Home

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > Making The Film > Filmmaking Misc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-08-2011, 03:02 AM   #1
Re-Maker
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Baku, Azerbiajan
Posts: 146
Can Digital get this level of quality?

Here are some shots from The Hours.
I like the vision and wonder if Digital can get the same quality?









I believe the reason it looks so great, because of this:

Camera
Panavision Panaflex Millennium, Panavision Primo Lenses

Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision 200T 5274, Vision 320T 5277, Vision 500T 5279)

Printed film format
35 mm

And the budget is only 25 000 000.

Can somebody post pictures made with Digital to compare?
Re-Maker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today   #1A
film guy
Basic Member
 
Posts: 17

 
Old 12-08-2011, 03:41 AM   #2
Kholi
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,077
Yeah

Go and watch Drive or In Time.

Let me know.
Kholi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 03:45 AM   #3
Cracker Funk
Basic Member
 
Cracker Funk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Also noneofyourbusiness
Posts: 9,625
Oh, Dear God. Watch "Drive". Please do not watch "In Time". It is a horrible, horrible mess of a movie.
Cracker Funk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 09:49 AM   #4
Gonzo_Entertainment
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Gonzo_Entertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,474
Watch the Zacuto shootout. a $3K digital, no, a $40K digital, pretty damn close. Digital actually wins in the shadows, film wins in the highlights and in the mids you can't tell them apart.
Gonzo_Entertainment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 01:42 PM   #5
knightly
Basic Member
 
knightly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MN, USA
Posts: 8,176
Yes, digital can get that kind of quality with careful lighting and tons of set design, costuming and makeup attention. Much of the quality of those images is the Mise en scene rather than the camera itself.
knightly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 04:05 PM   #6
Alcove Audio
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Alcove Audio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Fairfield County, CT
Posts: 7,595
The "Analog vs. Digital" argument - which I guess in the movie world is "Film vs. Digital" - was thrashed out in the audio world long ago. When digital audio first came around it was the final product, a CD; for film it was DVDs. DAT (Digital Audio Tape) was the next step where the final master mix was "printed". Next came digital multitrack recorders, followed very closely by the infant Pro Tools which was primarily an audio editing system for film.

Initially digital audio was thought to sound "thin" and "brittle" and it was. There were several problems. The first was the fact that digital audio was itself "noiseless". All of the audio sources themselves were still noisy, so on the new "noiseless" digital systems all of the noise that originally got lost in the analog tape noise became very noticeable. Add to that the fact that the conversion processors (AD/DA converters) were in their infancy. Also, most signal processors - mic pres, delays, etc. - were transistor based units and were indeed "thin" sounding. The "fat" sound of analog was in large part due to "slamming" the tape (recording in the red) and "saturating" it. This option was not available in the new digital world; recording in the red induced very unpleasant digital clipping and distortion plus other weird audio artifacts.

As computer technology improved so did the design of the front end processors (mic pres, etc.), and the new hyper-quiet tube technology started to emerge. The tubes, which in previous incarnations were abandoned because they were noisy even by analog tape standards, could now take the place of analog tape, imparting "warmth" to the recorded sounds. As AD/DA converters improved audio artifacts were greatly reduced, and as computer processing power increased the ability to emulate analog processing started to emerge (although it is still imperfect). Add to that the fact that the next generation of audio engineers was beginning to appear who were "raised" in the digital domain and had different thoughts as to how music should sound.

A large part of the filmmaking process is digital already, and will become entirely so in the future, with many of the newbs wondering what the big deal about real film was all about. Lenses and lighting are the technical front end of filmmaking, and new technologies and approaches will bring video closer to the film look, while the upcoming generations will be accustomed to and more comfortable with the (improved) digital video look.

But the ultimate basics of all creative endeavors remains the same and is expressed by the old computer crunching dictum "garbage in, garbage out." Computers and their immense (and exponentially growing) processing power allow us to process turds to a higher and higher gloss. But in the end a gold plated turd is still a turd. Great musicians recorded by a talented engineer/producer, and actors and crew directed and managed by a talented director and producer will still produce the best product. I'm sure that we would all rather be polishing and admiring gems regardless of the technological tools that are used to produce them.
Alcove Audio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 05:46 AM   #7
Re-Maker
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Baku, Azerbiajan
Posts: 146
In comparison with The Hours, this shot looks more vivid and does not have that pastel tone.
Notice the window... Is this DP's idea or digital limitations?




and outside the window here:
Re-Maker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2011, 09:26 AM   #8
Gonzo_Entertainment
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Gonzo_Entertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re-Maker View Post
In comparison with The Hours, this shot looks more vivid and does not have that pastel tone.
Notice the window... Is this DP's idea or digital limitations?




and outside the window here:

Somebody forgot to pack their roll of ND film.
Gonzo_Entertainment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 03:52 PM   #9
David.rhsc
Basic Member
 
David.rhsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Re-Maker View Post
I believe the reason it looks so great, because of this:

Seamus McGarvey (director of photography)

Production Design by
Maria Djurkovic

Art Direction by
Nick Palmer
Mark Raggett (supervising art director)
Judy Rhee (uncredited)

Set Decoration by
Philippa Hart

Costume Design by
Ann Roth

And these folks too:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274558/fullcredits
Fixed that for you.
David.rhsc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 06:19 PM   #10
Synia
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alcove Audio View Post
The "Analog vs. Digital" argument - which I guess in the movie world is "Film vs. Digital" - was thrashed out in the audio world long ago. When digital audio first came around it was the final product, a CD; for film it was DVDs. DAT (Digital Audio Tape) was the next step where the final master mix was "printed". Next came digital multitrack recorders, followed very closely by the infant Pro Tools which was primarily an audio editing system for film.

Initially digital audio was thought to sound "thin" and "brittle" and it was. There were several problems. The first was the fact that digital audio was itself "noiseless". All of the audio sources themselves were still noisy, so on the new "noiseless" digital systems all of the noise that originally got lost in the analog tape noise became very noticeable. Add to that the fact that the conversion processors (AD/DA converters) were in their infancy. Also, most signal processors - mic pres, delays, etc. - were transistor based units and were indeed "thin" sounding. The "fat" sound of analog was in large part due to "slamming" the tape (recording in the red) and "saturating" it. This option was not available in the new digital world; recording in the red induced very unpleasant digital clipping and distortion plus other weird audio artifacts.

As computer technology improved so did the design of the front end processors (mic pres, etc.), and the new hyper-quiet tube technology started to emerge. The tubes, which in previous incarnations were abandoned because they were noisy even by analog tape standards, could now take the place of analog tape, imparting "warmth" to the recorded sounds. As AD/DA converters improved audio artifacts were greatly reduced, and as computer processing power increased the ability to emulate analog processing started to emerge (although it is still imperfect). Add to that the fact that the next generation of audio engineers was beginning to appear who were "raised" in the digital domain and had different thoughts as to how music should sound.

A large part of the filmmaking process is digital already, and will become entirely so in the future, with many of the newbs wondering what the big deal about real film was all about. Lenses and lighting are the technical front end of filmmaking, and new technologies and approaches will bring video closer to the film look, while the upcoming generations will be accustomed to and more comfortable with the (improved) digital video look.

But the ultimate basics of all creative endeavors remains the same and is expressed by the old computer crunching dictum "garbage in, garbage out." Computers and their immense (and exponentially growing) processing power allow us to process turds to a higher and higher gloss. But in the end a gold plated turd is still a turd. Great musicians recorded by a talented engineer/producer, and actors and crew directed and managed by a talented director and producer will still produce the best product. I'm sure that we would all rather be polishing and admiring gems regardless of the technological tools that are used to produce them.
I think alcove got it spot on. Ultimately it's just up to the artist.

Just look at the masterpieces by the artists of the 1400s. With their horse hair paint brush, egg yoke as prime, they still create works that people with their accurately formulated chemical, and machine made paint brush can not replicate.
Synia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 12:21 PM   #11
M1chae1
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
M1chae1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,330
You can absolutely get the same quality with digital that you can get with film. Yes post work is in order for the most part, but it's totally doable. Very soon you won't even need to spend time on it...technology is moving at breakneck speeds in the camera and computing world.

The new Epics and professional Arris have amazing quality.

Some say digital is too clean still, but I think this all depends on the lens you use and what you do in post. You can fool the eye. Hell, 28 Days Later did it for most people, and that was OLD digital tech (XL1). You may have to spend a ton on lenses, but you can achieve what film does on digital.

I'm really curious to see what happens when people watch The Hobbit--which is slated to shoot at 48 fps...Peter truly believes this is the wave of the future. That we will notice it for a while, but in time it will go away, and in the end the higher frame rate is better for the future of cinema...yadda yadda. Who knows to be honest...maybe he's right. He made a little trilogy called LOTR, he's been around.
M1chae1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 01:44 PM   #12
Gonzo_Entertainment
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Gonzo_Entertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,474
Even more important, he made Meet the Feebles.
Gonzo_Entertainment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 02:56 PM   #13
David.rhsc
Basic Member
 
David.rhsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonzo_Entertainment View Post
Even more important, he made Bad Taste.


I'm on a roll.
David.rhsc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 10:23 AM   #14
Gonzo_Entertainment
Basic - Premiere Expired
 
Gonzo_Entertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 3,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by David.rhsc View Post


I'm on a roll.
Indeed you are!

PJ is my hope that a freaking weirdo, who makes freaking weird movies can indeed be given the opportunity to make a boatload of money.
Gonzo_Entertainment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 04:55 AM   #15
David.rhsc
Basic Member
 
David.rhsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gonzo_Entertainment View Post
Indeed you are!

PJ is my hope that a freaking weirdo, who makes freaking weird movies can indeed be given the opportunity to make a boatload of money.
Seriously!

David.rhsc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk