Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico
 

Just got back from a sneak preview of Robert Rodriquez latest film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" and it looked stunning. It had a bit of a red push to it but it did look very good. Much better then "28 Days Later". And his steadicam work was much better then that in "Desperado".

I may go see it at Cinerama since they have a digital projector to see how it looks on a really huge screen. But so far I've been really impressed.

Cheers,
Huey

He seems to like really warm colours, Spy Kids II was a bit that way to.

I'm really looking forward to seeing this last installment in the series.

Seen clips of it projected. It did look good. Cleverly, Rodriguez has figured out that warm skin tones look good on digital--but what if you aren't going for a warm look overall? And what if you need to shoot an explosion at 150 fps...film ain't dead yet.

Re: Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Brian Huey : Just got back from a sneak preview of Robert Rodriquez latest film "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" and it looked stunning. It had a bit of a red push to it but it did look very good. Much better then "28 Days Later".
-->>>

Uh, yeah, I don't think Rodriguez used a $3500 prosumer camera like Danny Boyle did in 28 Days Later. That miiiiiiiight account for the higher picture quality. ;)


Anyway, can't wait to see it myself.

Re: Re: Film is Dead. Once Upon A Time In Mexico
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper : Uh, yeah, I don't think Rodriguez used a $3500 prosumer camera like Danny Boyle did in 28 Days Later. That miiiiiiiight account for the higher picture quality. ;) Anyway, can't wait to see it myself. -->>>

He OWNS two Sony Cinealtas, just a little better than our trusty ole cams.

Yeah, yeah, the HD cameras RR has are a bit better then the XL1 and it showed on the big screen (I can't wait to see 28 days later on DVD though).

Ok Charles, maybe film isn't dead yet... but it seems to be headed that way and it seemed like a catchy title =)

My ex-college picked up some 8k fps digital camera (at least that's what a student that went to the screening with me claimed) that I'll have to go check out. If that's the case maybe we won't need film cameras that can shoot at 150fps...

Cheers,
Huey

I haven't seen an 8000 fps video setup, but here's a 1000 fps version.

The problem is, will it match your primary camera used to shoot the rest of the movie? With film, footage shot on a 40 year old Arriflex 2c will exactly match that of an Arri 435 running at 24 or up to 150 fps, for instance, as long as you use the same lens. With digital, every camera has its own "look", and it would be jarring to jump from one to another (unless that is intentional).

There are other troublesome issues in shooting HD vs film right now in practical, location-based terms rather than just the look of the final film, but I don't doubt that within the next decade they will be ironed out. In fact, the data storage issue is where the bottleneck really lies at the moment--the imaging capability exceeds the practical technology to record and store it.

Charles, and use the same film stock? I heard a lot of stories
that even though it is the same stock it also depends on the
exact type and combination chemicals used when making the
print.

In RR's book he has a couple of entries that describe his
frustration that each time the print came back form the lab
it looked worse and worse.

I really can't wait to see OUATIM. I've waited so looonggg for
that movie, man. I had hoped they would have screend it at
this years IBC coming up tomorrow. But no announcements of
that yet. That'll mean I'll see it on film instead of digitaly
projected, which is a bummer.

Oh well, still need to see it ASAP! <g>

Yes, same film stock, same lens and a quality lab should equal the same results.

Rodriguez is, as should be obvious from the number of hats he chooses to wear, a control freak. Sending the film to the lab, having someone there do an unsupervised timing of the print obviously doesn't dovetail with his hands-on approach. The printing process for film is absolutely limited and archaic compared to current digital color correction, so I do share his frustration with that process. But every modern film to date has had to be timed, and obviously it works for most cinematographers, so his results are not typical.

Thanks for the explanation, Charles!

I'm still very curious to see if that Dalsa camera ever becomes a reality. Supposedly it will eventually do 60fps at its high resolution (4046 x 2048 optically active pixels). The idea of building a digital camera that was made from the ground up for filmmaking as opposed to video-making as is the case with current digital cams is very exciting. It's going to be ridiculously expensive though.

Here's the URL in case anybody doesn't remember the Dalsa.
http://www.dalsa.com/dc/dc.asp

Here's the blurb they have on their site regarding frame rate and the Dalsa:

"Although the sensor has been designed to operate at up to 60fps, DSP chips do not exist to process that bandwidth in real time. Origin outputs up to 36fps (progressive) with current DSP chips. Faster DSPs, available in later 2003, will allow frame rates of 48 or more in 2004. 60fps operation is a development stage beginning in 2004."

expensive, sure, but not likely to be a higher rental than a comparable 35mm body or it won't make sense. Those cameras are generally valued at $250,000.

It's more expensive but, with a flip of a switch, Hollywood can go to 70mm and digital would have another 10 years or more of catching up to do.

I doubt it will take them 10 years to catch up to that... But that's
for another thread <g>

Anyways, I just found out the OUATIM hit the theatres in the US
today (friday september 12th) and that I have to wait till
December 25th.... That just got me really really sad. Germany
(country next to us) gets it september 18th, but they only have
dubbed versions.... Argh... the pain

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : It's more expensive but, with a flip of a switch, Hollywood can go to 70mm and digital would have another 10 years or more of catching up to do. -->>>

Not going to happen, given the economics of the industry. The studios have no interest in protecting film over HD, they will be more than happy to switch as long as it is acceptable to the filmmakers. 35mm is the gold standard; 70mm as a production format is an exotic and extremely rare choice. I think the last Hollywood picture shot on 70mm (technically, the camera negative is 65mm and the release print is 70mm) was "Far and Away", over 10 years ago.