American Cinematographer - November 2008 - (Page 12)

Letters Another “Grumpy” Cinematographer Speaks Out I’m writing in regard to the recent letter penned by Jim Stinson in response to “The DI Dilemma, or: Why I Still Love Celluloid,” the Filmmakers’ Forum written by John Bailey, ASC, that was published in your June 2008 issue. I hereby request that my name be added to Stinson’s list of grumpy cinematographers, behind Charles G. Clarke, ASC, and Bailey. (Apparently, in Stinson’s opinion, cinematographers expressing their reservations about a shift to digital capture, finish and exhibition of theatrical feature films are “grumpy.”) I believe when highly experienced and thoughtful cinematographers like Bailey have views regarding the control of the quality and the integrity of the images they create, we should give those views serious consideration. Bailey expressed his disdain for high-definition video as a capture medium in feature-film production, comparing it unfavorably to 35mm motion-picture film. Stinson responds, “He criticizes the qualities of digital recordings. Granted, but look at the technical progress in the last decade; the development of digital recording is far from mature.” Maybe I missed something, but I thought this was exactly the point. Why change to a capture technology that is far from “mature” when you are now using something that is? Not only is 35mm motion-picture film a mature and excellent capture medium, but it also keeps improving with the introduction of new negative, positive and intermediate stocks. The fact that film is not yet dead (or has not been murdered) speaks volumes about the preference of cinematographers in the choice of tools they use to create high-quality imagery. However, there is no doubt in my mind that when digital formats emerge that cinematographers decide are superior to film, we will happily start using them. Bailey related that some cinematographers complain they have lost control of their work in the digital world of postproduction or are being forced out of the DI process by producers, studio executives and 12 November 2008 others. To this, Stinson responds, “Maybe, but the cinematographer’s level of control depends on his or her contractual and personal relations within the production. So get control, already.” Cinematographers know the situations Bailey describes. The DI suites seem to be getting more crowded by the day. Collaborators who show up eager to help with color correction, strong proponents of “We’ll fix it in post,” and the many-faceted postproduction demands of modern film companies sometimes make the quality of the image secondary to competing agendas. I’ve never met Stinson, and I don’t know anything about his work experience or history, but I’m wondering if he will share his experiences in getting control of his latest production or DI color-correction sessions. Bailey also described a report by the Science and Technology Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences relating to archiving and storing motion pictures. The report, “The Digital Dilemma,” addresses the high cost of safe storage of digital files and the considerable expense of the migration of digital masters every five to seven years to ensure data is not lost due to upgrades in digital formats, and it compares these figures to the lower costs of film storage. Bailey related the successful retrieval and remastering of 40-year-old original film footage for a new video release of a film he worked on, Two-Lane Blacktop. Stinson comments, “He worries about the archival quality of digital vs. film elements. Has he forgotten the number of film-based movies lost to decay? Has he looked at a type 5254 or even 5247 negative recently? (You know, the kind that retains only magenta information?)” I’m not an expert in film restoration, but I know of two films restored earlier this year from the original film negatives, The Godfather and The Godfather Part II. Both were shot on 5254. The people who accomplished this restoration report that the negatives, though physically damaged, delivered stunning results. The negatives were scanned, and both films were finished in the DI process. No fade or color-shift problems were reported. The restoration of these two films is a great example of how existing film technology and digital technology can be used together to preserve and even enhance the work of the cinematographer. Historically, cinematographers have taken the leading role in the choice of tools and the supervision of creating and finishing their work. Discussions about how or why this role is being affected by technological change should be taken seriously. John Toll, ASC Los Angeles, Calif. Cropping for HDTV Seeing the letter from Walter Lassally, BSC, in the August 2008 issue made me think American Cinematographer might address a concern of mine: HDTV channels are increasingly showing movies in the incorrect aspect ratio. More specifically, ’Scope films or films generally released in 2.40:1 are being broadcast at 1.78:1. Recent examples I have noticed are Superman Returns and the musicals Hairspray and The Producers. This is very disturbing to me, as I imagine it would be to cinematographers. Like 1.33:1, 1.78:1 isn’t how they intended their movies to be seen! Matt Vance Northridge, Calif. Letters to the editor can be sent to: Letters, American Cinematographer, 1782 N. Orange Dr., Hollywood, CA, 90028. Submissions must include your name, address and telephone number; letters without this information will not be considered. AC reserves the right to edit letters for length and clarity.

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

American Cinematographer - November 2008 Contents Editor’s Note Letters Short Takes Production Slate Forging a Bond The Making of a President Thunder Down Under Habitat for Inhumanity Saluting Television’s Top Talents Post Focus New Products & Services International Marketplace Classified Ads Ad Index Clubhouse News ASC Close-Up

American Cinematographer - November 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.