The future of film

LADP: Ramble on as you like...yours is one of the few descriptions of this process from the inside of the biz I've heard in a little while, and I'm thankful for it (and I doubt that I'm alone on that here).

Bill: What's interesting about your statement for me is that when I started shooting seriously, I shot almost nothing but chromes, pretty much turning my nose up at color neg. Ironically, it was digital technology (i.e. wider availability of high-quality scanners and printers) that turned me around 180 degrees, where the color work I shoot now is almost entirely negative (the rest being a mix of chromes and digital), and I came to love the extra latitude quickly.


- Barrett
 
Bill Pierce said:
The thing that worries me about digital is that once you've lost highlight detail there's no way to get it back.
Click to expand...

That's true for the moment, but engineers at a number of companies are no doubt working quite hard at figuring out solutions for that, and other technical issues. New technologies will expand the dynamic range (digital version of latitude) of sensor technology. I can imagine one theoretical scenario, for example, in which a prism or half silvered mirror splits the incoming image from the lens sending the image to two sensors simultaneously within the camera. One sensor could be optimized to capture highlights only while blocking up the shadow detail, and the other sensor could have the opposite duty. Later, the best elements of each sensor's capture would be married for output in the data stream in camera, or perhaps done in post. Who knows, maybe the same idea could be achieved using a single sensor, and done via processing algorithms. It's a crude idea that just popped in my mind, but the point is I feel confident that some new technology will eventually tackle this current limitation of digital origination.

Bill Pierce said:
When magazine photojournalism went from black-and-white negative to color transparency (the mags went color for the ads and slides were easier to edit than neg) still photographers finally learned to bracket exposure. Maybe the most journalistically important image wasn't exposed properly, but you probably had an acceptable back up. Movie guys can't bracket
Click to expand...

That's true, but when shooting digital/HD, you have the benefit of seeing a quite accurate image of what you are recording with a calibrated and tented in monitor on set. You also have quite a bit of room to adjust all manner of parameters in a tape to tape color correct session (especially with cameras like the Panavision Genesis/Sony F-23, Thompson Viper, Arri D-20/21 and presumably Red). With film, you have the benefit of telecine transfer, but on set you are using your experience to gauge how you want to expose the shot. No monitor on set showing you a videotap image will give you a real sense of how your film will come back in dailies.


Bill Pierce said:
I don't worry about DP's on features, but I can see young documentary shooters blowing an important take when something unexpected but important happens. (It's not just dropping film costs and, sometimes, smaller crews that will move them to digital. With Red bringing in their new 5 meg body at 40G and selling the old one for 17, Red could become the digital version of the old Bolex or used Arri that a lot of documentary shooters started with.) What is the exposure latitude for something like a Red raw file?
Click to expand...

Again, anyone young DP coming up shooting a documentary today will probably be shooting it digitally, and will therefore have a reasonable method of seeing an accurate representation of what they are recording (assuming they choose a work flow that allows for it). One key is to know what your distribution is going to be. I set up HD cameras and expose differently for 35mm blow-up for theatrical distribution than I do for video broadcast. I've been fortunate in that I have so far always known before shooting a project what the end distribution will be. A lot of projects don't know in advance and hope for theatrical 35mm distribution, but don't have that locked in at the start of principal photography.

As for the exposure latitude of the Red, I am not sure. I think there are claims of between 9 and 11 or 12 stops, but I think even 11 is perhaps wishful thinking. I did shoot some tests with it late last year in preparation for a feature film. We were deciding on formats, and that was a contender. I have to say that the post house will have a huge affect on the results you can get from that camera platform. In our case, our post house was locked in, and they had never seen Red files before. I was the first to bring files to that particular house with my tests. They really didn't know how to handle the files, and as a result, the test footage was uninspiring to say the least when we screened it at the post house (screened both digitally and blown up to 35mm). I was disappointed because the images looked very promising while shooting the tests. I feel certain that a different post house with experience handling the Red files would have been able to make the files look the way we saw the camera perform while shooting the tests. Alas, time constraints and the locked in post deal prevented me from seriously considering that system for that project.
 
I can imagine one theoretical scenario, for example, in which a prism or half silvered mirror splits the incoming image from the lens sending the image to two sensors simultaneously within the camera.
Click to expand...

