miami vice.. poor poor image quality

[Evan Kubota]

"I do, however, still take issue with the term "digital emusion", as "emulsion" by definition refers to a photosensitive coating on paper or a photographic film. Thus, I don't see how HD tape stock can technically be referred to as an emulsion, as it records images (well, data really) by magnetic means, not optically"

Most definitely - who started throwing this term around, and who 'invented' it? What a ridiculous catchphrase.

[MovieStuff]

Points well taken, Roger.

I do, however, still take issue with the term "digital emusion", as "emulsion" by definition refers to a photosensitive coating on paper or a photographic film. Thus, I don't see how HD tape stock can technically be referred to as an emulsion, as it records images (well, data really) by magnetic means, not optically.

Oh, hey, I'm one of the first to bitch about people using the term "film" when referring to "video" but, in the end, does it really matter? I think that because digital is going to eventually displace film, the terminology is going to get skewed toward industry slang. There are already quite few phrases we use in cinema production that don't have the same real-world meaning. Hell, does "CUT" really mean to cut something? Do we really print anything any more? What about the term "grade"? Does the colorist in the post house get an "A" or does "grade" mean color and density correct to your liking? "Emulsion" is simply going to be the way working DPs will get their minds around the new digital medium.

Roger

[flatwood]

....... does "CUT" really mean to cut something? Do we really print anything any more? .....

Speed?

[Justin Lovell]

Just a note, the video version of film grain is not gain, it's noise.

Gain is a way of electronically pushing up the picture's brightness without manipulating aperture, thus it only emphasizes video's native noise since it's not using physico-optical means.

And as for S8 and grain...what grain with K40, Velvia50D, and 100D?

I was refering to noise is a result of increasing the 'gain' to 'see in the dark'. i see what you're saying though. digital noise is different than film grain, no question.

Its funny, I'm assembling my cinematographer's reel right now, and a lot of my k40 S8 footage looks slicker than some of the 16mm footage that I have. (Mainly as a result of the choice to shoot with old 500t and 800asa 16mm stock). I'm having to cut those shots out of my reel and replace them with super 8 because the 16mm is just too grainy.

[paulcotto]

I saw it a few days ago. I found it to be entertaining which is why I go to the movies. I did not know that it was shot on HD until a few days after I watched it, but I had a feeling some scenes where video and the documentary style shooting worked for some stuff but not others. I think it would have looked better if it was shot on film, but it was still good enough to pass as a Hollywood level production. I really wonder if they save any money when it's all said and done.

Regards,
Paul Cotto

[MovieStuff]

I really wonder if they save any money when it's all said and done.

I think that their idea is to support the new medium now so that it will pay off later. I have used this analogy before but it is really so true: The broadcast industry once used Kinescopes (basically a camera shooting off a black and white television monitor) in the days before video tape. I don't know if anyone here ever saw the Kinescopes from the last years before videotape took over but, let me tell you, some of these video-to-film black and white transfers were just stunning. Really snappy and looked first rate. They were also lightyears better than early commercial video tape, which was obviously inferior, even to an untrained eye. But the industry knew that video tape technology could get better if it were supported financially so the studios sucked it up and lived with inferior video tape, banking on the notion that it would eventually surpass the quality of Kinescopes, which it did quickly.

The difference in quality between Kinescopes and early videotape was huge, compared to the relatively minor difference in quality between film production and HD production, so the distance to the goal isn't anywhere as great as it was in trying to surplant Kinescopes with videotape. I would say that it isn't so much a "quality" difference now as it is a different "look". At any rate, the Hollywood machine knows that it is in their collective interests to support HD for two reasons: One is that it will eventually make the technology better and cheaper and two is that, to remain competitive, then producers have to be familiar with any format that might be used by their competition, regardless of technical or asthetic differences. Keeping up with the Jones's is a daily battle in La-La Land.

The name of the game in Hollywood is to make it fast and cheap and nothing is faster and cheaper than video. If they can get a "film look" that is good enough to satisfy audiences without the associated overhead of film, then that is the path they will follow. Even if the associated overhead costs the same per unit of HD shot, the turnaround on production time will be quicker and that translates to a huge savings over time when you start to consider interest lost ($) associated with a big budget stretched across 6-12 months. The sooner the project is finished, the sooner it can go to market and they can start getting a return on their investment. So the attraction of HD isn't all about technology. It's also about time and efficiency. Comparative asthetics are now secondary to all of this, since HD has proven to be "good enough" to satisfy an audience when telling a story.

Roger

[paulcotto]

Digital production will have to come a long way to attract the cream of the crop directors like Ridley Scott. I agree most productions directed at the 13 year old boy demographic wont care and can’t wait for the "revolution" to take hold. On the other hand top quality for the time being means film and those who aspire to that quality know this. I do think the near future is Digital Intermediate (DI) and almost all features will use this work flow. Even low budget Indy films are using DI. I wish to use a poor mans version of DI for my Super-8 films.

Regards,
Paul Cotto

[woods01]

Does HD save money? In terms of big budget production the savings are
arguably moot. But you can bet accountants have run the numbers.

Forget the rental price the cameras command its the labour to consider.
You now have to hire a well paid HD tech to be on your camera crew. And
because they tend to just keep rolling because there is really no need to
reload the set stays locked for long stretches which means that techs
don't have as much time to work between takes. So that adds a few
more precious minutes to setups which can equate to either dropping a
shot at the end of the day or a longer day (more OT).

There also tends to be more obsessive tweaking with HD because of the
whole what you see is what you get effect (a blessing and a curse,
espeically when you've got direct sunlight to deal with). The nice thing
with 35mm is you just simply move on when the shots done. Too many
indie video projects get hung up on what it looks like on the monitor
and loose time, then shots, then scenes because of indecisive rookie
DOPs changing their minds because of that damn monitor. Some
indies forget that they need to accept that a shot isn't working out and
move on.

But the real conversion of HD will be when you can get all the old
guard directors and DOPs to believe in HD as a quality format and it
might take them all dying off to achieve that transition. Much as it
was making the change from b&w to colour and carbon arcs to HMI.

Is it cheaper? For Hollywood they can afford to do whatever it takes
to achieve the look they want. Film or video stock is cheap compared to
what the actors get.

[Evan Kubota]

"Film or video stock is cheap compared to
what the actors get."

And what the actors get is (generally) cheap compared to the costs of hiring and housing the crew, as well as insurance.

[akka10]

I was dragged along to it, and was unaware it was video at first. I found it really hard and tedious to look at. I don't make the effort to go to the cinema to see video. There was zero latitude and it had an overall very murky, muddy, grainy, noisy, shitty look. You could not light to compensate, and if they were trying they failed. Very disappointing I thought. They could of achieved a much better look if it had been done on film, and it would of been much closer to the original TV series look. I am sorry, but hands down horrible film ... Bad look, really bad script (in fact I had no idea what was going on most of the time - "ah what country are they in now??"). I can't see the point in remakes of old concepts, period .... Gimme original concepts, shot on film! Bad Bad Bad!

[alltimetrebek]

I saw Miami Vice opening night despite not being as excited for it as some of my friends. I have to say that I was blown away by the film and I can't say I agree at all with any of the comments on here, including the way it was shot.

For one thing, Mann shooting Vice on video was a direct and deliberate choice as a filmmaker to achieve a certain aesthetic. It's not like he's trying to fool anyone into thinking this is film here (and I realize some sequences are shot on film, though, of course, the majority is video). I, for one, applaud his efforts (and any filmmaker for that matter) for taking a risk like that and doing something outside of the box for this genre for once. Miami Vice is the most refreshing action flick the multiplexes have seen in some time. I would also argue that there is more to this film than "the look", although a lot rests on it's shoulders since this is a movie that needs to breathe COOL and STYLE and does it with much success, creating a great, surreal visual palette that becomes something beautiful by embracing the ugliness of its video medium. This is in a complete throwback to that 80s cheap video form, perfectly in tune with the mostly by the numbers undercover cop saga we've seen before, but not nearly in this so unconvention of ways. If this wasn't a Mann film, I'd be pretty surprised if the studio let this hit the screen as-is. This is a action film with raw energy and some characters we can actually give a shit about for once. A thinking mans, art-house action flick. This is Michael Mann's best work since The Insider. He doesn't use digital because it's the new hip thing to do or because it's better on the budget. He uses it because he knows what he's doing. He can fill the frame like a film artist fills the frame and mesmerize and take risks because he's a master of his craft and can bring something new to the table for an audience who is patient enough to accept a summer blockbuster that can challenge just as much as it can entertain.

This is the best film I've seen all year. Make up your own mind.

[supa8]

This is the best film I've seen all year. Make up your own mind

It seems to me you re out of your mind.
I thought the look was desperate, not to speak of the script and the dancing sequences.

Did you see that salsa dancing sequence in Cuba?
It looks like they got Ricky Martin or Mariah Carey's choreographer. So desperate. You can see they were just about to hire Shakira to sing a tune there.

At least, Collin Farrel held a more decent performance than in Alexander and they didn't all speak in an Irish accent, but this was a top turkey guys.
I thought Collateral was ok though, and looked ok too.

Another annoying thing in Miami Vice was the way the camera moved way too much in a lot of sequences.

[MovieStuff]

Does HD save money?

Why use a light meter if you can just guess at the exposure?

Anytime you can have instant feedback on what you are doing, you are going to operate more confidently. That increase in efficiency equates to time saved, which is the same thing as money.

If shooting electronically cost the same as shooting film, then no one would shoot electronically for television or theatrical. It's a no-brainer. Digital exists for a reason. If it really cost more for commercial projects or home use, no one would use it.

Forget the rental price the cameras command its the labour to consider.

I agree. Labor is always the main cost on a film or video project. If you can get the cast and crew off the set faster by shooting more efficiently, then you save money across the board. Sometimes shooting more efficiently means using film but, ususally, shooting digitally is going to be more efficient. It depends on the type of project.

You now have to hire a well paid HD tech to be on your camera crew.

They cost no more than the Panavision tech or the Arri tech that was on the crew before it. Even if they cost twice as much, the increase in efficiency will offset their salary. But, realistically, any serious production is going to have a camera tech, be it for film or video.

And because they tend to just keep rolling...

This is a common presumption that I have not found to be true at all. A professional director and crew isn't going to do that unless it is necessary for the shot. They make extended running mags for 35mm cameras for a reason, too. Lack of discipline on the part of the crew is the problem; not the format being used. If it were inherent in video, then nothing on television shot on video would ever get finished on time or budget and those deadlines are far more strict than a feature film.

There also tends to be more obsessive tweaking with HD because of the
whole what you see is what you get effect (a blessing and a curse,
espeically when you've got direct sunlight to deal with). The nice thing
with 35mm is you just simply move on when the shots done. Too many
indie video projects get hung up on what it looks like on the monitor
and loose time, then shots, then scenes because of indecisive rookie
DOPs changing their minds because of that damn monitor. Some
indies forget that they need to accept that a shot isn't working out and
move on.

There is nothing about HD that mandates that type of time wasting. The presence of a monitor on the set of any film prodution also invites the same kind of problem you just described, which is a symptom of an undisciplined crew and not an inherent problem of working with digital production. Super 8 carts only run 2.5 minutes at 24fps but, believe me, I have seen my share of run-on takes in S8, despite the short loads. Just because a camera can shoot longer than is needed for the scene doesn't mean you have to.

But the real conversion of HD will be when you can get all the old
guard directors and DOPs to believe in HD as a quality format and it
might take them all dying off to achieve that transition. Much as it
was making the change from b&w to colour and carbon arcs to HMI.

That may very well be true. I watched an inteview with Sidney Polack and he was finally considering using digital for a film project after working with a miniDV camera for a documentary he shot. There is a lot of fear any time a new format or medium comes about.

Is it cheaper? For Hollywood they can afford to do whatever it takes
to achieve the look they want. Film or video stock is cheap compared to
what the actors get.

Agreed. But quicker turn around does affect the bottom line when you take into account interest payments on the overall budget across a long production schedule. Even on an el cheapo movie like Forever Evil, we were being pressured to get it done quicker because of the time the budget would be tied up in production. I can imagine on a $100 million film, the interest would be high enough that even a few days saved would be appreciated by the investors.

Roger

[jean]

wow, i'm really caught to see how diefferently the movie has been received. To throw in my 0.02$ - i was bored o death, and only the fact that it was raining outside kept me from leavin the cozy theatre and waste my time with my psp. That dialouges were truly an all-time low, as were the lifeless characters, and the desperate efforts to make them look cool, superior.. yawn.. But heck, everybody expects something different from a film, and one mans total boredom is just fine for someone else!

As to the "video" look, to me it is very obvious that the film has no intention at all to look like a slick hollywood production. Mann clearly uses the video (i'd even say amateur/homevideo) look to make it "real". Shaky camera, video noise all over the image - boy, this is real, like all those reality shows where a camera is following the cops!

In the common film industry the medium (film) is pulled back as to offer an complete illusion, no shaky camera disturbs the audience and reminds them that someone was holding a camera, and no technical imperfections remind you that you are actually watching an artificial product. Think of e.g. barry lyndon as a perfect example of such an illusion.

Miami Vice like some other films introduce the act of being filmed (or videotaped) into the plot, eliminating the artificiality of usual films, and quoting the signals of "boy, this is real, someone happened to have a camera at hand when the shooting took place!" that the audience has learned to appreciate in all the reality shows.

It has nothing to do with saving money or trying a new medium.

[ccortez]

But the real conversion of HD will be when you can get all the old
guard directors and DOPs to believe in HD as a quality format and it
might take them all dying off to achieve that transition. Much as it
was making the change from b&w to colour and carbon arcs to HMI.

Some of the DPs may be resistant as you suggest, but others will not be. Remember, it's a field where you're always pushing whatever technology you can get your hands on and imagining the technology that would make your job easier. Many of these folks are proper gearheads and are more interested in progress than propriety.

I spent some time with Ricky Leacock last year. He goes everywhere with a tiny miniDV camera and a powerbook and never stops praising the digital realm and cursing film. He says he'll never touch film again b/c it's nasty and inconvenient and expensive. We might all feel the same way if we had spent the better part of several decades dragging around a 150 lb. Mitchell rig complete with a flatbed full of auto batteries for power.

I like both film and digital. Is that a cop out? ;-)