Time Code
Legoman
Mike Figgis and has the screen split into four corners, each with different
stories running for the entire duration on the movie. If it can be pulled
off with little confusion, I'll be mighty impressed.
The sound will aparently change every so often from one tale to the next,
but a DVD release will allow you to access the sound on whatever story you
want, whenever you want.
It all seems very cool.
Cheers
Lego
damnfine
> It all seems very cool.
I don't know what to think about it... I am SO against this digital-video bullshit it's
not even funny, but on the other hand the concept is very intriguing.
--
Damnfine,
"That's right! I'm back and I'm a bloody animal! Yeah!" - Spike
amit
"Legoman" <leg...@bigpond.net.au> wrote
> It all seems very cool.
I've read that it's 4 unbroken takes, following 4 characters through a
fairly routine story set in Hollywood. Interesting more for the technique
than the story itself, and not hard to follow.
--
amit.
'O-R they?'
Legoman
> than the story itself, and not hard to follow.
As long as it is done well. I was just thinking the switching of the sound
tracks could be a little hard to follow with the images still remaining on
the screen. As well as it is well edited, it should be fine.
Cheers
Lego
Legoman
bullshit it's
> not even funny, but on the other hand the concept is very intriguing.
Whats wrong with digital video? as long as it looks like film, whats your
beef? Personally, I say bring on digital. Its going to be film-making for
the masses.
Cheers
Lego
damnfine
> > I don't know what to think about it... I am SO against this digital-video
> > bullshit it's not even funny, but on the other hand the concept is very
> > intriguing.
>
> Whats wrong with digital video? as long as it looks like film, whats your
> beef?
But it doesn't... and don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.
The precedent that George Lucas in particular is setting by choosing to shoot Star Wars
Episode 2 on video is nothing less than a tragedy. I'm still praying that it's only a
hoax.
> Personally, I say bring on digital.
Whoopee... this is FILM. When it's shot on video it ceases to be FILM. I'm a purist... I'd
rather watch something shot on bad 16mm than state-of-the-art digital video.
> Its going to be film-making for the masses.
Fine then, let the students learn from it and the hacks waste their time with it. But if
it becomes mainstream, then the real filmmakers are going to be forced to use it too.
Bye bye cinema...
--
Damnfine,
"We're going to make film history. Right here on... videotape." - Jack Horner
amit
> As long as it is done well. I was just thinking the switching of the
sound
> tracks could be a little hard to follow with the images still remaining on
> the screen. As well as it is well edited, it should be fine.
AFAIK, you always hear sound from all 4 parts of the story *but* the sound
from the part Figgis wants you to focus on is 'turned up' in the mix.
--
amit.
'O-R they?'
Legoman
But it can. I'll admit that a lot of it can look somewhat like film, but
its a new medium. The skill level of cinematography is only just forming in
the digital world. Sure, it'll look dodgy at the beginning, but give it a
bit of time. No offense, but I'm sick of "film purists" trying to tell me
otherwise.
> > Its going to be film-making for the masses.
>
> Fine then, let the students learn from it and the hacks waste their time
with it. But if
> it becomes mainstream, then the real filmmakers are going to be forced to
use it too.
I knew someone would say this. Just because someone shoots on film, it does
not mean that they are a "real film-maker".
> Bye bye cinema...
I don't think this is the end, but a re-emergence. Consider this: I am
planning on directing/producing a film. I have no money, but feel that a
digitally shot film is within my budget. Film-makers who cannot afford film
& film editing will now have the chance to get into the world of production.
Sure, horse-drawn carriages were nice, but a Porche is better.
Cheers
Lego
damnfine
> I knew someone would say this. Just because someone shoots on film, it does
> not mean that they are a "real film-maker".
True, but any "real film-maker" knows that digital video is a bunch of crap. I only mean
that there's the danger that in a few years they simply won't have a choice.
> > Bye bye cinema...
>
> I don't think this is the end, but a re-emergence. Consider this: I am
> planning on directing/producing a film. I have no money, but feel that a
> digitally shot film is within my budget. Film-makers who cannot afford film
> & film editing will now have the chance to get into the world of production.
Fine... but explain to me why George Lucas needs to do it. Is he short of cash, huh??
I don't doubt it's potential for low-and-no budget filmmaking, but the height of cinema
will always be shot on film. When it's not, it ain't cinema no more.
> Sure, horse-drawn carriages were nice, but a Porche is better.
Can't you see that the very fact that digital video is more accessible to people like you
and me than film means that it can only be a step BACK for film-makers who CAN form a
decent budget?
I'm all for using DV to make your student movies. But you ain't a filmmaker until you've
used FILM. That's the long and the short of it.
Jarkko Altonen
>I'm all for using DV to make your student movies. But you ain't a filmmaker until you've
>used FILM. That's the long and the short of it.
Thats a very luddite view.
They said that "talkies" would never catch on once...