Didn't Fuji do that with their S5? One pixel for normal range, another for highlights.
 
I didn't know about that camera, but I just looked it up and read about it on dpreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/

With the two sets of pixels, hat is a more elegant version of what I was thinking of. It just goes to prove yet again that I have a long history of being struck with great ideas after someone else obviously did first!
 
LADP said:
when shooting digital/HD, you have the benefit of seeing a quite accurate image of what you are recording with a calibrated and tented in monitor on set. You also have quite a bit of room to adjust all manner of parameters in a tape to tape color correct session (especially with cameras like the Panavision Genesis/Sony F-23, Thompson Viper, Arri D-20/21 and presumably Red).
Click to expand...

A couple of months ago I was involved in a car commercial where they were doing as much of the effect work as possible on set. They had so many tented monitors and computers that they literally had a tent for the tented.

But I was thinking more of some poor kid shooting a documentary and trying to handhold or Steadicam some monster in bright sunlight. There is some digital still camera literature that also will throw around the 11 stop range, but the bottom stops are so noisy as to be useless. No question there is gradual improvement in the still cameras ability to capture a big brightness range, but for down and dirty work the most effective technique I have found in stills is not a technical one, but to expose for the highlights and try to make an interesting, perhaps dramatic, image under the assumption that there isn't going to be any shadow detail.

Sadly, that is a lot easier for a still photographer to do than motion picture photographer. I say "Sadly" because I can't think of anyone interested in story telling today who shouldn't choose motion pictures over stills.
 
With the two sets of pixels, hat is a more elegant version of what I was thinking of. It just goes to prove yet again that I have a long history of being struck with great ideas after someone else obviously did first!
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of photographers who shoot portrait/wedding work love the camera for its skin tones, but it didn't exactly sell like hotcakes. I think the reason might have been that the camera was advertised as having a 12MP sensor, but it only delivered 6MP of resolution. The dynamic range came at a pretty high price, evidently. :)
 
I'm shocked that RED expects to be able to offer a 6x17 digital sensor (186mm x 56mm !!! 261 megapixels) at any price, especially at a mere $55,000. It was bound to happen eventually, but I'm surprised that manufacturing yield rates will be good enough to economically build a sensor that large in the near future. A very short time ago, that effort would have been an excellent way to waste a LOT of chip silicon for no successful results.

I've been steeped in the technological world all of my life, but I still find it amazing how many times lately I've had a strong sense of "the future is now."
 
Bill Pierce said:
Sadly, that is a lot easier for a still photographer to do than motion picture photographer. I say "Sadly" because I can't think of anyone interested in story telling today who shouldn't choose motion pictures over stills.
Click to expand...

Hmm...that depends on the story being told, I think. But that's a debate worthy of its own thread. For me, unless you're a Ross McEwee (my fave quasi-doc shooter) in stripped-down shooting/production style, the moving-picture thing is a little too much of a team sport for my temperament. But that's just me.


- Barrett
 
Black and white film is easy to process, you can even mix up chemicals from raw ingredients if they don't make ready-made stuff in future. The only question is, will they still sell film?

One way to guard against that is to buy a large freezer and stock it up with bulk rolls....

So I'm safe as far as film supply is concerned.

Paper (ie RC/Fibre) is a separate matter. Large paper takes up lots of space and needs a real large freezer. Hard to stock too much. Don't know what I'll do if they stop making paper. Maybe I'll have to buy that Coolscan 9000 ED and switch to scanning.
 
amateriat said:
the moving-picture thing is a little too much of a team sport for my temperament. But that's just me.


- Barrett
Click to expand...

Point well taken. I think movies are a team sport and still photographs very much the product of an individual. But, when it comes to telling stories professionally/commercially, even newspapers on the web are turning to movies or mimicing them with still slide shows edited on Final Cut Pro. Stills seem to be heading towards the art world or books, which, after all, are worlds of individuals.

Interestingly enough, one of the strongest individuals on the TV team is the DP. He's there everyday. The director is only there once, twice or, at the most, three episodes a season. So on TV, the director may turn to the DP not only for thoughts on shooting, but something as unphotographic as who a character is. LADP could speak with more intelligence on this than I can.
 
I've done a complete turn-around in that I moved to digital a couple of years ago but have now gone back to film almost exclusively. I didn't like what digital did to my photography in a number of ways, both in terms of the clinical nature of the result and also the ease with which I could relinquish layer after layer of control to the technology.

I love the tonality of film (almost always B&W), I love the grain and I love the surprise I get after waiting days to see the result. I also love that I get forced to think more and press less shutter. I've even just re-invested in my own developing kit.

It's true I can only get film by mail order, but that doesn't bother me too much - the same thing can be said of the printer inks and paper I use. What I do miss is "real" camera shops selling "real" camers.
 
arturo said:
I'm pretty sure that, if the moment comes that film demand is not big enough for manufacters to keep in business, internet and forums like this one wil allow customers to organise themselves to streamline their film demand, their demand of camera repaires and new camera models.
Click to expand...

A good point. Netflix is a great example of this phenomenon. The Long Tail is being served.
 
Roger S said:
I've done a complete turn-around in that I moved to digital a couple of years ago but have now gone back to film almost exclusively. I didn't like what digital did to my photography in a number of ways, both in terms of the clinical nature of the result and also the ease with which I could relinquish layer after layer of control to the technology.

I love the tonality of film (almost always B&W), I love the grain and I love the surprise I get after waiting days to see the result. I also love that I get forced to think more and press less shutter. I've even just re-invested in my own developing kit.

It's true I can only get film by mail order, but that doesn't bother me too much - the same thing can be said of the printer inks and paper I use. What I do miss is "real" camera shops selling "real" camers.
Click to expand...

I was in the same position a while back. A mountain of DSLRs for wedding and portraiture soon became an annoyance. I was never happy with the look of the DSLRs for landscape....and I hated the look of digital B&W.

I moved into shooting with 4x5 and went back to using a fair bit of MF. A while back I added a Bessa R2a for street shooting. Finally, a few weeks ago I was able to purchase the same type of camera I had while in high school, a Minolta X700 with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm for $200 on Ebay. The thing is flawless.....and is tiny compared to any of my DSLRs. Most important.....I like using it more than my DSLRs and that translated for me into getting better results.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Interestingly enough, one of the strongest individuals on the TV team is the DP. He's there everyday. The director is only there once, twice or, at the most, three episodes a season. So on TV, the director may turn to the DP not only for thoughts on shooting, but something as unphotographic as who a character is. LADP could speak with more intelligence on this than I can.
Click to expand...

Bill, it is true that in the TV world (episodic scripted TV anyway), the directors change each episode. On many shows you will have repeat directors, some of whom are show runners or producers, who will do more than one episode during a season. Generally, however, there is a new director every episode, who is usually not directly affiliated with the show. The DP, or DP's as it may be, are there full time. Some shows have two alternating DP's on during a season, so that one can be prepping an episode while the other is shooting (and vice versa). This approach works well for location heavy shows. Entourage works with that arrangement.

Shows that are more stage-centric tend to have just one DP, and a rigging crew handles any tech scouting without the DP. The show I am on at the moment works like that. We generally do 5 days on stage and 2 days out on location per episode. Entourage is more like 5 or 6 days on location, and 1 or 2 days on stage per episode.

Because the directors change each episode, it is largely up to the DP to ensure a visual continuity and flow from episode to episode.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
I enjoy watching movies and TV shows to see what they're doing that I could adapt and use in my photography.
Click to expand...

There was a 3-part drama on UK TV a year or so ago called "The Impressionists" that told the story of that school or painters (it's available on DVD ay least in the UK). At certain points in each episode they'd film a scene that was obviously lit in the way classic painters wold have delivered the image. These were wonderful examples of how to make complex lighting look simple. You'd bet you were looking at a simple, single-source window illumination, but it probably took hours to set-up. Well worth a look if you can track it down.
 
Adam said:
A good point. Netflix is a great example of this phenomenon. The Long Tail is being served.
Click to expand...

And there do remain local exceptions to the internet-rule: I happen to be blessed enough to live near Scarecrow Video, an independent video rental store with vast selection of films both US and international, backed up by a very knowledgeable staff. Much of their catalog is organized by director, with collections including everything back to rare copies of film-school efforts by some more notable directors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom