|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Resistance To Digital Cinematography Article
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-28-2006 01:33 PM
quote: Mark Ogden
You know, Bobby, you’re very loudly, stridently and obscenely bloviating here without having a real understanding of the cameras or in the processes involved.
No. I'm just not towing the party-line of digital being perfect and all things analog being crap. I've worked in video production before (my first job out of art school). I've been doing computer graphics work for 20 years now. I have a little more than just a layman's knowledge of those processes.
I also think your view on depth of field sounds a little too broad. By its logic a tiny CMOS chip in a camera phone or a cheap 1/6" CCD in a consumer electronics video camera will have "better depth of field" than a professional video camera with 1/3", 2/3" or larger CCD arrays.
The problem I have with that depth of field claim is marketing folks are using the term as spin to imply digital video captures more image detail than film. We all know that simply isn't true.
quote:
Wrong. It is not a “limit”, it is a choice. Collateral, like Superman Returns, Miami Vice, Click!, Scary Movie 4 and others, were photographed with cameras that output non-gamma corrected 4:4:4 RGB data. That’s DATA, not video.
It is indeed video. That's the term for any electronic-originated moving image. It does not matter whether the imagery is recorded to tape, solid state memory or massive RAID data servers. What other term is valid besides "video?"
quote: Mark Ogden
If the image looks “smeary” it is because the decision was made to make it look smeary (on the DaVinci platform, for example, this is done by making changes in recursive noise settings). If the flesh tones look “pasty”, it is because the DP asked for what is known as a secondary correction on the flesh tones only (almost all post color platforms can isolate thousands of different hues down to a single pixel width. I do it all the time).
I find that very hard to believe.
It doesn't matter if the video camera is recording every frame as a separate RAW file. The CCD or CMOS imagers inside the camera will still be subject to the same limitations as all video cameras. When light levels reach a dim enough point the imager is going to be more likely to struggle and cause smearing, ghosting, noise and other problems to the recorded images. It's like the camera had a couple of beers or something.
Anyone who has played around with video cameras, especially low cost consumer electronics models, will be familiar with those smearing issues and other limitations to shooting in low light. Those problems are very common with consumer gear since their imagers cannot capture anywhere near as much light as any professional level camera.
Film cameras don't have that smearing problem. If there isn't enough light the image just winds up underexposed. That alone will often look like crap.
quote:
BUT . . . and here’s the thing, these cameras can also put out bright, colorful, razor sharp images, with beautiful accurate colors and lovely flesh tones if that’s what the filmmakers want. (look at Click!, for instance. How come no-one is pissing and moaning about how that one looks?).
Not many folks whined about Click! because not all that many people really cared about watching it.
I'm sure those new Panavision and Arri video cameras, along with many other HD systems can capture wonderful looking video, especially when it isn't marred with a "film look" step. Whether they're doing the process completely digitally or actually putting the rendered footage through a real photo-chemical step it always winds up looking screwy in the end.
As hard as the video technology folks are working to replace all film cameras, they can't resist the urge to imitate that very thing they are trying to replace: film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-28-2006 04:02 PM
Whether or not you want to accept my explanation of how things work in professional HD imaging is beside the point. My explanation of depth of field is accurate. It is a function of imager size, lens focal length and aperture setting. It is not a film vs. CCD issue, but one of photographic physics. The superior depth of field of 2/3-inch imagers vs.35mm film is fact, and anyone working on a professional basis with these cameras and lenses knows about it and deals with it. You want to make up your own photographic laws, be my guest, but you’ll be the only one following them. Good luck.
I professionally engineer SD and HDTV cameras for a living, and also work in post-production color correction. Did you happen to catch Letterman last night? My HD video engineering. See 60 Minutes at all in the last few weeks? My post color work. If you catch The CBS Evening News tonight, that’s my video engineering as well. My experience, knowledge and achievement with this equipment outweigh yours. What happens with consumer level cameras doesn’t come into this (for that matter, Bobby, didn’t you once have a member picture of yourself holding a DV camera? ‘Smatter, Kodak Super 8 not cutting it anymore?). I am trying to explain what the process is in the professional world. You want to find my explanations of data vs. video and the post process “hard to believe”, that’s your business, but your skepticism doesn’t change things for those, like me, who are working with this medium day in and day out, and know HOW it works, as opposed to those who are merely being dilettantes.
I have never stated, nor do I believe, that digital is perfect. I don’t remember anyone saying that it is. I don’t believe all things analog are crap, either, and I don’t recall that being the position of anyone in the digital imaging industry (where do you get this stuff?). Digital has pros and cons, as you well know. You planning on giving up your DVD player, CD player, DV camera, computer and whatnot for their analog equivalents? I didn’t think so. Too convenient, eh?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-28-2006 06:47 PM
quote: Mark Ogden
Whether or not you want to accept my explanation of how things work in professional HD imaging is beside the point. My explanation of depth of field is accurate. It is a function of imager size, lens focal length and aperture setting. It is not a film vs. CCD issue, but one of photographic physics. The superior depth of field of 2/3-inch imagers vs.35mm film is fact, and anyone working on a professional basis with these cameras and lenses knows about it and deals with it. You want to make up your own photographic laws, be my guest, but you’ll be the only one following them. Good luck.
So basically you agree a little $60 cellular phone with a P.O.S. camera inside has "better depth of field" than the video cameras used to electronically record Superman, correct? A camera phone's CMOS imager is a lot smaller. And smaller means better! And it's still DIGITAL! Yay!
See how freaking stupid that sounds? The claim is true, but only partially. You still have the factor of how much image information can be captured.
The IMAX format has really horrible depth of field. A 8" X 10" view camera has depth of field far worse.
However, that can be changed by the quality of lens used, the aperture used, the quality and speed of film emulsion, the amount of lighting setup and finally the exposure time. In the end, those icky, horrible analog film cameras in reasonably competent hands will yield imagery that is higher in quality than anything any video camera anywhere on this planet can attain.
Do you understand now why I have to say "bullshit" to all those "depth of field" claims? Those guys are floating only one factor of the equation while arrogantly dropping off the other parts of the equation.
I know you cannot truthfully say any of those new Panavision and Arri cameras can effectively capture more image detail and with better color quality than an analog 35mm motion picture camera. The film cameras do a better job and achieve that "film look" naturally. When someone tries to imitate that appearance on video they degrade the original RGB imagery and just muddy the histogram all to shit.
quote: Mark Ogden
I professionally engineer SD and HDTV cameras for a living, and also work in post-production color correction. Did you happen to catch Letterman last night? My HD video engineering. See 60 Minutes at all in the last few weeks? My post color work. If you catch The CBS Evening News tonight, that’s my video engineering as well. My experience, knowledge and achievement with this equipment outweigh yours.
Oh whoopie freaking doo. Your credit list proves nothing, other than perhaps you are more than a bit biased to the "digital" side of the video versus film debate.
Even with your experience, please deliver a convincing argument on how 2000 line video cameras deliver better image quality than a good 35mm film camera package.
You seem to be trying to steer this into some kind of personal little flame-fest, but it's not going to work. I am not the subject of this debate. Please get back to the point and prove that video is better than film -using more than just backing some marketing guy's "depth of field" selective data mining half truth or trying to personally insult me.
quote: Mark Ogden
What happens with consumer level cameras doesn’t come into this (for that matter, Bobby, didn’t you once have a member picture of yourself holding a DV camera? ‘Smatter, Kodak Super 8 not cutting it anymore?).
All CCD and CMOS devices have their limits on how fast, sharp and colorful they can "see" an image.
As far as my own little video camera goes, I like it. It serves my purposes for shooting video on videotape. I like my DVD player as well. I see no reason to give up any of those things.
But here's the catch, Mark:
I don't have a bunch of investors giving me $200 million of their money to shoot a major motion picture either. If I were in that position I think I would choose something a little more appropriate for the job, such as a freaking 35mm Panavision film camera package with some fantastic lenses as well as a D.P. who could use them properly! With a $200 million budget I probably would have tried harder to make that 65mm thing work. Movies like Baraka and Hamlet which cost far less were able to manage it. One would figure a $200 million project could have more skill muscle behind it.
That's my point of contention in all of this. Shooting major motion pictures on video is definitely a major step backwards. It is a downgrade on image quality. Video may be faster and ultimately cheaper. But it does not deliver a superior image to film.
Even if every 35mm film projector in every commercial movie theater is ripped out and scrapped, movie studios will still be better off by continuing to shoot their movies on film.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Ogden
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 943
From: Little Falls, N.J.
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-28-2006 08:13 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
why do the video originated images look so "2D" for lack of a better word
I know what you’re talking about Steve, we all notice it. When first generation CCD cameras came in, they all had analog back ends, the preamps, shading modules and whatnot. I used to get great pictures out of them, loved the way they looked. Then, a couple of things happened: the next generation of cameras went to digital processing for their back-of-the-imager functions, and as lenses and optics improved lighting directors found out that they could get away with sharply reduced light levels. When the DSP cameras were installed at The Early Show, I noticed the change in an instant. Basically, instead of a continuous analog waveform from the preamps all the way back to the encoder, now there are sampling rates off the imager to factor in. While very high, they are not quite at unity with what analog is capable of. While this is only theory on my part, I believe this account for most of this flatness. At the same time, DPs are lighting down to 30 fc. or less, typically. This means you are usually working at f.2.8 or greater, given an f.8 optic block. This brings up depth-of field, again. There isn’t any. The trend in the industry is do run as shallow a depth focus depth as possible and keep the talent in the foreground sharp (I’ll tell you a story about Bryant Gumble and this issue by private email, if you want). It drives me nuts, really. It’s gotten to the point that lens manufactures are optimizing their glass for near wide-open iris, assuming that that’s where everyone is working.
quote: Bobby Henderson
please deliver a convincing argument on how 2000 line video cameras deliver better image quality than a good 35mm film camera package.
quote: Bobby Henderson
get back to the point and prove that video is better than film
Bobby, I don't think that I'll be doing either of those things. You see, I've never claimed that either is true, ever, and I don't believe same, and therefore those are not my statements to prove. My position has always been that these use of these cameras for feature production is a matter of convienience and budget only.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002
|
posted 07-28-2006 08:47 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
It's painfully easy just from looking at the trailer how Miami Vice was shot on video. It still has that pasty, smeary electronic TV look, even with the pretend "film style" pretentious bullcrap applied over the top of it in whatever high dollar method was chosen.
In a prior post, you question why HD movies try to look like film. I agree that that's kind of stupid. But for MIAMI VICE, I see no evidence of this. They did what you said they should, which is embrace the look of HD. The results are stunning.
I don't think anyone here or in the articles posted is trying to say that HD is better than film. Certainly, the resolution isn't as good. But that's not the only variable. In many cases it's not the most important either. Film and video offer two different aesthetics, and each can be exploited to create the most appropriate look possible. MIAMI VICE is one of the best looking films of the year. So is MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III, which was shot in 35mm anamorphic. But neither of those movies would look nearly as good if they had been shot on the other format.
Bobby, you're always taking little jabs at HD by reminding people that it's videotape, and that the cameras were developed for television. Who cares? It can still create a beautiful image.
My point is, and I'm sure I've said this before, film and video are two different media and one is not necessarily better than the other. No one's saying they can't coexist. Even Lucasfilm has stated that film is a valid option for shooting a movie. If anything, the introduction of HD is a good thing because it gives filmmakers more choices.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-28-2006 10:25 PM
quote: Mike Schindler
In a prior post, you question why HD movies try to look like film. I agree that that's kind of stupid. But for MIAMI VICE, I see no evidence of this. They did what you said they should, which is embrace the look of HD. The results are stunning.
The teaser and trailer of Miami Vice shows HD footage similar in quality to Collateral and with what appears to be the same post processing to imitate the appearance of film. Most movies shot digitally use the same convention. I think many digital productions have no choice but to do that.
I think there may be a marketing angle to it. One has to wonder if producers and studio executives might actually be overriding some directors and DPs who want to keep the video looking like video. There's a good number of types of movies that may actually serve their dramatic purposes better by looking like video. I think Collateral would have had a more immediate feel if the video stream had been left looking like video.
quote: Mike Schindler
My point is, and I'm sure I've said this before, film and video are two different media and one is not necessarily better than the other. No one's saying they can't coexist.
Most people would agree. Video is great for a lot of things. Most of the creative people and technical people know full well both film and video, analog and digital have their places and can greatly augment each other.
The camp which gets my anger flared are those business guys and other various salesmen and pitchmen involved with promoting digital cinema. Those are the folks speaking to both the public via the press and to managers who buy/rent the equipment for movie theaters and movie productions. Some of them tell half truths or even outright lies to sell the product. They're selling digital versus film as a zero-sum game because they will sell more equipment faster and make more money that way.
quote: Mike Schindler
Bobby, you're always taking little jabs at HD by reminding people that it's videotape, and that the cameras were developed for television. Who cares? It can still create a beautiful image.
I care because I feel like I'm having to settle for less and less when it comes to image quality in movies. For the past few decades we have been taking some incremental steps backward.
40 years ago a major epic might be filmed in 65mm.
30 years ago it would be shot in 35mm 'scope and blown up to 70mm.
20 years ago it would be shot in 1.85:1 and use 70mm for the sound.
10 years ago it would be cropped to Super35 and not have any 70mm prints.
Now we're shooting the movie in video at a resolution slightly higher than 1080p HDTV and then cropping it to 'scope aspect ratio.
Eventually the video camera technology and supporting gear is going to be good enough for the purposes of most movie productions. It's just not at that point yet. What level is good enough? I don't know for sure, but native 4000 line resolution in the video stream would be a good start.
quote: Mark Ogden
The trend in the industry is do run as shallow a depth focus depth as possible and keep the talent in the foreground sharp
Some of this is about style -riffing off MTV music videos directed by Matt Mahurin.
I also have a hunch the convention is about saving money. If your background is all blurred and the focal plane is only part of the actor's eyeball you don't have to spend as much money on set decoration, hiring extras, making costumes and being anal rententive about protecting continuity from shot to shot.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic