I'm Back

[MovieStuff]

The best I can do is patronise the cinema 20 miles away which offers 4K projection compared to my local multiplex with 2K...and point out to other cinema-goers why one looks better than the other.

And their reply is, "Your point being...?" :?

[gaugefilm]

There are some assumptions here in regards to quality in film which I find really interesting.

Roger makes the point that audiences these days will watch poor quality products and Carl states that video looks crap on the big screen. I think I probably agree with both of you but it's interesting to step back and think about what it is we are actually doing here.

It reminds me of when Lord Elgin brought the smooth white Parthenon Marbles over here from Greece in the early nineteenth century. They were placed in the British Museum and the general public admired them, students sketched and replicated them and they were placed at the top of the artistic hierarchy. The fact they were placed in huge impressive Museums fostered this association of 'quality'. Think of the Museum or Gallery as part of the Art infrastructure. Over 100 years later we all discovered that the original clean white marbles were actually painted with very bright and vibrant colours by the Greeks in the 5th century BCE. The very idea of brightly painted marble statues seemed garish to us after we'd all absorbed this particular notion of 'quality'. The fact that white marble statues pervade gardens, parks and other public spaces today stand as a testament for our inability to change our perspective.

I think much the same is happening here with film and video. Our culture has set a standard of what constitutes 'good quality' and 'bad quality' within film. The movie theaters are very much the Museums of our day, with their impressive spaces, high ceilings, quiet and authoritative settings (you can get chucked out of both for being too noisy). We associate films with expense and video with the home movie (SD video anyway). I'm not surprised that all DSLR's and Digital camera's strive to create the effect of film. It's because we associate film with quality.

Carl... I would be careful when separating the hope of the individual from the industry. It's very much a give and take situation. I would expect your opinion (that film looks better than video) stems from your culture and thus the industry. You cannot really separate yourself or your hope from your culture. For example my love for film emerged from both mainstream movies and my artistic background, thus industry and institutes.

I personally found it more and more difficult to find the resources to use film (much like Nigel) so I decide to set up my own lab. I now sell film from Kodak, develop it and soon will digitize it (Roger I hope to purchase one of your units). I have now become part of the industry, however I am still an artist, filmmaker and individual that most definitely hopes.

All the best
Kevin

[Will2]

Somehow I guess I'm not making myself clear. My point is that audiences no longer demand high quality and certainly do not demand the look of film over video these days. So while some people on this forum demonize Red, Panavision, etc for trying to push an electronic veneer of film, I say it could be sooooooo much worse since it is obvious that the majority of audiences simply don't give a fuck about quality on any level. Within that context, I say bully for any company that tries to maintain a higher quality image if there is no audience demand for it.

And from the reaction of theatre owners over The Hobbit 48fps footage, it looks like the owners still give a crap. Probably because they realize that even though theatre goers won't tell you they care or know, on some level they still do care about quality. That doesn't mean it has to be film though, the 4k projectors look pretty damn good where I am. Also it's another way for theaters to raise ticket prices again. I know prices have been high in Europe but I think of movie tickets as no more than $5 and the Avengers ticket I bought was $16. Ouch.

[MovieStuff]

Somehow I guess I'm not making myself clear. My point is that audiences no longer demand high quality and certainly do not demand the look of film over video these days. So while some people on this forum demonize Red, Panavision, etc for trying to push an electronic veneer of film, I say it could be sooooooo much worse since it is obvious that the majority of audiences simply don't give a fuck about quality on any level. Within that context, I say bully for any company that tries to maintain a higher quality image if there is no audience demand for it.

And from the reaction of theatre owners over The Hobbit 48fps footage, it looks like the owners still give a crap. Probably because they realize that even though theatre goers won't tell you they care or know, on some level they still do care about quality.

But I think there's a difference between appreciating quality and demanding it. Most people would appreciate a home made, charcoal grilled burger but a very large percentage of those people think nothing of paying for a mediocre-to-crappy McDonald's burger on a regular basis, too.

What's odd is that theater presentations used to be hyped on better and better quality; 35mm > anamorphic > 70mm > Cinerama> IMAX, etc. Then something funny happened and we started seeing 35mm Technovision productions that only used 3 perf instead of anamorphic and theaters started getting smaller and then the industry started settling on 2K resolution in their prints and, all the while, the audiences just sort of passively said, "Okay." because the presentation format, while not as good as it used to be, was still often better than the script, acting and directing in the movie they were watching. The current rage is 3D, which isn't necessarily better but, like an old Harryhausen stop motion film, does provide an interesting effect to stitch together an otherwise awful premise of a movie. And like Harryhausen films, a lot of the 3D films of today are not as interesting if the effects are taken away. (No offense, Uncle Ray)

Roger

[kuparikettu]

What's odd is that theater presentations used to be hyped on better and better quality; 35mm > anamorphic > 70mm > Cinerama> IMAX, etc. Then something funny happened and we started seeing 35mm Technovision productions that only used 3 perf instead of anamorphic and theaters started getting smaller and then the industry started settling on 2K resolution in their prints and, all the while, the audiences just sort of passively said, "Okay." because the presentation format, while not as good as it used to be, was still often better than the script, acting and directing in the movie they were watching. The current rage is 3D, which isn't necessarily better but, like an old Harryhausen stop motion film, does provide an interesting effect to stitch together an otherwise awful premise of a movie. And like Harryhausen films, a lot of the 3D films of today are not as interesting if the effects are taken away. (No offense, Uncle Ray)

I wonder if we have passed from an era of quality-oriented audiences to new-is-always-best oriented audiences. Not for the first time in history though. The result of this is that old technology, even if superior is seen inherently worse than things glittering and new. I guess that's also on of the reasons why people rather buy cheap and not so durable IKEA furniture instead of buying used and sturdier furniture even if it looked somewhat used. That doesn't mean that quality has no value, though. It just means that it is secondary and thus then judged according to the "newness factor". As a result there are people who are willing to fight over the fact whether or not their 5Dmk2 is better than the GH2 owned by their neighbor (not to mention all the camera tests done one after another in order to rank all cameras quality-wise), but who don't hesitate to sneer at those shooting on film, because -- after all -- it's horribly outdated!

[MitchPerkins]

...and, all the while, the audiences just sort of passively said, "Okay." because the presentation format, while not as good as it used to be, was still often better than the script, acting and directing in the movie they were watching.

LOL! Too true! Luckily for now we have AMC, total film snobs, and some great shows....in fact Walking Dead is shot on Super16 - yahoo! DP says it saves them an hour and a half of production time every day (AC)....yahoo!

Mitch

[Roster]

off topic, but not really,

Anyone know what they are using to shoot the Masterpiece Mystery program "Sherlock"?

I love the series but the cinematography looks dreadful (IMO).

[Blue Audio Visual]

The last series of Sherlock was shot on the Alexa...

Interview with the DoP:

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2012/02/05/f ... an-wagner/

[Nigel]

I haven't seen "Sherlock". However, the cinematography may be terrible regardless of what camera they used to shoot with.

Good Luck

[colorme]

Roger, I have heard.

Local Xfer is dead in practical terms. The tide has turned and it snuck up and caught me by surprise.

It was hard to get the producers on board with film. "Why don't we shoot on an Alexa? It would be cheaper."

Lightpress is still transferring film in Seattle and with the new $100/hr transfer rates some producers are realizing that they can now afford film.

[Roster]

[quote="Nigel"]I haven't seen "Sherlock". However, the cinematography may be terrible regardless of what camera they used to shoot with.

Maybe it's in the broadcast or whatever it was mastered on and used by PBS to broadcast. Certain shots, e.g. fast moving or sped up shots and low light shots get all pixelated and awful looking on screen.

In contrast, Downton Abbey was shot on an Arri D-21 and it all looked beautiful.

[Nigel]

Roster

That just goes to support my statement.