Ian Galbraith
:Legoman wrote:
:> > I don't know what to think about it... I am SO against this digital-video
:> > bullshit it's not even funny, but on the other hand the concept is very
:> > intriguing.
:> Whats wrong with digital video? as long as it looks like film, whats your
:> beef?
:But it doesn't... and don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.
Why? Does it look as bad as normal video for example?
[snip]
Be Seeing You
--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631
"Mm, I wouldn’t dream of interfering." Mark made for
the door. "Though I’m not at all sure I’d choose to
structure my most intimate relationship as a war.
Is she the enemy, then?"
- A Civil Campaign - Lois McMaster Bujold
Legoman
> Can't you see that the very fact that digital video is more accessible to
people like you
> and me than film means that it can only be a step BACK for film-makers who
CAN form a
> decent budget?
When I started looking into producing my own film, it was with my belief
that it isn't technical know-how that makes for a great film, its simply
heart, soul, and intelligent film-making. Just because I'm using Digital,
does not mean I cannot accomplish these things.
> I'm all for using DV to make your student movies. But you ain't a
filmmaker until you've
> used FILM. That's the long and the short of it.
And again, this strikes me as a very snobbish film critic attitude. Digital
cinematography is going to improve so rapidly that visually the difference
will be inconsequential.
Cheers
Lego
damnfine
> When I started looking into producing my own film, it was with my belief
> that it isn't technical know-how that makes for a great film, its simply
> heart, soul, and intelligent film-making. Just because I'm using Digital,
> does not mean I cannot accomplish these things.
But don't you want to LEARN technical know-how? A technical hack that has nothing more
than his own strong beliefs can, in worst cases, turn out like Harmony Korine or
something.
Sorry, you need technical skill to make a great film, that's all there is to it.
> > I'm all for using DV to make your student movies. But you ain't a
> filmmaker until you've
> > used FILM. That's the long and the short of it.
>
> And again, this strikes me as a very snobbish film critic attitude.
You say that like it's bad.
> Digital cinematography is going to improve so rapidly that visually the difference
> will be inconsequential.
But it won't be cinema. It'll be video.
damnfine
> >I'm all for using DV to make your student movies. But you ain't a filmmaker until
you've
> >used FILM. That's the long and the short of it.
>
No, just a purist view.
> They said that "talkies" would never catch on once...
Big difference. "Talkies" were an expansion of the art, not a step backwards.
James Russell
wrote:
>> They said that "talkies" would never catch on once...
>
>Big difference. "Talkies" were an expansion of the art, not a step backwards.
You've never seen any early talkies, have you?
--
James
(Celluloid Dreams 2SER 107.3FM, Monday nights 7-7.30pm)
Remove "spam-be-damned" to reply by email.
"Save the whales. Collect the whole set."
damnfine
> > > They said that "talkies" would never catch on once...
> >
> > Big difference. "Talkies" were an expansion of the art, not a step backwards.
>
> You've never seen any early talkies, have you?
Probably... but what's your point?
Timmy the Mediocre
damnfine <damn...@one.net.au> wrote in message
news:3916...@pink.one.net.au...
> Jarkko Altonen wrote:
> > >I'm all for using DV to make your student movies. But you ain't a
filmmaker until
> you've
> > >used FILM. That's the long and the short of it.
> >
> > Thats a very luddite view.
>
> No, just a purist view.
The purist who buys a ticket and takes a seat, or the purist who is out
there making movies, shooting on film?
I'd only use the word in one example actually.
Tim
Timmy the Mediocre
Ian Galbraith <igalb...@ozonline.com.au> wrote in message
news:3916f0f...@news.latrobe.edu.au...
> On Sun, 7 May 2000 16:53:08 +0930, damnfine wrote:
>
> :Legoman wrote:
> :> > I don't know what to think about it... I am SO against this
digital-video
> :> > bullshit it's not even funny, but on the other hand the concept is
very
> :> > intriguing.
>
> :> Whats wrong with digital video? as long as it looks like film, whats
your
> :> beef?
>
> :But it doesn't... and don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.
>
> Why? Does it look as bad as normal video for example?
Better than VHS. Miles better. Not as clear as BETA SP, but, IMO, the
softness
is an advantage in color reproduction.
It ain't film. 16mm shits all over it, but the funny thing is, to get DV
looking anywhere
near good takes a bunch of work with lighting and camera placement. The
process
of shooting is the same. The cost however, is not.
Tim
damnfine
> > > Thats a very luddite view.
> >
> > No, just a purist view.
>
> The purist who buys a ticket and takes a seat, or the purist who is out
> there making movies, shooting on film?
One who does the former, and will be doing the latter.
--
Damnfine,
amit
> Probably... but what's your point?
His point is that if you had seen any of the early talkies you'd know that
frankly, they sucked.
The technology was horribly implemented and the recording equipment
temperamental and unwieldy. This meant that not only was sound quality shit,
but microphones had to be 'hidden' in large, obvious props and camera
movement within a shot became a rarity, due to the cost and hassles involved
in blimping/boothing cameras.
