Film is dead - Long live film (or "How I stopped worrying and learned to love facts")

[goamules]

Yes, it was great combination of CGI, old school special effects and Macs.
http://www.thecityreview.com/termin2.html
...

I know it's getting off topic, but to clear this up, again, the Terminator 2 effects used Silicon Graphics (SGI) computers, not Macs. SGIs of the era were mini supercomputers like the Cray. They actually bought Cray shortly thereafter. The 3D effects needed an unbelievable amount of rendering and processing power, that only a "mainframe" like an SGI could do. Small workstations, usually Sun, but sometimes Macs, were just the interface that talked to the main computer. Basically they were the terminals connected to the big one. But the main computer did the work, a Mac of the era couldn't do it.

From your link: "...using the combined talents of dozens of animators, computer scientists, artists and technicians working for more than half a year; their tools included over thirty Silicon Graphics computes using proprietary software..."

 

[redisburning]

The big advantage of HQ Digital is the near instant feedback and the longer runningtime and not the costs of acquisition. If the production can afford the Alexa they can afford film. Eyes wide shut one of the best looking films of the past 20 years was shot with mostly existing lightsources and some fill lights and reflectors, the film was pushed to ASA 1600 and it looked gorgeous. Terrence Malick films have minimal artificial lighting and they are some of the best looking cinematic pieces. Das Leben der anderen had a minimal by cinema standards Budget and they shot it in 35mm Anamorphic only god forgives had nearly 3x the budget. I can understand the choice to go digital but with a Budget of more than a Million don't cite costs as a reason it's not.

Malick may shoot on film but there were some really questionable special effects in The Tree of Life. I mean, I liked the movie and I like his work, but he's hardly a purist.

 

[TXForester]

Pearl Habor and Red Tails are good examples, The airplanes fly like something out of Star Wars, not the way airplanes fly.
(steps off soap box)

One of the reasons I never saw Red Tails. There are plenty of films of planes in flight. The least the digital effects people could do is mimic the real thing.

 

[DominikDUK]

Redisburning
My post was meant in relation to costs shooting films vs digital. Malick and his DoP Lubezki used minimal lighting (relatively) that would be affordable to most 1 Million+ production super low budget is another matter. The size of the necessary lighting package is often cited as reason for going digital again this is wrong Nouvelle Vague movies or Neo Verismo movies used minimal lighting packages and so did Kubrick for Eyes wide shut.

Regarding Digital vs optical or in camera effect
A film that superbly shows how great in camera and opticals effect work is Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula for budget reasons he used In camera and optical effects only and Coppola is far from a luddite he was the first to install a digital edition suite in his Studios (American Zoetrope) btw. Many Digital efx can be done in camera or optically no cgi necessary but most producers and director think that efx means digital is necessary and always cheaper which is not true.

SGIs were great we still use one as printer server at work and it still beats a modern Apple computer in reliability

 

[Ko.Fe.]

From your link: "...using the combined talents of dozens of animators, computer scientists, artists and technicians working for more than half a year; their tools included over thirty Silicon Graphics computes using proprietary software..."

Care to read it more carefull? :

...layered painting of the city augmented with a radiating blast dome and distintegrating buildings created with an Apple Macintosh program called Electric Image...
their tools included over thirty Silicon Graphics computes using proprietary software developed by ILM for the production, as well as several Apple Macintosh computers and a Cyberware digitization system...

Don't know where you have been around this time. 😎

I was running sales, installation and support for first Apple dealer on ex-USSR territories with sales oriented for post production, TV and publishing business.
And our business partner was in LA, selling same things to same kind of customers. Right in the Hollywood.
This is how I knew about Apple and software for it to be used in this movie.
It was kind of whispered revolutionary fact to be able to do it on Macs, back then.

After it I was with company which was representing Discreet Logic in Finland and FSU. One of the Discreet's tops knew me very well from his previous job as manager of Getris Image. So, I knew what CGI is and what was the difference with MAC at this time.
CGI wasn't reliable comparing to MAC at all. It was faster in CPU and image rendering. But once you have all of the hardware software installed on CGI it was crapping it out after sometime and it has to be troubleshooted.

I'm sorry, all of my personal judgment here comes from my professional knowledge.
I'm reading it here about how film needs to be filmed digitally to make it available for digital distribution, and it just makes me 🙂
How do you watching old film movies on DVD, then? 😎

About b/w film movie released in 2013:
http://www.romacinemafest.it/ecm/we...ticipated-film-hard-to-be-a-god.0000.FCR-3286

Same like Avatar, another planet story.

Cheers.

 

[JPSuisse]

Could it be that the so-called "Film Hipster" "Movement" is readjusting film into more mainstream acceptance (again)?

No, I personally don't think so.

It seems to me that the mainstream is moving in the direction of full digitalization of everything. Big business and big government like it because it's easier to manage the masses, manipulate and will be easier to implement "fascist-like" practices.

So, at every turn, they push us towards digitalization. When will the people revolt against this? It won't be the cute hipsters shooting film that will bring this about. I rather think it will have to be a complete re-evaluation of our view of data protection and liberty...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Facts, sir? FACTS? What place have they on RFF?

Cheers,

R.

 

[JPSuisse]

Roger, I agree.

And I want to point out that my post was meant to set a good example and was completely based on personal bias and subjective feelings... 🙂

But the message contained might nonetheless be partially true.

 

[Ranchu]

I think only low budget films are shot on digital, and not many of those. So, this is bull**** when talking about movies. Are they including student work?

While Hollywood is shifting more and more towards digital filmmaking,

The result was a more intimate, flawed experience.

Flawed experience my ass.​

 

[Ranchu]

I must be missing something. I don't think it matters a lot that some film maker chooses to film his movie the old way when it will be distributed digitally.

You are. How are your eyes? Have you seen "The Master"? Here are 50 screenshots and some digital bla bla bla at the end.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/...e-master/5d0a9ca0-e606-496b-9ede-0c25d1293bd8

The Master (2012)

Runtime Size Total Bit Rate 2:17:30 30.62 GB (30,616,713,216 bytes) 29.69 Mbps Video Codec Resolution Aspect Bit Rate Main MPEG-4 AVC 1080p 23.976 fps 16:9 (1.85:1) 24.72 Mbps Audio Codec Fidelity English DTS-HD Master 5.1 Surround DTS 5.1 Surround Core 48 kHz / 3365 kbps / 24-bit 48 kHz / 1509 kbps Subtitles English (SDH), Spanish

 

[Photo_Smith]

Wow, you can really tell the last few shots are digital, the difference is quite startling. I think it matters that film makers choose film over video, most Hollywood movies are made that way, including the up coming Star Wars movie (so I'm told) and some TV like Breaking Bad is filmed on film too-so it at the moment is the normal rather than a 'hipster' niche as suggested.

 

[__jc]

Huh? I feel there may be some confusion here in relation to "The Master" (which features arguably Philip Seymour Hoffman's last great performance ) - this is quoted from Wikipedia:

The film was shot on 65 mm film[24] using the Panavision System 65 camera.[25] The film was the first fiction film to be shot in 65mm since Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet in 1996.[26] Mihai Mălaimare, Jr. served as cinematographer, making The Master Anderson's first film without cinematographer Robert Elswit.[27] The film crew used three 65mm Panavision cameras throughout filming, and at times had an assistant from Panavision on set to help with the cameras' technical issues.[28] Originally, Anderson and Mălaimare planned to shoot mainly portraits in 65mm, which constituted 20% of the film, but ultimately 85% of the film was shot in 65mm.[25] The remainder of the film was shot on 35mm using Panavision Millennium XL2s cameras, often used for scenes that required a "dirtier" look.[25] In order to maintain a consistent aspect ratio, the 65mm footage was cropped from 2.20:1 to 1.85:1 to match the 35mm footage, at the sacrifice of some of the image area.[25] Most of the film stocks used were KODAK VISION3 50D Color Negative Film 5203 and KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213 with a few scenes were also done with KODAK VISION3 250D Color Negative Film 5207 and KODAK VISION3 500T 5219.[25] Because Anderson prefers working with film, he bypassed the use of a digital intermediate and digital editing, instead cutting using the film negative and color grading with the use of a photochemical timer.[28]

None of it was filmed on digital and no digital post-production either until it was being prepared for distribution.

 

[thegman]

Make a good movie and the cinemas are full no matter what media is used. You can't live from a handful of geeks who like a movie just because it's shot on film.

No question. I can remember when I saw the film 'Public Enemies', it was mentioned that some was shot digitally, and you could certainly tell, it looked appalling in parts. Digital has come a long way though since then, and I think it's getting very difficult to tell the difference sometimes.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I like good movies and good photos but I can't tell the difference between film and digital.

I really don't believe there is one, other than at the technical level. Still, I suppose it's just another way of carrying on the digital/film argument. I'm thinking of starting a fountain pen versus iPad thread... 😉

 

[Photo_Smith]

I like good movies and photo's too and can often tell the difference between them and mediums they were shot on, not that I care that much especially if the film is good—but there is a difference. and to me its quite obvious; you don't even need to be an expert to see it.

 

[Scrambler]

I'm thinking of starting a fountain pen versus iPad thread... 😉

Do it. My vote is fountain pen. I have it on me now. Sadly it won't write on the interweb but that is what phones are for, isn't it?

I'm of the non-nerd cinema school. The only good thing about people using film for cinematography is keeping those film stocks alive for us stills shooters. For viewing I don't care.

 

[brbo]

Wow, you can really tell the last few shots are digital, the difference is quite startling.

Frankly, I can't spot digital ones. All look the same to me (incredibly nice). How do you tell them apart?

 

[brbo]

I'm of the non-nerd cinema school. The only good thing about people using film for cinematography is keeping those film stocks alive for us stills shooters. For viewing I don't care.

Which cinema stock do you use for stills?

 

[Photo_Smith]

Frankly, I can't spot digital ones. All look the same to me (incredibly nice). How do you tell them apart?

It's easy. Possibly being a photographer in both helps, there is a rendering of certain things that is easily characteristic of film likewise digital. So they don't all look the same, and not all of them are 'incredibly nice' most images are down to the skill of the user not the medium so there can be good and bad in both.
I can tell subsets of each medium apart too, 35mm from 120 and camera phones from DSLR's.

What makes you think all images and cine look the same?

 

[Photo_Smith]

Which cinema stock do you use for stills?

He didn't say that! he is pointing out that Kodak's production of cine keeps the film factories running-some people think there is a link between the profitability of cine division and the continuation of stills film production.