Film is now officially dead...for real this time

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Because you know when Marty Scorsese, the biggest champion of film there is, stops shooting with it, says it's over...then you know it's over.  He's shooting his next film with Leo, The Wolf Of Wall Street, in 2D digital.

 

 

Though Spielberg does continue to shoot and edit on film (he's the only one still doing the entire process on film), I think Scorsese is a bit more flexible and has kind of accepted the digital age.  It's also important to note that Spielberg has vastly more power than Marty, so he can bathe in film all he wants and the studio wont ask him to shoot digital.  But he did shoot Tin Tin digitally, so....

 

Anyway, full article.

I think Tarantino is still adamantly film-only also, right?  But, still, sad turn of events.  

Marty... nooooooooooooo...

This coming right after Hugo hurts.  Yeah, I know it was more about the preservation of old films as opposed to the use of film as a medium, but still. 

Tarantino, PT Anderson, and Nolan have all vowed to keep shooting on film until there isn't any film left. Tarantino said that until digital has more pixels than a film strip has atoms, he'll never switch.

I just lost some respect for Marty, but I can't really blame him. It's the damn studio heads and theater owners trying to force digital on everyone. Never ever fuck with another man's livelihood. At least my boys QT and PT stand their ground.

I don't think there's call to "lose respect" for Marty--when Roger Deakins, the best cinematographer working today, makes the jump, it's less a betrayal and more just accepting that these are the times. Would you begrudge John Ford for going to color or shooting in widescreen?

With color and widescreen it was still 24fps, light flickering through a machine. I guess I'm just an old fashioned kind of guy. It's purely an aesthetic choice. It wouldn't be fair to call the medium film then. 

You do realize digital shoots at 24fps as well, right?  And really, digital today isn't what it was a decade ago when the change started happening. It's getting better all the time. With the new 4K sensors, it's only going to get better and eventually, yeah, it'll equal what film can do. It will always have it's own "vibe", the same way each generation of celluloid did (one of many reasons why films that emulate an era always feel like a facsimile: a lot of what gives an time the look is the development process, which is changing constantly). It's getting to the point where you might as well be asking filmmakers to keep shooting with three-strip Technicolor.

It's still cinema, and they're still movies. Film was and always has been a synonym for the actual art.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

You do realize digital shoots at 24fps as well, right?

FOR NOW

I'm as nostalgic as the next guy. Probably more, since it's been my pleasure to work hands-on with 35mm for the last 15 years. But I can't argue with this shift on a business level, and it gets harder every year to distinguish film presentation from digital.

But here's the thing. Right now, you can bring a 100-year-old film to my theatre, and our state-of-the-art 35mm projectors can play it. Good luck expecting the cutting-edge DLP of even ten years from now to recognize today's predominant digital formats.

Oh no! Not the 24fps luddites again!

Boooooooo!

"Hide yo 4K projectors, hide yo REDs, dey handcrankin' film all over here!"

Booooooooo!!!!

"Who are these irascible creatures who have an insatiable love for strobing pans?"

ME!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

"You can have my backward-spinning hubcaps... when you pry them from my cold dead hands!!!"

Apparently 48fps is such a brilliant revolution and artistic leap forward that Jackson's decided he'd rather keep it to himself rather than show it at the Hobbit comic con presentation.

Yeah, I found that somewhat amusing. Way to show confidence in the new tech you've been pimping in every damn interview for the last three years, Pete.

ESPECIALLY if there's going to be another added surcharge.

We all had an idea or experience with 3D before the new onslaught. We had an idea what we were getting for our dinero. How are they even going to sell this?

Oh, so what was the official reason for not showing the 48fps footage?  I hadn't heard anything about that.  Mostly because I have no intention of waiting in line for Hall H.

He wants the focus to be on the content, not the tech. Which is crazy bullshit given that he's talked about 48fps almost as much as any other aspect of production.
 

I don't blame him. I wouldn't want a bunch of "analog purists"* trying to establish some sort of cred by circlejerking on twitter about how "it looks like a cheap soap" at the expense of my film.

*I had a bunch of more derogatory characterizations in mind but decided to ignore them for the sake of civility. 

Maybe if it didn't look like a cheap soap it wouldn't get knocked?
 

I will never ever understand the process by which one finds a clearer, more fluidly moving, more lifelike picture a minus.

