Roger Deakins on digital

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

The article is about a month old, but if anyone's interested

http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-deakins-digital-35mm-im-ill-film/

[A24 4,331]

And don't forget, Roger, 'digital' means we also get better transfers to DVD and Blu-ray!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Interesting. The man knows what he's doing, so if he can somehow improve himself while using digital, I'm all for it.

[Matt C 454]

No!

I honestly thought Deakins would stick to film, no matter what. As long as he doesn't use crappy Viper and Sony cameras to shoot like Dante Spinotti does (and use quality ones like Panavision Genesis or Red One) -- I lost a lot of respect for Spinotti and Michael Mann for making Public Enemies look like an incredibly expensive YouTube video. (At least Spinotti's work on Narnia 3 was a great step forward.)

But I think film just has dynamic range and a certain texture digital can't reach yet. Digital does has its upsides -- no film loading, quicker set-ups and no waiting anxiously if the dailies turned out all right.

[Delorean90 42]

Well, at least he isn't completely turning his back on film.

While I recognize that digital, when used properly, can have its own unique, valid aesthetic, it is rare that I see proponents of digital cinematography talking about this facet--and if they do, they speak of how clear, or sharp the image is (see George Lucas's gushing on AOTC behind-the-scenes materials), not how beautiful or atmospheric or communicative it is. No, as is the case with this interview, I keep hearing about how convenient it is, how much smoother the workflow is, how you don't have to mess with the developing--things that, though surely trying, have been worked with for a hundred years, and wonderful visuals have been brought about from them. Though, admittedly, I have not had any experience with these processes myself, given the long precedent of the craft I feel comfortable quoting Paul Newman from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

"It's a small price to pay for beauty."

[A24 4,331]

I lost a lot of respect for Spinotti and Michael Mann for making Public Enemies look like an incredibly expensive YouTube video. (At least Spinotti's work on Narnia 3 was a great step forward.)

Superman Returns (Singer), Before The Devil Knows You're Dead (Lumet), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Marchall), Zodiac (Fincher), The Lovely Bones (Jackson), Avatar (Cameron), The Curious Case Of Benjamin button (Fincher, again), Slumdog Millionaire (Boyle) are a few more examples of people who went digital.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The fact thet the people who know the most about cinematography are turning to digital and the ones who cry foul have never in fact been anywere close to a movie set, basically says it all...

This is not a cheap gimmick like 3D afterall.

I lost a lot of respect for Spinotti and Michael Mann

I can't imagine them losing sleep over it....

[Koray Savas 2,251]

While I agree with him that Public Enemies should not have been digital (the film just didn't look right), I guarantee Deakins knows more about cinematography and lighting than probably almost anyone, so I take it he knows what he's doing and isn't making a mistake.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Well, at least he isn't completely turning his back on film.

While I recognize that digital, when used properly, can have its own unique, valid aesthetic, it is rare that I see proponents of digital cinematography talking about this facet--and if they do, they speak of how clear, or sharp the image is (see George Lucas's gushing on AOTC behind-the-scenes materials), not how beautiful or atmospheric or communicative it is. No, as is the case with this interview, I keep hearing about how convenient it is, how much smoother the workflow is, how you don't have to mess with the developing--things that, though surely trying, have been worked with for a hundred years, and wonderful visuals have been brought about from them. Though, admittedly, I have not had any experience with these processes myself, given the long precedent of the craft I feel comfortable quoting Paul Newman from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid:

"It's a small price to pay for beauty."

I think the film world is going through an identical phase as still photography was a few years ago. The thing is, a digital image is a very very malleable one. Things you talk about, such as texture, grain, 'feel' and what not can more or less be reproduced in the right hands. For still photography, there are grain programs out there which can take your image, break it down and rebuild it on a per-pixel level to look like extremely realistic grain. And all this is easily available even to the consumer. Now, apart from the workflow advantages of digital, the other big thing is extremely clean files at high speeds which opens up vast possibilities in low light shooting. We are talking about very usable ISO 6400 here (in the still photography world the arms race has given us cameras with usable ISOs a few stops faster). Even advantages like dynamic range and tonality are quickly being eaten away with each generation of sensors. For instance, my new Nikon D7000 has a dynamic range of about 10 stops. Being an early adopter of digital, I've never had a romantic or sentimental attachment to film, but I'm not averse to using it either.

While I agree with him that Public Enemies should not have been digital (the film just didn't look right), I guarantee Deakins knows more about cinematography and lighting than probably almost anyone, so I take it he knows what he's doing and isn't making a mistake.

There isn't a problem with Public Enemies being digital. It was just the way they decided to make it look.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

While I agree with him that Public Enemies should not have been digital (the film just didn't look right), I guarantee Deakins knows more about cinematography and lighting than probably almost anyone, so I take it he knows what he's doing and isn't making a mistake.

There isn't a problem with Public Enemies being digital. It was just the way they decided to make it look.

Yeah that's what I meant, didn't word it right.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I assume the digital look was a deliberate creative decision on the part of the filmmakers, not a weakness of the technique.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

No, as is the case with this interview, I keep hearing about how convenient it is, how much smoother the workflow is, how you don't have to mess with the developing--

Deakins was quoted in this interview as saying that digital (or at least the Arri ALEXA he used) had better color rendition and latitude than 35mm.

I assume the digital look was a deliberate creative decision on the part of the filmmakers, not a weakness of the technique.

Precisely, and I don't think the look they went for worked in this case.

And this is the interview the original article I posted was pulled from.

http://www.slashfilm.com/roger-deakins-interview/

Plus he confirms he has been approached and might possibly be working on Mendes' Bond 23

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Anyone who says film has greater dynamic range than digital is talking out of their arse.

And we need to get away from the shitty 24fps crap as well.

[Matt C 454]

Anyone who says film has greater dynamic range than digital is talking out of their arse.

And we need to get away from the shitty 24fps crap as well.

Regardless, the texture isn't quite the same. I use both a digital and film camera to take pictures, and the quality of the film just looks better overall for me. Now, I don't have one of the higher-quality DSLR cameras (I plan on getting a Canon EOS 7D eventually) but right now, film just looks better.

Superman Returns (Singer), Before The Devil Knows You're Dead (Lumet), Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Marchall), Zodiac (Fincher), The Lovely Bones (Jackson), Avatar (Cameron), The Curious Case Of Benjamin button (Fincher, again), Slumdog Millionaire (Boyle) are a few more examples of people who went digital.

The Lovely Bones was mostly shot on film with the Red One camera used for visual effects shots. Slumdog Millionaire was shot partly on 35mm and with the Red One. That said, every single film you listed had that nice filmlike look, which shows that both the director and cinematographer knew what they were doing. When you have directors like James Cameron and David Fincher who shoot digitally, they know their stuff. (I'm partly on the bandwagon because the Red One is one impressive camera, and partly not because the rest of the digital cameras give mixed results.) But then you have some crappy-looking digitally-shot films and TV shows like Public Enemies, Miami Vice, Date Night, and Stargate Atlantis -- it just gives the wrong impression.

[A24 4,331]

Well, Deakins knows what he's doing too. BTW, aren't these good looking digital films digitally rendered with special software so they would look precisely like celluloid film? Personally, with all the digital color grading that is going on these days, I don't really notice it when a film is shot on digital ... unless it's a Michael Mann film, of course.

Wait! Watchmen was shot on 35mm?! Okay, in that case, film is still king!

Alex

[Charlie Brigden 7]

'Miami Vice' looked great (and worked wonderful for the docu-drama feel), as did 'Collateral'. Haven't seen 'Public Enemies' so can't comment on that, but Dion Beebe's work for Mann was amazing. What I love about Mann is that the guy loves to experiment, and it usually works spectacularly.

[A24 4,331]

Haven't seen 'Public Enemies' so can't comment on that,

It wasn't spectacular, I can tell you that. It felt like I was watching the film from a VHS tape. Collatoral looks like something in-between, it's neither fish nor flesh.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Vlees noch vis?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Collateral looks fine to me. The look of Public Enemies just takes you out of the picture. The nighttime woodland shootout made my eyes bleed. Digital noise galore, not to mention just poor lighting. Hey, check it out! There are 20 giant studio lights sitting behind those trees! Guess that's why it looks like it's three in the afternoon.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Well, Deakins knows what he's doing too. BTW, aren't these good looking digital films digitally rendered with special software so they would look precisely like celluloid film? Personally, with all the digital color grading that is going on these days, I don't really notice it when a film is shot on digital ... unless it's a Michael Mann film, of course.

Wait! Watchmen was shot on 35mm?! Okay, in that case, film is still king!

Alex

Digital can be made to look a lot like film if you know what you are doing. Thats the beauty of it. Michael Mann however, embraces the raw digital look like no other. It worked well in Collateral and Miami Vice, but not Public Enemies. But power to him for trying.

[Jay 37,355]

I don't understand why in 2011 all movies, television programs, and everything else aren't all recorded and broadcast at 30fps in all countries

[Richard Penna 3,687]

Yeah the 24fps 'judder' can be irritating (unless, I'm told, you've got a TV that handles it properly). Why so low?

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I don't understand why in 2011 all movies, television programs, and everything else aren't all recorded and broadcast at 30fps in all countries

Why 30, specifically?

Yeah the 24fps 'judder' can be irritating (unless, I'm told, you've got a TV that handles it properly). Why so low?

To judder is the proper way to handle it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Public Enemies looked like crap because people don't know what they are doing.

So here's the thing with digital: it doesn't cover up bad work. It requires a lot more effort on the post-processing end to make things look good. And in this regard it also opens up a lot more artistic choice. But with that choice comes necessity for more skill.

One of the things with 24fps 35mm film is that it tends to mask a lot of shoddy work.