Episode 2, Roger Ebert, and the shortcomings of digital

[ulrichsd]

Hey everyone, I thought some might find this article by Roger Ebert on Star Wars Ep 2 interesting. He goes into detail about the use of digital video for the making of the film. Below I posted an excerpt from the full review.

Later,
Scott

for the complete article go to:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/c ... ert10.html

--------------------

But I felt like I had to lean with my eyes toward the screen in order to see what I was being shown. The images didn't pop out and smack me with delight, the way they did in earlier films. There was a certain fuzziness, an indistinctness that seemed to undermine their potential power.

Later I went on the Web to look at the trailers for the movie, and was startled to see how much brighter, crisper and more colorful they seemed on my computer screen than in the theater. Although I know that video images are routinely timed to be brighter than movie images, I suspect another reason for this. "Episode II" was shot entirely on digital video. It is being projected in digital video on 19 screens, but on some 3,000 others, audiences will see it as I did, transferred to film.

How it looks in digital projection I cannot say, although I hope to get a chance to see it that way. I know Lucas believes it looks better than film, but then he has cast his lot with digital. My guess is that the film version of "Episode II" might jump more sharply from the screen in a small multiplex theater. But I saw it on the largest screen in Chicago, and my suspicion is, the density and saturation of the image were not adequate to imprint the image there in a forceful way.

Digital images contain less information than 35mm film images, and the more you test their limits, the more you see that. Two weeks ago I saw "Patton" shown in 70mm Dimension 150, and it was the most astonishing projection I had ever seen--absolute detail on a giant screen, which was 6,000 times larger than a frame of the 70mm film. That's what large-format film can do, but it's a standard Hollywood has abandoned (except for IMAX), and we are being asked to forget how good screen images can look--to accept the compromises. I am sure I will hear from countless fans who assure me that "Episode II" looks terrific, but it does not. At least, what I saw did not. It may look great in digital projection on multiplex-size screens, and I'm sure it will look great on DVD, but on a big screen it lacks the authority it needs.

[StopMoWorks]

I am in the Bay Area where the Lucas Empire is located. On the local TV news here, they did a brief report about digital projection. Lucas has always been sort of preoccupied with the technical aspects of movie making. Personally, and as we all know.....it is a solid story & characters that make a movie good or worthwhile, and not necessarily all the bells & whistle of technical film making methods (which the audience does not really care about). It is reported, that Lucas has spent maybe 100 million bucks in setting up his experimental digital thing. Lucas said a couple of things in news report......first he said audiences will not notice that much of a difference with digital.....then later on, he says, digital is a new way for audience to experience visual/movie entertainment....... some contradictions there? Reporter said lots of directors and others in industry still like film.....textural, buttery, etc. and some brief soundbyte comments from them. Reporter also said many anti-digital people in film biz did not want to be quoted or interviewed, kind of implying the power or influential aspects of the Lucas Empire?

Also no standardization for digital......much too $costly$ for movie theatres to invest in. Technically, 35mm film is about 7 to 8+ million pixels of max resolution and digital is about 2 million pixels and according to news report, needs to be bumped-up to about 5 million pixels to start having ultimate resolution of film. For the studio "suits" it seems the primary advantage of digital is the distribution factor, but again, movie houses are not willing to put up all that cash for a yet non-standarderized digital system. Theaters still make most of their income from "popcorn sales" . Studios seem pretty cheap in sharing the wealth.

Here is also another article about Lucas' digital push for digital:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/
digitalcinema020509.html

[ADMIN: Had to add a linebreak here!]

Just my personal opinion......digital projection may initially draw in audiences because they are curious or it is a novelty thing. I did not vote on the forum poll here because I am not sure which direction all this is heading. To me, it's still a fog or grey area.

[Guest]

Lucas may have been chosen as an official spoksman to speak on behalf of digital in order to get moviegoers to get used to digital being used more often. It may all be just a propaganda campaign to push it into a wider area of acceptance. Lucas himself may, in actuality, know that it really sucks and just likes it for the convenience. There may be some kind of a payoff in this for Lucas from top digital video camera manufacturing companies that give him an inside track on the latest digital video research breakthroughs.
Marc

[Guest]

I, for one, feel that it is a sad day for the true movie fan. All that money. Enough to make maybe a dozen "Memento" films, but a film that would not look as good on screen compared side by side with that low budget 35mm gem. I experienced the true wonder and power of 70mm film while I was growing up. Lawrence of Arabia and Patton were two of the best. I will never forget Cinerama with How the West Was Won (I got to see an original Cinerama presentation of it at the Neon theatre in Dayton a few years ago and was still impressed). Why should we accept poorer images as ticket prices soar? The cost of the film stock is barely a drop in the bucket in the budgets of major films today.

Take a look at the name of one of the largest studios = Sony. You don't think they would like to see the death of film and the wide use of video?

George Lucas has always had this anti-establishment attitude about film making including the very tools in use by the former establishment. Way back in the late 1970's he was very upfront about how he was going to change Hollywood and the film industry and dreamed of shooting video instead of film. He even convinced Francis Ford Coppala to the point poor Francis announced that he would shoot his next picture entirely on video. Francis dreamed of endless takes of every scene in order to make the perfect picture. He hasn't made a good film since. That is one of the key issues with video in my mind. The urge to shoot and shoot and shoot till your vision is lost. There is only one true way to shoot your movie. If you don't have that vision of it, then you will not make a good movie. The master Alfred Hitchcock had such a firm vision of his film before he shot it that he considered the filming of it automatic and rather boring.

So, why should an audience accept a process that is less instead of more in the terms of image quality so that slightly higher profits might be made by the studios? Or that some low talent individual can make a film? A smart director could easily produce a 70mm blockbuster that could compete budgetwise with HD video if produced right. I would wait in line to see the new Star Wars if it was filmed in 65mm with the pristine Kodak print stock of today delivering what would sure to be mind blowing 70mm prints. Dream on... Me shell out $8 to see the video episode? Don't hold your breath.

[Old Uncle Barry]

:?
Having already previewed EpisodeII or whatever its called I can say this:
Stunning yes,captivating yes,fodder for the eyes yes,worth the cinema ticket-certainly! However just one thing:all the whizz-bang special digital masterpieces do in fact lack that 'depth and presence' that are there when originated on film.And wouldnt it have been something if the budget had 65mm negative in mind instead of pixels.
Perchance to dream!

[crimsonson]

This is amazing. you guys drill Lucas for exactly what many directors do. A dozen Memento? Can you not say the same thing with Pearl Harbor, Waterworld, Spider-man, and other countless movies shot on film and at best mediocre in art and entertainmnt value.
What is bad for cinema is a bad movie - no matter the format of orgination.

You guys also accusses Lucas for having a technical fetish and has compormised his artisitic integrity. Valid - I agree. If artistic integrity is so important to you all why are you so obssesed in number crunching (pixels and cost) and other technical factors. Maybe we too are preoccupied with technology and thus giving Lucas' endeavor legitimacy. I cannot even remember when a Star Wars fan talks about plot, character development, thematic arch, etc. Instead both supporters and detractors are all talking about video vs film, money spent, ILM, etc. I mean, Stars Wars has been lame since Return of the Jedi and that was shot on film.

Watch a movie because its shot on 70mm? What is the difference with that thought process as for somebody using HD? A fetish is a fetish.


waiting for Bruckheimer to give back money spent on his FILMS,

DQS

[ulrichsd]

Just for conclusion:
Here is Ebert's followup after seeing Star Wars digitally projected instead of transferred to film.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-featu ... ert14.html

I think are some great opinions on this subject and maybe more people can comment after perhaps seeing this film. I just saw it last night and thought it was great.

However, I did notice some poor image quality, but perhaps this was only because I was looking. I think that the casual viewer (95% of moviegoers) pobably doesn't realize that this movie was shot on digital video instead film, despite the fact that this aspect has gotten so much attention.

But there were some scenes that look like they had a lot of grain!!! I can't figure this one out. It would usually go from a dark background which was grain city to another shot that would be totally clear. I'm not sure if it was the film stock being a higher speed for the transfer due to the many dark images and backgrounds, or if there was some "film look" software that may have been used, but I really can't see Lucas intentionally "degrading" his movie.

Anyway, there is a digital projection theatre in Cincinnati (1 of 20 in the country I've heard) so I plan to go and watch the movie a second time there and report if the image is better.

Just curious what others thought.
Scott

[marc]

Paraphrasing crimsonson..... I cannot remember when a star wars fan talked about plot..etc. Well, maybe when you have a movie like Episode II that lacks the asthetic opiate necessary to blind us to a poor quality picture, these shortcomings become more apparent. Perhaps, this shows us how many films we have seen in the past that really lack quality in their story but we were blinded by high pictorial quality that took us away to a fantasy world where we could forget about ourseleves for a while. Isn't that what movies are all about anyway? Do we not go to the cinema to escape from the mundane realities of our everyday existence? I feel that many times the asthetic itself tells the story and I would rather be "blinded" by this asthetic than have to nitpick the quality of every movie based on it's story value alone. It is all just fantasy anyway! We go to movies to be entertained and the asthetic value goes a long way in the films ability to entertain. Many of you remember the movie "Leviathan" The story was about an underwater ocean crew who contracted some virus from a downed Russian ship that they encountered which turned them into mutant monsters. A very critical friend of mind was ripping apart it's story quality. I opposed his harsh judgement of the film by saying: "Not everything has to be cerebral....sometimes you can just have fun with a movie" I think that the appeal of cinema on the whole lies in it's escape and fantasy value and the asthetic goes a long way in giving it this value. Ther are of course films that are desirable to watch because of the quality of their stories. One example is the French film " The Hairdressers Husband" whose story line alone was very psycologically impacting. Even so, I am glad that it was shot on film because it was that much more powerful because of it!
Marc

[crimsonson]

If high asthetic quality achieved through ambitious technical feat becomes the primary reason to validate a film then we have moved cinema to the level of an exotic car for example. Technology first and art second. Numbers first and people second.

There is nothing wrong with cinematic fantasies. And yes, not everything has to be cerebral. But I would prefer to be treated as a thinking human being instead of some kind of an animal that is attracted the light.

The fear of cinema becoming more like video because of the proliferation of HD has been expressed by many of us. Maybe the decline of cinema as an art form is because we have accepted soap opera level writing and remakes after remakes of old TV shows? And movies such as SW with its Buck Rogers ineptness can only furthers this.

Even the minstrels of old, the bard, understood its the story that makes great fantasies - not how big your harp is.

[marc]

Having a movie with a great story line is all the more reason not to "defile" it with flat pixaltion. And from the economic standpoint, if your story does suck, this is all the more reason to dress it up with that "asthetic opiate". And so what is wrong with making someon's movie going experience better when presented on a high quality medium? If the person is happy with their experience nobody can say that they did not have the judgement to make the distinction themselves between a bad story and a good one. Imagine how much more pissed off you would be if you walked out of a movie that had a terrible story and a lousy picture quality. Story is one thing and picture quality is another. Having a good story line does not justify presenting it in such an unappealing way.
Marc

[MovieStuff]

I don't know. I have tons of books on film history and it seems to me the lineage is pretty pure. The cinema was created first and foremost to entertain, to be commercial. Whether you accept Edison or the Lumiere brothers as the true "inventors" of modern motion pictures as we know it, they both are on absolute record as wanting a medium to exploit for commercial gain and that their intention was to simply entertain the masses; the more masses the better for the box office.

Now, I will admit here and now that there are those that have, on occasion, elevated film making to an art form. Likewise, there are people that can shoot a rifle accurately and then there are Olympic calibre marksmen. Not every shot has to be through the bullseye. A few inches either side of the heart will do the deed just as good.

I think that movies only have a responsibility to entertain and it doesn't really matter what they are shot on or who directed them or where the script came from or how 'serious' the source material or back story is. Conventions are meant to be broken. I remember years and years ago that it was "unheard of" to intermix emulsions. Then the opening titles of Miami Vice came out and suddenly conventions were turned upside down. At on time, all shots in commercials had to be sparkly clean and polished then the infamous Nike commercial busted loose with the Beatles' Revolution backing some seriously grainy and jumpy super 8 cuts that just looked, well, electrifying.

None of this was "serious" or even the level of "art". But I would gladly set through a showing of "Classic Commercials You Never Get to See" than another flaming turd of a movie like "Remains of the Day" or other self absorbed movies that put cerebral atrophy ahead of entertainment value just so they can be called "art".

Movies are meant to entertain first. If they occasionally rise to the level of art, that's good but not required for me to buy a ticket. Shot on HD24P? So what? Just another 24 frames, whirring through the gate. Make me laugh, make me cry, that's all I ask but what ever you do, don't bore me. I can get that in real life for free.

My two cents.....

Roger

[StopMoWorks]

I would say why does it have to be either one or the other, that is, film or digital? Who is framing the debate or creating the "digital need"? Is it Sony, who is supplying all the digital bells & whistle tools to the Lucas organization? A little bit of profit self-interest from Sony? If "all digital" ever took off, Sony would be there and ready $ :twisted: $. As I said in my previous post, there are no standards for digital (for mainstream production), many directors are not that interested in switching over, and theaters are not yet going to invest the big $dollars$ in non-standardized digital projection equipment.

Right now, the mainstream movie biz trend seems to be that film and digital "co-exist" and it works well.....shot on film, transferred to digital, special effects or enhancements added, then back to film. Quality looks pretty good to me.....especially 70mm stuff. I know someone who saw Episode 2 digitally projected......he says it looks good, but not that much of a dramatic improvement over film. So, for all that extraordinary investment in digital, only a minor improvement that audiences might not notice? Spiderman was not all-digital but the masses are going nuts over it and studios are happy $$$$.

Roger Ebert said when he compared Episode 2 , seeing it film projected, then seeing it digitally projected......the digital projection looked crisper, however, Ebert added that, when digital is transferred to film it can be a little fuzzy. So his conclusion was, that digitally shot looks best when digitally projected, and when shot on film, it looks best when film projected.

To me, film is a mature technology having built-in qualities that give it that film ambience or look.....you get it "in camera". Sure you can shoot digitally and and then fake a film look in post......take your choice..... 6 of 1, or half a dozen of the other ......just a difference in the process of creating the images. What I sense (not sure), is a premature eventual demise or exclusion (by some self-interest force) of the the "film method" of creating movies. Why fix something that ain't broken. Hey..... we are in the 21st century and our bathroom Toilet flushing technology has not changed that much and it still does a good job!! Ummmm.......maybe that was not a good metaphor or analogy :?

[MovieStuff]

Hey..... we are in the 21st century and our bathroom Toilet flushing technology has not changed that much and it still does a good job!! Ummmm.......maybe that was not a good metaphor or analogy :?

(Heh, heh) He said "anal-ogy" (heh, heh, heh...)

Just kidding, Lio.

Well, I think that is pretty much what I as saying. The medium is not the message. Personally I would rather be entertained by video than bored by film. If it happens the other way around, then that is terrific, as well. But just because something was shot on "film" doesn't automatically make it more entertaining.

The ease in which a "film look" can be achieved by pressing the trigger on a super 8 camera doesn't offset a lack of entertainment value that so many low budget productions seem to have in common. I think that a lot of people get uptight about the prospects of vidiots horning in on their "film" territory. Suddenly, the "film look" that was part and parcel of the mystery in shooting chemical based imagery is no longer the sole defining characteristic that separated the amateur film maker from the amateur video maker.

If the amateur video maker can press a button and get a "film look", ANY kind of film look, the stakes become much higher. Suddenly the real difference will have to be one of content and not simply the automated glory that comes from just shooting "film" and standing back to accept the awe of the crowd, regardless of how lousy or underachieved one's effort really is. Suddenly ANYone can press the trigger. Or rather, the cat is out of the bag that anyone could've pressed the super 8 trigger all along.

Ouch. Tough pill to swallow.....

Roger

[marc]

Tough pill to swallow? most of us swallowed that pill a long time ago when we saw countless footage of ours and/ or other people's home movie footage. That was our education in the difference between quality and simple trigger pulling. Perhaps that is what brought us all here. Our love of the concept but our desire to bring it to a higher level. NOW WHAT A CONCEPT THAT IS! After all even the village idiot can just pull the trigger. And the olympic marksmen that Roger spoke of; they have to do more than just pull the trigger. But wait a minute.....why don't they just use those paint ball guns? Yes, and when we were five years old and daddy said: " Junior just press this button with your finger but wait for me to get in the picture with your mother" we knew that this was all the education that we needed to help dad with his home movies. For some reason the thought of logging on to an 8mm movie making forum and exchanging information about the latest film news and kodak developments just did not figure into the formula. Go figure!
Marc

[wahiba]

Have not seen it yet, but will do. As I understand it the film basically needs a decent script and a decent director. I once heard Alec Guinness say on a chat show that part of his percentage was for re-writing a fair bit of the script, and it shows. Just compare the dialogue in the 1977 film with the latest offerings - how about letting Terry Nation (Dr Who and Blakes 7) or Gerry Anderson ( Thunderbirds ) loose with all that kit, might even get a decent movie.

If you want a real sci-fi character then how about Dan Dare - I dare show my age :oops: