The long term advantage of 35mm and digital intermediate post

This is just a quick note, something I’ve been thinking about after advising a few people this week on the best acquisition mediums. Here’s my argument for film (16mm and 35mm) as the top choice, and 4K Red as the best digital alternative… in my humble opinion.

We all know that here and now, HD is the high-end standard for broadcast and home entertainment, and at 6% more resolution, 2K or 2048 x 1556 pixels is the best we get in the majority of digital cinemas. Here in South Africa, we currently finish to 2K for film recording.

What happens 10 years from now when 4K becomes the standard in cinema and in the home? This will happen, and if you’ve originated in HD, you’re out of luck, you will never ever have more than 1080 lines of image information.

If you’ve shot 35mm, or even 16mm film, you will be able to go back to the neg and rescan at 4K, even 8K from your EDL and reconform.

In a DI (Digital Intermediate) environment, your grade is all metadata, so if you’ve saved the project, the process should be a simple re-conform. This is part of the beauty of a high-end digital finish and metadata based, non-destructive tools.

The same (up to a maximum resolution of 4K) is true of either the Red One or the DALSA Origin, and so for this reason, my favourite digital acquisition format at the moment is 4K Redcode RAW.

I’ve touched before on the superior archival properties of recording data back out to 35mm negative over any volatile (it’s called volatile for a reason… think about that for a second) data storage solutions.

A digital intermediate in the true sense, is exactly that, a intermediate, it sits between film based acquisition and film output. If you shoot video, and end up risking it all on magnetic data tapes or hard drives at the end, that’s not a D.I., it’s just a video online, even if it’s been accomplished in the same suite.

It’s important to see your work in terms of it’s ongoing long term marketability and 5, 10, even 15 year+ shelf life rather than lose out in a short-term cost saving exercise.

Shifting your paradigm – digital acquisition and post

It seems the digital revolution is not for everyone. Some, many actually have missed the boat, and refuse to change their paradigms. Right now, I’m not talking about cameras, I’m talking about post workflow.

For me, it is close to infuriating when a client insists on a “one light” of all thier “rushes” when shooting digitally, or more specifically with the Red One. It could be that they use this terminology in the first place to describe something that could not be further from the actual film front end process, but it’s also the defiance to adopt a new way of doing things.

I watched Kodak’s “Film. No Compromise” DVD last night, and I loved it. Fantastic, every point made as to the overall superiority of celluloid over current digital acquisition were perfectly valid, from origination resolution and latitude to archival life and  tonal quality, and even cost. The argument is that digital acquisition is not in fact cheaper than shooting film once all the downstream costs are taken into account. The issue I have with this, is that all the downstream costs are not necessary, and if avoided, with a healthy dose of discipline on set to not overshoot, digital is in fact far less costly. Some know this and take full advantage, but many don’t, and if your post mentality doesn’t change along with the medium, the digital experience will be costly and frustrating beyond comprehension.

It seems that these people will never get it. They will never come to terms with the fact that there are no more “rushes” and there is no “one light” when shooting Red. It’s simply not necessary to sit and “grade” all your file based Red media out to tape as you would with negative just for the editor or client to have pretty pictures, that’s what the client monitor is set up for on set. It’s simply a waste of time and money.

Those who have fully embraced the file based digital workflow have embraced this for years. You shoot, use the ungraded RAW media or the proxies as-is for offline, and only grade the final locked cut. A LUT can be applied easily enough to bring offline media into line with the monitoring look on set but there is no need to go shot by shot, grading everything shot, and playing out to tape as you would from a telecine.

So which camp are you in? I find that Red owner/operator/editors/experts and associated productions are efficient and quick and hassle free. Productions that simply swap out the Arri 435 for a Red One are an absolute nightmare, and are the source for many of the horror stories that abound both from set and in post.

It’s an issue of assuming that these new camera technologies and acquisition formats are plug and play compatible with existing mindsets, expectations and post workflows, be it film or tape based HD. They are not! If you decide to shoot digitally with a Red One, you have got to be willing to accept a completely different production and post experience.

If approached with an open mind, it can be liberating, fun and result in fantastic imagery. It should also be cheaper than film, if it’s not, something is not right.

The bigger picture!

I want to clear something up that has been bothering me since I’ve been attracting major traffic and lots of comments.

The pitfall of having such a wide range of interests and opinion as I do on topics that are usually highly polarized is that people don’t really get what I’m about.

I find that I’m quickly catagorized as “pro digital, tech obsessed” and put into that box after someone reads only one of my posts! That is but one facet people! If you care to dig into my writing more, you will discover so much more than that simplistic, flat and rediculously narrow minded viewpoint. That’s not me! I don’t fit into that tiny box.

Sure, I love the technology, I love digging into it, but I spend my weekends at the local park or beach with my wife and daughter shooting 16mm film on my clockwork Krasnogorsk K3 camera. In fact, I have only ever shot film in more than two years!

I write about digital cinema, I dig into it’s tiniest facets, it’s my job, my specialization, but I’m also an artist and a film lover and if you open my freezer at this exact moment. Here’s the contents:

7 x 400ft Kodak 5219 (Vision 3 500T)
5 x 400ft Kodak 5201 (Vision 2 50D)
4 x 100ft Kodak 7212 (Vision 2 100T)
6 x 100ft Fuji 8663 (Eterna 250D)

Here’s the only cameras in the house:

Krasnogorsk K3 (16mm, clockwork)
Mitchell R35 MkII (with 25mm, 32mm, 75mm, 100mm T2.3 and Cooke Panchro 20-60 T3.1)
Assorted regular or “double” 8mm cameras and a super 8mm camera.

So hopefully that should say something to any Joe Blogs ASC who is reading my blog and intends a verbal attack on me claiming I am frighteningly ignorant, pretending to ‘love’ film while citing a mishmash of disinformation.

I post a article about the argument for 4K as a superior acquisition resolution to HD and 2K, and I am accused of claiming that the Red One is the only camera worth buying or shooting… um, no… that’s not at all what I’m saying, neither do I believe this to be true. Read some other previous articles please.

I’m intrigued by the latest Canon DSLRs not because they are the best and greatest and will kill film and all digital cinema cameras, but because I think they offer good value for money and open up some interesting creative possibilities. Again, take some time to read some other posts.

I hope to attract a regular audience here, and I encourage you to read a few posts, go back a few months, last year… just get a bigger picture of what I’m saying and who I am before jumping to conclusions.

Ok, I’m done… welcome, data or film lover, make yourself at home!

The Canon “Rebel” T2i – Digital Cinematography at $899?

I’ve often joked about HD cameras that will come free in a box of cereal or a McDonalds Happy Meal (makes you sick even to think about it eh?). Well, today, I’ve come across a interesting toy that is going to upset a lot of people. The Canon “Rebel” T2i, here’s my initial thoughts.

Canon’s latest 1080p full HD DSLR may have obliterated the price floor of basic, entry level “digital cinematography”. Much of the camera is based on the technology of Canon’s more expensive 7D including the 7D’s 18 megapixel CMOS imager. The price point does come with some concessions, a 9-point autofocus system being one of them compared to the 7D’s 19 focus points, and it has a four channel channel reader vs the 7D’s eight.

The Canon T2i CMOS imager

The Canon EOS “Rebel” T2i

Low light capabilities are similar to the 7D, the T2i is rated from ISO 100 – 6400 (up to 12,800 in the menu settings).

The T2i chassis is similar to the T1i and Canon claims a battery life of 550 shots. The T2i also supports SDHC and SDXC memory card formats for up to 64GB storage per card. It’s the first SLR with SDXC support; Canon was first to announce an SDXC-capable camcorder, the HF S21, in January as well (that model will ship in April, just after the T2i’s expected late-March availability).

The camera also features HDMI-CEC support. HDMI-CEC lets an HDTV control the camera’s playback features.

Both the 5D and 7D have found solid acceptance as a HD acquisition tool in the hands of many digital cinematographers. Commercials and low budget features have and are being shot with the 5D and 7D, and for many the T2i will be a welcome addition to the family, bringing a large sensor, single CMOS chip HD camera with a cinema like shallow depth of field and wide choice of lenses to even more would be and aspiring film makers.

The new trend in HD video capable DSLR’s has not come without criticism from professional and established cinematographers. The small form takes some getting used to, and requires specialized adaptors and camera support gear to assume a useable cinema setup. DSLR lenses are suited to stills work, with auto focus and auto iris and a small focus throw on the lens barrel, all of these factors make for an extremely compromised cinema lens. There are questions of whether the plastic, lightweight build of a consumer camera body and lenses will withstand the rigor of commercial use. Most cinema equipment is heavy and solid, and expensive for good reason.

The other major compromise for many is in the high video compression and limited latitude of the resulting H.264 codec HD video files. However, to be fair the image quality from these Canon cameras is very good.

The T2i represents the latest in the chain of new tools for low budget film makers that bring HD digital video with a cinema aesthetic to storytellers at a grass roots level. If the revolution started with the Red One, at $17,500 for the body only (granted at a much higher image quality, resolution and far lower compression), the essence of a large format, single chip HD camera has progressed quickly down to the $899 consumer level, making basic digital cinematography truly accessible to all.

3D Stereoscopy & Story – Hollywood’s latest crutch, Our golden opportunity!

Wow, my last blog post attracted over 500 reads in one weekend, and a chain of comments. It seems anything with “Film vs Digital” in the title is still provocative… the war I believe is over, the debate is seems is as hot as ever.

The main thing, is to keep the main thing, the main thing and in our business the main thing is Story. Story is why we have an industry, jobs, and value in our specific skill sets. It is why people really want to spend two hours of their lives immersed in a world that is not their own.

Story is why we return to the video store to hire the same movie over and over again, and why we add it to our own personal libraries. It is what motivates an audience to consider a movie a cult classic, a timeless work of cinematic art. It is also why we walk out half way through a screening never to touch a particular movie again.

Without story we have technological masturbation, cheap thrills that leave an audience feeling well and truly taken advantage of. Technology for the sake of technology may hold up a weak story once, as some argue is the case with Avatar, but as soon as people have experienced the new, it’s no longer new, in fact, it’s very quickly old.
However, Avatar is still selling out, and the pressure is on theater owners to bring in Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland, the next 3D spectacle waiting in line to come under audience, box office and technologist scrutiny.

Will Burton’s trademark style and flair, in glorious 3D conjure up the kind of box office magic we have seen from Avatar?

According to the New York Times, many theater owners are not so sure:

Every single day we hear of yet another movie that is planning to be released in 3D. Now it turns out that all these films are creating a traffic jam in 3D theaters.

Cinema owners agreed to show “Avatar” on their 3D screens until March 5th, when Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland” is supposed to take over. But since “Avatar” is still selling out most showings, exhibitors are unsure that they want to get rid of a winner for an uncertain new prospect.

A similar battle is going on between Paramount Pictures’ “How to Train Your Dragon” and Warner Bros’ “Clash of the Titans,” which was recently converted to 3D. Looking at the release dates, “Dragon” will only have one week before making way for “Titans.” And Paramount is not happy about that, since 3D ticket prices are usually $3 to $5 more than for a 2D ticket.

What’s worse is that this 3D bottleneck is likely to grow, since about sixty films are now set for 3D release over the next three years.

The problem is that some theaters don’t have 3D screens at all. And the ones that do, only have one or two screens equipped with the new technology. The plan right now is to add about 5,100 3D screens by the end of 2010, but even that will not be enough to handle all the 3D films.

Source: NY Times

If this news doesn’t strengthen my case for the technological and market outlook I lay out for you all in my previous article, I don’t know what does.

The key question for me is how is this technology affecting Story. Is it positive, is it negative, what kinds of stories are suited to a stereoscopic vision, which are not. Is it about building an ever more convincing illusion of reality or taking a step further from it.

How can we use it to tell better stories rather than temporarily prop up an ailing, tired, used up Hollywood?

This is the question I most want to discover the answer to, without that answer, this latest technological crutch will quickly crumble and the cracks in Hollywood’s foundation will continue to spread under the immense weight and load of a grossly obese, proud, exclusive and ironically, doomed industry.

To me, it seems clear that it’s easier to fill the coffers while they still can, than to revisit story and address the root issues.

Thankfully for myself, and innumerable aspiring film makers around the world, we are the ones left to tackle Story, and good storytelling will come from the ground up. We have the tools, we have the ingenuity, persistence, passion and the never give up attitude. To a great extent we don’t worry about budget, or medium or format, because we can’t. In many cases I believe that many don’t realize what a advantage this is.

The answer to the question of how the latest 3D technological shockwave will be used to tell stories more effectively and progress the cinematic arts is far more likely to come from ingenius young film makers strapping two Canon 5D MkII’s into a makeshift stereoscopic rig, than from Hollywood’s giants with all the best toys at thier disposal.

Time will tell and just as the world turns, the revolution continues!