35mm battle to be HD

Post by **mattias** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:18 pm

schindler's list was contrived and pretentious. one of the most overrated films of all time.

/matt

Post by **sunrise** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:27 pm

For my first 30 min. short, that we are planning, my producer is giving me the choice of either HD shooting or s16 shooting and scan to DigiBeta. Shooting s16 and scanning to HD is not within the budget's reach.

We use a lot of computer effects as background, so we need the high res scan.

It's a marginal production btw.

michael

Post by **S8 Booster** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:27 pm

Santo wrote:Whoa! Hold on! .....
.....Sort of puts things in perspective.

IÃ‚Â´d say: Out Of Perspective

Mostly Crap.

R

Post by **mathis** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:08 am

mattias wrote:schindler's list was contrived and pretentious. one of the most overrated films of all time.

/matt

totally agreed. I was really shocked when I saw it.

Post by **Nigel** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:20 am

Sunrise--

Recently I started to get HD transfers for less than DigiBeta from S16. I don't know what things are like in Europe but it seems like the transfer biz here is starting to wise up and really shop their prices.

Good Luck

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:20 am

I will admit that the scene at the end where Schindler cries and they have a group hug is a seriously contrived, wrong for the character, and a very unbelievable flaw in an otherwise very good film and almost ruined it for me. But I found the rest of the film powerful and even the unusual (for me -- never seen that before) rocks on the grave scene at the end moving.

The most overrated and overpraised film in history does belong to the same director, however. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a complete piece of contrived garbage from a script level on up. And another example of trying to make us all cry at the end on cue. Insipid. If I would have found Matt Damon's character at the end of that I would have shot him myself.

Post by **Scotness** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:28 am

I think people want to think digital is better because they want to think that technology is always improving society and our way of life - after all it's a bit embarassing to think that with all this new technology we still can't get a better picture quality than an old process that has essentially been around for over 100 years now.

Of course there's ways in which video is better (eg cost) but compare the best film to the best video and it's a joke - 70mm vs HD???

As a friend of mine said the other day on this topic - if you can afford to pay Tom Crusie $20million your film stock costs are the least of your worries.

So why on earth would Spielberg want to go digital for the new raiders film?

Post by **scottbobo2** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:57 am

But Scott ,it isnt a matter of people thinking that digital is better,it is the industry saying this is what we are going to use as the future of the movie industry.Ofcourse many productions will still shoot film and ofcourse it looks better but THE STUDIOS DONT CARE"the fix is in and digital is what is going to be used like it or not". Brittiney Spears can't sing better than Norah Jones or most of us but the industry chose her as a pop idol,like it or not she is on your screen (kind of like digital ,like it or not)

Post by **woods01** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:53 am

Now photographers and cinematographers have
been complaining about grain size in high speed film for one hundred
years. Its only fitting that now that grain is really no longer an issue, film
has a viable alternative to it! Whether its vision2 or HD the average
movie or tv show is pretty crisp and bland looking. The only interesting
looking films these days seem to be ones where the stock sees a lot of
post work trickery done on it.

So just where is it that Spielberg states Indy 4 will be digital? And did he
mean shooting on HD or that he would be making extensive use of
digital sets like the new Star Wars? And at the rate that sequel has been
progressing for the past decade there will probably be a new type of HD!

Post by **Scotness** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:48 am

The funny thing is though - maybe we who want to shoot film will be saved by the fact that film is still the preferable projection method - and even though things maybe shot on HD they will be still be transferred to film for projection so some stocks will still be available for quite a while.

It may be one thing for companies to shoot on video - but the likelihood of every cinema in the world getting re-fitted for digital projection is still a long way off I think -- I hope! :oops:

Scot

Post by **mattias** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:11 am

Santo wrote:The most overrated and overpraised film in history does belong to the same director, however. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

i almost forgot. ;-) you're right of course.

/matt

Post by **S8 Booster** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:31 am

http://indy.jpaftermath.com/

Indy 4 Digital confirmation! Posted Wednesday: October 16: 2002 @ 5:54PM by Mr. Goodbytes
Thanks again to SpielbergFilms.Com
STAR WARS producer Rick McCallum spoke recently at a SMPTE (Society of Motion Picture Television Engineers) seminar in Hollywood, where he talked at length about digital film making. On a side note, McCallum mentioned that Steven Spielberg will be shooting INDY 4 with the digital cameras developed through Sony and Lucasfilm, and that they would be even better quality than those used on ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

http://www.killermovies.com/i/indianajo ... /2719.html

Steven Spielberg On 'Indiana Jones IV'
[Monday, January 27th, 2003]
Steven Spielberg recently gave an interview to Empire Magazine, where he talked a bit about Indiana Jones 4.

"We've finished our meetings", reveals Spielberg. "It's a completely mapped-out story, as mapped-out as what George, Larry Kasdan and I first mapped out with Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Frank [Darabont] has gone from lip service to pages. He's now doing what most writers hate to do... which is write. It's a very exciting movie."

Talking about whether he would be willing to shoot the movie in digital, as Lucas did with Attack of the Clones, Spielberg says, "I would do anything for my friend George Lucas, including compromising my own belief system. But I think practically speaking, there aren't going to be enough theaters even in 2005 to exhibit digital film to make it worth my while to commit digitally to Indy 4 at this time. If there were 2,000 screens with digital projectors I might seriously consider it for George and his vision of the future. But it looks like there's no chance that the theaters will put it in the next three years, so I'll be happily shooting Indy 4 on film."

http://www.theraider.net/newsarchives/i ... 0108030201

Spielberg might shoot 'Indy 4' on digital after all
Saturday, August 3, 2002 - Gilles V

The Edmonton Journal reports that Steven Spielberg is no fan of digital moviemaking. "I don't want to shoot digital movies," Spielberg says. "I like film."

"I love shooting on film and I love editing on film. I know that digital will do the same thing film will do. It will still use lenses. It will still capture the same images. The difference is that digital is like acrylic paint. It's so photo-realistic that you don't see any flaws. With traditional film, where you have it going through shutters in a film gate, it's alive with grain -- compared to digital, it's like an impressionist painting. I would still rather see a still life painted by an impressionist than a still life painted by Norman Rockwell."

But as a favor to George Lucas on Indiana Jones 4, he might use it. "I'd do anything for George and if George asked me to shoot Indiana Jones 4 on digital, I'd do it. But my duties will always be to shoot on film."

This bit of news was earlier reported by 'jones' at The Raven message forum

R

Post by **sunrise** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 12:53 pm

Nigel wrote:Recently I started to get HD transfers for less than DigiBeta from S16. I don't know what things are like in Europe but it seems like the transfer biz here is starting to wise up and really shop their prices.

I don't think it will happen here until HDTV starts happening on the consumer level. The demand for HD scans are simply not high enough and people prefer to skip the film level. But I will look out for it for shure.

Scotness wrote:It may be one thing for companies to shoot on video - but the likelihood of every cinema in the world getting re-fitted for digital projection is still a long way off I think -- I hope!

Ironically, on the 25th of december a new Danish feature will premiere. It has been heavily promoted the last month as "the only Danish 3 hour feature in cinemascope", as it has been beatifully shot on 35mm by one of Denmarks best cinematographers. AT THE SAME TIME they heavily promote the premiere, which will be in two new digitally fitted cinemas.

michael

Post by **mattias** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:05 pm

shooting film and projecting digitally makes more sense in my mind than the other way around. theater owners probably don't agree, since they run an extremely low cost operation now at the expense of procucers and distributors, but i couldn't care less. ;-)

/matt

Post by **scottbobo2** » Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:12 pm

I when to a film the other day and a bunch of people almost fell over a bunch of film reels cases that the film was delivered in. When someone complained to the manager,the manager apologized and said "Pretty soon all these film cans will be gone as soon as the studios strike a deal with the theaters on how they are going to handle the digital projection."
the movie projectors from the top theaters will be on big auctions one day
something like this...."Remember those clicky,clacky,noisy,things that people use to go to the movies to watch a film on,get one as a collection item,Saving Private Ryan was once shown on this one. The digital projection in theaters is a done deal and it has nothing to do with being too expensive to change over to. The New York Times did a big article on this in 2003 ,what is holding it up is the studios want some control over the digital projection and the theaters want most of the control.
This takes us back to the 1950s when the US government stopped the studios from owning theaters(studio got around this with under the table deals and blackmail on future films showing at the theater .) * Intesesting side note *I was reading in a" History of film" book how the studios in the 1950s had meeting on how to eliminate the 16mm problem"
Actually letters from studio executives in the 1950's talking about how they must stop the average person from being able to make a movie,by telling people 16mm is a toy or a hobby!!!