Zodiac

[mutinyco]

I have to keep my hands in my pants walking down the street to avoid stares.

[mutinyco]

Furthermore -- if you download the latest Quicktime update, there is now an option when creating QTs in Final Cut Pro specifically for your iPod!

[mutinyco]

From MTV:

The thought of "Donnie Darko" star Jake Gyllenhaal matching his dark, brooding stare with "Fight Club" director David Fincher's nihilist visions and hatred of happy endings may sound like a very, very dark dream, but it is indeed coming true. That's why anticipation is sky-high for next year's "Zodiac," which puts Gyllenhaal alongside Mark Ruffalo and Chloë Sevigny. The film, which is currently being shot, will recount the real-life terror caused by a serial killer who turned '60s and '70s San Francisco into his playground — and who still hasn't been found. According to Gyllenhaal, the director has developed an obsession with reinventing the genre. "He's going pretty dark with this one," the "Jarhead" star said of Fincher. "He's doing stuff on this film that I've never seen done before. Technically speaking, he's extraordinary. He's shooting on this Viper camera, this [digital video] camera, so we don't have any slates or anything like that — we just blow through takes and start over again. There's no clapping of the sticks or anything like that; we just keep going. And he's done these murder scenes unlike any murder scenes I've seen before. He's true exactly to, like, the inch or centimeter of what actually happened. So it's going to look and feel exactly like it happened in real life. It's going to be terrifying." ...

[Gold Trumpet]

Sounds interesting, even to a pessimist like me. But, Fincher and realism as bedmates? I'll believe it when I see it.

[SiliasRuby]

I was thinking the same thing GT but Screw it, I'm on board for this.

[private witt]

Y'know those kids that work in music shops that roll their eyes at you when you buy anything on a CD?  They'll say, "Y'know, we've got that on vinyl, you don't care which you buy, do you?"  Suddenly everyone is glaring at you because they know you DON'T listen to music on records...you buy and listen to digital media.  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Anyway, I can't stand people that are stuck on their nostalia players (aka record players).  Records do not make music sound better.  Listening to music on records is a social habit just like Bingo and church.  Now, having said that, I am a little saddened Fincher's goin' the digi route because FILM MAKES MOVIES LOOK BETTER.  Silver hallide reacts to light more naturally than a computer can.  Many aspects can be recreated, but the human eye responds to film more positively because film reproduces what the human eye sees MORE CLOSELY than any other visual media.  As far as Zodiac is concerned, I hope Fincher is in FILM mode, and not MOVIE mode on this one.  I want another Seven, not another Panic Room.

[mutinyco]

While I agree that generally speaking film looks better -- or at least acts as a better capture mode -- I don't, in fact, believe that at this point people respond better to it as a medium. Quite the opposite. More people receive visual information via electronics than by celluloid -- TVs, computers, etc. In the last 10 years, with the emergence of the T grain, in particular, film has been designed to more and more replicate the smooth electronic experience. DI has increased this trend with expediency. In the late '90s, for instance, when movies like Three Kings or Eyes Wide Shut made a point of their picture's grain, audiences were violently jarred. They hadn't been forced to correlate the difference between film and video like that since letterboxed laser disks came on the market. On the DVD for Three Kings there's even a disclaimer explaining how the film's look (colors included) are intentional. I think this is a much bigger issue for people who can tell the difference. But the average filmgoer isn't that person.

[RegularKarate]

I agree with Mutinyco here.  Also film isn't more visually realistic... I think THAT'S one of the reasons I generally like it better.

Also, while I hate the eye-rolling Vinyl guys too, Vinyl does capture ranges that a CD doesn't... so, unfortunately, you're wrong there, too.

[cowboykurtis]

I think most would agree that film is more stylized than digital images. Becuase of this, there's an inherent emotional resonance with film that is lost with digital images for me. 

If you were to photograph an image of a child sitting on a window sill with both formats - i think most would agree that the digital image captured the moment in a realistic rendering - an image they'd love to keep in their wallets to show their aunt what she missed at little tommy's B-day party...

You then have the photograph aquired on film of the same image - exposed for outside - the child in siloutte as the sun pours in,etc - this becomes an image that captures an emotion -  mattering not who the hell the kid is - one may look at it with nostalghic memories of times long ago, another may look at it with the warmth of a summer day - it is an image that one could hang on thier wall, allowing each viewer thier own interpretation/experience. Instead of a "realistic" depiction of a kid that no one gives a shit about besides to woman who gave birth to it.

[mutinyco]

You then have the photograph aquired on film of the same image - exposed for outside - the child in siloutte as the sun pours in,etc - this becomes an image that captures an emotion -  mattering not who the hell the kid is - one may look at it with nostalghic memories of times long ago, another may look at it with the warmth of a summer day - it is an image that one could hang on thier wall, allowing each viewer thier own interpretation/experience. Instead of a "realistic" depiction of a kid that no one gives a shit about besides to woman who gave birth to it.

Why would this image be inherent to film over digital? Digital equipment offers the same light reading functions as analog. To frame an image like this is the prerogative of the person taking the photo not based on the dictations/limitations of the medium. Most professional commercial still photography is digital at this point.

[cowboykurtis]

I never said this image was inherent to film over digital. I was simply using this as an example to address broad generalized aesthetics. I believe most associate digital with consumer snap shot photography and film with more of a fine art orientation.

Not to say one couldn't achieve a similar image digitally. It would however need to be a top of the line digital camera with some time in photo shop, etc. If you were to take the same image with a run of the mill 35mm SLR and then with a comparable digital cam (an elph or something of that nature) there would be no comparison. The  contrast ratio and exposure latitude on consumer digital cameras are pathetic. You'd need a $3,000 digital hasselblad to reach comparable capacity. And film still looks superior.

Saying that most commercial photography is digital, is both inconsequential and false. You say it as if that validates the quality of the image. If its a smaller job with no budget they'll shoot digitally.  News shoots digitally for logistical purposes. However, the majority of high end magazine and fine art photography still  uses film predominantly.

Digital = Best Buy ads
Film = Vanity Fair (who i think have some of the best magazine photographers working)

[mutinyco]

Actually, you're incorrect. The bulk is digital. Companies see no need in paying extra for somebody to shoot film since it's going to be Photoshopped anyhow. And everything is Photoshopped. High end magazine shoots and fine art are not the majority of professional photography. Do you have any idea how many pro labs and supply houses have shut down in the past 15 years because they didn't change with the times? Is it a mild coincidence that Kodak has had to gut its film operation to keep up with digital -- and they were smart/lucky enough to transition when they did or they might've gone the way of Polaroid.

As for regular amateur use, what are we talking about? Comparing a consumer 35mm with a flash to a consumer digital with a flash? They both look like shit.

I keep stating that I prefer film. But to not acknowledge that digital is running the show at this point is like still believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

[cowboykurtis]

Actually, you're incorrect. The bulk is digital.  High end magazine shoots and fine art are not the majority of professional photography.

I agree. High-end mags and fine art are not the majority, but they are of the highest quality. I previously should have said - Anything of QUALITY is still shot with film.

Again, you seem to justify based on volume. You're defense of digital images is as if you were to say - tons of people pay money to see high-concept studio films, and because of this they're of an acceptable quality.

The "bulk" is shit. They go with digital because its cheaper - end of story - Its way of the world.

You may be pragmatic to point of accepting that this is how it is, and see it useless to fight a ball thats already rolling downhill. What frustrates me are those who are complacent and eager to accept change. Many people say "digital is almost as good". For me thats a lazy stance to take. Obviously you and I are debating as two who are well-versed and concerned with the craft. Obviously the lowest common denominator doesn't know the difference between film/digital or really care to find out. However I do feel there is a subconscious difference for the viewer - The format inherently changes the experience.

You consistently seem to be defensive of this digital technology push. You say film is better, yet fully embrace digital filmmaking, which in return helps extinguish film as a format. As a filmmaker do you feel any responsibility to help keep film a substantial and available format? Or do you find the differences inconsequential one way or the other?

If thats the case, again we'll have to agree to disagree.

[cowboykurtis]

Do you have any idea how many pro labs and supply houses have shut down in the past 15 years because they didn't change with the times?

Yes, I'm quite aware of this. However we have been discussing film as an aquisition format, not a printing format.

[mutinyco]

You consistently seem to be defensive of this digital technology push. You say film is better, yet fully embrace digital filmmaking, which in return helps extinguish film as a format. As a filmmaker do you feel any responsibility to help keep film a substantial and available format? Or do you find the differences inconsequential one way or the other?

The studios/exhibitors are finalizing digital distribution as we speak. You'll see the switch to digital projection over the next 2-3 years. Once that's in place, the move to digital capture will be swift. Productions cost too much. If you remove film/processing/transfer/prints it'll cut costs. Filmmakers will have to have clout to demand their work be shot on celluloid.

I'm by nature an evolutionist. Those who survive and adapt best will always thrive. Many people will still argue -- and not without merit -- that traditional Technicolor 3-color printing looked better than chemical processing. Some believe pure filmmaking died when sound was introduced. Some will argue against any visual effects and that images should be captured naturally.

Once movies are shot and distributed digitally, our argument will be moot. Movies shot digitally and projected on film look soft. But when you unify both ends it'll work. If you watch the extras on Revenge of the Sith, and see how the use of HD and monitors changes the game, it's kind of difficult not to be seduced. Seduced by the dark side, you may say.

Ultimately, the film/digital difference won't be about which is technically superior. But about which aesthetic you prefer. And celluloid will be relegated to museum collections where people can appreciate on older art form.