. The rest is for the geeks.
Mark my words Humpty, The revolution is coming anyway, whether you like it or not. Hey, you might find yourself watching Fincher’s new zodiac flick and thinking that Harris Savides pics don’t look half bad.
But if only they had that skin tone.
Well James
Thanks a lot for informing me that the revolution is coming. As if I really hadn’t noticed yet that digital cameras are getting better and better…
But you know what James, as long as they are not better than film, I won’t be using them. So on Monday when you’ll be prepping your D20 then I will be directing on 35mm. As always.
Okay Humpty, whatever. Stepping away from conversation as we’ve crashed into my wall of boredom.
Humpty-
Kodak did a study a while back, and they determined a few things:
35 mm film resolution is approximately 6k.
while the human eye can detect a big difference between 2k and 4k, the difference isn’t that drastic between 4k and 6k.
A 4k camera will rock the industry. How do I know? My husband has invented a digital projector that can easily exceed 4k, but at this time the trend in digital projection is shifting from the DCI 2k spec to the DCI 4k spec and the advent of a 4k camera is going to shove the issue to 4k. You are not going to have a choice soon to shoot in film. Why? Piracy. Getting rid of film means more control over the product, and if you think that a studio is going to let you use film while they lose untold billions in theft, I hope for your sake you’re Steven Speilberg, cause you won’t be getting your movies made unless you are. My husband’s projector has the ability to prevent camcorders from copying the movie in theaters, and having a secure encrypted product prevents the movie from being duped in China and Russia and sold on the streets. Who do you think is going to finance the “stick to their guns, gonna use film because they perceive a small quality difference” filmmakers? Especially since most of the “warmth” issues can be dealt with in post and it won’t be long before there is a 6k camera.
Craig-
It’s not going to take 15 years or even 5. It’s happening now and it is being driven by the studios. They can’t afford to wait. The theater owners, while nervous and confused, see the writing on the wall.
Why so many people are nervous is that they know that signing on to DLP is a mistake and Sony’s LCOS hasn’t lived up to the hype either. A 4k camera is bad news for DLP. It’s great news for us though.
Ann
I do not see why 4K digital projection should have an impact on the acquisition format. I can shoot 35mm, scan it at 6K on say an Arriscan or Northlight, downrezz it to 4K and project it digitally.
It is only once we do not need 35mm prints anymore because every single projector in the world is digital that shooting 35mm will not make economical sense anymore. But that will take a long time to happen.
No negative cutters? But then what will Mo Henry do?
Anyone know the pixel dimensions of a frame shot by that thing? 250 % would make it something like… 914000 X 666000? 17 gigs per frame? More? Nuts, I say.
I bet a significant part of that calculation owes heavily to the oh-so-magnificent post-production facilities available these days. And there’s a thing to consider: Magnificating film, you get what really is there, e.g. the grain, if you go far enough. Magnificating pixels, well, you get what the machine invents for your. Some algorithms are better than others. But still, the difference is there.
And then there’s colour depth. I always understood that film has more of it than we could hope to produce digitally. Quite understandable; the emulsions and whatnot work on a molecular level. Which would make film-to-digital-conversion lossy only on the level of the digital being unable to reproduce the colour depth of the film. Ditching film for a digital alternative because of this… Maybe not so smart.
Though this is all blather, really. I’m as digital as they come, so more digital is good news for me, and every other ravenous recent graduate out there.
Thanks for the concern, but I’ve already got a sweet little house on the beach in Mexico waiting for me to surrender. Almost there……….. In the meantime, busy as hell with new, different problems and solutions. Go figure. I am all for progress and the idea that machines and technology can inspire film makers to create something entirely new again. Give me that slap in the face I felt when I watched Train Spotting, and Run Lola Run, and Crouching Tiger…I had NEVER seen anything like that. Keep it coming. However, don’t confuse the “fix things in post mentality” of the DP’s melancholy or career angst with the magic of Digital Timing. That sutff is great, but no group of film makers should allow a creative talent to phone in their work with the idea that someone (uncredited and underpaid) will solve all the sloppy work that was accepted as greatness during production. For the record, the DP’s I know are the opposite: They’ll throw their own time into the hat in order to be involved with the timing of the DI. I’m just sayin………… x Mo Henry
Thanks a lot for informing me that the revolution is coming. As if I really hadn’t noticed yet that digital cameras are getting better and better…
But you know what James, as long as they are not better than film, I won’t be using them. So on Monday when you’ll be prepping your D20 then I will be directing on 35mm. As always.
Ann
I do not see why 4K digital projection should have an impact on the acquisition format. I can shoot 35mm, scan it at 6K on say an Arriscan or Northlight, downrezz it to 4K and project it digitally.
It is only once we do not need 35mm prints anymore because every single projector in the world is digital that shooting 35mm will not make economical sense anymore. But that will take a long time to happen.
I dont know why anyone would praise digital. It is absolute crap! (at least right now it is). Did anyone see Apocalypto? I felt like I was watching a movie filmed by the Discovery Channel! Film has a completely different look and feel than digital tape, a wamth and grain that gives off a surreal feeling when watching it. During scenes (in any movie shot digitally so far) when the actors are running, look at the background, the camera has problems adjusting to motion blur and looks funky. Digital tape, although less expensive and easier to handle sacrifices artistic mood and rather than sucking me into the film just keeps taking me out and having me analyze why it looks so bizarre. I dont want to analyze what is wrong with every scene every two seconds. Who cares if the picture is larger and zoom friendly, like it makes that much of a difference anyway, unless you have a 200 ft screen and a DLP projector in your house you are not going to get that much out of it, especially with HD transfers of movies shot in both formats. The funny thing is, the bigger the screen the more apparent and in your face the flaws are, so I say bring of a 300 ft screen, I still prefer film. Also I have never, in my entire life, seen a movie shot on film get distorted on a movie threatre screen, reguardless of the size of the screen. So the size of what the camera shoots in is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that digital doesn’t hold a candle to film, yet at least. Even Tony Scott who is a master manipulator of film and color has been quoted say that digital is not perfected yet and suffers major flaws, especially when shooting at night. The funny thing is that in his movie Deja Vu, he shot his whole movie with film (in his traditional Tony Scott way that looks so beautiful) and then all the moments when the actors are looking into the future on the monitor, those scenes on the monitor were shot digitally BECAUSE they are so “unnatural” looking. Another thing, George Lucas was the one who introduced shooting digitally and was the first director to ever do so. Isn’t funny how his best friend Steven Spielberg refuses to shoot on digital. Dont you think that if Digital was the way to go, Spielberg would be at the head of the line doing so.
Lastly, Thomas Crymes you were quoted above saying -
“The moment I saw Phantom Menace exhibited digitally, I knew the future was here, and that was 1999 technology.”
Newsflash! The Phantom Menace wasn’t shot digitally and you were not looking at digital technology in 1999, the first movie ever to be shot digitally was Attack of the Clones in 2002. The Phantom Menace was shot on an Arriflex. So you see you are kind of contradicting yourself and are basically saying that the moment you saw episode 1 you knew film was the way to go.
Kevin:
I’m just a writer.
But here’s a short list of people who disgree with you.
Dean Semler, Bryan Singer, Michael Mann, Robert Rodriguez, David Fincher, David Lynch, Lars von Trier, James Cameron.
I don’t think any reasonable person can look at that list and say, “Digital is absolute crap!”
It’s clearly not. It is a choice. Personally, I love the way Mann and Fincher shoot films. I also love the way Spielberg shoots. Is Fincher wrong?
Of course not.
Is Spielberg?
Of course not.
Like it or not, film will be dead within 20 years. When I say “dead,” I mean…DEAD. Dead like the moviola, the VHS and the rotary phone.