Originally posted by: see you auntie
Ok thanks for answering my questions.
I know the cameras that indie films use are nothing like those Lucas used. The camera cost would exceed their budget. My point was what you refered to in what digital has done for low budget film making.
In regards to your example Superman Returns and my example 300 (like I said I know nothing on the topic) I was under the impression that digital was choosen for filming because of extensive post production work/green screen, a myth you dispelled in your post chalking it up to producers and marketing. Which is why I though 300 may have been shot digitally.
HD was thought to be cheap because you didn't have to scan the film. In photographing blue/greenscreen on film you have to scan the film on a laser to get it into the computer to do the FX work, and that costs significant money. But back in 2001 the low-res of the Sony F900 actually caused much more many hours to get clean greenscreen extractions--on top of the fact that it was extraordinary expensive just to have the cameras on set. By the time ROTS came around things had improved, but it still would have been just as easy/expensive to do a film scan. Now, I believe--I hope--we've reached the point where there is actually a benefit to skipping the film scanning. But there is still the fact that when you add up the total costs its, at the least, equal the price to shoot on 35mm film and do a Digital Intermediate, and most the time its cheaper--and this is aside from the fact that its technically simpler and much more aesthetically pleasing. And again, there are severe limits to HD technology, such as slow-mo ramps. And the camera is always tethered by wires--you can't sever the camera and just have it be carried or mounted or flown around as you do with film, because the producers, DP, director and other personel can't watch it on the monitors--with film you can transmit wirelessly from the video tap, but you can't transmit an HD signial, so it limits your shots and your creativity.
With this in mind in your opinon why did Singer shoot SR digitally?
Ok thanks for answering my questions.
I know the cameras that indie films use are nothing like those Lucas used. The camera cost would exceed their budget. My point was what you refered to in what digital has done for low budget film making.
In regards to your example Superman Returns and my example 300 (like I said I know nothing on the topic) I was under the impression that digital was choosen for filming because of extensive post production work/green screen, a myth you dispelled in your post chalking it up to producers and marketing. Which is why I though 300 may have been shot digitally.
HD was thought to be cheap because you didn't have to scan the film. In photographing blue/greenscreen on film you have to scan the film on a laser to get it into the computer to do the FX work, and that costs significant money. But back in 2001 the low-res of the Sony F900 actually caused much more many hours to get clean greenscreen extractions--on top of the fact that it was extraordinary expensive just to have the cameras on set. By the time ROTS came around things had improved, but it still would have been just as easy/expensive to do a film scan. Now, I believe--I hope--we've reached the point where there is actually a benefit to skipping the film scanning. But there is still the fact that when you add up the total costs its, at the least, equal the price to shoot on 35mm film and do a Digital Intermediate, and most the time its cheaper--and this is aside from the fact that its technically simpler and much more aesthetically pleasing. And again, there are severe limits to HD technology, such as slow-mo ramps. And the camera is always tethered by wires--you can't sever the camera and just have it be carried or mounted or flown around as you do with film, because the producers, DP, director and other personel can't watch it on the monitors--with film you can transmit wirelessly from the video tap, but you can't transmit an HD signial, so it limits your shots and your creativity.
With this in mind in your opinon why did Singer shoot SR digitally?
Because he liked the "clean" look. His original plan was to shoot it in 70mm. They got some 70mm panavision cameras and did tests. Then they got the Genesis HD cameras and did tests. Singer went with the Genesis.
The reason he did so--and this is purely my own inference--is purely because he liked the crisp, clean look. I think the reason he was attracted to 70mm in the first place was because it has similar qualities--it is super-detailed, and has that sharp, clean, almost grain-less look that HD has. HD takes those qualities and magnifies them.
But you'll notice in almost every case of a film being shot digitally it is the decision of the director, not the cinematographer. It was Lucas who wanted to shoot the prequels on digital tape--against the wishes of not only his DP but Sony and Panavision as well. They all didn't believe the technology was ready to put on the big screen in the high-quality that a blockbuster demanded. And they were right. Then Singer, Rodriguez and now Cameron--they are all directors who are more concerned with breaking new ground than about actual optics. No cinematographer has ever argued that HD should be shot in place of film.
Right now we are actually witnessing the birth of HD for motion picture dramas. The cameras that Star Wars and the early examples were shot on--those were cameras designed for news and documentaries. They were retrofitted for use in motion pictures, but that is not what their primary function is and was. The first real camera designed with motion pictures in mind was the Genesis, and thats why Superman Returns is leaps and bounds above anything that came before it (Scary Movie 4 actually was the first to be released). So if you think of that--in terms of cinema--as the first pinoneer, the way Lucas considered AOTC, then we are okay considering this is all prototype stuff. Give it twenty years and we might see 35mm film get replaced.