i dont think its necessarily ruining cinematography, more so adding a different form of cinematography to the mix. there will always be filmmakers who refuse to use digital, and on the other side of the coin there will always be absolutely stunningly shot digital film; zodiac im looking at you.
basically i think there is room for both. i was hugely negative towards digital
“film”, back in the days of just blatantly ugly films like the phantom menace, considered to be early advocates of the format, but the turning point came with michael mann’s collateral, an absolutely stunning looking film that arguably wouldnt have been possible on regular film.
Cinematography is more concerned with lighting and using those elements (lighting, lens, camera movement/placement). The DP is in charge of those aspects and if you’ve seen directors work then you’ll understand that a lot of times they spend all their time and energy just to light the scene and take down their setups.
The aesthetic look (over-saturation I think is what you’re touching on) of any film can greatly vary from one picture to another, and definitely within itself. Traffic is a great example, where the aesthetic tone (both visually and technically) completely affects the story and how we perceive that story. The grainy, rough and gritty yellow look of the events within Mexico, the overly cold, blue treatment to match the emotional disconnect of the story within Michael Douglas’s storyline. These decisions are made to complement the story and the unconscious psychological decisions and nuances our mind makes no matter what we’re looking at.
I think if anything, production values are incredible compared to how they were especially in the 70’s and 80’s. Directors back then had to have such a strong knowledge and understanding of lens length, aperture size and lighting to achieve any great looking results. Whereas nowadays, the level of technology is tremendous and more importantly, available.
I mean if you think of modern films with great cinematography, the work and results are incredible. There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Good Night and Good Luck, Children of Men, The Assassination of Jesse James, Brokeback Mountain, Saving Private Ryan, I mean I could go on but you get the idea.
The Academy Award for cinematography may be the most competitive category within recent years (2005: Geisha, Brokeback, Good Night 2006: Pan’s, Children of Men, The Prestige 2007: There Will Be Blood, No Country, Jesse James, Atonement, Diving Bell) and in 2007, it was without a doubt the most competitive year in history. You had 3 or 4 candidates that could have won in most other years. And I guess where I differ with you is that I want more films to look like they can nowadays.
Shane, I have pondered this too. There is a suffocating quality I find in many digital films of late. With few exceptions (some, actually, mentioned by David Lee above!), I feel I have lost the sense seeing the actual world. I come out of many films feeling like I have been cooped up in front of a video game. Cinematographers use digital as a short cut.. As a result there appears to be a creeping sameness.
I prefer that artists know a lot about their craft, that cinematographers know about lighting and lenses, and that movies each have a distinctive look. I want to see artists use their craft to elicit emotional response using the world in front of them. Digital work doesn’t produce the same kind of awe, in my humble opinion.
No. It’s not a bad thing at all.
I’m glad you feel as I do, Tom.
I am not against digital technology. Hell, I use a measley $400 DV camera when I shoot something. My concern is with the final finishing process being done through a computer for movies shot on film. To me, when manipulated in post like this, the films lose the depth of field and naturalistc color patterns established in camera. So what you have are a slew of movies that no longer resemble cinematographically how the human eye captures light. Obviously film can never capture images exactly how we see them. But there is an objective visual template when shooting on film that is betrayed when done through computers. To me, today’s movies can no longer capture a psuedo realistic look. They all look hyper realistic. This is hard for me to explain. I may post some screencaps to elaborate on what I’m getting at.
Digital vs. film has nothing to do with the problem. I think many of you are missing the concept of what cinematography is in the first place. Every film that gets produced nowadays (and for a while now) goes through some grading of some sort, so I don’t see how people get their viewpoints on how films have lost their realistic look. Depth of field won’t actually be affected at all by grading if the shots are properly lit, the correct lenses are used, and shots are in focus (modern Coen films are the best example of this, they are masters at controlling depth of field).
The films I mentioned earlier that were all up for best cinematography in 2007 are some of the best examples of cinematography that we’ve seen. You have Roger Deakins with amazing work on two pictures, and he still doesn’t win. It baffles me that people think films nowadays don’t have a great look.
Shane,
I do understand what you’re saying. The problem is precisely that films nowadays go through a grading process. The concept of Cinematography (as opposed to camera work) IS lighting. I believe digital processing is flattening the subtle shadings that contribute to an overall aesthetic experience. I realize that movies always used artifice of some sort to represent reality…and lots of genres necessarily abandon realism. But I also think that lighting and framing, as I have studied cinematography, anyway, are being abandoned in attempt to heighten realism, and so the experience is different, and not, I think, always what is intended.
I hate to think how Barry Lyndon, Cries and Whispers, Cabaret, The Emigrants, Nashville, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather, Annie Hall, The Deer Hunter…on and on….would have turned out if they were processed as films are nowadays.
(Final thought: I hope most of us are no longer using the Oscar as a gold standard for excellence.)Tom: For cinematography, the Oscar (nominations and winners) is the gold standard for excellence. At least within the last 20 years it has been.
And Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange, The Godfather (these are the ones I know of) would have turned out great if they were processed nowadays. I got to see the re-release of The Godfather at the New York Film Forum after they did the latest digital grade restoration on the film and it was quite possibly some of the best looking film I’ve seen. Some of the guys who said they were there in ’72 mentioned it might have been better than when they first saw it because of the projectors available now.
I know plenty of DP’s that are first-camera and I would say most are, so I don’t know how you can say as opposed to camera work. Choosing lens length, focal length aperture and shutter speed are also responsibilities of a cinematographer, which are all crucial elements to the camera and the shots.
@DAVID LEE: I’m with you. Cinematography is getting better, not worse.
It’s worth bringing up O Brother Where Art Thou?, the first film to use a digital intermediate, is an incredible example of using newer technologies further cinema. The Coens have been masters of moving forward with technology without allowing the process of making films to overtake their creativity. They have been using Final Cut Pro for years in an effort too exert more creative control over their films.
Historically, the prevalence of various video and digital technologies has actually created better film technology through competition. The films that Kodak and Fuji make today are more flexible (read:creatively unencumbered) than any they have ever made. This is all debatable, but in the end it usually comes down to nostalgia which will tie someone to an older film stock, for example. I love film (chemically speaking) more than any other alternative, but certain things I see in the theater that I have grown accustomed to are downright foolish. Scratches, dust, fades, hairs, incorrect framing, cigarette burns; these are all century old blemishes that need to go.
I veered off topic, but here’s where the story ends: theaters will switch to digital projection across the boards, and cinematographers are trying to keep up with the changing tides. Digital anything (projection, editing, intermediate etc.) are in fact making cinematography better because the tools and possibilities are now limitless. Cinematographers simply have to be better at their jobs than before to get precisely what they want.
@TOM SAMP: I believe that Hollywood is advancing cinematography a great deal, and the Academy voters have consistently respected great work. For what it’s worth, the past few years the ASC nominees have been the same as he Oscar people, but we’re all closet AMPAS fans no?
@SHANE RAMIREZ: I would love it if you could roll with the “hyper realistic” thread, I’m interested as to what you mean. And, yes, I’m bothered that general audiences couldn’t care less about a film looks, but they’re already overly concerned with BO numbers, isn’t there any innocence in going to a movie anymore?
I’m glad someone stepped in to back me up here Jonathan. Not only will this conversion make production values cheaper on a long term basis, but the flexibility and limits are boundless (as you touched on). That’s why veterans like Robert Elswit and Roger Deakins are just miles ahead of their competition. You look at the bodies of work within the last 15 years of those two and it’s just incredible.
Thank you for your responses….your points are well taken. There’s a lot to contribute here!
(For the record, though, I really am NOT a closet AMPAS fan…and this site may support this opinion, as a great many fine films in this library have had no Oscar recognition……and that may be a great topic for another thread!)
The process of mastering a film now has started to move into the same line as the film process where the cinematographer comes in to the assist in the color timing.
My biggest issue with DV is when filmmakers choose not to a film look process to soften the DV and/or HDDV edge.
I was distracted by the look of Public Enemies, but if you at Altman’s The Company, I didn’t see that edge.
There are also filters that can be used on the lens to help with a film look, as we go along I think more filmmakers will take advantage of these filters while still having the money that DV affords them.
If you want a film look, shoot film. If you want a digital look, shoot digital. It’s horseshit to pretend that one medium is another. Each has it’s own reason for being used.
And there is about a 40% hike in budget (depending on the scale/scope of the film) if one shoots film, with getting the stock, developing, telecine, capturing in files, etc, etc, etc.
Film budgets are out of the control as it is.
Film can be used, but people have to change the way they use it. Forget 3:1. Shoot 1:1. Use all your footage, do your own processing. Make it into a DIY thing.
I respect the DIY thing, but when it comes to a feature film one is attempting to sell into distribution, more than festival circuit, DIY, though pure, is not too practical.
I know people who are doing it, you have to just go minimal. But for certain projects, sure you’re right it would be impractical.
Look at Frownland as something that was made in sort of that way and “made it”.
-Movies are all starting to look the same-
i sympathize with the spirit of that statement, but that’s either a gross overstatement. DI is just a tool, and like all tools can be used well or not.
I’m very much a film purist and I absolutely hate digital; can’t stand it.
“Cinematographers simply have to be better at their jobs than before to get precisely what they want.”
But how can that be true when so much is edited in post-production? e.g adding of filters, tinting etc. Surely things are easier now.
I think cinematography is actually becoming more simple and limited. how many great tracking shots do you see nowadays in film? or long shots?
I think It’s fantastic that we’re getting a discussion about cinematography, it really is a craft. I’d like to provide answers to a couple of points raised. First off, although Shane’s original topic was not about capture but processing, the argument between ‘film’ and ‘digital’ is as polar as ‘chalk’ and ‘cheese’. In processing (probably Shane’s point), all films destined for theatrical distribution (that’s 100% folks) go through a digital intermediary process. That is all films are transferred to a digital medium for archiving (and to create a master print) before being printed to a projection transparency. A question arises, how does this relatively new intermediary alter the quality of the captured image if the image is captured on film? A good question. A question that should be considered alongside – how has lens design improved since the 1970s? i.e. how has the manipulation of light towards a capture medium changed over the last forty years? Lenses are the most important tool of any Cinematographer. The capture medium (film or digital) is secondary. However, each should be treated with its own aesthetic. That is, digital should be considered for what it can do in the delivery of imagery as too should film. Anyone who says that “I’m very much a film purist and I absolutely hate digital; can’t stand it” as Fiona says, is very much missing the point. Theatrical prints last for, on average, six screenings before they become ‘used by’. Anyone who believes the ‘hair in the gate’ or the negative scratches as being a fundamental component of the film experience really has no idea about cinematography. Don’t believe me? Then ask any cinematographer why they go through the process of making sure the negative is the absolutely best representation of the captured image as they can get. This is not an argument about film v digital. As Jesse says film is film and digital is digital. Cinematographers are practised at the art and craft of manipulating and capturing light. Film is one way of doing it, digital is another. To recklessly ignore the possibilities of both by saying you’re a purist means you will face the inevitability of, due to decay, placing yourself into a situation where, one day, you will never be able to watch films from before. I don’t agree with Joks in his statement “cinematography is actually becoming more simple and limited. how many great tracking shots do you see nowadays in film? or long shots?” because it ignores what cinematography is: the ability to hold a shot on screen for several seconds so that the audience can truly appreciate the art of the cinematographer – i.e. it is about the visual not the action. There is though some truth in the sloppiness of some to believe it can be “fixed in post” – this is not about cinematography though. Cinematography is creating the best possible imagery with whatever medium you have through the best transport possible. It is, I believe, the sloppy attitude of “fixing it in post” that gives digital a bad name. As a cinematographer, I do believe in the possibilities of digital cinema and certainly wouldn’t want to limit my chances to do so.
As an example, try watching Raging Bull as a clean and as a dirty print… let me know which you’d prefer.
“There is though some truth in the sloppiness of some to believe it can be “fixed in post” – this is not about cinematography though. Cinematography is creating the best possible imagery with whatever medium you have through the best transport possible. It is, I believe, the sloppy attitude of “fixing it in post” that gives digital a bad name.”
you are right that there is a difference between use and function, but technology ultimately determines how and why we use something the way we do. it creates different sorts of possiblities, and the switch to digital, in my mind, is more about expediency and cost cutting than art, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be used for genuinely. artistic reasons.
Have any of you seen this? Teal and Orange- Hollywood, Please Stop the Madness.
Thank you, KJ! I’ll be sharing this.:)
I feel like its any other tool, some people just need to know how to tone down and not over do it. I’ve been guilty of it, but it is a nice feeling to have that all at your finger tips.
Like any other film tool it can be abused to the point of ugly, because of the oversat look … i blame Amelie for using it well and then everyone becoming obsessed with that look.
I feel too much energy is being put on what camera is used. Not enough on what the actual artist did to produce the imagery and tell the story. why does it matter that a 7D was used on a train in Black swan? The entire film was shot 2.35 super 16. And of course the 7D footage was ran through DI and printed to match film stock. I feel there is a giant conspiracy on how these cams are used in the hands of big budgets vs indie filmmakers as well.
I think its turning the movie making industry upside down on its head. The tool was created for cgi films in the beginning wasn’t it George Lucas? what camera? what gear? So sick of all this marketing, my film is in the hands of what camera maker these days. Considering going to just writing, at least you are the only creator, not a piece of tech. Just a pencil and one’s imagination..
Shane Ramirez
For those of you who pay attention to cinematography, how many of you have noticed the transition from film processing to digital?
You can see it with the overabundance of films that have an oversaturated look with exagerrated colors (really deep blues, reddish oranges, faded blacks) in almost any mainstream film. These films have been finished by a computer and in most cases, touched up considerably from their film source formats.
Is anyone else disgusted not just by the lax attitude to how films look nowadays but by the ubiquity of this cinematographic process? Movies are all starting to look the same. And not for the better, in my opinion.