I could tell from the trailer - which I saw earlier in the week - that this was video sourced and not film-originated. Even on the rewind bench, studying the individual frames, one can spot the visual differences from a traditional movie. Still, I look forward to seeing this one because it was shot by John Bailey, ASC, one of the truly great cinematographers working today, so it will be interesting to see the results that someone like that can obtain from the video medium.

From watching the trailer, the immediate giveaways that this is not film are the way that motion is captured, and the way that highlights blow out rather than being rendered gradually. Also, there is a 'ringing' around edges which is remarkably different to the way that film stock renders edges. Overall, there is a sterility to it which I find disconcerting and certainly a lack of true resolution which is replaced by the overemphasis on contours. Sometimes, it is impressive when using soft lighting and low contrast, and it's pretty good for what it is.

This brings me to my question: Is there any reason to believe that 'Star Wars Episode Two' will look any different from 'The Anniversary Party'? Is the camera or tecnnology that Lucas is using better somehow? If so, in what way? Essentially, if it is the same, I can't believe that they would settle for it for a production that large.

Would anyone like to speculate on what we might expect in the future that might dramatically improve on what I saw? Will it reach the point where the differences aren't obvious?

From what I have seen thus far, video cannot match the look and feel of film, even if the resolution approaches film. Motion and grain structure just seem too different with photochemical and electronic means of acquisition.

The 'Anniversary party' was shot using a Sony DSR-500 camera, this is a standard definition digital video camera (480 visible lines for NTSC and 575 visible lines for PAL). It uses the DVCAM tape format which is exactly the same as miniDV with regards to data. They may have used the DSR-500WSP model, this has 16:9 ccds and would convert better to 1.85:1 35mm prints.

Because of the way the data is compressed (5:1) it dosen't look great when blown up to 35mm. Digi-Beta would be a much better choice since it has much lower data compression and records much more colour detail.

The new star wars video is shot on a Sony HD camera - running at 24fps with a resolution of 1080 by 1900(ish) lines. The camera has a native aspect ratio of 16:9(1.77:1), so to produce a 2.39:1 print the image will have to be cropped or an anamorphic lens will have to be used. The camera I think uses the same sort of tape as a digi-beta camera with higher data compression(5:1 ish I think).

Kodak's website has a wealth of information. There's more to the story:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/story/

Read about what leaders of the movie industry think in "The Future of Cinema":
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/notes/march2000/

See what Tom Wallis, Kodak Entertainment Imaging's Chief Technical Officer, has to say:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/news/wallis.shtml

There has been quite a bit of discussion of features shot using digital cameras on the Cinematography Mailing List (CML).

Here's what some reviewers have said about "The Anniversary Party":

http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2001/0106/010622.html

"The Anniversary Party was shot on digital video (in this case by a well-known cinematographer, John Bailey). DV clearly made the project much easier to shoot, but it also makes the film look rougher and cheaper."

http://nypost.com/movies/27457.htm

"The film was shot in 19 days on digital video, but top cinematographer John Bailey shows that in the right hands, DV can look almost as sharp and rich as real film."

Here is what editor Carol Littleton (John Bailey's wife)had to say:
http://www.editorsguild.com/newsletter/JulAug01/dv_filmmaking.html

"When Alan and Jennifer said that they wanted to make a DV film, I was initially against it. But they had talked their actor friends into working for a fraction of their usual salary and the rest of the movie-making process had to be done in the same spirit – an ensemble cast with an ensemble crew. The film had to be done for a price. In fact, the deciding factor was the difference in cost between shooting on 16mm negative with a blow up to 35mm, and shooting on DV with a transfer to film. So the decision to go with DV was a budgetary rather than aesthetic choice...During our prep time, we tested both image and sound in a systematic way. We tested three, 3-chip DV cameras: the Sony DSR 150, the Canon XL-1 and the Sony DSR 500. It was evident that the PAL systems had superior image quality, and we eliminated the NTSC format very quickly. We wanted our tests to tell us which DV camera to use, which lenses and which process would be best to take us to film. My husband John, who was shooting the movie, decided to use the DSR 500, which had the largest memory and a 2/3" 16x9 chip which was closer to the 1.85 aspect ratio in which the film would ultimately be released...In choosing the PAL format, we threw our entire postproduction off kilter. Yes, PAL could deliver superior image quality, but the fact that our project was at 25 fps complicated the entire post process. From an editing point of view, it meant the film would ultimately run 4% slower than the video because material that was photographed at 25-fps would be projected at 24. When we went DV to film, the 4% decrease in speed was not only palpable, but also devastating, until we adjusted our eyes and ears to seeing a whole different movie. The pace of the film was altered significantly."

For a description of the technical challenges:
http://www.editorsguild.com/newsletter/JulAug01/anniv_party_technical.html

Features that were shot using the 24P Sony HDW-F900 camera (similar to the specially modified cameras being used by Mr. Lucas) include "Jackpot" and "Vidocq".

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

I must have been misinformed about 'Anniversary Party' - it was not shot on HD after all. I don't know where I heard that it was.

I thought they would use a 16:9 camera but was not sure.

I think digital cinematography is a god-send for low/no budget film-makers just starting out. If lit correctly you can get very good results. If your carefull you can avoid blowing out the high-lights but the image looks a lot 'flatter' than film. If your shooting on video you have to accept its limitations and not attempt dramatic film style lighting.

But if you can afford it film is the way to go. Thats what annoys me about Lucas, digital is quite good, but not as good as film and he can afford film. I keep hearing more about the technology of the new Star Wars movies than the story. Maybe by using the 'latest digital technology' is the only way George Lucas can be seen as an innovative film maker.

Your machine comes with a 25fps switch to accomodate 25fps. The D projectors have it behind the cover...in the PK-60D's case it is above the bank of relays and labled appropriately.

Steve

This machine is very different in design to all others I've used, but I found that it was only a matter of time adapting to it. At first, I was all thumbs and felt like a total amateur (not that I don't feel like a total amateur now! ) but that eventually passed and I feel as comfortable threading one backwards as I do any other machine.

Performance-wise, I think they have no equal.

From what I gather here Star Wars Episode 2 might look a lot like Bamboozled. The video sourcing will be plainly visible in the 35mm release.

On the other hand, 24p formats don't look so bad. John Pytlak mentioned "Jackpot". That was shot with the exact same Sony high-def 24p camera that Lucas used for SW Ep. II, and it looks fairly decent. I haven't actually seen "Jackpot", just its trailers, but from what I did see, it looked pretty good. It still has some of the video-ish look to it, and I saw at least one jagged edge during the trailer (2K resolution is not enough!), but overall, it looked about 1000% better than anything shot in 60i and transferred to 35mm film.

Eventually, CCDs will get to the point where they have the same dynamic range as film, and they will eventually (I hope) reach the same resolution as film, and at that point it will be hard to tell the difference between something that was shot on video or on film.

However, I think people will still use film even at that point, just because it's a fun, hands-on artistic medium. Today, you can sit down with a Wacom drawing tablet and a PC and draw using purely electronic means, but people still choose to use real paint and canvas, which is literally a prehistoric technology. Why? Because they like it. I think it will be the same with film. No matter how popular video becomes, there will still be some people who occasionally choose shoot on film.

Those of you who ran or saw "Session 9" this summer have seen a film shot with this camera, and while anyone on this forum could have marked it as a video origination, it's photography certainly passed muster with audiences.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged