Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hollywood Reporter)   Christopher Nolan and JJ Abrams help keep Kodak in business and producing film stock, because gravelly voices and lens flare just don't have the same feel on digital as they do on real film   (hollywoodreporter.com) divider line 63
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1173 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Aug 2014 at 10:07 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-01 03:04:29 PM  
Spielberg is also a big film stock guy. Myself I shoot and edit digitally but for some reason no one asked me my opinion. But I'd rather see a film shot on film stock than the 48fps 3D bullshiat that Peter Jackson is doing.
 
2014-08-01 05:16:05 PM  
The decline has accelerated in the last two years as most theaters have converted their conversion to digital

How do you convert... something that's already converted?????
 
2014-08-01 05:45:42 PM  

DanZero: The decline has accelerated in the last two years as most theaters have converted their conversion to digital

How do you convert... something that's already converted?????


The first one is obviously supposed to be "completed." The Internet has killed the arts of proofreading and editing.
 
2014-08-01 06:13:27 PM  

DanZero: The decline has accelerated in the last two years as most theaters have converted their conversion to digital

How do you convert... something that's already converted?????


www.dotoday.se
 
2014-08-01 08:56:17 PM  
Isnt this how every technology dies?
With the last few clinging?

In the end, they can pay enough and Kodak will keep making film and processing it.
Sign a long time contract and pay up front. 
TADA
 
2014-08-01 09:09:13 PM  

namatad: Isnt this how every technology dies?
With the last few clinging?



It's an artistic decision to use film instead of digital, it's not because the  filmmakers are technophobes. No one would accuse Spielberg of not using the latest technology in VFX or audio. Even though I prefer to use digital, I hope that 3D and 48 fps doesn't become the norm.
 
2014-08-01 10:04:51 PM  
Why? Is it that much harder to do lens flare with digital?

/knew it was coming, just getting it out of the way
 
2014-08-01 10:12:14 PM  

Mugato: But I'd rather see a film shot on film stock than the 48fps 3D bullshiat that Peter Jackson is doing.


I don't mind it in general, though the fire scenes in Desolation of Smaug -did- hurt my eyes.
 
2014-08-01 10:15:01 PM  

Mugato: Spielberg is also a big film stock guy. Myself I shoot and edit digitally but for some reason no one asked me my opinion. But I'd rather see a film shot on film stock than the 48fps 3D bullshiat that Peter Jackson is doing.


God, aint that the truth. 48fps is an abomination deserving of eternal hellfire and brimstone.
 
2014-08-01 10:15:19 PM  

fusillade762: Why? Is it that much harder to do lens flare with digital?

/knew it was coming, just getting it out of the way


Nah, it's a plugin in AfterEffects.
 
2014-08-01 10:21:08 PM  

Mugato: It's an artistic decision to use film instead of digital, it's not because the  filmmakers are technophobes.


Said by every artist clinging to dying technology.

/if it lasts another 5 years I would be shocked
 
2014-08-01 10:32:04 PM  
Say what you will about Abrams, but Nolan put out The Dark Knight, The Prestige and Inception in a row.
 
2014-08-01 10:34:07 PM  

gingerjet: Mugato: It's an artistic decision to use film instead of digital, it's not because the  filmmakers are technophobes.

Said by every artist clinging to dying technology.

/if it lasts another 5 years I would be shocked


Digital is still not quite there in low light scenes.

But it will get there. Just look at still photograph -- I don't think anyone predicted that DSLR would overtake 35mm as fast as it did.
 
2014-08-01 10:36:40 PM  
As soon as 8K format becomes more manageable, film is dead for everyone except folks like Tarantino who will cling to film out of nostalgia, not because it looks better.
 
2014-08-01 10:41:40 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: As soon as 8K format becomes more manageable, film is dead for everyone except folks like Tarantino who will cling to film out of nostalgia, not because it looks better.


So what's your opinion on high frame rate?
 
2014-08-01 10:44:56 PM  
Say, do filmmakers give a shiat about audio tape or did they switch to digital audio like a decade ago?
 
2014-08-01 10:51:43 PM  

Mugato: shower_in_my_socks: As soon as 8K format becomes more manageable, film is dead for everyone except folks like Tarantino who will cling to film out of nostalgia, not because it looks better.


So what's your opinion on high frame rate?



Mugato: bullshiat


You said it. I saw the first Hobbit at 48fps and thought it looked like 1990s Masterpiece Theater. I get why they want to do it, I just don't think it looks good.
 
2014-08-01 10:52:07 PM  
Are we only missing the software algorithm to make this possible in a digital environment?  If anything, it needs to be built into the firmware of a camera.  The assumption being that the director can immediately see the hues/saturation's/lighting they are looking for.  Please videophile Farkers explain this to me because it seems like we can phase out analog inconsistencies with the relative accuracy of digital video.

/still prefer the analog "look"
 
2014-08-01 10:52:11 PM  

Mugato: shower_in_my_socks: As soon as 8K format becomes more manageable, film is dead for everyone except folks like Tarantino who will cling to film out of nostalgia, not because it looks better.

So what's your opinion on high frame rate?


The pigeons enjoy it more.
 
2014-08-01 11:19:33 PM  
cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com

"Well, your directing is damn good. It's just a shame you missed out on Kodak."
"I did?"
"Oh yeah. It's over."
"Over?"
"Over. You got here just in time for the death rattle, the last gasp, the last grope."
"Well. At least I'm here for that."
"What do you shoot on?"
"Smith-Corona Galaxis Deluxe."
 
2014-08-01 11:36:51 PM  

Mugato: But I'd rather see a film shot on film stock than the 48fps 3D bullshiat that Peter Jackson is doing.


The Hobbit films are the first we've seen of 48fps, so I would want a few more directors to give it a spin before declaring it the worst thing since whatever that last worst thing was.
I didn't see it in 3d (I still haven't seen 2. Will rent it before 5 Armies [the only part of the book I actually wanted to see]), but I liked the look. Seemed almost like a Rubens' painting come to life.
I know some (like you, apparently) hate it.
I would imagine it would look better if it was real sets being shot, like the LotR movies, and not Attack of the Clones style green-screen.

moothemagiccow: Say, do filmmakers give a shiat about audio tape or did they switch to digital audio like a decade ago?


A lot of audio (even dialog) is re-recorded in post production in a booth. So on-set recording is mostly just as a guideline for listening to later. And tape works just fine for either, since it can easily be digitized.
As everything migrates to digital, I would imagine there would be less call for tape, as an all-in-one workstation would be easier to deal with.
It will boil down to director preference and cost.
 
2014-08-01 11:50:17 PM  
While everyone figures out which media they're going to use, can we all agree that digitally added lens flare, spots, etc. do not belong in video games?
 
2014-08-01 11:51:57 PM  
I love film.  I love the look of it, the vibe, the wear and tear, and the larger than life credibility it gives.  But film is the aging queen at the bar who spurned all suitors.  And now she checks her wrinkle cream foundation, adjusts her wig, and wonders why they're now all hitting on sexy young Miss 4K.
 
2014-08-01 11:53:31 PM  

Witty_Retort: tape works just fine for either


Ha! Do you think they could be religious about film stock but not give two shiats about their audio medium? Seems ridiculous to me. The same arguments exist regardless of when the audio is recorded.
 
2014-08-01 11:57:48 PM  

Witty_Retort: A lot of audio (even dialog) is re-recorded in post production in a booth. So on-set recording is mostly just as a guideline for listening to later. And tape works just fine for either, since it can easily be digitized.
As everything migrates to digital, I would imagine there would be less call for tape, as an all-in-one workstation would be easier to deal with.
It will boil down to director preference and cost.


Audio has been all digital since the 1990s. First Digital Audio Tape (DAT) was used, and now it's all on hard drivers.
 
2014-08-02 12:04:04 AM  
FTFA:

The decline has accelerated in the last two years as most theaters have converted their conversion to digital.

This was actually a very good thing, both for filmmakers and audiences. Pre-digital prints for popular movies would begin showing wear after just a week or so, especially at the end of reels. And then with theaters that had older projectors and poor staff, the reels didn't always switch seamlessly. It was a major distraction.
 
2014-08-02 12:34:05 AM  

Mugato: It's an artistic decision to use film instead of digital, it's not because the  filmmakers are technophobes.


Wellllll, I don't know about Nolan. I heard he doesn't even have a cell phone. Not exactly technophobia, but borderline.
 
2014-08-02 01:04:18 AM  

Mugato: Spielberg is also a big film stock guy. Myself I shoot and edit digitally but for some reason no one asked me my opinion. But I'd rather see a film shot on film stock than the 48fps 3D bullshiat that Peter Jackson is doing.

Which used-car commercial are you referring to?

 
2014-08-02 01:11:36 AM  
HFR is gorgeous. I don't want to see another big CGI spectacle again unless it's >48fps.

I can't wait for you haters to die out. Why, you probably think we ought to be viewing movies in 1:1 square frames, in monotone color, and with a live piano accompaniment.
 
2014-08-02 01:12:38 AM  
i273.photobucket.com


/analogue cassette tapes for the win; it has a warmer sound that digital does not possess
 
2014-08-02 01:14:35 AM  

Witty_Retort: I would imagine it would look better if it was real sets being shot, like the LotR movies, and not Attack of the Clones style green-screen


On the contrary, this is where the HFR really shines. It seems to remove one of the key difficulties in compositing live-action elements and CGI by putting everything (actors and digital actors alike) on the same exaggerated hyper-real plane.
 
2014-08-02 01:16:17 AM  

JudgeItoBox: HFR is gorgeous. I don't want to see another big CGI spectacle again unless it's >48fps.

I can't wait for you haters to die out. Why, you probably think we ought to be viewing movies in 1:1 square frames, in monotone color, and with a live piano accompaniment.


warosu.org

HFR = Go to watch a film, see Hi Def Video.
 
2014-08-02 01:27:30 AM  
And by the way, nobody gives a fark which director likes to shoot in what format.

Technological progree and the industry itself will decide what format they will film in. At this time, film is still available and processing is still available, so if your 'artistic' preference is film, then you get to shoot in film.
But even then, I'd guarantee you that the film would then be transfered and edited on a digital system. Why? Because it's faster, easier, cheaper etc. That's progress.

Directors will still shoot in digital video if there was no film stock left. It's really not THAT important. Nobody will ever read about some director hanging up their directorial duties because they can't shoot..boohoo...on film anymore. That's the reality.
 
2014-08-02 01:28:07 AM  
*progress
 
2014-08-02 01:30:11 AM  
I like to watch good movies.
 
2014-08-02 01:38:43 AM  

Witty_Retort: I would imagine it would look better if it was real sets being shot, like the LotR movies, and not Attack of the Clones style green-screen.


O'RLY?

www.councilofelrond.com

swnz.dr-maul.comcdn3.whatculture.com

/most of The Hobbit was on partial sets/green screen
 
2014-08-02 01:48:58 AM  
Can't you just shoot on digital and run it frame by frame through Instagram instead?


/no, I don't know how to shoot a movie, why do you ask?
 
2014-08-02 02:12:17 AM  

Witty_Retort: Mugato: But I'd rather see a film shot on film stock than the 48fps 3D bullshiat that Peter Jackson is doing.

The Hobbit films are the first we've seen of 48fps, so I would want a few more directors to give it a spin before declaring it the worst thing since whatever that last worst thing was.
I didn't see it in 3d (I still haven't seen 2. Will rent it before 5 Armies [the only part of the book I actually wanted to see]), but I liked the look. Seemed almost like a Rubens' painting come to life.
I know some (like you, apparently) hate it.
I would imagine it would look better if it was real sets being shot, like the LotR movies, and not Attack of the Clones style green-screen.


The big problem with the 48 fps in the Hobbit movies is actually not the super sharp movement - your eye gets used to it after maybe 15-20 minutes.  It's that it changes the rules of cinematography and Jackson (or his DP, or both) haven't seem to have caught up yet.  The reason why it looks like 90s Masterpiece Theater is because it seems to be shot with the depth of field you'd normally do for film or 24 fps digital, which looks like ass in the new format, because it turns out some of that background blur we'd take for granted was frame rate induced distortion as much as it was focal.  The cameras (or frame rate) also seem to react to light differently, which again makes everything look supersaturated and unnatural.

It also doesn't help that Jackson doubled down on the video game special effects and _every_ flaw in them is apparent at the faster frame rate.  I don't think a single incidental CG creature movement (horses, the rabbit sled) has looked realistic yet.  The only ones that pass any sort of muster are the starring CG characters like Smaug or Gollum, and even Smaug looks a little too smooth and perfect to be real - or maybe it's the horrible physics of the piles of gold he's moving through.  Or both.

There's also evidence to suggest that at frame rates that fast we're in classic "uncanny valley" territory - 24 fps, whether in film or digital, introduced enough artifacts where part of our brain knew we weren't watching something real, so we didn't hold it up to the same standard as watching something play out in front of us in real life.  48 fps is supposedly past that cutoff point, so our eye-brain interface doesn't have the visual cues to tell us what were watching isn't real (even though of course we know it isn't) so every imperfection is magnified to the point where it makes us physically uncomfortable - just like watching a not-quite-real human looking robot or CG character.
 
