Film vs HD

Digitally Acquired Theatrical Releases in 2006:


Superman Returns

(Genesis/SRW tape) Director: Bryan Singer, DP: Newton Thomas Sigel, ASC
Miami Vice

(Viper/Sony F950/Sony F900/Film) Director: Michael Mann, DP: Dion Beebe, ACS, ASC
Flyboys

(Genesis/SRW tape) Director: Tony Bill, DP: Henry Braham
Find Me Guilty

(Sony F950/SRW tape), Director: Sidney Lumet, DP: Ron Fortunato, ASC
Prairie Home Companion

(F900/SRW tape) Director: Robert Altman, (Sadly, Altman’s last film), DP: Edward Lachman, ASC
Home of The Brave

(Viper/SRW tape) Director: Irwin Winkler, DP, Tony Pierce-Roberts, BSC
The U.S. vs John Lennon

(Varicam) Directors: David Leaf and John Scheinfeld, DP: James Mathers
Borat...

(Varicam) Director: Larry Charles, DPs: Luke Geissbuhler and Anthony Hardwick, (Note: top grossing US picture for two weeks)
Iraq in Fragments

(DVX100) Director/DP James Longley
Jackass Number Two

(DVX100) Director: Jeff Termaine, Cinematography by: Lance Bangs, Dimitry Elyashkevick, Rick Kosick, (Top grossing US movie for two weeks)
Scary Movie 4

(Genesis 75%/Film 25%), Director: David Zucker, DP: Thomas Ackerman, ASC
Click

(Genesis/SRW), Director: Frank Coraci, DP: Dean Semler, ASC, ACS
Apocalypto

(Genesis/SRW), Director: Mel Gibson, DP: Dean Semler, ASC, ACS (Note: Nominated for ASC Award on this project)
Crank

(Sony F950/SRW), Directors, Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, DP: Adam Biddle
Bubble

(Sony F900/HDcam), Director/DP: Steven Soderbergh, (Note: Produced by Mark Cuban, who has ownership in HDNet, Magnolia Pictures, 2929 Entertainment, and Landmark Theaters; this picture is also interesting for it’s “Day and Date” release strategy with simultaneous release in theaters, on DVD, and over the web).
Snickers Theatrical Short Promotional featuring the Black Eyed Peas

(Dalsa/Tapeless Workflow), Director: Jesse Dylan, DP: Rolf Kesterman
An Inconvenient Truth

(Sony F950/HDcam, Sony HDV, and JVC HD100U), Director: David Guggenheim, Camera: Guggenheim, Dave Pritchett, Carrie Richard, Bob Richman, Michael J. Schwartz
One Six Right

(F900/F950, SRW tape) Director: Brian Terwilliger, DP: Steven Miles, (Note unique theatrical distribution with “Barnstorming Roadshow”, including temporary projection setups for large audiences at Air Shows all around the world using Sony SXRD projector).
Digitally Acquired Theatrical Releases in Production in 2006 for Release in 2007


Journey 3-D (aka Journey To the Center of the Earth)

(Sony F950/SRW tape), Director Eric Brevig, DP: Chuck Shuman
Zodiac

(Viper, S.two tapeless workflow) Director: David Fincher, DP: Harris Savides, ASC
The Tiger’s Tail

(Genesis/SRW tape), Director: John Boorman, Line Producer: DCS member Kevan Barker, DP: Seamus Deasey
Curious Case of Benjamin Button

(Viper, S.two tapeless workflow) Director: David Fincher, DP: Claudio Miranda
Slipstream (Genesis/SRW tape), Director Anthony Hopkins, DP: Dante Spinoti
Mutant Chronicles

(Viper, S.two tapeless workflow). Also of note is the first commercial use of the Silicon Optics 2K camera for miniatures and inserts by Director of Photography Geoff Boyle, FBKS (Founder of CML).
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

(Genesis/SRW tape) Director: Denis Dugan, DP: Dean Semler
What Love Is

(Viper/SRW Dualink) Of special interest here is how DP, David Stump, ASC tackled an extremely short shooting schedule by employing 4 Vipers in FilmStream for onset color correction in conduction with the Technicolor Digital Lights system using the Grass Valley LUTher box.
U2 in Concert

(Sony F950/Fusion 3D) Directors: Catherine Owens and Mark Pellington, DPs: Peter Anderson, ASC and Tom Krueger
TRANCED

Director: David Mickey Evans, DP: James Mathers
Killer Pad

(Viper/S.two tapeless workflow) Director: Robert (Freddy Kruegar) Englund, DP: David Stump, ASC
Broken English

(Viper/SRW tape), Director: Zoe Cassavetes, DP: John Pirozzi, (premieres at Sundance ‘07)


more info here:
http://www.digitalcinemasociety.org/TechTips.php?item=Digital+Features+2006



Too much to list, so i will resist




I do not want to flood the board, but i think digital isnt leaving anytime soon
 
cookester7 said:
:thumbup: Whoa! Man, I'm thinking Just The Opposite!!! I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd bet the farm on this one!!! Don't think for a minute that folks like Peter Jackson (Lord Of The Rings, King Kong, AND the Red Video shown at NAB), George Lucas, Robert Rodreguez, or any of the technically savvy producers, and directors that see the advantages of shooting Red over film aren't going to give this cam SERIOUS CONCIDERATIONS. I think that Red is going to have a huge impact on the film industry. It wasn't a coincidence that so many people at NAB were around the Red display. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/smilies/thumbup.gif
Click to expand...


