American Cinematographer - June 2008 - (Page 92)

Filmmakers’ Forum The DI Dilemma, or: Why I Still Love Celluloid by John Bailey, ASC A recent story on National Public Radio’s (NPR) morning news program should sound an alarm to every working cinematographer. It confirmed my own worst imaginings about the diminishing role we are facing over the creative control of our work. Filing from a digital bay in a wellrespected Santa Monica color-correction facility, reporter Susan Stamberg interviewed an eminent colorist, who, she said, “corrects” all the mistakes cal process can eliminate wrinkles and imperfections in actors’ faces, pointing out that an increasing number of actors have a provision in their contracts to “correct” the markers of aging. Everyone interviewed for the story seemed to embrace this wondrous new control of the image except for a costume designer, who said she hated it because all of the work she’d done in testing and choosing colors can now be “tweaked” by a keystroke. I make no secret of my disdain for every manufacturer’s claim that its highdefinition-video camera equals the quality of 35mm motion-picture film. and flaws of the original photography. At one point, the colorist referred to the scene he brought up as “the raw film,” as though it were nothing more than a preparatory sketch for his digital painting. Stamberg called the colorist a “Da Vinci of movies,” an “artist” who can remove the green in an actor’s face or turn a sunny day into an imminent winter snowstorm. In the much simpler world of photochemical printing, the same people are called “timers,” though surely the best of them are equally artistic. Also interviewed in the digital suite was one of the film’s producers, who was making decisions on the grading of the film with the colorist. I don’t know whether the director was hovering somewhere in the room; he was never mentioned. Stamberg noted how this magi92 June 2008 Not once was there a quote from or a reference to the cinematographer, the person who creates the images. Was this a mere oversight, or is there something more ominous afoot? I confess I have not been, nor am I now, a big fan of the digital-intermediate (DI) process. I make no secret of this, just as I make no secret of my disdain for every manufacturer’s claim that its high-definition-video camera equals the quality of 35mm motion-picture film. For more than 20 years, my choice for image capture has been 35mm film in the anamorphic format, and it has been my preference to answer-print and releaseprint on film. This is for both aesthetic and technical reasons. On the aesthetic level, I find the 2.40:1 aspect ratio to be openly expansive for large interiors and exteriors, yet also able to embrace the intimate environs of a small-scale drama. The Accidental Tourist (AC Nov. ’88), the first film I photographed in the anamorphic format, is mainly a twoperson interior drama; I was gratified at how careful lens selection and composition could maintain intimacy without any sense of being caught in a confined space. Selective depth of field, easier in anamorphic than with spherical systems, helps guide the viewer’s eye to the chosen action. The added quality of transparency and depth that comes with a full-aperture frame is striking when compared with 1.85:1 and, especially, Super 35mm, or “poor man’s anamorphic.” Given the higher resolution of the anamorphic frame, I have found it problematic to down-rez or degrade it to a 2K or even a 4K DI. There are those in the digital world who will dispute this, but I trust my eyes. On a technical level, I don’t see the efficacy of embracing the DI for the non-effects films I usually photograph. I use greenscreen for effects shots, which are scanned, worked on at a digital station, and then rendered back to film. I do this for the scenes that require it, but why should I digitize the entire movie? “For more control,” say some. Ah, control — the double-edged sword. Whose control? If the recent NPR story is any indication, it is not the cinematographer’s control. A decade ago, many cinematographers embraced the DI process as a promising technology. My ASC colleague Roger Deakins demonstrated its potential with his work on

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - June 2008

American Cinematographer - June 2008 Contents Editor's Note Short Takes: "100 Days, " Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings Production Slate: Mongol Production Slate: Greensburg Vintage Indy A Prince in Peril Women's World 90 Years of Precision Post Focus: A 3-D Imax Work Flow for Wild Ocean Post Focus: 3cP Incorporates ASC CDL on State of Play Filmmakers' Forum: John Baily, ASC New Products & Services International Marketplace Classified Ads Ad Index ASC Membership Roster In Memoriam: Gayne Rescher, ASC Clubhouse News ASC Close-Up: Rob McLachlan

American Cinematographer - June 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.