So, film sound started out as more a hindrance than help but since then it's
become a vital part of the medium. And whilst digital video is currently no
match nor substitute for film it will have its own learning curve and
there's no reason why, with its many advantages it can't one day achieve the
same image quality as film.
That said, current DV is shithouse - witness 'The Phantom Menace's
incredibly phoney looking final battle scenes, shot on DV.
And a sidenote: you expressed your admiration for Greenaway elsewhere on the
group. Parts of 'Prospero's Books' were shot on HDTV-quality video and not
film. Does this reduce that film to merely 'video' rather than 'cinema'?
--
amit.
'O-R they?'
Robert Whyte
wrote:
> Legoman wrote:
>>> I don't know what to think about it... I am SO against this digital-video
>>> bullshit it's not even funny, but on the other hand the concept is very
>>> intriguing.
>> Whats wrong with digital video? as long as it looks like film, whats your
>> beef?
>But it doesn't... and don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.
> The precedent that George Lucas in particular is setting by choosing to shoot Star Wars
> Episode 2 on video is nothing less than a tragedy. I'm still praying that it's only a
> hoax.
<sigh> Have you seen any 1080p24 digital material projected from a
good-quality digital projector? It *DOESN'T* look like video. It
doesn't look exactly like film either due to the rock-solid image and
better colour fidelity, but it looks good. I was personally hoping for
something more than progressive HD for the digital acquisition system
used on Ep. 2, but Lucas is trying to jumpstart the digital cinema
revolution and the best way to do that is to use modified
off-the-shelf equipment as he is doing.
>> Personally, I say bring on digital.
> Whoopee... this is FILM. When it's shot on video it ceases to be FILM. I'm a purist... I'd
> rather watch something shot on bad 16mm than state-of-the-art digital video.
I wouldn't. As someone who has shot a fair bit of bad 16mm himself, I
think that well-presented digital HD material looks compares VERY
favourably with even the best 16mm footage.
>> Its going to be film-making for the masses.
> Fine then, let the students learn from it and the hacks waste their time with it. But if
> it becomes mainstream, then the real filmmakers are going to be forced to use it too.
Don't expect the current proposed system to be the be-all and end-all
of digital cinema. Technology will advance, costs will come down,
standards will improve. For the forseeable future film-makers will
still be free to shoot, edit and release on film or they can switch to
digital for any or all of those steps and save money and time.
> Bye bye cinema...
Don't be so melodramatic.
Robert Whyte
damnfine
> And a sidenote: you expressed your admiration for Greenaway elsewhere on the
> group. Parts of 'Prospero's Books' were shot on HDTV-quality video and not
> film. Does this reduce that film to merely 'video' rather than 'cinema'?
Actually I did know that... ok, I'm a hypocrite. ;p
Personally, I disagree with it. But hey... I'm not gonna argue with Peter Greenaway, but
I'd certainly reconsider my fanship if he decided to make a habit of it.
damnfine
> > Bye bye cinema...
>
> Don't be so melodramatic.
Why?
Kenton
wrote:
> Legoman wrote:
> > I knew someone would say this. Just because someone shoots on film, it
> > does
> > not mean that they are a "real film-maker".
>
> True, but any "real film-maker" knows that digital video is a bunch of
> crap. I only mean
> that there's the danger that in a few years they simply won't have a
> choice.
>
> > > Bye bye cinema...
> >
There is no real choice to make between film and DV if you can afford
it, celluloid is how filmaking was originally supposed to be with all
it's rich vivid colours and clarity. It's closer to what your eyes are,
a chemical process...
The filmakers will continue to choose the best medium to make their
films, and DV just don't cut it right now, and that's what's best for
cinema now, isn't it ?
> Fine... but explain to me why George Lucas needs to do it. Is he short of
> cash, huh??
>
He might be if Episode 2 is the failure that number 1 was, hehe.. but
seriously...
I'm more worried about his plans for digital projection. If he has it
his way there will be no flim at your local multiplex, just some guy
flipping a switch and having it played over a network or being beamed in
via satellite. He's pretty adament about it happening as well.
> I'm all for using DV to make your student movies. But you ain't a
> filmmaker until you've
> used FILM. That's the long and the short of it.
Kenton.
Film Cliche 04 - A guy who we once thought was shot dead, reveals he
was wearing a bullet proof vest and fights another day.
Robert Whyte
wrote:
> Robert Whyte wrote:
>>> Bye bye cinema...
>> Don't be so melodramatic.
> Why?
Cinema isn't going anywhere. People will still want to go out and see
a big-budget movie and there will still be cinemas for them to go to.
It's simply the delivery system that will change.
BTW you seem to be confusing a few different digital shooting and
delivery systems. For a start, DV (as in the DVC digital SD tape
format) is a compressed, interlaced[1], 4:3 consumer video tape format
with a resolution of 704x576. It looks like video because that's what
it is. It uses interlaced scanning to present 50 fields of video per
second.
The digital system being used to shoot Ep2 is a modification of the
existing HD standard that uses anamorphic lenses on a 1.78:1 image at
a resolution of 1920x1080, progressively scanned at 24 frames per
second. It looks like film because the only real difference between
this and film is that the light coming through the lens exposes a set
of CCD sensors instead of a piece of acetate or polyester impregnated
with light-sensitive chemicals.
How is this different to scanning a piece of film into a computer
later? It removes the intervening film print step but the final result
is the same, an image represented as digital data.
Lucasfilm have been working with Sony and Panavision for over two
years on this system, developing new lenses and high sensitivity image
sensor chips and while I would have liked higher resolution, I think
the final system will look fine.
You need to realise that film is an information gathering medium, not
a strip of magic pressed into service to capture the dreams of
artists. (:
Robert Whyte
[1] Yes, it CAN sometimes be progressive scan, but it's usually
interlaced.
damnfine
> The digital system being used to shoot Ep2 is a modification of the
> existing HD standard that uses anamorphic lenses on a 1.78:1 image at
> a resolution of 1920x1080, progressively scanned at 24 frames per
> second. It looks like film because the only real difference between
> this and film is that the light coming through the lens exposes a set
> of CCD sensors instead of a piece of acetate or polyester impregnated
> with light-sensitive chemicals.
The fact that you're even using the word "resolution" is the first flaw of your reasoning
(although the last paragraph of your message leads me to believe we have entirely
different views of the medium anyway, rendering this argument pretty pointless... but I'm
enjoying it, nonetheless). The bottom line is that propure texture of an image captured
though "traditional" chemical phography simply cannot be duplicated by a whole heap of
tiny little dots, no matter HOW tiny the dots may be!
On a brief tangent, has there ever been a movie that had a significant amount of TRULY
undetectable realistic CGI? Not that I've seen... personally, I could quite plainly see
the supposedly 100% "natural" CGI that was used in the battle scenes in 'Saving Private
Ryan', for example. (All I'm saying here is that digital images JUST LOOK DIFFERENT, no
matter how hard they try.)
> How is this different to scanning a piece of film into a computer
> later? It removes the intervening film print step but the final result
> is the same, an image represented as digital data.
Are you trying to suggest that film prints these days are mastered from a digital source,
just because they are edited on computers? I think not. They are scanned into computers
and editing programs are used to create a set of specific guidelines as to how the film
negative needs to be "assembled". The master print still comes from the original
negative... and digital special effects are overlayed onto the print.
> You need to realise that film is an information gathering medium, not
> a strip of magic pressed into service to capture the dreams of
> artists. (:
I know you've over-romanticised that sentence in order to pre-empt my reply, but
obviously I disagree. With this kind of attitude it's not surprising that you don't
see why digital technology is a threat to the purity - if, admittedly, perhaps not
the survival - of this *artform* (once again, I'm not afraid to say it ;).
I realise that cinema is already the most sterile and over-technological of arts, but on
this most important level - cinematograpy - I strongly believe that it needs to remain
organic.
I'm not worried that Episode 2 will look bad, I'm just worried about the publicity that it
will give to digital cinematography, and the precedent that it will set.
Trite and corny as it may sound, I see a film camera as a paintbrush, but a digital camera
looks like a ballpoint pen. The pen may be newer, cheaper, far easier to control and
use... but how many great works of art have been or ever will be drawn with a ballpoint
pen?
--
Damnfine,
"Care for a little necrophilia?"
Robert Whyte
wrote:
> Robert Whyte wrote:
No they're not. Effects studios stopped using optical printing for
effects compositing years ago. My statement was a reference to the
simple fact that a large portion of most modern US films contains
digital modifications that necessitate scanning the film into a
computer, modifying the digital data and outputting it back to film.
Admittedly they usually scan at a higher resolution than Lucas is
proposing for Episode 2, but I'll bet you couldn't tell original
negative printed scenes from scenes that have been run through a
computer to remove unwanted reflections, add a simple matte painting
or to erase suspension wires.
In fact, EVERY frame of The Phantom Menace was scanned into a computer
and modified in some way.
>> You need to realise that film is an information gathering medium, not
>> a strip of magic pressed into service to capture the dreams of
>> artists. (:
> I know you've over-romanticised that sentence in order to pre-empt my reply, but
> obviously I disagree. With this kind of attitude it's not surprising that you don't
> see why digital technology is a threat to the purity - if, admittedly, perhaps not
> the survival - of this *artform* (once again, I'm not afraid to say it ;).
I'm not the enemy, damnfine. I've had a love affair with film since I
can remeber. I've shot countless feet of 8mm and 16mm film and learned
how to play with light, dark, grain structure and colour balances.
I've also shot Video8, Hi-8, VHS, SVHS, BetaCam-SP and DV. They're not
a replacement, but they're another method of capturing images and if
the sorts of images they capture are what you want, then you should be
free to use them. Progressive HD is yet another method of capturing
images and in my opinion one that can produce very nice images.
