Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Indy 4 goes Digital!!!

This is topic Indy 4 goes Digital!!! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001115

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-06-2002, 12:00 PM:

That's right folks. Just weeks after Stephen speilberg said he would be the last person alive shooting film, much like a gun nut and thier cold dead hands, has stated that IF georgie lucasss asks him to shoot the film in Digital, he will do so without a fight, because of thier friendship he will do that.

He did state he would rather shoot it on film, as he prefers the life it breathes, but would not fight the switch if asked by his friend george to do so.

So much for standards...

Dave

Posted by James B. Openshaw (Member # 1310) on 08-06-2002, 12:13 PM:

Oh...great

By the way, how'd you find this? I'd like to read the article if possible.

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 08-06-2002, 12:25 PM:

The story is over at www.theraider.net .

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-06-2002, 12:52 PM:

quote:
because of thier friendship he will do that

Wow. I always thought real friends advised you against doing stupid things. Maybe the movie's credits will not list a director, huh?

*sigh* Another film I won't be seeing.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-06-2002, 10:04 PM:

Barf, it should be a gigantic 70mm DTS release! I'll pass on seeing it if its shot in digital.
Mark

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 08-06-2002, 10:14 PM:

Well it will certainly make it easier to digitally enhance certain scenes to cover the aging Harrison Ford.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-06-2002, 10:19 PM:

It says "Might" not cast in digits yet

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-06-2002, 10:33 PM:

If anyone associated with Spielberg and Lucas reads any of this stuff: stop screwing around with videotape! Digital is just a buzzword! Shoot the movie in Panavision 35mm, or better yet Super Panavision 70mm!

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 08-06-2002, 10:40 PM:

An excerpt from an interview with SteVen SpIElberg from the July issue of Cinescape Magazine...

Q: Have you seen "Attack Of The Clones?" I was curious what you thought of the way it looks since it's the first big-budget film of this nature shot completely in a digital medium?

Spielberg: It looks just like film. I saw "Clones" two weeks ago up at George's. For the record, of all the "Star Wars" they've made, this is my second favorite, just behind "Empire." It was great. The action scenes looked like George had been inspired by James Cameron because they were as good as any of the action scenes in "T2," and I think George did his best directing with this one too.

Q: After seeing this, would you ever consider shooting a film digitally?

Spielberg: I love the digital thing, and I would someday consider shooting in digital, but only if there were digital theaters. Digital-to-film is not as good as film-to-film, especially if you shoot a film on 35mm negative and present it to the theater in 35mm releasing stock. When you shoot a film all digitally and you project it digitally, it looks great. When you make a movie digitally and you can only get 70 theaters to play it that way and the other 3,000 or 4,000 screens will show it on film, it's better to have made your film on film. It doesn't look as good as film-to-film. I would be interested in someday making a digital movie when there are enough digital theaters to not have to go to film and it would be a digital-to-digital presentation throughout its first and secondary runs, but that's years from now.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-06-2002, 11:09 PM:

Bobby Henderson wrote:

quote:
stop screwing around with videotape! Digital is just a buzzword! Shoot the movie in Panavision 35mm, or better yet Super Panavision 70mm!

Actually , the more top filmmakers like Spielberg get their hands on this equipment and get used to it, the better the final product will be. Can you imagine where we would be if filmmakers were to have begged to stop screwing with sound and leave films silent? Or stop screwing with film and halt development of CinemaScope, VistaVision, or 70mm? These are brand new tools. There IS a learning curve. Can MOVIE makers innovate by remaining stagnant? Would 70mm presentations even have MADE the huge return they did in the late 70's without Lucas' STAR WARS and Spielberg's CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND in 1977. 70mm prints up to this point were quickly going out of vogue. They mushroomed after this one-two punch, as well-documented in Michael Coate and William Kalley's thorough listing in Widescreen Review.

The truly innovative moviemakers LOVE to get their hands on new technologies. It provides a challenge for them. Film is not perfect either. It has its flaws. Only through decades have the go-arounds been discovered and refined to overcome these. Same with CD's. And it will be the same with digital moviemaking. If we don't challenge ourselves, we stagnate and become irrelevant.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-07-2002, 04:22 PM:

quote:
Spielberg: I love the digital thing, and I would someday consider shooting in digital, but only if there were digital theaters. Digital-to-film is not as good as film-to-film, especially if you shoot a film on 35mm negative and present it to the theater in 35mm releasing stock. When you shoot a film all digitally and you project it digitally, it looks great. When you make a movie digitally and you can only get 70 theaters to play it that way and the other 3,000 or 4,000 screens will show it on film, it's better to have made your film on film. It doesn't look as good as film-to-film. I would be interested in someday making a digital movie when there are enough digital theaters to not have to go to film and it would be a digital-to-digital presentation throughout its first and secondary runs, but that's years from now.

So, let's see ...

quote:
... digital ... digital ... digital ... digital ... film ... film ... film ... film ... 35mm ... 35mm ... film ... digital ... digital ... digital ... film ... film ... film ... film ... film ... digital ... digital ... film ... digital ... digital

That's 11 "digital"s, 11 "film"s and 2 "35mm"s. Film wins.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-07-2002, 05:22 PM:

To address Paul comments about "digital" being a "new tool" it isn't. Video isn't new. Sure, it has been getting refined and improved more and more, with the shift from analog videotape to digital videotape being a big step.

But video still isn't as good as film. Even with the supposed learning curve taken into account (one would think a half century of video technology development would amass some "widsom" to negate the need for a learning curve), the best HD video formats still do not offer image quality as good as film.

I thought quality was supposed to be a driving aspect for feature film photography standards. With "Digital" all I see is a lower res glorification of a buzzword. I call it videotape. When it improves to the point of really having better color and sharpness quality than film, then it can replace film.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-07-2002, 05:40 PM:

Bobby

Digital IS certainly a new tool as far as filmmakers are concerned. Or are you suggesting the film industry has been shooting on tape the last 50 years? VideoTAPE is just one method to store digital bits. 35mm film could be used for that matter. Or stones, as you suggested earlier. And if you go back and read my post, you'll see Im talking about new technologies,, not digital, which IS relatively new compared to analog video. Analog video IS different than digital video and new shooting/lighting techniques, filters, etc, are used to compensate for the image differences.

I guess since digital sound systems (SRD, SDDS) are optically printed on 35mm film, we should probably, to remain consistant, drop the word digital to describe these soundtrack formats as well. After all, optical sound on film technology has been around over 70 years, and after all, they're not really digital, just optical.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 08-07-2002, 05:46 PM:

Having worked with still film ranging in size from 35mm all the way up to 8 X 10 during the past 37 years of my photographic career, I still prefer it to the digital format I am now using. Digital is very good and it is getting better and I only use the format because of cost consideration and I can do almost everything with the format except making the prints. I can and have made prints on my ink jet printer but it cannot compare in quality to prints made by a professional color lab. While digital looks great, I have found film images to be much better. I have yet to see an actual DLP or other digital film presentation because Hawaii does not have any theatres theatres yet but from I have heard and read, I have not missed anything.

-Claude

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-08-2002, 01:16 AM:

I think you really have to bear in mind that Spielberg was being asked to critique one of his best friends' work. The answer would almost have to be "Stupendous! Colossal! Brilliant! I love him!"

Even if, inwardly, he were thinking that it looked like a dead horse that had been drug down the road behind a tractor for several days.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2002, 11:08 AM:

William Hooper said: "Even if, inwardly, he were thinking that it looked like a dead horse that had been drug down the road behind a tractor for several days."

Sometimes the whole "film vs. digital" debate does seem like "beating a dead horse", especially with all the recent hype in the popular press.

IMHO, "Film Done Right" provides superior image quality to any of the digital cameras or projection systems currently on the market. Digital imaging is improving. Kodak is a leader in both technologies:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/infoImaging/index.shtml
Exceedingly long Kodak web address too lengthy to display on Film-Tech
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/system.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-08-2002, 05:36 PM:

In the case of digital sound on 35mm prints, it was a big improvement over what was previously available for most theaters: the SR optical track. It also doesn't cost a fortune to equip a theater for digital surround sound --roughly 10% to 20% of the cost of a video projection system. Few theaters could equip for 70mm mag, and even far fewer actually got any bookings of the expensive mag-coat prints.

Video projection is not proven to be a better alternative to 35mm film. And yet it costs a lot more than any digital sound system and a lot more than any 70mm theatrical setup.