Without seeing it it sounds more like the 'cinematography' is bad and more than likely has little to do with the camera.

They did hire a relatively young shooter for as big as the show is.

Good Luck

[Nigel]

ColorMe

I know that Lightpress is still around and it was fully my intention to give them a call. Hopefully they are better than they were when they were with Flying Spot. They left a poor taste in my mouth more than once as FSFT.

Good Luck

[carllooper]

Somehow I guess I'm not making myself clear. My point is that audiences no longer demand high quality and certainly do not demand the look of film over video these days. So while some people on this forum demonize Red, Panavision, etc for trying to push an electronic veneer of film, I say it could be sooooooo much worse since it is obvious that the majority of audiences simply don't give a fuck about quality on any level. Within that context, I say bully for any company that tries to maintain a higher quality image if there is no audience demand for it.

Roger

The point is very clear. Roger is saying audiences don't demand high quality. I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if they don't demand high quality - even if Roger was 100 percent correct - my point is that for many filmmakers, like myself, so what? That's an argument based entirely on business logic having nothing to do with self funded creative film making.

To put it another way, why on earth would I lower my standards just because some idiot (or idiots) in an audience don't care?

It makes no sense. It's like saying I'll make myself a crap dinner tonight because nobody cares whether I do or don't.

Carl

[carllooper]

Carl... I would be careful when separating the hope of the individual from the industry. It's very much a give and take situation. I would expect your opinion (that film looks better than video) stems from your culture and thus the industry. You cannot really separate yourself or your hope from your culture. For example my love for film emerged from both mainstream movies and my artistic background, thus industry and institutes.

A very good read Kevin and I understand what you are saying. When I was referring to film looking better than video I was referring to the 1970s (when I first started film making). Today I like video. I like digital. I think it looks great on the big screen. It looks so much better than it did in the 70s. But I still like film as well. I see them as very different mediums operating in different domains. I don't really see them in competition with each other (on purely technical/artistic grounds) A car is not necessarily a better horse. It depends on whether you drive cars or ride horses. Certainly more people drive cars than horses. Does that mean cars are better horses? Why don't we put cars into horse races? Well at the dawn of the automobile they did just that - but then the two separated out from each other.

Anyway my point is why does video look better today than it did in the 70s? If audiences don't care it can't be the audience. My thesis is it's because it's creators want it to look better. This is not an argument about which is better, film or video, but about the evolution of video technology in itself or any tech for that matter, whatever it is, whether film, video, or a computer. Why do we have better computers today?

Now one reason is because consumers might buy it over the next guys wares. Even if they don't. The creator believes they might and in manufacturing it, it can become what they thought. Of course sometimes the consumer doesn't buy it. Betamax. So the consumer acts as an impediment. Not as part of the creation process. The consumer (money etc) acts as a kind of regulator on what gets made. But it's the creator that pushes it forward whether they win or lose economically speaking. Its not the consumer that makes films or designs the cameras. It's specifically motivated people and companies that create such. Business logic and audiences/consumer don't tell you how to make a film well. Or how to build a camera. They simply act as either impediment or support for what a creator creates.

For example, all my bank balance tells me is that I can't afford to buy filmstock this week. I not only respect that but there also isn't anything I can do about it. Next week it might tell me I can. But it doesn't tell me what to shoot on the filmstock. It might say I can't do a particular shot but t doesn't tell me what shot I can do. Or rather, what it does tell me is that I can afford a particular range of shots. But it doesn't tell me which. I'm the one who tells my bank balance what shot I'm going to do. It doesn't tell me.

Business logic is essentially stupid. It is dumb. Mindless. But it's a stupidity we have to work with because we live in a universe of limited means. But when we give in to the logic of these limits (as distinct from working with such) - as if it wasn't mindless - as if it had some sort of intelligence - we enter into a world where our decisions and desires no longer matter and we just end up at the whim of such stupidity. Creation ceases. And business logic actually fails. Because it is essentially stupid. It doesn't know how to think. It has no brain. Fade out.

Carl