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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 2013 Academy Award Nominations - Let the griping begin! (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: 2013 Academy Award Nominations - Let the griping begin! Jim Cassedy Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1661 From: San Francisco, CA Registered: Dec 2006 posted 01-15-2013 05:47 PM                     I've been involved in private screenings for both The Academy and the DGA since mid December. I'm about to start a 2nd round of screenings now that nominations have been announced, so that members of those organizations can cast final votes. (I'll be doing one of those screenings later tonight) It's interesting to note that in some cases, either the director or the distributer INSISTS on 35mm projection over digital for some of the titles, no matter how they were shot. (change-over, naturally) I'm not sure if these instructions are followed nationally or regionally, or what. And I'm contractually prohibited from discussing any of the titles or the members' reactions to them, so don't ask me which have been 35mm or digital. (although I suppose it's OK after the awards ceremony)  |  IP: Logged Andrew Thomas Master Film Handler Posts: 273 From: Pearland, TX, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 01-15-2013 06:05 PM                     There is no confusion. The problem is that DPs are more likely to shoot extreme low light on digital because of the sensitivity of the sensors relative to even the fastest film stock. If DPs would shoot lowlight the same way they do on film, you would get a pretty similar image. Basically, film is no where near as sensitive as the sensors in an Alexa or Epic or F65 so DPs don't push their luck. They are more willing to do so with digital sensors. It's actually one of the great ironies of digital. You can do more setups and shoot more takes per day, so individual takes suffer. You can shoot with less light because of the more sensitive sensors, so they end up using too little light. But you're still factually wrong about digital being worse in low light than film.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 01-15-2013 06:28 PM                        YOU CAN DO LOW LIGHT ON FILM! Just open your aperture to f0.0, slow the shutter speed to 1/1, run the film through the camera at one frame per second and tell your actors to move really slow. But it probably won't matter because they won't be in focus anyway.  |  IP: Logged Andrew Thomas Master Film Handler Posts: 273 From: Pearland, TX, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 01-15-2013 07:19 PM                      |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-15-2013 09:50 PM                     The finished footage speaks for itself. Movies with location shoots at night or other scenes that feature a lot of dark areas in the frame will look better shot on film than video. Film is a passive medium. The negative is only going to expose based on manual choices made with lighting, camera setup, etc. You can park a Musco semi-truck equipped with a stadium style light at the end of a city block and back-light a fight scene on a wet street with the action taking place entirely in silhouette. That sort of thing often looks great on film. On video that sort of thing often looks like shit. That's because the imaging system inside a video camera has a mind of its own. It's trying like hell to see what it can't see in the black silhouettes of the actors and other dark areas of the frame. The resulting lag kills image detail and motion clarity. Certain camera systems exhibit this problem more often than others. The Panavision Genesis is particularly bad about it. Then you have to consider the digital bandwidth available to shoot and record the footage in the first place. Digital camera chips don't record their levels of light to dark evenly. They record more shades in the highlight levels and fewer in the darkest levels. This issue won't be as big a problem if the video footage is shot at "deep color" levels of bit depth, but that consumes a lot more disc space and bandwidth. Video cameras actually do a lot better in bright/daylight conditions. It's harder to tell the difference between a movie shot on video or film when the footage was shot in bright settings.  |  IP: Logged Andrew Thomas Master Film Handler Posts: 273 From: Pearland, TX, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 01-15-2013 11:05 PM                     You are literally just making stuff up at this point. If you sleep better thinking that, good on ya.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-16-2013 12:11 AM                        Andrew, if you're wanting to get into a war of words with Bobby you're seriously going to have to do better than that. I mean, quit beating around the bush; if you've got knowledge, bring it.  |  IP: Logged Mark J. Marshall Film God Posts: 3188 From: New Castle, DE, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 01-16-2013 12:28 PM                    This should be good.  |  IP: Logged Andrew Thomas Master Film Handler Posts: 273 From: Pearland, TX, USA Registered: Jun 2012 posted 01-16-2013 06:10 PM                     When you take a position that defies the consensus opinion of the profession and the scientific understanding of the technology, it is up to you to provide evidence supporting your alternate hypothesis. Just like flat-earthers are welcome to their opinion, he is welcome to his opinion.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 01-16-2013 09:05 PM                     quote: Bobby Henderson It's harder to tell the difference between a movie shot on video or film when the footage was shot in bright settings. Except when they clip the highlights. I cannot stand that.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 01-17-2013 09:15 AM                     quote: Andrew Thomas When you take a position that defies the consensus opinion of the profession and the scientific understanding of the technology, it is up to you to provide evidence supporting your alternate hypothesis. Andrew, if you're going to say I'm wrong be specific about how I'm wrong. If I'm "making up stuff" specifically what am I making up? Don't post a lame statement like the one above where you imply the field of cinematography prefers shooting video. quote: Andrew Thomas Just like flat-earthers are welcome to their opinion, he is welcome to his opinion. How about opening your eyes and objectively looking at the footage in movies shot on video rather than ignorantly being geeked over by the word "digital." Do you realize something can be shot in "digital" and end up looking pretty bad? I can shoot 1080p footage with my Canon EOS 5D Mark II at up to 25600 ISO. Do I ever use that setting? Hell no! The end results will look like shit. I'll only increase the gain level in my camera when I have no other choice. I laugh at these extreme ISO settings on new DSLR cameras the way I laughed at the "this camera shoots in Zero Lux" claims I saw with sales literature on certain video cameras back in the 1990s. Someone in the sales department at the TV station would see that, "hey we won't have to bring lights to a commercial shoot anymore!" Uh, yeah right. The only good thing I can see coming from some of these new DLSR models with ISO capabilities of up to 204800 is perhaps their sensitivity range between 1600 ISO and 6400 ISO won't look so bad. Andrew, if you still don't understand where I'm coming from, this is all about getting professional quality results. Movies shot on video often dip below that bar. But there's enough techno-geeks out there biased to anything "digital" and the democratizing effect it's having on "filmmaking" everywhere that they gleefully ignore the fact the finished footage doesn't look as good as it would if it were shot on film. And that's how a movie like Slumdog Millionaire can win a Best Cinematography Oscar.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.