|  IP: Logged

Wow! Care to elaborate on that "belief" Mike?

I personally think that he has exercised a lot more restraint than most people in the industry when it comes to exploiting potentially cool things in order to simply make a profit. He didn't have to wait 16 years to make another STAR WARS movie, and he didn't have to do all of the work himself. He could have easily hired a group of hacks to make dozens of STAR WARS movies while he just sat on the Ranch and collected paychecks. He could have also released his movies on DVD without any extras in order to make a quick buck, and then get everyone to buy them again in 4 years with all that extra crap which he's planning. But he didn't do these things, because he cares about quality.

As for his digital fixation, I truly believe that he thinks it's what's best for the industry. He has stated why. His reasoning makes sense. I think he's wrong, but that's just a matter of opinion.

Lucas has done a lot of stupid things in his career. Some of them are unforgivable, like, on a moral level. But his intentions are usually good, and not primarily motivated by money.

quote:

---

He could have easily hired a group of hacks to make dozens of STAR WARS movies while he just sat on the Ranch and collected paychecks.

---

OK, so he didn't make dozens of movies. The paychecks came from the Star Wars video re-re-releases, games, bedsheets, potato chips, soda cans, toys, posters, records, books-on-tape, theatrical re-issues, etc etc etc not one of which did a damn thing to further the art form.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/

As for the theater terms, I'm not too well-versed in them for this movie, but from what I remember from the last movie, they were unreasonable. But at the same time, a lot of them helped to ensure a better presentation of the film. Either way, it doesn't really matter. Yeah, you're right. He'll try to suck up all of the money that he can. But not at the expense of the art.

 |  IP: Logged

If they want to run a truly fair comparison they need to take one of those Sony HD cameras and also get a good Panavision or Arri 35mm film camera and shoot some footage of the same exact thing. The film footage should be transferred to a brand new print and played on a film projection setup adjusted to the best possible standards.

That's the ONLY WAY to do a proper video versus film demonstration. Until they do that, putting it bluntly, they are full of shit.

The digital projection people need to shoot for a target matching 35mm film at its very best possible standards. That means a digital projector capable of showing at least 12 million pixels to 24 million pixels for a scope image. And if they want to get into the 5/70mm range, they need to be above 30 million pixels.

Further, videography simply has a much different look to it than film. While HD videography can look very good, it still doesn't look like film. Color gamut is way different and basic things like how depth of field is handled is also much different.

The more the big wigs push it, the more the electronic companies will provide it.

Either way, film presentation is the only way to go. It's cheap, efficient, and fun. Video is stale, sterile, and costly.

Anyway, Sony and others are going to continue building much higher resolution CCDs for video cameras --mainly since there is a ton of money to be made by introducing the products in consumer still image cameras and consumer level camcorders. The movie industry and its needs are mere window dressing to the much greater consumer market.

Digital video image capture and non-linear editing/visual effects is going to grow into the next "killer app" for home computer gear. That's really the thing the computer industry needs to pursue to drag their asses out of the doldrums. The Internet and its low-bandwidth nature requires no one to upgrade their hardware at all. The computer industry was really pretty dumb to promote product via that.

Within 10 to 15 years, people will be making home digital videos featuring jaw-dropping sophistication. With proper lighting and composition one will be able to match anything any broadcaster can do today, even in HiDef.

Lucas needs to take a look at the fact that even with the home video market embracing DVD, the majority of HDTVs have progressive scan pulldown (Or DVD-ROM with it's superior refresh rates). With this technology that makes digital images more "film-like" why is there still an attachment to film? Because movies have a heritage on celluloid.

To the Editor of the Los Angeles Times,

I’m writing in response to the July 11th article titled “Filming Without the Film: Embraced by some directors and feared by others, high-definition digital cameras are changing the art form”. As the regional Vice President for Eastman Kodak’s Entertainment Imaging division in Hollywood, what surprised me most about the article was its obvious bias.

You stated that the only reason directors or cinematographers don’t shoot with high definition cameras is because they are afraid. Maybe they know something you don’t—that it isn’t about what medium you use but rather how you use the medium. Our industry’s talented cinematographers and directors know exactly the looks they want to generate and know how to get them using all the tools at their disposal. In some cases they may choose to use video (whether 24p or a lesser format) because it has its own unique characteristics. But they don’t confuse video with film—they have completely different looks, which generate unique emotional responses.

Also, to suggest that these talented filmmakers “are passé storytellers—easily replaced with cheaper and more tech-savvy rivals” is quite an insult to artists everywhere working in every field--whether painters, sculptors, musicians or writers. What it comes down to is expressing your vision and effectively communicating it to others.

As a representative from Kodak I wonder why no one took the time to ask us about the significant advances being made in film technology. Kodak has a long heritage working with cinematographers to find ways of developing new tools and pushing technological boundaries. We have developed a wide spectrum of film, digital and hybrid products and services, capitalizing on the best possibilities of these technologies. True artists know how to maximize the attributes of all three types of media to achieve their visions.

Also, to suggest that, in film, cinematography is the art of guessing, is to say that the many masterpieces created by such great cinematographers as Storaro, Zsigmond, Richardson, Hall, Almendros, Poster, Deakins, Wexler, Roizman, Dibie, Willis, Daviau, Kovacs, Toll, Seale… were all due to luck. I would like to hear some of their responses to that claim. These artists take challenges everyday to create their art--they are often the silent heroes behind the films. To suggest that the reason they choose film over 24 p is because they are afraid to take a risk is to fall victim to the hardware manufacturers marketing hype. Let’s all get above that self-serving argument and give cinematographers and directors the credit they have earned as visual story-tellers who aren’t afraid of exploring all possibilities.

Cordially,

Michael J. Morelli
VP & General Manager, Hollywood Region
Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
______________________________________________________________________