Is filming digitally lazy?

[CelticPredator]

Does this interview even exist? I looked it up, and found nothing that says anything the OP posted....so...

 

[redhawk23]

What it ultimately amounts to is:

- the equipment is easier to use, that is to say, it's smaller
- editing digital video is easier because it's simply uploaded to a computer
- it's easier to manipulate that video with effects

The keyword here is EASIER. Easier does not mean BETTER.

For me, nothing will top the beauty of seeing 35mm or 70mm on a big screen, or even on a crappy TV.

The other thing about digital is that cinematography suffers too, when it comes to lighting, lenses, focusing, sound. Digital takes away hard, honest work.

When I say "hard, honest work", I use this as an example: While it may be visually stunning and awe-inspiring to watch the Pixar movies, I find it even more unbelievable that human hands drew, colored, and flipped the pages that made Snow White, Cinderella, Bambi, Aladdin, The Lion King, and so on. There's something more "authentic" about Aladdin as opposed to Toy Story (and Toy Story is one of my favorite movies of all-time).

So, while digital filming has produced fantastic movies (I love David Fincher, and Zodiac is a classic)... it's still never going to replace real film.

both aladin and lion king have digital effects, and starting with Little Mermaid, the coloring was done digitally as well....yeah.

I cant stand when people just assume its easier to make something like WALL-E than cinderella. Its hard to produce cgi animated films that have any amount of visual quality, which is why there are a great many that look like crap. Comparing the work of more traditional animators with newer ones is unfair. They're almost different mediums.

 

[jnmx2000]

Depth of field is better with film, video has always looked more flat. But as many have already said that is become more narrow very quick.

Video is cheaper,easier to light, fast immediate results and better for actors.



How does the AF100 do in low light? Might be looking to get one but low lighting is key for me.

The Af100 is great under low light. mainly because of it's huge sensor but along with the sensor you need to get special lenses for it. you can't mount just any lenses on it because it has a HUGE crop factor for lenses that aren't made for it's chip. I got to play with an AF100 a few weeks ago, I love the manual way of controlling the picture in the camera such as the Kelvin levels. you can do an in camera sort of coloring before you even get to post, it's pretty sweet.

Also I don't think that shooting digitally is lazy. it just lets you move at a faster pace. It's also cheaper which is nice considering how expensive it has become to make movies now a days. And in the right hands digital looks amazing. consider the fact that 127 hours was shot with a digital camera that cost 2000 dollars that you can pick up at any specialty camera store. like others have said, it's just what works best for what movie your making, sometimes digital is the better choice.

 

[CelticPredator]

All I know is, Michael Mann fails at using digital cameras in every single way humanly possible. His new movies are hidious.

 

[jnmx2000]

All I know is, Michael Mann fails at using digital cameras in every single way humanly possible. His new movies are hidious.

yea, I actually liked Miami Vice. but PE looked flat, very flat. I think that's what he was going for though. he wanted it to look like a documentary. Also I believe he was using a camera that was never very popular called the Viper Film Stream camera. what was collateral shot on? film? I love that movie. I think that was digital too though. could be wrong.

 

[def28]

The Af100 is great under low light. mainly because of it's huge sensor but along with the sensor you need to get special lenses for it. you can't mount just any lenses on it because it has a HUGE crop factor for lenses that aren't made for it's chip. I got to play with an AF100 a few weeks ago, I love the manual way of controlling the picture in the camera such as the Kelvin levels. you can do an in camera sort of coloring before you even get to post, it's pretty sweet.

Thanks for the info. Would you say its better then the 5D vid quality wise? The 3 grand price difference makes me lean to the 5D and the quality comparison Ive seen online so far has been minimal.

Does this interview even exist? I looked it up, and found nothing that says anything the OP posted....so...

Yeah we need a link. I couldnt find that interview either.

 

[CelticPredator]

Well, Michael Mann should've made a documentary then...and not had me waste 10 bucks to see a poorly shot movie.

 

[hbdragon88]

yea, I actually liked Miami Vice. but PE looked flat, very flat. I think that's what he was going for though. he wanted it to look like a documentary. Also I believe he was using a camera that was never very popular called the Viper Film Stream camera. what was collateral shot on? film? I love that movie. I think that was digital too though. could be wrong.

From Wiki

Michael Mann chose to use the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera to film many of the scenes of Collateral, the first such use in a major motion picture. There are many scenes in the movie where the use of a digital camera is evident, in particular, scenes where the Los Angeles skyline or landscape is visible in the background. One event of note was the filming of the coyotes running across the road; the low-light capability allowed Mann to spontaneously film the animals that just happened to pass, without having to set up lighting for the shot. Mann would later employ the same camera for the filming of Miami Vice.[2]

 

[mclay18]

All I know is, Michael Mann fails at using digital cameras in every single way humanly possible. His new movies are hidious.

Yeah. Dante Spinotti should've stood his ground and 'force' Mann to shoot Public Enemies in 35mm. I just think Mann needs to quit with the severe color timing and crappy lighting conditions. (Or pick a better camera, instead of the Sony CineAlta and Viper -- go for the Red One or Panavision Genesis.)

Spinotti used the same camera he used on Public Enemies for the third Narnia movie -- and the difference between the two films is shocking. The Narnia film looked crisp and filmlike, but Public Enemies just betrays its digital origins from the get go.

I also have to single out Dean Semler. He's fond of the Panavision Genesis camera, but the way he uses it sometimes is terrible. Date Night is a mixed bag -- the darker, handheld scenes scream 'cheap HD camcorder' while the more well-lit scenes look convincingly filmlike. Semler went back to film with Secretariat and Appaloosa -- and it was a noticeable improvement.

Some cinematographers should stick to film. They just don't know how to use digital cameras properly.

 

[kickass]

Scream 4 was shot on film. You can clearly see it when watching it on a big screen. Wes <3

 

[redhawk23]

yea, I actually liked Miami Vice. but PE looked flat, very flat. I think that's what he was going for though. he wanted it to look like a documentary. Also I believe he was using a camera that was never very popular called the Viper Film Stream camera. what was collateral shot on? film? I love that movie. I think that was digital too though. could be wrong.

I'm fairly sure that the Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Smokin Aces, and Children of Men all used the viper film stream cameras, and they all look fine. No excuse.

I think I remember collateral being digital as well.

 

[Octoberist]

Winter's Bone and Social Network both used the Red.
Pirates of the Carribean 4 is using the Red Epic, along with 'Amazing Spider-Man' and 'The Hobbit'.

I think digital is getting much better though it still lacks the richness of film. However, maybe the 'Red Epic' can only break new ground.

In the end, I don't think most people care since I think digital is just more convient for the filmmaker while audiences don't care unless it looks like crap.

 

[dark_b]

i like hes movies. but if i want to i can say that Tarantino is lazy. he is using a lot of homages in hes movies. and not as a wink to us. but almost like he is doing an exact copy. but this is an artistic decision right?

the problem with Tarantino is that he hates digital so much that everything he says is over teh line.

 

[dark_b]

All I know is, Michael Mann fails at using digital cameras in every single way humanly possible. His new movies are hidious.

quoted for truth. and the sad part is that he is a good director. so no matter how good of a movie he makes it looks bad IMO.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Yeah. Dante Spinotti should've stood his ground and 'force' Mann to shoot Public Enemies in 35mm. I just think Mann needs to quit with the severe color timing and crappy lighting conditions. (Or pick a better camera, instead of the Sony CineAlta and Viper -- go for the Red One or Panavision Genesis.)

Spinotti used the same camera he used on Public Enemies for the third Narnia movie -- and the difference between the two films is shocking. The Narnia film looked crisp and filmlike, but Public Enemies just betrays its digital origins from the get go.

I also have to single out Dean Semler. He's fond of the Panavision Genesis camera, but the way he uses it sometimes is terrible. Date Night is a mixed bag -- the darker, handheld scenes scream 'cheap HD camcorder' while the more well-lit scenes look convincingly filmlike. Semler went back to film with Secretariat and Appaloosa -- and it was a noticeable improvement.

Some cinematographers should stick to film. They just don't know how to use digital cameras properly.

I don't think it's the lighting or camera perse that makes Public Enemies look so digital, it's the fact that it looks like the film was shot 30 frames per second rather than traditional 24fps. Gives the movement in the frame a significantly more real and fluid time, but is not what we have been conditioned to. Interestingly, I used 30fps on my last short, In Aggression, which I thought gave the film an "off" look, but that's what I was going for. I think that's what Mann was going for too, never the less, I think the lightening sort of betrayed that or didn't suit 30 fps so it makes the audience watching it aware of the difference. The movie is too clean looking for 30fps.

 

[Why Are You Crouching Spock?]

No, it's evolution.

 

[Octoberist]

i like hes movies. but if i want to i can say that Tarantino is lazy. he is using a lot of homages in hes movies. and not as a wink to us. but almost like he is doing an exact copy. but this is an artistic decision right?

the problem with Tarantino is that he hates digital so much that everything he says is over teh line.

Don't make this a habit. Heck, I'm willing to forgive you for the 'teh'. haha.

 

[Octoberist]

I think the problem with some films filmed in digital is that they tend to go for what's trendy right now - that blueish, bleached out, silvery look (Resident Evil, Avatar, Drive Angry).

Once a film like The Hobbit can show that it can replicate the same look (if not better) than Lord of the Rings, then it'll be a true testament to the medium.

 

[Octoberist]

I think the bigger concern is not 'film vs. digital' but higher framerates. Dudes like James Cameron is wanting movies in general to update to 48 fps.

I just don't want movies in the future to look too real b/c I've always thought 24 fps game movies it's cinematic look. If we lose that to 'reality' then we'll kinda losing some of the spirit of movies in general.

I could be wrong though...

 

[jmc]

^ I thought I read somewhere Cameron wanted to go to 60fps.

Anyway, I gotta be honest and say I don't really care about the whole digital v film debate, I've seen good films done in both processes, I've seen bad films done in both processes. Is digital 'lazy'? I'd hardly call it that, perhaps 'convenient' is a better word but I don't understand the issue to begin with. To me it's like arguing over whether black and white is more 'artistic' than colour, just make the damn movie however you want, if it's good I'll watch it.

 

[dark_b]

Don't make this a habit. Heck, I'm willing to forgive you for the 'teh'. haha.

his

 

[dark_b]

I think the bigger concern is not 'film vs. digital' but higher framerates. Dudes like James Cameron is wanting movies in general to update to 48 fps.

I just don't want movies in the future to look too real b/c I've always thought 24 fps game movies it's cinematic look. If we lose that to 'reality' then we'll kinda losing some of the spirit of movies in general.

I could be wrong though...

i was reading a lot of articles about Cameron going 48. and a lot of them said something very important. the cheap look that we remember is not 48 frames per second.it was interpolation if i understand correct.

because noone ever screened the footage in more frames. which is what Cameron wants. footage that was recorded with more frames also screened with more frames. i personal never saw anything similar. so i dont even know how it looks.

 

[dark_b]

interesting video about framerate

http://www.macvideo.tv/camera-technology/interviews/index.cfm?articleId=3213230

 

[mclay18]

I'm fairly sure that the Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Smokin Aces, and Children of Men all used the viper film stream cameras, and they all look fine.

I hate to bust your bubble, but Children of Men and Smokin' Aces used film cameras. I watched a digital print of COM when it came out, and you could see the film grain.

Pirates of the Carribean 4 is using the Red Epic, along with 'Amazing Spider-Man' and 'The Hobbit'.

I doubt the Red Epic was ready by the time POTC 4 started shooting. They used the Red One with the special MX sensor. Patrick Lussier used the same camera for My Bloody Valentine 3D and Drive Angry.

 

[Anjow1060]

As someone who's worked in both 35mm and Hi Def -

35mm does give off a more professional vibe and for w/e reason aids in an actors performance.

But digital is quickly catching up. It's not so much lazy as it is cheaper. But cheap doesn't mean quality, just price.

Indie film makers should utilize the professional aesthetic that hi def digital can pull off.
Once you have studio funding and a budget to work with, I'd say go with film to give off a "master quality" that Digital hasn't reached....... yet.

Long story short, it's mainly some bugs to be worked out with Digital that WILL eventually match / surpass film. Most film makers of yesterday are just stubborn and ultraconservative. If you want to tell me that the old way of editing is better than non-linear systems of today....

Paul Mooney: You must be on crack.

- Jow

PS: 3D is the only medium that is lazy, cheap (in every sense of the word) and will never be perfected.