67 replies to this topic

[Shrublands]

He’ll be using the Alexa with an optical viewfinder, the camera didn’t used to have one, but he'd made it know to Arri that he would prefer the camera if it did.

http://www.deakinson....php?f=3&t=1761

[Loomis]

Very interesting. At the risk of asking a stupid question, this means that BOND 23 will be the first Bond film not shot on celluloid?

Which other notable films have been shot digitally in recent years (or is digital now the norm)?

[Dustin]

I'd like to ask that too. Pardon my ignorance, but I had thought the digital shoot was already the industry standard?

[Chief of SIS]

Not yet. I know there is a camp of directors that prefer not to film on digital. Nolan is one of them I believe. He does not think digital can produce the same high quality image. I think the process is definitely shifting though. Peter Jackson is shooting digital because of the ease it provides in shooting at 48 frames per second. Bond will look pretty either way.

[zencat]

Interesting! Thanks.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Very interesting. At the risk of asking a stupid question, this means that BOND 23 will be the first Bond film not shot on celluloid?

Which other notable films have been shot digitally in recent years (or is digital now the norm)?

I know The Social Network was shot digitally, and that looked good. But yes, this is the first Bond to be shot digital, so will be interesting to see how it looks.

Not yet. I know there is a camp of directors that prefer not to film on digital. Nolan is one of them I believe.

Agreed about Nolan, Inception was shot on film.

[zencat]

Sorry, not Toronto. We will be based at Pinewood with some shooting overseas. I expect to be shooting on the Alexa - and I expect to have a camera with an optical viewfinder as well!

Well, at least we can confirm Bond is not going to Canada.

"Overseas" eh. When you Brits says "overseas", what are you generally talking about? Could he mean America? Doubt it's South America as we just did that.

[Loomis]

"Overseas" eh. When you Brits says "overseas", what are you generally talking about?

Anywhere other than the United Kingdom (and maybe the Irish Republic - it would seem a bit pedantic to refer to Ireland as "overseas", although it would technically be just that if one were setting off to visit it from the UK mainland).

Could he mean America?

Yes.

[Pierce - Daniel]

the social network was shot in digital, and the photography there was awesom.
Though I do remeber public enemies being shot in digital and it created this really awful effect whent he camera jilted away, almost making the whole thing look a little cheap and as if it had just been filmed on a crappy camcorder. I dont really know much about cinematography, as in the techniques, but I know an well shot film from a badly shot one, and surely film wins everytime.

[The Shark]

Which other notable films have been shot digitally in recent years (or is digital now the norm)?

BLUE VALENTINE, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE, KNOWING, ANTICHRIST, STAR WARS: REVENGE OF THE SITH, THE BOOK OF ELI, THE A TEAM, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, PLANET TERROR, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 3, SIN CITY, ZODIAC, 28 DAYS LATER etc...

Digital ain't my cup of tea, though I have hope knowing Deakins's artistry.

I'd like to ask that too. Pardon my ignorance, but I had thought the digital shoot was already the industry standard?

I can't blame you for thinking that, considering how many films shot on film have been digitally graded beyond recognition (CASINO ROYALE comes to mind).

The last two Bond films were shot on Super35 (except a few digital vfx shots), though IMO, QOS would have looked much better lensed on anamorphic, considering the compositions Shaeffer chose.

[Harmsway]

Which other notable films have been shot digitally in recent years (or is digital now the norm)?

See this list here. The films show that digital has been something of a mixed bag (particularly in those early days), but in the right hands, it can look very fine indeed (Coppola's YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH and TETRO being standout examples). I'm sure Deakins will do well by it.

[Loomis]

See this list here.

Hmmm.... Not exactly a list of great-looking films, for the most part, indeed many of the movies mentioned are eyesores.

Oh, well. I guess we've seen our last celluloid-shot Bond flick (not that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is a particularly beautiful film to look at, either).

[Harmsway]

Hmmm.... Not exactly a list of great-looking films, for the most part, indeed many of the movies mentioned are eyesores.

That list doesn't include films which only partially rely on digital (INCEPTION used digital film for a few shots). The difference between digital and film is now mostly minimal; film has been gradually becoming more like digital thanks to digital grading, and digital film has become more and more like film. The reason most of those films are eyesores is that they were made when digital had yet to come into its own.

[The Shark]

This is a little more comprehensive.

The reason most of those films are eyesores is that they were made when digital had yet to come into its own.

Kind of like the earliest Blu-rays, back in '07. Though I'm a little skeptical about this notation of digital looking more like film. Any good examples?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Well the impression i'm getting is 23 should be no worse for shooting digital, and with Deakins doing it i'm guessing he can command the best there is to shoot with. Let's hope it's good.

[Matt_13]

Whatever Deakins wants. I trust him.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

I'm usually pretty good at identifying what was shot on film and what was digital, but the Argentian film The Secret in Their Eyes stumped me. I'd have sworn it was film, even though it was shot on the RED camera.

[The Shark]

I'm usually pretty good at identifying what was shot on film and what was digital, but the Argentian film The Secret in Their Eyes stumped me. I'd have sworn it was film, even though it was shot on the RED camera.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[ROGERJAMESMOORE]

Too bad they wouldn't let Tarantino do a Bond film at least it would be shot on film as he refuses anything otherwise . Let Deakins take his digital junk and shove it. Bring back real film to the series and get rid of that digital crap !

[marktmurphy]

I can't tell the difference between film and digital now; seems fine to me.

[Mr. Somerset]

Be nice if B23 had the vibrant sharp look of say.....Dr No or Goldfinger, digital or not.
I like the crisp images and colors of the early films. Gotta say, though about digital, probably be easier for the dvds and blue rays to be more accurate to the big screen versions. Having seen all the films except TMWTGG on the big screen, none of the dvd releases seem to quite match the look of a clean film print.

[TQB]

why are so many people bashing this? they haven't even seen the movie. digital technology is much better now.

[jaguar007]

I can't tell the difference between film and digital now; seems fine to me.

I'm with you. If I studied film I might be able to tell the difference, but I don't and I can't.

[dinovelvet]

Too bad they wouldn't let Tarantino do a Bond film at least it would be shot on film as he refuses anything otherwise . Let Deakins take his digital junk and shove it. Bring back real film to the series and get rid of that digital crap !

I see you're as well-informed as you are well-spoken. It's not a question of "letting" Tarantino do a Bond film; Tarantino is not a member of the Director's Guild of America, and with non-union status, he will not be hired by any major studio.

[Robinson]

why are so many people bashing this? they haven't even seen the movie. digital technology is much better now.

Many equate digital filmmaking to flicks like The Blair Witch Project. They feel it's cheap and doesn't have the lushness and color saturation that traditional film has.

People are going to debate over image quality until the world ends. The key benefit of shooting digitally is workflow and the savings during the post production process- timewise and dollar-wise.
Digital cameras cost as much to rent, if not more than traditional film cameras. However, you'll save money when it comes to dailies services and distribution. There's no film to develop and transfer to videotape. You can start editing minutes after you complete a take. For a flick like BOND 23, which will shoot in foreign locales, this type of technology will be essential to the studio's bottom line.

Just be happy the film won't be in 3-D!

[Shrublands]

why are so many people bashing this? they haven't even seen the movie. digital technology is much better now.

Many equate digital filmmaking to flicks like The Blair Witch Project.

Many people might, but they’d be ill-informed and way out of date. The Blair Witch Project was a micro-budget production filmed with domestic camcorders over a decade ago.
Things have changed dramatically since and particularly in the last 12 months or so.
The Arri Alexa Studio (which isn’t even released until December this year, Bond gets it early), the Red Camera and the current Alexa are worlds away.

[001carus]

Mainstream movies are still generally shot on film - it's still by far the standard for many reasons, mostly because it's still easier to shoot on film. Film has a far larger range of light - by that I mean brighter highlights can get into the frame without overexposing and darker darks can get into the frame without underexposing. It's still easier to expose on film.

There's also the film grain vs. digital noise problem. Film grain is generally an aesthetically pleasing look and desired amongst filmmakers. Noise on the other hand is generally undesirable - it looks ugly. It creates a jarring, multi-coloured tearing on the frame. Most film makers just ensure there's enough light such that digital noise is never needed to be used, so you get that clean, clinical look like The Social Network. No noise, no grain. Just clean visuals. Which is quite nice. Others, like Michael Mann on the other hand, have embraced digital and digital noise and see it as an aesthetic right. Movies like Collateral and Miami Vice embrace noise and you can see it pop up a lot. This meant Mann didn't need a lot of light to light his scenes - most of it is all naturally lit.

Example of film grain (Saving Private Ryan - Spielberg loves film and he loves grain):
http://www.dvdbeaver...n_blu-ray2x.jpg

Example of digital noise (Collateral):
http://www.blu-ray.c...3979&position=6

ALSO: I know many people who watch Collateral/Miami Vice/Public Enemies and assume that the 'smooth,' 'smeary' look the films have is a result of shooting on digital. It's not. That's a result of shooting at a lower shutter speed, which is available on both film and digital. Mann chooses to shoot at lower shutter speeds, once again, for aesthetic choices and it also lets more light in (Once again allowing him to shoot in lower lighting conditions). Most films shot on high quality digital generally carry a similar aesthetic to film.

Digital is becoming more popular though. David Fincher (The Social Network) loves digital mostly because it allows him to record as much footage as he wants. Where film uses up expensive rolls of film stock, and thus, every second of footage recorded is money spent, digital is only limited by the space on a hard drive, so there's effectively unlimited recording space (or at least, it's far cheaper to buy more HDDs). Fincher uses this to great effect: he's notoriously known for his huge quantity of takes. The first scene in The Social Network had almost 100 takes.

So there's a bit of a lesson on the differences. There most likely won't be a huge difference in aesthetics from the previous Bonds to Bond 23, but gone will be the lovely grain patterns of Casino Royale and especially Quantum of Solace. The film will most likely be clean and well lit.

Sorry for the huge wall of text. But anyone interested enough, there you go.

Edited by 001carus, 06 June 2011 - 11:18 AM.

[Robinson]

This debate/discussion usually takes place between tech heads, cinemaphiles and enthusiasts.

The general moviegoing public doesn't care. The biggest issue to them are rising ticket prices and gimmicks used to justify paying a premium at the ticket window (3-D and IMAX).

[Matt_13]

Does this eliminate the possibility of IMAX?

[Judo chop]

I'm usually pretty good at identifying what was shot on film and what was digital, but the Argentian film The Secret in Their Eyes stumped me. I'd have sworn it was film, even though it was shot on the RED camera.

Just saw that film the other day. (Some really nice storytelling, by the way.)

I’m far from knowing my digitals from my celluloids at a mere glance (though when I see a film that is obnoxiously glittery I am quick to assume it was shot digitally), but if THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES was shot purely digital, then I have to believe that digital, like a gun, is only as evil as its weilder.