Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Will Scope disappear?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Digital Cinema Forum » Will Scope disappear? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: Will Scope disappear?

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 03-12-2007 11:45 AM

I agree with Mark about many filmmaker being spoiled brats. Over the years, I found that U.S. movies looked sloppier every year. More and better CGI effects, sure, but in classic studio films, it was an exception to find a second rate shot (totally out of focus for more than a second, overly grainy). Over the years, editors and directors seem to have lost every bit of reluctance to put even totally unacceptable footage into a movie.

Although there is nothing bad in formats and procedures like Super-35, high speed stocks or Digital Intermediate, they certainly have speeded up the degeneration of cinematic craftsmanship.

You can use any lens and are not restricted to Panavision or a few other makes of 'scope lenses? Fine. You don't need much lighting to get an image? Fine. You can alter and fine-tune your images after shooting? Fine with me.

But now we have people who do only minimal lighting, use high speed film ("Film stocks are so good no one notices"), they use Super-35 ("Lenses are so good that you don't need the larger 'scope format") and they put their films through a D.I. process ("We can do grain reduction anyway").

Every week I see some of the results at the theatre: Grainy pictures ("Adds a nice texture"), out-of-focus shots that would have been found on a traditional cutting room floor with actor's eyes totally blurred ("We can get away with that one") and an image that lacks resolution in every long shot. ("2K is more than enough for 35mm"). When the image has no detail, I still can focus my eye on wonderful digital artifacts (hello, Technicolor-Thomson!) that make the silver screen look like a huge first-generation LCD-TV.

Who's to blame? Not the small format, Sergio Leone and James Cameron got great prints (even from smaller TechniScope negs) - because they took care.

BTW, although some Super-35 movies indeed do look fantastic, I always think: How good could it look if the same care and progress in film stocks and optics were applied to shoot it in 65mm? [Wink]

As Mark said, most of today's filmmaker would rather not use a superior imaging system like 65mm because it would restrict their freedom to do every insert close up as a Steadicam shot or do a shot handheld within a minute.

From my experience, many DPs just talk technical nonsense to impress their audience, sometimes contradicting technical and physical laws. They want to look good and sometimes justify whatever poor solution they came up with under budgetary or time restrictions.

Many times when I watch old American films, I feel with certainty that there is no one left who could - with whatever new technology available - recreate certain styles of classic cinematography. Mark mention LOA, but even classic b&w is terra incognita to most DPs. I cringe whenever an new film comes out with director and DP claiming they used vintage technology to create a faithful look of, let's say: film noir . Then I see the usual DI'd color neg, some contrasty lighting to make it look like a woodcut and of course fancy camera moves that don't fit the time & style. [puke]

/end of rant/

PS: I don't think everything used to be better back then - two days ago I saw a vintage print of M*A*S*H and just couldn't believe how far even Robert Altman would dare to degrade the cinematic image. I hastily left before MCCABE AND MRS MILLER started... [Smile]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-12-2007 04:01 PM

I think the late 1970's hit a certain "high water-mark" for quality 35mm cinematography. Movies like Apocalypse Now and Days of Heaven still remain as great visual achievements. Days of Heaven wasn't in 'scope, but Néstor Almendros work on that film is among the very best in film history.

These days the "quick and dirty" and "good enough" fashions seem to be preferred. A defensive explanation, "we're going for a documentary look," is often given.

| IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-12-2007 07:14 PM

Let's be careful. The Director of Photography for The Abyss and Backdraft has received praise in this thread. Yet that same man also went on to be Director of Photography on the 65mm production of Far and Away. And I would be surprised if Far and Away gets a whole lot of praise here.

Of course, it's a pipe dream to think that 65mm photography will ever make a comeback. It's also unwise to assume that movies would look better if only there was more use of 65mm photography. We've listed some of the visual shortcomings of Super 35 and of 'Scope. Don't forget that 65mm raises its own set of visual disadvantages too.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-12-2007 07:39 PM

In the 70s flourish of Australian film production, we saw some magnificent Scope prints – Careful He Might Hear You and The Man From Snowy River come to mind – and I think that they were all shot with Panavision anamorphics and processed at Colorfilm. Can anyone tell me of the deficiencies in those films?

Lenses and film stocks have improved greatly in the last three decades. So we should be seeing knockout images today, consistently.

As a cinema operator, I know that the audience is disappointed when some (not all) features are flat; it is part of the theatrical expectation.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-13-2007 12:55 AM

quote: Greg Anderson
We've listed some of the visual shortcomings of Super 35 and of 'Scope. Don't forget that 65mm raises its own set of visual disadvantages too.

True. However, the current problem is one where movie productions are not making the most of the given shooting format. No one is really, honestly raising the quality bar in cinematography.

Before anyone offers "digital," they need to bite their tongue. Motion picture film methods remain vastly superior in terms of image quality capability compared to that of the best digital video camera systems.

The fashion of dark, gritty and bleached out looking photography is a convenient mask for people either doing the job wrong or doing it on the cheap. In that context, I agree formats like 65mm have no chance of being used. It certainly won't when 35mm isn't being used anywhere near its greatest capabilities. We seen it pushed to the limits of the technology available at the given time with movies like Days of Heaven. It's a shame the same thing isn't happening now.

| IP: Logged

Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005

posted 03-14-2007 07:47 PM

mmm lets think about the films that didnt look too bad
"Stelth" um proved that cgi and anamorphic can mix in the recent past, but used older scope lenses for compactness and weight issues. I thought it looked very clean and grain free.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Lots of movies are pretty dark and often very green or earthy looking because of what seems to be a fashion of sorts in cinematography

Yes cinematographers seem to be getting away with mixing different color temprature lighting. The green is usually uncorected use of floresent lighting. Once apon a time this was considered bad practice.

The fact that very few people now work with one light work prints. With all rushes footage being lab graded. It is very hard for people to truely understand exposure.

quote: Ron Curran
In the 70s flourish of Australian film production, we saw some magnificent Scope prints – Careful He Might Hear You and The Man From Snowy River come to mind – and I think that they were all shot with Panavision anamorphics and processed at Colorfilm.

Lab Quality is probably another big issue. Colorfilm was exceptional, Crocodile Dundee is another probably more wide seen example. Its fair to say that all labs are not equal.

One lab horror story was "Much Ado About Nothing" This film I saw in London at a old super cinema in the west end, Perfect Lenses, Projection staff and Kodak print of a Kodak negative. The experience perfect (well except for Keanus woodern acting). 3/4 horizens, fine grain stock and unforgetable long stedicam shots. The final shot is almost 4 minutes long [Eek!]

Unfortunatly for the Director of Photography, its U.S release was done on the cheap, printed on Agfa Stock, all the lovely gold highlights turned purple [puke]

And his hard work was panned by Variety magazine as if it was his intention and fault!

quote: Bobby Henderson
We seen it pushed to the limits of the technology available at the given time with movies like Days of Heaven.

Day like Heaven is one beautiful unforgetably shot film. An easy concept though, all shot during the goldern hour, near sunset. To make the most of the limited shooting time, the production rehearst both the acting and the camera set ups in the morning. Then filmed them in the late afternoon.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-14-2007 08:40 PM

quote: Cameron Glendinning
Yes cinematographers seem to be getting away with mixing different color temprature lighting. The green is usually uncorected use of floresent lighting. Once apon a time this was considered bad practice.

Actually it seems like more of that has been happening in the printing lab. Lately the practice muddying up the visuals has become more common with the use of digital intermediate. I recall the "platinum edition" release of Seven on DVD using the original camera negatives to create a new video transfer. That footage looked more like normal photography, but was then colorized using the computer based tools.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-14-2007 10:04 PM

Yes Cameron. Yes Bobby. The problem is that we are being swamped with misinformation.

Certain digital projection advocates are insisting that all movies are now being shot in 16x9. Also, I am being told that no intermediate work is being done at 4k. And that even higher speed printing is being introduced to those labs that are currently producing good prints. When I dispute this, I am told that my info is out of date. They are saying that 2k files look better than film prints of the same movie (OK, occasionally that may be true).

I think that it is 10 years now that the digital people have been trying to kill off film and part of this strategy is to rid our screens of Scope.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-14-2007 10:21 PM

Of course, we all have to keep in mind many of the people touting all the virtues of digital projection, especially those doing it in the press, have vested interests in selling hardware. Many salespeople stretch the truth or just tell outright lies to sell product and make more money for themselves.

quote: Ron Curran
Certain digital projection advocates are insisting that all movies are now being shot in 16x9.

I found that to be pretty funny considering none of the digital projectors have 1.77:1 (16x9) as a standard theatrical framing format. They can show 16x9 material, typically via external sources. But the presets are 2.39:1 and 1.85:1 in the pixel settings I listed a few posts ago.

Sales people aren't big on telling specifics, especially any specifics that risk diluting the strength of their pitch. That's why many comparisons of video to film have been via film done wrong.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-14-2007 11:14 PM

Bobby, I forgot to thank you for posting that list. As no techers have disputed you (as they would in a nano-second) I will use it for some homework on specs I have been given regarding a new generation of lower cost dlp projectors.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.