|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Rick McCallum, Star Wars producer on the expected film presentation of Episode III
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 12-13-2004 08:53 AM
Speaking as someone with absolutely no experience in shooting and producing/editing a movie, I understand George's desire to shoot the thing in a format that is more friendly to all the post production CG work that has to go into this particular movie. I mean if the whole movie has to be scanned into the digital realm anyway because practically every single shot has at least one effect in it, then why not save that step? And why not push the technique forward? And if he chooses to do it at the expense of the quality of his current movie, then so be it. It's his money after all.
The problem is, as everyone has said, they're lying about their product's capabilities, and worse, they're lying about their competing technology's capabilities, which stabs me right in the heart. Especially after all the work I went through to make sure that Episode II looked stunningly perfect for every single show, and that the prints left in better condition than they were in when they arrived. Don't get me wrong. Episode II didn't get any special treatment. We do that with EVERY print we handle, as I'm sure everyone else here strives to do as well.
It's high time someone called them on this crap. I say we should all go join the Star Wars.com forums and start blasting away at these two knuckleheads. I'm what you could call a "rabid Star Wars fan." I've seen Episode II in digital projection, and I've seen it in 35mm in a THX theater, and I've seen it in IMAX. And I'm sick and tired of being told that my presentation is substandard to the digital one I saw. About the only thing digital projection has on me and my 35mm projection is superior sound. And DTS is working on fixing that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-13-2004 06:43 PM
quote: Mark J. Marshall
I mean if the whole movie has to be scanned into the digital realm anyway because practically every single shot has at least one effect in it, then why not save that step?
Why? It brings up the old graphic arts proverb: "garbage in, garbage out." Digital video may be "digital," but it sure is not "perfect."
35mm film captures a lot more image detail than any digital video format. The tape format used for "Episode II" didn't even come close to matching the 1080 HD standard, much less stand up to the defacto 2,000 line CGI standard. That's one reason why the CGI effects looked sharper than the live action video elements on Ep II 35mm prints. Usually you see the reverse with 35mm live action footage looking sharper than the CGI stuff. This difference is why some movement is finally being made to shift motion picture CGI work to the 4,000 line standard. Film is flexible and can work in varying and improving standards of digital manipulation. When you shoot in video, you're stuck at the native resolution of that camera's recording format.
The only thing video production adds to a movie shoot is convenience, and some cost savings depending on the equipment used. But shooting digitally does absolutely nothing to improve image quality. There's absolutely nothing wrong with low budget projects being produced in video. And video can look great if shot properly. But it's just not a superior format to film.
For any major movie production, the best image quality results are going to be attained on film. I don't think a major production should be shot on video unless the video medium itself has some part to play in the dramatics of the show. And if that is the case, then the whole movie should look like video, not film. I don't like the fake looking photo-chemical steps used so often for video-based shoots. It may be necessary for 35mm print release. But when the show comes out on DVD, I think it should look like video. I would have applauded Michael Mann if he would have had the new "Collateral" DVD released where the show looked totally video-sourced. But the post production folks have tried as hard as possible to make it look like film. Really, if the show was supposed to look like film it should have been shot on film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thomas Procyk
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1842
From: Royal Palm Beach, FL, USA
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-13-2004 08:40 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't like the fake looking photo-chemical steps used so often for video-based shoots. It may be necessary for 35mm print release. But when the show comes out on DVD, I think it should look like video.
Agreed. This was my major (but not only) annoyance with The Blair Witch Project. Shot on video, transferred to film, then the film was transferred back to video. The result was the soupy-looking washed-out image. Compare the feature with the "newly discovered footage" they add at the end on the video/dvd. Funny how the "new footage" is 30fps and looks like VIDEO when the rest looks like video-on-film.
Another example is 28 Days Later. In the theater, I found myself squinting for details that weren't there. On the DVD, I noticed an unnatural progression in the frame rate, like it was 30fps, downsampled to 24fps, then back up to 30. Lots of trails and unusual jerkyness (best to see this is the beginning where he's walking around the hospital, phones swinging, etc.)
Anything shot on video looks horrible on film. And I think that's the "proof" that these digital jockeys use to say, "See? We told you so."
Take "Once Upon A Time in Mexico" for example. The fire on-screen looks worse than CGI. Totally fake, solid colors, and it looks like it's "burned" into the image. (Kind of like those old tube TV cameras that left a smear for a few seconds if you pointed them at a light).
The list goes on...
But you know, nobody will agree to a debate they know they're going to lose. Or attempt to realize that their own knowledge contradics their claims. Liars are the worst kind of people, but they also have the most money. Imagine that. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
=TMP=
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark J. Marshall
Film God
Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 12-13-2004 11:26 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
It's NOT just his money he's playing with.
It is when it comes to making the movie. That was my point. It's his money, it's his movie, and if he wants to take shortcuts and have his movie look horrible, then it's on him. But I think I clearly drew the line at lying about the digital presentation of his movie being better than the 35mm presentation. When he does that, he's costing the film theaters money for the reasons you stated.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Why? It brings up the old graphic arts proverb: "garbage in, garbage out." Digital video may be "digital," but it sure is not "perfect."
I agree, although I thought it was a computer programming term. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) And I agree with everything else you said. But if it works for him, and he doesn't mind the lower quality for his movie, then so be it. I mean I guess we could say, "You have to shoot it better George, it looks like shit," but I don't care if he wants to make a movie that looks like shit. I do care when he says that the way I present film looks worse than his digital presentation, because it doesn't.
We're probably all in agreement. I guess I'm just focusing on the "digital is better" lie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"
Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted 12-14-2004 12:25 AM
I have for a long time thought that McCallum might be one of the reasons why the new movies suck so much. Not to shift all the blame from Lucas, but he didn't make the original ones all by himself either. He worked with a lot of talented people who provided input and ideas, great design work etc.
I am sure McCallum is a very competent producer from the administrative point of view, but when you hear him talking, you immediately know he is just a hollow yes-man, not somebody who would say "George, no, this looks really crappy" or "No, George, Jar-Jar Binks sucks enormously because you don't have a sense of humor. Let's bring in another writer to write funny dialog and iron the kinks out of the script".
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic