True Grit, your last venture with film...for now?

[jures80]

Based on some replies I've been reading, it seems that you may be making the leap to digital capture with your next feature; a futuristic thriller seems like a departure for you, so making this your first digital film seems appropriate!

Because you were trained on the only medium available (film), you have grown accustomed to it. I too have only been able to shoot on what is available. This has been various digital rigs (Canon 5D/7D, Sony CineAlta F900R, Sony EX3) and I've never been satisfied. This is partially a short-coming on my part, and I understand that the camera is only as good as the man behind it, but I have always dreamed of making the leap to film for at least my schooling in cinematography. Now that you appear to be abandoning film (at least momentarily), do you feel like it is important for aspiring DoP's to get their feet wet with celluloid, or should we just become well-versed with a digital workflow? I feel like film creates a discipline for a set, and I don't really like the idea of immediacy on set because it takes a lot of the planning and discipline out of the equation.

I'd love to be able to shoot on the ALEXA (the only digital camera I've been more impressed with than been able to find faults with), but if I was to budget like that for a project, I could easily shoot on S16mm or even short ends of 35mm film. When I get answers to this question, they are typically riddled with talk of resolution and pixels. This is important, but I'm more concerned with whether or not it is wise for someone on the beginning of their career to even consider film an option.

[Roger]

I agree that film creates a discipline that is often missing when people start out shooting with a digital camera. However, to be quite honest, I would be very surprised if film is in common use for more than a few years. I was shooting some inserts for 'True Grit' over the weekend and I realized I had been missing the whir of the film running through the gate and just the 'mystery' of emulsion but it's not enough. For better or for worse everything today is about immediacy.

[MarcVanOsdale]

Hey Roger

In terms of immediacy, do you think that the calibrated monitors you and the director can look at for playback are truly showing you the image that you are trying to capture in the camera? Are you shooting Raw with the Alexa? Shooting digitally, are you considering getting rid of your light meter and just lighting by eye and checking the monitor/histogram?

Marc Van Osdale

[Roger]

I have a fully calibrated Colorstream system which does show me the raw data I am capturing as well as the image I will get with a chosen LUT applied. I can also override this LUT and create my own timing per scene and this will accompany the recorded file to the timing facility, which is E Films in this case. The monitor I am viewing is exactly the same as the one on which I watch dailies. I am not shooting raw as this is not available at present but I am shooting uncompressed and this is probably just about as good as the raw will be. I do still use a light meter.

[V.Sweeney]

So you are shooting via a monitor only? How is it for you to adjust to this after using an optical viewfinder? I thought you were against this system of shooting.

[Roger]

At times I wish I had an optical viewfinder, for sure, but the advantages of shooting with the Alexa outweigh the disadvantages.

[V.Sweeney]

Can you talk more about what advantages you are finding with using the Alexa? Any surprises that you didn't expect? Are you still shooting at about the same asa or is it often useful to be able to dial it up to 1000, etc?

I was recently on a digital shoot where we used a lot of existing light on the streets near downtown LA at 1000asa+ I noticed that I was actually having overexposure issues with certain backgrounds, like where bright neon signs came into frame and some store displays that would show up a little too well! An actor walked by one store display that appeared later in the dailies to look like I had placed an (almost too bright) light in the window but it was just some scatter from their 200w floods pointed at their clothes.

[RodrigoPrata]

Mr Roger

Are you using the new leica lenses ?

Thanks

[jures80]

As a cinematographer, how do you think that cinematographers need to evolve to become successful in the current climate of digital technology?

If immediacy is paramount, should we be more concerned with quick results rather than taking the time to tweak on set? Especially if digital cameras make post production easier?

I'm finding it very interesting that one of the most notable cinematographers in Hollywood today (if I may say that) is even considering the possibilities of digital technology despite his long relationship with film although, I am still excited to shoot on film in grad school.

[Roger]

I am impressed with the Alexa and would certainly consider it in the future. For this initial project I have found the camera a perfect choice. Much of the time I have been shooting with the camera set at 800 ASA, which I have found totally adequate for all my night work and interiors, but I have stepped down to 400 ASA for any day exteriors. The camera continues to impress me.
My lighting approach is no different than it would have been had I been shooting on film, although I have found the increased latitude of the camera has allowed me more options when it comes to using practical sources. At night I have found that the camera's sensitivity can have an adverse effect such as when every existing street lamp has to be taken into account and I have been constantly turning them off.
It is a fallacy of having a sensitive camera that there is less need to light. There may be a need for less light but that is different. Lighting is, after all, a means to create a mood and not just a way to get an exposure. A camera is only a tool and there is no reason why the role of the cinematographer should be considered to be any different because the technology in use is changing.
I am shooting with the Master Prime lenses right now as the Leicas are still not available as a full set.

[Juan Pablo]

Roger, hi, can you talk about i little more about issues, if that the case, on the alexa often found in digital cameras as problems resolving certain patterns (fabric, walls, etc), shutter, climatic, like weather conditions performance, etc. Since your lighting approach hasn't change (which is great) do you have a regular kilowatts petition list for lighting or it changes a lot from film to film? sure some lighting must change from film to film but do you have regular base lighting list say for e.g. you always start with a 20 kw base and then judging for specifics needs you add more? Best regards

JP

Waiting on the True Grit release! hope it opens intenationally as the december us premiere (as it is in announced in the IMDB site)

[Roger]

I don't light that way. Every location and set requires a different approach and therefore a different set of equipment and power supply. I may light a scene with a single 100 watt bulb or I may light it with 90 kw of HMI light. I suppose that is why a 'truck' package of lighting equipment for a film can be quite large as it has to accommodate the largest day to day lighting requirements.

[esl88]

While I'm sure that digital cameras are getting a lot better, I think it should also be taken into account that film will always continue to get better as well (as long as it's in demand, that is). In fact, Kodak claims that in a few years they will come out with a 2000 ASA film stock that looks comparable to todays 500. Aesthetically, would you say that the Alexa looks better than todays 35mm, as good, or almost as good? I only ask because I think film is still the way to go on most projects. Then again, I'm sort of old-fashioned.

[Roger]

It is hard to say whether the Alexa looks 'better' than 5219 or an image produced on any film emulsion. That's a very subjective question after all. It is also one that depends somewhat on the format you are shooting in and whether the film will be finished digitally or photochemically, projected digitally or on film, and whether the release prints will be done from an IN, from the original camera negative or from output DI negatives. If you ask me whether the Alexa can produce a more pleasing image (that is more pleasing to my eye) than film in a 1:85 format, I would say unequivocally yes! If you were to compare a print from an original anamorphic negative (a slower emulsion) with an equivalent wide screen image extracted from the Alexa, then I would say that, under optimum circumstances, the film image might be more 'pleasing'. But if you were to pose this same question whilst insisting that the the scene be lit by a single candle, I would say that the Alexa would win out every time. If you were to shoot using the Alexa and anamorphic lenses then the Alexa might win out over film in every circumstance including bright exterior sunlight.
My preference is to shoot spherical wide screen rather than true anamorphic. Judging the comparison between a wide screen extracted image from the Alexa and a Super 35mm film negative (both being viewed in a digital format) I would give the edge to that from the Alexa. However, the Alexa has a sensitivity of 800ASA and can be used at 1600ASA with only a slight noise increase. That has to be a factor in any comparison.
I don't believe Kodak has any real stake in the digital market. If they really can produce an emulsion rated at 2000 ASA, which is truly comparable to today's 500 ASA stock, then I think they should do it very quickly! The Alexa can produce an image equivalent to one shot on a 500 ASA film stock, but at a rating of 1600 ASA and it can do it now. It seems to me that film is limited by it's inherent physical properties but also, and more tellingly, it is limited in it's practicality as a business model.

[MarcVanOsdale]

Roger

Are you extracting a 2.35 image from the Alexa, does the story require more of an "Epic Scale" that matting your image to widescreen would produce? If you were to take on another project like "A Serious Man" that might not call for the widescreen image, would you shoot 1.78 or matte to 1.85 on the Alexa?

Marc Van Osdale