You might be right with the names you listed but what percentage of theatrically released movies did they shoot in 2006? For every one of them, there are 100 guys who will shoot film until they are forced not to. RED may be good enough and cheaper but... when you have a giant budget...who cares? I think RED will make the most dent in the small to medium budget films.



ash =o)
 
arrestthisman said:
Who here has the money for Vision2 stock?!? Even major studios won't pay for top dollar stock for middle and lower budget films. (good night and good luck...)

Also, if film's color is so great then why did Jean-Pierre Junet pull his hair out trying to get the right look for Amilie until hit did a 2k DI?

If film has SUCH an advantage as some people here would have you believe, why does 'roger and me' look like ****?

When you ask top dollar pros in film what they think, the answer is usually something to the effect of, "I prefer film, but it's up to the shooter. You can get stunning results with HD. It just has to do with the skill of the filmmaker(s)."

People with an agenda, who don't want to admit that digital is outpacing celluloid in terms of development... different answer.

Last but not least, anyone who's read a white paper on theatrical projection knows that the average print people see in theaters has between 500-1000 TV lines (equivalent quality), with a median of 800 or so. Let's say for the moment, that the purists are right; film negatives are worth a billion megapixels :) . What good is that when the audience is recieving such a poor image that 35mm projected digitally is a superior experience?

How much resolution does film lose after the first generation, alone?

Quality has gotten to the point where HD, depending on the camera, is about the same, in quality, to s16mm or 35mm. If the film purists want to continue the fight, fine. But they'd have a lot more friends if they'd admit that at this point it's a matter of preference.

If you love film, shoot film, but touting falsely excaggerated merits and bashing digital as inferior is disingenuous at best. To each his own. let's not let insecurity interfere with progress, eh?
Click to expand...


You have a lot of misinformation in here. Film versus digital is not just about color, resolution, etc. There are many variables including sensor size, compression, etc. I have seen SD SDX900 480p DVCpro50 bumped to film that looked BETTER than HVX 1080 DVCproHD footage bumped to film.

If you are talking RED, etc. versus 35mm, the line gets more blurred. Ultimately it comes down to preference and for many already in the biz... they prefer to shoot on film. More and more guys are going on a project by project basis. If you talked to the top DPs who use both, I think you would find that the decision is not as simple as, one is cheaper, one is faster, etc. because, in most cases, your preconceptions of that are completely wrong in the real world. Shooting digital does not save as much time or money as most people assume.




ash =o)
 
The Sarlacc said:
There is also the Arclight in Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

I had the pleasure of seeing my film projected there for The Hollywood Film Festival and even though it was shot in 60i with a mish-mash of cameras and natural light, it looked terrific.



ash =o)
 
TimurCivan said:
I did not know "crank" was F900..... Cool. That movie is my dirty little pleasure.
Click to expand...



Actually some of the handheld action stuff was shot on the Canon XL2. I was asked to shoot it but we were having a baby at the time =o)



ash =o)
 
i bet i knwo which scene too.

ther part where the colors go all crazy and the contrast is BLOWN out. it looked like it had banding. i was like.... DV! DV! DV!!!!!
 
TimurCivan said:
I did not know "crank" was F900..... Cool. That movie is my dirty little pleasure.
Click to expand...


Crank was an awesome and fun movie. And the use of HD was very well suited to the fast paced environment of the movie.
 
AshG said:
You have a lot of misinformation in here. Film versus digital is not just about color, resolution, etc. There are many variables including sensor size, compression, etc. I have seen SD SDX900 480p DVCpro50 bumped to film that looked BETTER than HVX 1080 DVCproHD footage bumped to film.

If you are talking RED, etc. versus 35mm, the line gets more blurred. Ultimately it comes down to preference and for many already in the biz... they prefer to shoot on film. More and more guys are going on a project by project basis. If you talked to the top DPs who use both, I think you would find that the decision is not as simple as, one is cheaper, one is faster, etc. because, in most cases, your preconceptions of that are completely wrong in the real world. Shooting digital does not save as much time or money as most people assume.




ash =o)
Click to expand...

