Digital Films

BlitzKrieg

After seeing sin city and Episode 3 what are peoples opinion of digital cinema?


Personnally i am mixed. Episode 3 (yes my hatred of the film is infamous but this is a technical niggle and has nothing to do with the film itself) Episode 2 and Sky Captain always annoyed me because my eyes found certain shots difficult to focus on and in the end large parts of the films turn into some soft focus dream to me. It wasnt until i watched the making of episode 2, that i think i have placed the problem it on the attempts to create scope when the green screen is matter of metres away from the character. It confuses my eyes and screws up their focus (I THINK, if anyone knows the real reason please tell me)

But after seeing Sin City i didnt have that problem and infact i feel it's the best presentation of digital cinema yet. Using digital to create a new way to look at images instead of just making the images bigger really impressed me and i feel its an encouragement for more creative films.

But most likely the star wars route will be taken with the bigger and bigger cinema.

THen there are the digital films like collateral which are simply shot on digital. that i feel is again a question of subject, wether digital is the best media for the topic (Traffic good example of different subjects)

Karl Hungus

It's just a means to an end really, and if the film is good, then it won't matter how it was shot. Sin City is an excellent example altogether, because the use of CGI isn't to pop up and go "Look at me, I'm an expensive CGI shot!" it's there to tell the story and nothing else.

ixoy

Karl Hungus wrote:

Sin City is an excellent example altogether, because the use of CGI isn't to pop up and go "Look at me, I'm an expensive CGI shot!" it's there to tell the story and nothing else.

Hasn't Lucas claimed that argument for the new Star Wars movies? That the CGI needed to be there to tell the story?...

'Sin City' is though, as you say, a great example of using the CGI to tell the story in a way that wouldn't be possible without the CGI. Yes, you could achieve a noir-look but not with the same sort of comic book feel, slightly OTT visuals, that were achieved here, nor some of the shots - such as Kevin's glasses.

As to the merits of digital over traditional film - is it easier to apply SF, edit, using digital? I assumed it is and that's how Rodriguez was able to tinker with the movie from his own studio. And is the main (argued) disadvantage an apparent loss of quality?

Kazaanova

I'm not completely up on digital films. I always hear they people dont use digitial because it makes the films look too clean, but wouldnt it be possible to shoot with digitial cameras and then kind of gritty the film up?

film_gonzo

ixoy wrote:

As to the merits of digital over traditional film - is it easier to apply SF, edit, using digital? I assumed it is and that's how Rodriguez was able to tinker with the movie from his own studio. And is the main (argued) disadvantage an apparent loss of quality?

Well nowadays even film is digitised to edit and do special fx. Film is scanned, frame by frame into a computer and manipulated. Then is reproccessed back onto film for projection.

Obviously if you're dealing with digital from the start it's easier to import it into a computer and work with it. This cuts down on cost. Also because digital is shot on video it's alot cheaper than film which needs to be developed and then processed and spend hours in the lab before it can even be viewed(thats what directors are talking about when they say 'print it').

HIGH DEFINATION digital technology (ie. the stuff that Lucas uses) is of a far higher quality than film but because we're used to watching film it looks too real, almost hyper-real, and thus not as appealling. Now obviously this is improving as the technology does.

Digital is here to stay. Alot of cinemas now are considering installing didital projectors which will recieve movies transferred by satellite straight to a hard-drive at the cinema. This cuts down on shipping and printing cost for studios.And is a counter-action measure against pirating from lost or stolen prints.

Bascially the big deal about digital is the low costs, the ease at which you can shoot with it and the fact that you can now edit and do sfx that we only discovered 10-15 odd years ago on your home pc. Thus removing any stigma of who can and who can't be a filmmaker. Now because it's so cheap, anyone can and that leads to diversity and innovation which can only be a good thing.

BlitzKrieg

interesting side story

my local cinema (thurles capitol) got its digital projector (which i saw and i admit it looks cool)but despite having it in time for both sin city and star wars they were never sent any digital films (and still dont have any)

Vokes

I saw Signs, which i believe was shot with digital cameras (i think), on a digital projector in Chicago 3 years ago - it looked very good, was well impressed.

sutty

I seen Sin Citys in UGC there on Monday. I cant say I noticed the differance. But then again, I was sitting in the second row. But the movie over all looked very impessive. hopefuly films like batman begins and Serenity will be on digitil so we can get a good idea of what a movie can look like if they go all out.