Perya (Town Fair) - a Canon 7D Short

Johnny Cola said:
So are you saying that there's gonna be an actual resurgence of film because it's gonna be that much cheaper in the forseable future? That would be pretty interesting and really cool. At that point do you think the average look of film would suffer since people without experience would be trying it out for kicks or braging rights?
Click to expand...


People without experience are shooting RED now. We're only more inclined to see the product because the costs to transfer to Digital Format (ProRes for example) will have gone down and so you transfer your film after a telecine to a hard drive and edit in your choice of NLE.

There's "poorly" shot film, just as there is "poorly" shot digital. It's all the same.

The price to shoot film has, however, definitely decreased and a number of us are looking into shooting Super 16mm around here. Especially for Music Videos and Commercials.

Hunter Richards started me on that path a while ago but it's now really coming to eat at me. I can shoot as much RED as I want, but I really am ready to start shooting some 16mm.

http://vimeo.com/2804826

Pretty much, if you want the film look, shoot film. Hunter proves it in 600 Feet.


P.S. Resurgence can only occur if something died out anyway. Film is nowhere near dead. Still to this day most of what you watch is shot on film. Simply because most of us cannot afford it, doesn't mean it's not being used.
 
Last edited:
Well I would agree with you Kholi because you make very valid statements. However I can't agree with the statement that we will never get that matching film look with video. It's come so far so fast and it is destined to become indistinguishable in the future. There is a reason the Producers Guild of America and the American Society of Cinematographers came together to do a first Camera Assessment Series on HD cameras. They all know where it is going. I went to film school back 2001 and had a gut feeling it was all going video no matter what. So I chose to go video in film school while all the others were paying their money on film. I know where it is going and I welcome it. Looking how far it has come since film school is amazing. At times it seemed slow but it was just a matter of time like it still is.
 
I ment resurgence in the indie/ultra low budget/I wish I could afford film but can't crowd, not the industry as a whole, sorry
That's why I went back and quoted
"It's a matter of time before it's feasible and cost effective to shoot Film and half of us are shooting Organic, the other half Digital"
 
It'll get close, but I don't think it'll ever be enough. I kinda see it as what everyone else explains it to be: Film is Organic, Digital is Data. It's like if you could really grow a human with the right combination of numbers, but no real materials. You can probably get it to look and feel really close, but it isn't a human.
 
Does anyone know another place I can download this? Vimeo is over thier limit. I want to apply gamma curves and flim stocks to it in post.
 
Everything is information. Organic is data in some way. It's just a matter of time my friends.
 
That's odd. Earlier this century around 2001, I was thinking "damn, these film movies look all the same. Same Panavision lenses, same Kodak film stocks, same style of lighting." Lots of latitude, rich blacks, contrasty lenses, lit well by a hollywood production crew. What do I gotta do to make mine look different? Push/pull? Use older lenses, use less back lights,etc. Then I go back fifteen twenty years and I was watching "Stepford Wives" shot by Owen Roizman, and it looks dramatically different, the grain is huge, the lighting is very frontal, etc.

Recently, within the last few years, the 35mm originated movies I've seen DO look very different. But I think the differences in the 35mm originated movies we see in the theatres has more to do with the amount of time and money put in the DI and subsequent work on DaVincis and grading, and the rapid development of those processes. But these are DIGITAL processes. Other than cross processing, pushing/pulling, over and under exposure, flashing/fogging, filtration (not uniquely film) there isn't a whole lot more you can do in film acquisition to differentiate yourself other than those production values which are not unique to the format (lighting, art design, etc.)

I'm optimistic that the future generations of RED and other cameras that can do RAW will enable us to really manipulate the image both in production and post, to a degree that FAR EXCEEDS that of film. The only movie cameras I own right now are film cameras, and I love shooting the stuff, but it's digital acquisition that really seems to have exciting potentials.

As digital makes a complete take-over of high budget and studio productions in the next few years, we may see a resurgence of 16mm/35mm film production by those DP's and directors who seek to differentiate their look. Because like you said, digital only emulates film. It is not the same.

And I hope you do shoot a S16mm production because its uber awesome! If it's in late November/December, I may not be working then and can help out.

Kholi said:
Nearly all digital images look the same. That's why everyone says "looks like RED footage!" The better the image gets, the less distinct it is. 35mm Adapters and lens choice actually helped separate visuals a lot, depending on which one you got and which lens set you picked up.

As far as I'm concerned the 7D produced the same image as the GH-1 @ 1080/24 just with better compression.

This may be still a premature statement but it'll never be film: where every single movie LOOKS different when acquired on celluloid. I had this same long discussion on set with camera department (all comprised of Union people who come from film and still shoot film, including the DP-- I'm the only digital guy lol) and they're right.

All RED movies have the same odd "look" to them. Or just about all digital features. Film, though. I mean, go watch any three movies shot on 35mm in the last year and look how DIFFERENT they all look. They were all shot on film, possibly even the same cameras but be damned if they don't look like completely different properties.

I don't think we'll ever get that with Digital, and it's just another reason why Film is nowhere near dead, dying or anything. The cost to shoot S16mm has already dropped drastically, and apparently so has S35mm. It's a matter of time before it's feasible and cost effective to shoot Film and half of us are shooting Organic, the other half Digital.
Click to expand...
 
Nitsuj said:
Everything is information. Organic is data in some way. It's just a matter of time my friends.
Click to expand...

It's gonna take a massive amount of data to match what our visual acuity is. Eventually we'll get there, that's just the nature of the beast, but unlike news papers and audio recordings which were easily replaced with digital counterparts, your visual acuity is too great to alwasy be easily fooled.... OR.... the next gen is just not gonna give a crap and the generation after that and that and that, or who knows, we might be on a verge of a major holographic or neural break through. There might be Motorola Engineers meeting with Greys on an UFO somewhere in a Mexican desert like they did when they got all that cool new cell phone technology... I love that conspiracy theory :)
 
So Episode 3 looks like Public Enemies which looks like Apocalypto? (Just the first three all digital films to fall out of my head) No, they don't. Put a R1 in the hands of a DP like Janusz Kaminski or Robert Richardson (Two of my heroes of cinematography) and they will do something special with it. Look at what Soderbergh has done with the R1, especially with The Informant. I have yet to see anybody shoot anything on the R1 that looks as unique as that.
 
Kholi said:
It's like if you could really grow a human with the right combination of numbers, but no real materials. You can probably get it to look and feel really close, but it isn't a human.
Click to expand...

And eventually those cyborgs will get rights and be accepted into society just like everybody else. They will eventually mix into society and the only way to tell the difference is by their ID that they are required to carry around. But like all thing, the governing force that requires them to carry their identity will fall and it will be a blended world forever disguised from it's past. Ehem... or we will all kill ourselves before we get a camera capable of matching film. ;)
 
They're already accepted. They got accepted when they were called DVX100's.

You can emulate an organic process with data, sure. I just do not think you will ever get the depth of a good film stock out of the highest grade digital image. It'll always look digital, because it is. Two different looks.
 
Nitsuj said:
And eventually those cyborgs will get rights and be accepted into society just like everybody else. They will eventually mix into society and the only way to tell the difference is by their ID that they are required to carry around. But like all thing, the governing force that requires them to carry their identity will fall and it will be a blended world forever disguised from it's past. Ehem... or we will all kill ourselves before we get a camera capable of matching film. ;)
Click to expand...


It's as if the ghost of Phillip K Dick had a DVXuser screenname...
 
Im almost sure we will never get the look of film stock from 80s/90s but today films look more like videos with all those Color Corrections.I wondering since when it started happening ,late 90s-2000 ? I dont know when i saw first obviously color corrected film.
Ive seen army of darkness 2 days ago and it would be very hard to make video look like that.
 
I still just can't agree on the fact that they won't be indistinguishable some day. We have to consider the fact that even the very means of capturing light could be completely different. In the future it could actually be some sort organic membrane that mimics the way the human eye sees the world. Or maybe there will be a way to create digital celluloid that works like a squids skin. It then is actually a piece of celluloid but can record the lights reaction as information but is in fact just celluloid with wires. Nothing is impossible as time seems to be the judge of that.

But all that aside I hear so many people talk about the RED as if it was the only one to compare. What about the Viper, Panavision's Genesis, Sony's F23 and F35, Arriflex D21, and even the Panasonic HPX3700. Has anybody in here seen a clip of these and thought... "That is totally video right there." RED is just one of many forms of technology out today and I wouldn't be surprised if the quiet one all along was fooling everybody. ;)
 
new star wars looked weird in some scenes ,like if they were shot at almost 30p with unconvincing movements,especially i dont like ending where vader gets his helmet ,this scene ,lights ,movements,looks so much like regular hd camera.i hate this scene ,looks kinda fake.
 
You're all on crack.

Perya was inspiring...certain shots were breathtaking. Other shots made me sad for the world and some evoked a sense of nostalgia.

You all should get out and shoot more (myself included)...all of this RED vs. film vs. 7D bull is starting to wear on me.

Haven't worked with the viper or 3700, Genesis looks great when shot correctly (not a big fan of Semler's use of 360º shutter, though) but can't utilize anamorphics, F23 looked like shite in Public Enemies, F35 had some internal reflection issues to be resolved, D21's only perk is it uses anamorphics but has NO light sensitivity and RED can hold its highlights as good as an anorexic chick can hold down her everclear. Know strengths, know weaknesses, use what fits you (and the budget) best. Goodnight.
 
kind of like when they show HD movies on TV, the movement seems awkward and sped up in places. I watched The Green Mile on an HD channel and it looked...bad. I've always wondered if it's just a framerate conversion gone wrong or what
 
Taylor Rudd said:
You're all on crack.

Perya was inspiring...certain shots were breathtaking. Other shots made me sad for the world and some evoked a sense of nostalgia.

You all should get out and shoot more (myself included)...

Know strengths, know weaknesses, use what fits you (and the budget) best. Goodnight.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Nailed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top