I entered this discussion because you were taking the use of DV
footage in Timecode and using it to attack Lucas for daring to used a
digital acquisiton system for Ep2. I was explaining that progressive
HD is SUBSTANTIALLY different from DV and that as Lucas is going to be
scanning every frame he shoots into the computer anyway, he might as
well capture them straight through the lens if he feels he can
maintain the image quality he needs.
> I realise that cinema is already the most sterile and over-technological of arts, but on
> this most important level - cinematograpy - I strongly believe that it needs to remain
> organic.
People will still be shooting, editing, printing and distributing on
film for a good long while. Studios, rental houses, post-production
facilities, distributors and cinemas have billions of dollars invested
in their current film equipment and they'll want to get as much use
out of them as possible. By the time film is abandoned (Kodak are
tentatively predicting the year 2050) digital systems will have
increased in resolution, sensitivity and quality beyond anything you
can imagine.
> I'm not worried that Episode 2 will look bad, I'm just worried about the publicity that it
> will give to digital cinematography, and the precedent that it will set.
> Trite and corny as it may sound, I see a film camera as a paintbrush, but a digital camera
> looks like a ballpoint pen. The pen may be newer, cheaper, far easier to control and
> use... but how many great works of art have been or ever will be drawn with a ballpoint
> pen?
Your analogy is flawed. If a film camera is a paintbrush, then a
digital camera is a digital paint system. In the hands of a good
artist, both can produce wonderfully moving images, but in the hands
of a hack all you get are another seascape or faked celebrity nude. (:
True artists will always be able to take the medium they're given and
produce art with it. Film doesn't create the art, it is just a medium
for conveying it.
Robert Whyte
damnfine
> I entered this discussion because you were taking the use of DV
> footage in Timecode and using it to attack Lucas for daring to used a
> digital acquisiton system for Ep2.
I didn't think I was doing exactlky that, but looking back I certainly see how you got the
impression. Really I'm just against it in principle, and Ep 2 and Time Code are the two
things getting the most publicity for it at the moment... no matter how different the
technology used may be.
> Film doesn't create the art, it is just a medium for conveying it.
...properly.
IMNSHO.
Kenton
(Robert Whyte) wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2000 17:43:00 +0930, "damnfine" <damn...@one.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> > On a brief tangent, has there ever been a movie that had a significant
> > amount of TRULY
> > undetectable realistic CGI? Not that I've seen... personally, I could
> > quite plainly see
> > the supposedly 100% "natural" CGI that was used in the battle scenes in
> > 'Saving Private
> > Ryan', for example. (All I'm saying here is that digital images JUST
> > LOOK DIFFERENT, no
> > matter how hard they try.)
>
I agree with Damnfine, every time you see a digital effect you know it's
a digital effect for some reason, probably it's part of our 'real world'
experience. And yes, I even noticed the digital sky-matte paintings in
'the beach'.
>
> In fact, EVERY frame of The Phantom Menace was scanned into a computer
> and modified in some way.
>
>
> I entered this discussion because you were taking the use of DV
> footage in Timecode and using it to attack Lucas for daring to used a
> digital acquisiton system for Ep2. I was explaining that progressive
> HD is SUBSTANTIALLY different from DV and that as Lucas is going to be
> scanning every frame he shoots into the computer anyway, he might as
> well capture them straight through the lens if he feels he can
> maintain the image quality he needs.
I saw the camera that Lucas is planning to use today, and while I'm not
crazy about it, I think it will suit episode 2 because of it's look and
all the effects they're doing. It's very sharp and easy to use (anyone
could use it).
But it doesn't sit well with me, it's artificial, cold, and impersonal.
> People will still be shooting, editing, printing and distributing on
> film for a good long while. Studios, rental houses, post-production
> facilities, distributors and cinemas have billions of dollars invested
> in their current film equipment and they'll want to get as much use
> out of them as possible. By the time film is abandoned (Kodak are
> tentatively predicting the year 2050) digital systems will have
> increased in resolution, sensitivity and quality beyond anything you
> can imagine.
>
Don't even begin trying to predict the future.
> > Trite and corny as it may sound, I see a film camera as a paintbrush,
> > but a digital camera
> > looks like a ballpoint pen. The pen may be newer, cheaper, far easier
> > to control and
> > use... but how many great works of art have been or ever will be drawn
> > with a ballpoint
> > pen?
>
> Your analogy is flawed. If a film camera is a paintbrush, then a
> digital camera is a digital paint system.
No, a film camera is a paint brush where all the colours blend and meld
with each other, a digital camera is like those paintings composed of
all those tiny dots (I can't remember who did them).
> True artists will always be able to take the medium they're given and
> produce art with it. Film doesn't create the art, it is just a medium
> for conveying it.
>
True artists will adopt the best medium available to show their art.
Timmy the Mediocre
Ra ra blokes.
>
>
>
> > People will still be shooting, editing, printing and distributing on
> > film for a good long while. Studios, rental houses, post-production
> > facilities, distributors and cinemas have billions of dollars invested
> > in their current film equipment and they'll want to get as much use
> > out of them as possible. By the time film is abandoned (Kodak are
> > tentatively predicting the year 2050) digital systems will have
> > increased in resolution, sensitivity and quality beyond anything you
> > can imagine.
> >
>
Specifically. Of course not. But generally the bottom line wins out in
technological progress. The digital movie is in it's infancy. NLE systems
have really only been around since the eighties. Film will always be around,
for there will always be those who prefer it, but for the mass market, it's
hard not to see the cost of Digital dropping to a point where the
comparitive lack of quality and warmth of the image is a viable trade-off.
This is not even considering the argument put forward of an explosion (my
word) in quality.
Personally, I niether see this as good or bad. The work of hacks will
almost always be forgotten within a month, and the crafters will slice a
path to the best of the medium regardless.
Tim
>
>
> > > Trite and corny as it may sound, I see a film camera as a paintbrush,
> > > but a digital camera
> > > looks like a ballpoint pen. The pen may be newer, cheaper, far easier
> > > to control and
> > > use... but how many great works of art have been or ever will be drawn
> > > with a ballpoint
> > > pen?
> >
> > Your analogy is flawed. If a film camera is a paintbrush, then a
> > digital camera is a digital paint system.
>
> No, a film camera is a paint brush where all the colours blend and meld
> with each other, a digital camera is like those paintings composed of
> all those tiny dots (I can't remember who did them).
>
>
> > True artists will always be able to take the medium they're given and
> > produce art with it. Film doesn't create the art, it is just a medium
> > for conveying it.
> >
>
> True artists will adopt the best medium available to show their art.
.
Robert Whyte
> In article <39196328...@news.dingoblue.net.au>, 5d...@ucaqld.com.au
> (Robert Whyte) wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 May 2000 17:43:00 +0930, "damnfine" <damn...@one.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>> On a brief tangent, has there ever been a movie that had a significant
>>> amount of TRULY
>>> undetectable realistic CGI? Not that I've seen... personally, I could
>>> quite plainly see
>>> the supposedly 100% "natural" CGI that was used in the battle scenes in
>>> 'Saving Private
>>> Ryan', for example. (All I'm saying here is that digital images JUST
>>> LOOK DIFFERENT, no
>>> matter how hard they try.)
> I agree with Damnfine, every time you see a digital effect you know it's
> a digital effect for some reason, probably it's part of our 'real world'
> experience. And yes, I even noticed the digital sky-matte paintings in
> 'the beach'.
>> In fact, EVERY frame of The Phantom Menace was scanned into a computer
>> and modified in some way.
>> I entered this discussion because you were taking the use of DV
>> footage in Timecode and using it to attack Lucas for daring to used a
>> digital acquisiton system for Ep2. I was explaining that progressive
>> HD is SUBSTANTIALLY different from DV and that as Lucas is going to be
>> scanning every frame he shoots into the computer anyway, he might as
>> well capture them straight through the lens if he feels he can
>> maintain the image quality he needs.
> I saw the camera that Lucas is planning to use today, and while I'm not
> crazy about it, I think it will suit episode 2 because of it's look and
> all the effects they're doing. It's very sharp and easy to use (anyone
> could use it).
Yeah, I'm going to a Sony demonstration of their 1080p24 system early
next week in Brisbane. It's not exactly the same as the system used by
Lucas which is utilising custom lenses designed by Panavision and an
uprated CCD system, but good enough to give you a feel for how the
technology performs.
> But it doesn't sit well with me, it's artificial, cold, and impersonal.
Fine. That's your opinion and you're free to express it. I disagree.
>> People will still be shooting, editing, printing and distributing on
>> film for a good long while. Studios, rental houses, post-production
>> facilities, distributors and cinemas have billions of dollars invested
>> in their current film equipment and they'll want to get as much use
>> out of them as possible. By the time film is abandoned (Kodak are
>> tentatively predicting the year 2050) digital systems will have
>> increased in resolution, sensitivity and quality beyond anything you
>> can imagine.
> Don't even begin trying to predict the future.
I'm not, except inasmuch as I repeated Kodak's prediction of the end
of film by 2050 and my saying that digital equipment will become
faster, better and cheaper.
No-one ever went broke by relying on Moore's Law.
>>> Trite and corny as it may sound, I see a film camera as a paintbrush,
>>> but a digital camera looks like a ballpoint pen. The pen may be newer,
>>> cheaper, far easier to control and use... but how many great works of
>>> art have been or ever will be drawn with a ballpoint pen?
>> Your analogy is flawed. If a film camera is a paintbrush, then a
>> digital camera is a digital paint system.
> No, a film camera is a paint brush where all the colours blend and meld
> with each other, a digital camera is like those paintings composed of
> all those tiny dots (I can't remember who did them).
Once again a flawed analogy. You're comparing a tool with the product
of a tool. BTW film is made up of dots as well, except instead of dots
of colour produced by light hitting a CCD it's dots of colour produced
by light hitting chemical crystals within the film emulsion.
>> True artists will always be able to take the medium they're given and
>> produce art with it. Film doesn't create the art, it is just a medium
>> for conveying it.
> True artists will adopt the best medium available to show their art.
And for some at least, digital acquisition either currently is or will
soon be the best medium to capture and display their art.
Robert Whyte
Robert Whyte
wrote:
> Robert Whyte wrote:
>> I entered this discussion because you were taking the use of DV
>> footage in Timecode and using it to attack Lucas for daring to used a
>> digital acquisiton system for Ep2.
> I didn't think I was doing exactlky that, but looking back I certainly see how you got the
> impression. Really I'm just against it in principle, and Ep 2 and Time Code are the two
> things getting the most publicity for it at the moment... no matter how different the
> technology used may be.
I'd suggest you grab the April issue of American Cinematographer and
check out the articles inside where they discuss the production of
Timecode 2000 and the usage of HD and film in different projects. This
is a magazine written by and for the members of the American Society
of Cinematographers, people who live and breathe film and who work all
their professional lives to get the best possible image onto the
screen.
BTW the director of Timecode 2000 (Mike Figgis) is well known for
experimenting with different styles and systems of shooting on his
films. He shot Leaving Las Vegas with his own Super16 camera to save
time and budget (incidentally this was the first time that a 16mm film
won a major Academy Award - Best Actor: Nicholas Cage) and I see
nothing wrong with shooting TC2K on DV, posting it on HD and
transferring that to film for projection. It's an experimental film,
not the brave new future of film-making.
>> Film doesn't create the art, it is just a medium for conveying it.
> ...properly.
> IMNSHO.
Option noted.
Robert Whyte
damnfine
> BTW the director of Timecode 2000 (Mike Figgis) is well known for
> experimenting with different styles and systems of shooting on his
> films. He shot Leaving Las Vegas with his own Super16 camera to save
> time and budget (incidentally this was the first time that a 16mm film
> won a major Academy Award - Best Actor: Nicholas Cage)
I know.
Did I ever say anything against 16mm?
For a better example of just how damn good Super16 can look though, check out Greenaway's
'The Draughtsman's Contract'.
So how, pray tell, does the cost of '16 compare to shooting with digital, as it stands?
Using, for arguments sake, the kind of digital technology that can do a passable
impersonation of properly exposed 16mm... assuming it even exists yet. ;)
Robert Whyte
wrote:
> Robert Whyte wrote:
>> BTW the director of Timecode 2000 (Mike Figgis) is well known for
>> experimenting with different styles and systems of shooting on his
>> films. He shot Leaving Las Vegas with his own Super16 camera to save
>> time and budget (incidentally this was the first time that a 16mm film
>> won a major Academy Award - Best Actor: Nicholas Cage)
> I know.
> Did I ever say anything against 16mm?
No, I was just using LLV as a demonstration of how Mike Figgis isn't
afraid to use different techniques to serve the story.
> For a better example of just how damn good Super16 can look though, check out Greenaway's
> 'The Draughtsman's Contract'.
Hmmm. Haven't seen that in years.
> So how, pray tell, does the cost of '16 compare to shooting with digital, as it stands?
> Using, for arguments sake, the kind of digital technology that can do a passable
> impersonation of properly exposed 16mm... assuming it even exists yet. ;)
I'd say that the closest match currently available doe well-shot 16mm
is one of the higher-end digital acquisition formats such as Digital-S
or DigiBeta, which means that 16mm is still MUCH cheaper from an
equipment standpoint but more costly for consumables.
> Damnfine,
> "Care for a little necrophilia?"
Freaky. I spent most of today working my way through the first two
discs of the Criterion Brazil DVD boxset.
Robert Whyte
o/` Brazil, where hearts were entertained in June o/`
o/` We stood beneath an amber moon, o/`
o/` and softly murmured 'Some day soon' o/`
damnfine
> > For a better example of just how damn good Super16 can look though, check out
> > Greenaway's 'The Draughtsman's Contract'.
>
> Hmmm. Haven't seen that in years.
Saw it in a cinema recently, with Greenaway himself doing a an introduction, and a Q&A
after the movie. The print was gorgeous apart from being a little worn at the beginning
and end of each reel, and I was astonished when he mentioned after the film that it was
shot on 16.
> > Damnfine,
> > "Care for a little necrophilia?"
>
> Freaky. I spent most of today working my way through the first two
> discs of the Criterion Brazil DVD boxset.
Lucky bastard... I'll get my hands on that little number some day. It looks, for all
intents and purposes, to be arguably the best DVD yet released.
'Brazil' is truly one of the greatest movies ever made.
--
Robert Whyte
wrote:
> Robert Whyte wrote:
>>> For a better example of just how damn good Super16 can look though, check out
>>> Greenaway's 'The Draughtsman's Contract'.
>> Hmmm. Haven't seen that in years.
> Saw it in a cinema recently, with Greenaway himself doing a an introduction, and a Q&A
> after the movie. The print was gorgeous apart from being a little worn at the beginning
> and end of each reel, and I was astonished when he mentioned after the film that it was
> shot on 16.
>>> Damnfine,
>>> "Care for a little necrophilia?"
>> Freaky. I spent most of today working my way through the first two
>> discs of the Criterion Brazil DVD boxset.
> Lucky bastard... I'll get my hands on that little number some day. It looks, for all
> intents and purposes, to be arguably the best DVD yet released.
Yup, out of all of the DVD Special Editions I own, it's my favourite.
The Abyss SE has more information but gets boring, the A Bug's Life SE
has more cool stuff but is a bit light on actual production details.
Fight Club SE looks like it'll give Brazil a run for it's money
though.
> 'Brazil' is truly one of the greatest movies ever made.
Agreed. One of my top 10 movies of the 80s. Have you read "Battle of
Brazil"?
Robert Whyte
Kenton
5d...@ucaqld.com.au (Robert Whyte) wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2000 17:24:56 +0930, "damnfine" <damn...@one.net.au>
> wrote:
>
> > Robert Whyte wrote:
>
> >> I entered this discussion because you were taking the use of DV
> >> footage in Timecode and using it to attack Lucas for daring to used a
> >> digital acquisiton system for Ep2.
>
> > I didn't think I was doing exactlky that, but looking back I certainly
> > see how you got the
> I'd suggest you grab the April issue of American Cinematographer and
> check out the articles inside where they discuss the production of
> Timecode 2000 and the usage of HD and film in different projects. This
> is a magazine written by and for the members of the American Society
> of Cinematographers, people who live and breathe film and who work all
> their professional lives to get the best possible image onto the
> screen.
>
Really Robert ? Well let's see what the April issue of American
Cinematographer has to say :
"Cucchiari concedes that 'the video world has not caught up to the
operating ability. Film cameras are [completely] thought out; they're
designed and augmented by operators so that the follow focus is in the
right spot. With video, it seems that all of that work has been
neglected.'"
"Though Browne and Lannaman both prefer to shoot film, the realize it's
more difficult in Jamaica..."
Actually the only reasons these filmakers gave for choosing to shoot on
DV/HD, is their low budgets, and they wanted lightweight equipment. And
as far as I know, any cinematographer who is embracing digital video is
in a minority.
Must you keeping blindly pushing this medium ?
> >> Film doesn't create the art, it is just a medium for conveying it.
>
> > ...properly.
> Option noted.
--
-Kenton. yippi yi yi yay
Robert Whyte
> In article <39229d9c...@news.dingoblue.net.au>,
> 5d...@ucaqld.com.au (Robert Whyte) wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 May 2000 17:24:56 +0930, "damnfine" <damn...@one.net.au>
>> wrote:
>>> Robert Whyte wrote:
>>>> I entered this discussion because you were taking the use of DV
>>>> footage in Timecode and using it to attack Lucas for daring to used a
>>>> digital acquisiton system for Ep2.
>>> I didn't think I was doing exactlky that, but looking back I certainly
>>> see how you got the
>> I'd suggest you grab the April issue of American Cinematographer and
>> check out the articles inside where they discuss the production of
>> Timecode 2000 and the usage of HD and film in different projects. This
>> is a magazine written by and for the members of the American Society
>> of Cinematographers, people who live and breathe film and who work all
>> their professional lives to get the best possible image onto the
>> screen.
> Really Robert ? Well let's see what the April issue of American
> Cinematographer has to say :
> "Cucchiari concedes that 'the video world has not caught up to the
> operating ability. Film cameras are [completely] thought out; they're
> designed and augmented by operators so that the follow focus is in the
> right spot. With video, it seems that all of that work has been
> neglected.'"
> "Though Browne and Lannaman both prefer to shoot film, the realize it's
> more difficult in Jamaica..."
I never said that they were all in favour of digital, I just said that
they discuss shooting with DV/HD in some detail in that issue. I just
thought Damnfine might like some more in depth information about
shooting digitally.
> Actually the only reasons these filmakers gave for choosing to shoot on
> DV/HD, is their low budgets, and they wanted lightweight equipment. And
> as far as I know, any cinematographer who is embracing digital video is
> in a minority.
You missed the bit where Penelope Spheeris was talking about using HD
for her music documentary shooting because you can't shoot indoor,
outdoor, practical lighting, stage lighting and daylight in the same
shot with film.
>Must you keeping blindly pushing this medium ?
I'm not blindly pushing anything. I'm just saying that digital
film-making is coming and for certain projects, it's actually as good
as (or in some cases even better than) film. I have shot a lot of
footage with both film (8mm and 16mm) and video (analogue and digital)
and I agree that at the moment, it's hard to match film for image
quality and "feel", but digital is advancing all the time.
Robert Whyte