A large part of cinema is about involving the viewer in the artificial. If 48fps draws attention to said artificiality in a negative way, it's a minus. Not necessarily a problem with the tech itself, but if Jackson and the HOBBIT team couldn't match the production design/lighting/effects work to the quality of image being produced by the higher frame rate then they probably should've waited to use the newer shooting methods until they could do so.
 

To me that's akin to someone watching Star Wars at release and complaining about matte lines being visible. And then suggesting it shot without effects. So some props do not stand up to the scrutiny the extra visual detail allows. The Mount Doom part of ROTK had some really bad greenscreen work. Didn't stop me from bawling my eyes out. A bunch of leaves seeming fake here and there will likewise do nothing to detter me from loving this as long as the movie is good.

Matte lines, bad greenscreen and so on are all a valuable part of the effects process, though. What does making THE HOBBIT seem more "lifelike" really add to the film?

This obviously isn't a dealbreaker for me, by the way. I'd go see these two movies if they were shot on old Chinese newspapers soaked in cat urine.

I think a lot of this comes down to who really loves cinema and who can't wait for the new Batman or Hobbit movie to come out in the latest IMAX or 3D or high tech option to toally lose themselves in, as if the only way people can have an immaginative connection with a movie is if they can't see it without thinking for one second that it isn't real. This quest to be as immerse as possible is frankly ridiculous, as is the idea that the defenders of the new technology now find themselves in the situation to stick up for a frame right and resolution so high it makes movies look all bright and garish as bad soap operas or game shows.

Older movies are on film and the prints that exist for them are on film. Yes, they can always be transitioned to digital copies, but that's only if the studios who own them feel like it's worth their time and money. Here's what I know: art house cinemas and reps that program old movies all the time (like the Brattle in Boston) will be severely restricted with what they can eventually show. Once new prints stop getting made and everything goes digital, they only have history to pull prints from, and we all know that prints age and deteriorate. Putting the history of film in the hands of movie studio executives doesn't exactly thrill me, personally.

I wouldn't go that far, you can love cinema for what it is and also be excited by seeing the new ways the medium can evolve. 48fps most likely sucks for normal hollywood movies but is probably great if you're making a documentary or Dogme 95 project.

What I find funny are the arguments that it's essential to switch to 48fps because otherwise 3D is untenable with its ugly strobing and such. The phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind.

If older films are not transfered to digital we are all fucked since film WILL (just a matter of chemistry, no amount of gnashing of teeth will stop it) go bad eventually. I'd rather it not happen. Because other than plants being dedicated solely to the production of film stock in perpetuity, despite falling demand, only for the reason of keeping film unsullied by digital formats it's either go digital or lose our movies.

I don't think that tackles the issue, though. We have an established, aesthetically appealing "normalcy" established when it comes to 24fps. If the switch to 48fps is going to be made, the other aspects of film production affected by that switch must also be up to the task of creating a newer, equally aesthetically appealing standard. Utilising the same mis-en-scene for 48fps as you would for 24fps strikes me as setting yourself up for audience rejection. You're only presenting half a revolution.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

If older films are not transfered to digital we are all fucked since film WILL (just a matter of chemistry, no amount of gnashing of teeth will stop it) go bad eventually. I'd rather it not happen. Because other than plants being dedicated solely to the production of film stock in perpetuity, despite falling demand, only for the reason of keeping film unsullied by digital formats it's either go digital or lose our movies.

There are film preservationists who come up with ways to preserve them, but that's a film by film case by case basis. We have lost millions of prints to time, but it's not "go digital or lose our movies" so much as it's "go digital AND lose our movies." Not all of them, obviously, but only the ones that people care about (ie, the ones that make money) are going to get saved. 

I think they're flying relatively blind when it comes to this new tech, and that's a problem when you're presenting such an anticipated film. I'm certainly not opposed to higher framerates, at all - it's not the limitation-laden gimmick that 3D is, for one. But it needs to be done properly, and my impression with Jackson is that he's gotten so tied up in promoting and championing the 48fps shooting system that he's pushing it too hard, too fast.
 

Motion blur isn't some relic of outdated technology, it's life. Wave your hand in front of your face, it blurs!

And the thing about soap operas is that stylistically they're as conservative as it gets. They're comparable to the earliest films that were just trying to recreate the theatrical experience, with no real ambition to develop a style and visual language of their own. When soaps try to branch out and 'go cinematic', it looks awkward more often than not. That's because movies are stylised reality, not reality. Making a pretty dramatic change to a fundamental element risks upsetting a delicate balance that has worked perfectly well until now.

I've asked this a bunch of times but never get a good answer: given that tv dramas have been filmed in higher framerates for decades, why has the trend consistently been to convert away from that style of shooting to the lower framerate style you see in cinema the more ambitious the visual style becomes? Is it really a mass, generation-spanning Pavlovian delusion on the part of basically everyone, and not just that the effect does, in fact, tend to make things look and feel nice?

To make a food analogy, we've been eating carbonara made with spam since we were children. We love it. Every time we eat it our mind carries us to a better place and time. But now someone is making carbonara using pancetta. And something does not feel right about it to us.

Cinema from its beginnings never stopped evolving in its techniques. Better resolution, better motion, better sound, better colors, new cameras, cinema has been upgrading its tech constantly. I don't see why we should be drawing lines in the sand for this. Seriously, why stop now? 

Because this isn't a singular element. This is the presentation itself. I'm not advocating junking it - I just want it implemented in the best possible way.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Cinema from its beginnings never stopped evolving in its techniques. Better resolution, better motion, better sound, better colors, new cameras, cinema has been upgrading its tech constantly. I don't see why we should be drawing lines in the sand for this. Seriously, why stop now? 

Upgrading tech without a 25%-40% surcharge.

Is a 48 fps showing gonna be more expensive?  I didn't think that was the case, since I thought most digital projectors in theaters are already capable of 48 fps presentations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Is a 48 fps showing gonna be more expensive?  I didn't think that was the case, since I thought most digital projectors in theaters are already capable of 48 fps presentations.

Since the entire point of shooting at 48 fps was to improve the 3D effect and reduce strobing, I'd imagine they'd simplify The Hobbit's theatrical exhibition by projecting all 3D screenings at 48 fps and all 2D screenings at 24. I don't see this having any effect on the ticket price, which has gone up over the last several years all by itself. When I saw Avatar in December of '09, the baseline price for a non-matinee show was eleven dollars, with a three dollar surcharge for 3D. Now it's twelve with a four dollar surcharge.

No one has said that there will be a surcharge, to my knowledge. Doesn't seem to be stoping everyone using their Jump To Conclusions mats, though.

ME?

I don't need no stinkin' surcharge to get my 48fps hate on!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Haven't the numbers reflected a decrease in 3D attendance? Since ticket prices are gonna go up regardless, the 48 fps decision seems like Hollywood (or at least those involved with The Hobbit) trying to draw audiences back into the 3D fold. It's bad enough when a movie is actually shot in 3D and people complain that they hardly noticed it at all (Devin w/r/t The Amazing Spider-Man). After just two-and-a-half years, it would seem people have either "gotten used to it" or just aren't as wowed by it as they were with Avatar.

Anyway, to brings things back to the original topic, digital sensors are now starting to rival 35mm in terms of resolving power. Kodak's best film stock can capture 6K detail, and we've just seen two big-budget movies this summer shot on RED at 5K. Soderbergh has shot several movies on RED with anamorphic lenses, essentially shooting in "digital cinemascope." It's worth noting, then, that the aforementioned examples of Nolan and PT Anderson are doing stuff with film that can't yet be accomplished digitally, i.e. shooting in 65mm. With Spielberg and Kaminski, it's more about the photochemical "look" of 35mm film that can't be replicated with a sensor (except, as has also been mentioned, for Tintin).

I don't think it has much to do with resolving power, ultimately.  It's the "look" of film people are fussy about.  It's true people aren't always in agreement on what, of the myriad factors that go into that look, it is.  But even with the greatest lenses in the world you'd be lucky to truly resolve 35mm to its best theoretical limit.  Then it gets the hell beat out of it along the way to presentation.  It was never what really drew people to it.  It's what ever random effect that irregular placement of phosphors has or something.  It's not detail, but more how it behaves when detail isn't present I suspect.  Even the Leone stuff shot with effectively 2 frames per the typical one on 35 is going to look better than anything digital can do to some people.  Which is fine.  (some sticklers reckon they can't even look at something shot digitally though and there I think they're talking out of their posterior)

Anyway, it's beside the point but,  never mind about RED.  Those new Sony's with the 8k diagonal sensors are where it's at.

The "getting the hell beat out of it on the way to presentation" part is a big reason why most of the movies produced since the advent of digital intermediate have only been mastered at 2K: that's the theoretical amount of detail your eyes were getting from watching 35mm prints back in the 90's, 80's, 70's, whenever.