Thank you very much ash. sadly, I tend to get very "passionate" in my debates that I lose a little focus :D

But again like a said film, digital just tools in the box.
 
killfilm said:
Digitally Acquired Theatrical Releases in 2006:

Too much to list, so i will resist

I do not want to flood the board, but i think digital isnt leaving anytime soon
Click to expand...


That's all well and good. But I don't think anyone here is saying digital isn't making into mainstream. We're not even saying movies shouldn't be shot on digital. So, I'm a little confused as to why you posted the list.

But since you did...look at the majority of names of certain directors and dps. Digital was NOT chosen because it would be cheaper or even "better" then film. It was chosen because those are people who either like to work with the medium a lot, or wanted a certain look attained by digital.

Altman...dead but his last 2 movies were digital. He enjoyed a free form style of filmmaking

Dean Semler...Loves the Gensis, I doubt we will see him ever shoot film again.

Mann...loves all mediums and mixing them for different looks. I'm on a commercial over the next two days he is doing. Film and digital

Soderbergh...Oceans 13 = film, Bubble and some of his other smaller more "experimental" films = digital

Fincher...loves digital, likes to do MANY takes. Benjamin Buttons was taking up a lot of stages at the studio I was at...looking at their sets, money was of no consequence.

Jackass 2 and Borat...Not really suited toward film in anyway.

Tony Pierce Roberts...likes digital but also likes film. Currently shooting Made of Honor. They debated right down to the camera prep whether to shoot Genesis or Super35 3-perf. Genesis would given then a HUGE HUGE HUGE monetary rebate when production moves over to Scotland in a week or two. They went with Super35.

I could go on and on, too. But I think you are getting my point. Choices. Its all about having choices.
 
I only put up the list of films (the variety of formats) only to point out that
story is king, format comes second. thats all

if you got the money to shoot film, why not?

digital, why not?

in the end of it all, its the viewer that counts....like seriously, other than filmmakers, who walks out of the theatre and says:ahh, gee, was that 35mm or not....

i doubt that most even know that film is a bunch of stills running at 24fps
 
Ash, very interesting theory but if marketing is first then story, and if the story sucks, then marketing aint gonna open up anymore markets, since the consumer already spread the word that the story sucks and warns others not to see it:thumbup:

its like that rule, if something is good, then on average, a consumer will till 1-5 people

and if something is bad, then they will tell 30-50 people!
 
AshG, with all do respect, when you quoted me, your retort seemed to imply a lot of information I did not say.

You mention digital saving time, and other things that I never stated in any post on this thread.

I agree with everything you stated in your retort and looked back at my post and couldn't find any info that disagreed either. So I'm just a little confused, but that said I happen to agree.

I don't understand why there is so much anger on this thread. So far, from what I've read, everyone seems to be in agreement over the large things and then begin personal attacks when they disagree with something very minor in the scheme of things.

For instance, when I make a statement about how I'm frustrated with the uber-film-purists who do tend to make blanket statements we all know are not true. Then starlacc comes back with a post saying he doesn't know anyone like that, and blasts me personally for making the original statement. We all know there ARE insanely dedicated film purists who will knock digital at every angle.

Frankly I'm kind of "done" with this thread because it seems to be catering to the angry rather than the curious.

I don't understand why everyone has to be so nasty when everyone is on the same page in terms of the big picture (no pun intended).
 
I dont think anyone is angry, it is hard to get points across on the internet without seeming cranky. There are going to be more options for film makers and that is a good thing. The one VERY important thing that people need to understand is that no technology, no matter how great or how cheap, will cause the gates of Hollywood to swing open.

Look at the top grossing films of 2006, how many great stories are in there? Most are decent but it was the franchise, the actors, etc. that drove those sales. IMHO the only great story in the top 20 is The Pursuit of Happyness and without a HUGE P&A behind it and Will Smith starring in it you would likely be looking at a movie that would have been lucky to make 1/10th the money.


ash =o)
 
Again,, agreed 100%!

I'll add to that, though; I think hollywood over a long period of time, may become undermined. I think alternative distribution will continue to grow. As filmmakers we should welcome that.

When you think about it, the current system if distribution for movies is pretty bad. It's about as exclusive as the oil business and that is never a good thing. It's not a free market, and that is the problem.

Ideally we'd have a system where films are easily available, and sales are based on merit rather than marketing.

With more and more people doing the home theater/media center PC, downloadable HD with excellent delivery compression like H.264 may become the prefered method of watching films rather than theaters. I know that's the way I like it.

We need a way better way to deliver than blu-ray or HD-DVD, they both look fine, but I just don't see either of them being widely adopted like DVD was.

I know HD movies on my XBOX and DLP projector look fantastic, and given the now known stats for quality in the average movie theater, I'm probably seeing more detail at home.

If 1 out of 5 people have a great home theater, then in a circle of friends at least one person would have a suitable place to watch movies routinely. I also think it would be cool to see some mini-theaters, like at clubs and stuff. Get away from the traditional multi-plex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top