2014-08-02 02:15:45 AM  

GungFu: Directors will still shoot in digital video if there was no film stock left. It's really not THAT important. Nobody will ever read about some director hanging up their directorial duties because they can't shoot..boohoo...on film anymore. That's the reality.


Actually Tarantino has talked about that very thing - he won't shoot in digital because to him that's the final link in making "television in public" and if he's going to be making TV he'd rather do it in miniseries format where you don't have the same story limitations as you do when you're shooting a movie.  For him film is an inextricable part of the whole movie making (and watching) experience and once it's completely out of the chain, he wouldn't consider himself a filmmaker anymore.
 
2014-08-02 03:28:43 AM  

taliesinwi: GungFu: Directors will still shoot in digital video if there was no film stock left. It's really not THAT important. Nobody will ever read about some director hanging up their directorial duties because they can't shoot..boohoo...on film anymore. That's the reality.

Actually Tarantino has talked about that very thing - he won't shoot in digital because to him that's the final link in making "television in public" and if he's going to be making TV he'd rather do it in miniseries format where you don't have the same story limitations as you do when you're shooting a movie.  For him film is an inextricable part of the whole movie making (and watching) experience and once it's completely out of the chain, he wouldn't consider himself a filmmaker anymore.


Yeah, like he wasn't going to film 'Hateful 8' after the script leaked....*yawn*

Does he edit film on a steenbeck or upright? No, his editors edit digitally, probably viewing the picture on a screen smaller than your tablet. I love Tarantino, and is probably my favourite contemporary director, but if he said he won't direct film anymore because he can't find his lucky Kango beret hat, I wouldn't take it him too seriously. Same with this film vs digital shiat. If he's that against digital movies, he shouldn't be watching them.
 
2014-08-02 03:58:22 AM  

taliesinwi: The big problem with the 48 fps in the Hobbit movies is actually not the super sharp movement - your eye gets used to it after maybe 15-20 minutes. It's that it changes the rules of cinematography and Jackson (or his DP, or both) haven't seem to have caught up yet. The reason why it looks like 90s Masterpiece Theater is because it seems to be shot with the depth of field you'd normally do for film or 24 fps digital, which looks like ass in the new format, because it turns out some of that background blur we'd take for granted was frame rate induced distortion as much as it was focal. The cameras (or frame rate) also seem to react to light differently, which again makes everything look supersaturated and unnatural.

It also doesn't help that Jackson doubled down on the video game special effects and _every_ flaw in them is apparent at the faster frame rate. I don't think a single incidental CG creature movement (horses, the rabbit sled) has looked realistic yet. The only ones that pass any sort of muster are the starring CG characters like Smaug or Gollum, and even Smaug looks a little too smooth and perfect to be real - or maybe it's the horrible physics of the piles of gold he's moving through. Or both.

There's also evidence to suggest that at frame rates that fast we're in classic "uncanny valley" territory - 24 fps, whether in film or digital, introduced enough artifacts where part of our brain knew we weren't watching something real, so we didn't hold it up to the same standard as watching something play out in front of us in real life. 48 fps is supposedly past that cutoff point, so our eye-brain interface doesn't have the visual cues to tell us what were watching isn't real (even though of course we know it isn't) so every imperfection is magnified to the point where it makes us physically uncomfortable - just like watching a not-quite-real human looking robot or CG character.



All good points. Also, 3d limits your DoF quite a bit. You need almost the entire scene in focus at all times for 3d to work. I'd still like to see what other directors could do in 48fps.
Another thing, which I had thought of in a previous Hobbit talkback, but forgot till reminded by your post, is that they are rendering out twice as many frames. Cost limitation may be contributing to some of the assiness of the look. Plus, if it was done in 'true' 3-d, that would double the render time again.
IDK about how Weta works, but there are more than 24 processing hours that went into individual frames from Transformers.

taliesinwi: For him film is an inextricable part of the whole movie making (and watching) experience and once it's completely out of the chain, he wouldn't consider himself a filmmaker anymore.


He had no problem working on tape for his part of Sin City. (of course, that was just a day or 2 on a 10 minute segment of the movie)
/I like an piece about him where the writer said something like, if you spend more than a little while with QT, you get the suspicion that he's not quite as bright as he pretends, and is deathly afraid of anyone finding that out.
 
2014-08-02 07:47:55 AM  
Is this like the stupid hipsters that think vinyl records sound better? Because they don't
 
2014-08-02 08:17:40 AM  

GungFu: And by the way, nobody gives a fark which director likes to shoot in what format.

Technological progree and the industry itself will decide what format they will film in. At this time, film is still available and processing is still available, so if your 'artistic' preference is film, then you get to shoot in film.
But even then, I'd guarantee you that the film would then be transfered and edited on a digital system. Why? Because it's faster, easier, cheaper etc. That's progress.

Directors will still shoot in digital video if there was no film stock left. It's really not THAT important. Nobody will ever read about some director hanging up their directorial duties because they can't shoot..boohoo...on film anymore. That's the reality.


Fact is that if you've got directors like Nolan and JJ Abrams pushing for film, film's gonna happen. Kodak could charge them $1m for an hour of film and it'll happen. And I'll trust someone like Nolan - he knows how to make good looking movies and loves IMAX. And I don't think this is religious.

Tarantino and Judd Apatow on the other hand is just odd. There's no great cinematography in an Apatow film. You could shoot the whole thing on digital and no-one would care.
 
2014-08-02 09:18:39 AM  

Mugato: fusillade762: Why? Is it that much harder to do lens flare with digital?

/knew it was coming, just getting it out of the way

Nah, it's a plugin in AfterEffects.


Uhhh... No.
 
2014-08-02 10:35:14 AM  

EbolaNYC: Mugato: fusillade762: Why? Is it that much harder to do lens flare with digital?

/knew it was coming, just getting it out of the way

Nah, it's a plugin in AfterEffects.

Uhhh... No.


Uhhh.. Yeah.
 
2014-08-02 11:51:26 AM  

gingerjet: Mugato: It's an artistic decision to use film instead of digital, it's not because the  filmmakers are technophobes.

Said by every artist clinging to dying technology.

/if it lasts another 5 years I would be shocked


Kodak is a classic example of how a company can be the very best at something and still go out of business if they can't adapt to technology shifts.
 
2014-08-02 12:10:59 PM  

Pepperjack: EbolaNYC: Mugato: fusillade762: Why? Is it that much harder to do lens flare with digital?

/knew it was coming, just getting it out of the way

Nah, it's a plugin in AfterEffects.

Uhhh... No.

Uhhh.. Yeah.


Yeah great, they look like clean CG lens flares.

So you're telling me that ILM used an AFTER EFFECTS lens flare plugin for those lens flares?

I never worked at ILM, but I have worked at other studios that have a hardcore library of practically shot optical FX like lens flares that they add into their comps.

Just because they used it in an ad for the Star Trek DVD doesn't mean that is what was used on the film.
 
2014-08-02 12:37:32 PM  

taliesinwi: It also doesn't help that Jackson doubled down on the video game special effects and _every_ flaw in them is apparent at the faster frame rate. I don't think a single incidental CG creature movement (horses, the rabbit sled) has looked realistic yet. The only ones that pass any sort of muster are the starring CG characters like Smaug or Gollum, and even Smaug looks a little too smooth and perfect to be real - or maybe it's the horrible physics of the piles of gold he's moving through. Or both.


The hinky FX in the first Hobbit movie I could live with, they never seemed front-and-center. That changed with the second one. Just about the whole scene inside the mountain with Smaug looked like Prince of Persia to me. That and the clownshoes plot changes really made me dislike the movie.

I know you have to make changes to a book to bring it to screen, but padding it out to seven plus hours and introducing a dumb romance is not the way to do it.
 
2014-08-02 12:59:05 PM  

Pepperjack: EbolaNYC: Mugato: fusillade762: Why? Is it that much harder to do lens flare with digital?

/knew it was coming, just getting it out of the way

Nah, it's a plugin in AfterEffects.

Uhhh... No.

Uhhh.. Yeah.


Again: no.

Anamorphic lenses flare very easily, all you need to do is angle the lens or shine a light nearby. The flares in his films are done on set. The only "artificial" ones are in VFX shots, where *everything* is artificial. He actually had ILM remove some flares in Into Darkness.
 
2014-08-02 01:00:32 PM  

peterthx: He actually had ILM remove some flares in Into Darkness.


Thank God, we were actually able to see the actors!

; )
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report