-
OT: So what will be the next cool conference?
-
Latitude is certainly wildly greater with film but my understanding of the science is that the increased latitude exists because of the greater resolution. The light simply has many more places to go, so to speak. Which is why a low key shot with a single light source is almost always more pleasing to the eye when shot on film as opposed to video. But I am not a scientist, just a simple country filmmaker. So I could be wrong.
As for Sir Steven, he has a long relationship with Michael Kahn who is one of the last editors who cuts on film. Or I guess I should say used to cut on film. He finally started using Avid on War Horse and talked Spielberg into sticking with it. But only a few short years ago they were still cutting on film.
Tim
-
I’ve had Cinegear on my list to attend, but have yet to go. Only for the reason that post is subject to what is happening in camera and audio technology and with some parts of post moving closer to production anyway, it’s an interesting one. At least in the world I play in.
Michael
-
Also. HPA is a pretty good one as well. It has it hit and miss years, but overall the quality of the panels, and technology room is very high. One of the rules of the tech demo room is that it can’t be anything that is already shipping. It has to have some new component to it. And seeing as it is in Feb, you sort of get a NAB preview in a much smaller environment where you have time to talk to vendors, not to mention the networking aspect of the attendees. I have done several of them, and they have been worth it. And who in Boston at the beginning of February does not want to spend a week in Palm Springs?
Michael
-
And one more thought on that. I always get them after I hit “send”. Here are Adam Wilt’s detailed notes for the 5 days of this year’s HPA Retreat. It will give you a very good sense of what goes on there:
https://www.provideocoalition.com/hpa-tech-retreat-2015-day-1
Michael
-
I don’t think latitude increases with pixel density. Certainly it is different with different emulsions, but if it were based in density then super8 would have less latitude than 35mm because of it’s size. Grain might effect range.
film used to have much more latitude than video. IOW you could shoot a scene with bright sun, and dark shadows and both the sky and shadows would retain their detail without being blown out or clipped. Exposing video for the same scene would result in the sky being blown out well beyond 100ire and just clipped with no detail to be salvaged. The shadows would have the same effect. Beyond a certain darkness there simply wasn’t any more detail. Which is why video requires more lighting. We have to light the subject to better match the sky if we want to retain sky detail, but that increases the contrast between the subject and shadows. So we need to throw more light in the shadows. Basically, everything needs to be within a certain number of stops. Let’s say video can get 2 stops above and below the exposure before something is clipped to white or black. It’s been my understanding that film would be able to capture more like 3 or 4 stops above and below. (Just example numbers here, I don’t have details)
But it’s my understanding that when shooting log and raw you are now getting the latitude that was previously reserved for film. We used to shoot film and we had to then map that greater range to 0-100 ire for video. That’s essentially what we’re doing when shooting c-log and applying a lut.
As for resolution, I’m pretty sure digital has met or exceeded 35mm film. But if the film is going to be scanned and processed as 4k or 2k anyway, then it doesn’t matter much. Unless you wanted to blow something up in the transfer process. Kinda like shooting 4k to edit in 1080.
I think film is just a choice of a look. Just like 24p. I was surprised the Walking dead shoots film. They tested all the digital cameras and decided zombies look best shot super16. 35mm was their second choice if they needed higher resolution for digital cgi. If super16 is just enough to hold up to the 1080p digital pipeline then 35mm seems it would be like 4k.
-
Hi Timothy,
from what I’ve heard in an video-interview with Spielberg, he indeed said he cutted War Horse digitally, but he didn’t like it and I remember (but I’m not sure) that he said he would go back to flatbed cutting for the next one.
He’s reasoning was nice though. He said: with flatbed cutting, I ask some cuts and adjustments, and I go for a 30-60 minute walk because it takes that long to make those adjustments. In that walk I can process a bit more on my decisions, think about them, think about the general cut. Then I get back with those thoughts.
With digital cutting, it all happens instantly, and I can’t reflect on it anymore.Hard to argue with a filmmaker like Spielberg. If that is what works for them, I hope he can hold on to it, if he keeps producing results like that.
-
I spent a lot of time with editors and directors during the film editing to NLE editing back in the early 90’s. Lot so interesting reasons as to the reluctance, hesitation, as well as a whole lot of upside. I had a great one on one lunch with Walter Murch, and we talked about our editing styles – he mentioned cutting without sound and I mentioned cutting without picture (for initial assembly in the timeline) and it was because my films had to real budget for ADR whereas he did. So we approach the film with the challenges and freedom we have access to. We had a discussion about his dislike for clicking anywhere on a clip and being there, rather than “going” there where you saw every frame, albeit quite quickly. He said you might notice something better for the cut you’re trying to do, or for another part of the scene to use later. And I agree that there is a fundamental difference between search and discovery. I told him I could have the software not allow that and they he would have to scroll, or JKL quickly to any frame. He thought about it for about a minute and he said – “nah – don’t do that.” In the end, a lot of these things come down to self discipline. Spielberg did edit Tintin digitally (had to)… and he quite liked the experience.
Michael
-
The larger the negative the higher resolution film is going to have and I think mathematically speaking film does have a higher resolution than even 8K, but there are all kinds of arguments about what the human eye can perceive. In the end it does appear to be a subjective choice (which I think is what you are saying.) To my eye projects that originated on film are more pleasing to the eye – despite being transferred to digital formats later – than those that originated on video. Again I would cite
the LOTR series vs the Hobbit series as a good example. But the difference has diminished over time and I’m sure it will continue in that direction.Tim
-
Another vote for HPA.
All the news from NAB with out all the noise!
-
[Michael Phillips] “And who in Boston at the beginning of February does not want to spend a week in Palm Springs? “
Good point.
Scott Witthaus
Senior Editor/Post Production Supervisor
1708 Inc./Editorial
Professor, VCU Brandcenter
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up