Cinematography : Casino Royale vs Skyfall by Brandon D. Hyde

I'm still in favour of 35mm until we get 6k. 35mm grain is down to 2 micron whereas pixels are around 4 micron so you're down-rezzing when going to a DI. Alexa can't even go down to 50ASA... So you cannot get that subtle look, only hard reality unless you "fix it in post"...

Boys i am sorry but the right answer is it depends on the film, the script and the director and most important if your going after theatrical release , its tv, direct to DVD, the new fad of streaming , 3d , 4k or now redeye lazor which is a new technology we will try on our new project www.theresurrectionofjesuschrist.com

Franz Perhaps the numbers can be somewhat misleading in that the lowest MTF of the all components in the entire workflow determines the sharpness of what the audience sees on the screen, not just one aspect of the sensitive media taken by itself. I've seen a lot of my own footage, both film and electronic projected on large screens. Before starting a picture using test footage I've shot through the complete workflow to be used for that picture and then judge the results based on the deliverables. The random grain structure of film does add a quality to the image, however electronic images transferred to film for release also have a random grain pattern and there are film grain emulators available during colour correction. Remember that film grain is added with every step of the workflow that is film based, so what you start with is not what you end with. The current best electronic cameras and film stocks have individual strengths and weaknesses yet are quite comparable in overall effective quality when seated in a theatre, even without popcorn. Images are made up of far more than resolution. High end electronic cameras are; comparable in resolution to current film stocks, the colour gamut of the best electronic cameras matches or exceeds film, the latitude is comparable to current negative stocks. The Alexa can make beautiful images but certainly not the highest resolution. The camera is a tool to tell the story. If the camera, or film stock, chosen enhances the story and the audience experience while watching then it is the correct choice. Along with choosing the camera and lenses comes the lighting, the colour palette and the artistic style of the images used together to tell a story. The choice of tools and implementation of the styles to best tell the story is one of the first critical decisions I make as a DP. For Skyfall, I am quite confident that Rodger was fully capable of deciding upon what the images would look like and what tools he wished to use to achieve that look as efficiently as possible satisfying his artistry and the needs of the picture. You are correct in stating that the Alexa cannot be set to 50 ASA but why is that important? Which subtlety of image do you perceive is lost in electronic cameras? What would have to be "done in post" to achieve that subtlety? While "hard reality" may be desirable for some stories, it does not fit all stories, and as such would not be created where it was not the desired feel regardless of shooting with film or electronic cameras. Did you really feel that the Alexa images that Rodger created for Skyfall gave you the feeling of "hard reality"?

David What is "redeye lazor"?

Its a new technology coming out soon, where with a laser they can map a room , a building , a town , a landscape in exact detail 360 degrees and then go back to the computer with this data, and now enter avatar people , or take out a telephone pole , or a building, add a person, its 3d on steroids, were using it for our next film. Imagine sending one team with this technology to Morocco and then they come back and you shoot the whole film in LA. Don't need to hire and crew and fly a team to Morocco

My apologies to others if this seems too technical, i am trying to keep it simple. Laser triangulated 3D surface mapping, or LIDAR, as used by NASA since the mid '80's and by manufacturing, machining, etc. for a number of years now. This accurately maps a location and the buildings in order to generate the base architecture for background or set extension plates. Then shooting actors and foreground elements on a virtual stage. Not really new technology at all but that doesn't matter and it is better that it has been around for a while. That's a lot of CGI in every frame and with the $$$ troubles that so many of the big VFX companies have gone through, there will not be a lot of wiggle room to make budgeting deals. And certainly flat rates for VFX hopefully have pretty much ended. This does leave the wonderfully archaic way of actually putting people in real locations to make it look and feel real. The two approaches result in quite different effects. Accurate budget projections for each approach will be revealing. Hope the decision is based upon what will make the best movie. lots of variables there, good luck with that

Andrew - you are so technically correct, but what about the emotion and passion in film? Or do you just prefer the wham bang films? Actually you sum up all you say with the words "film grain emulators" which is an admission that film has a better look, so why reinvent the wheel?? As to why 50ASA, it has different grain structure and it enables you to open up and get a better DoF - which you CANNOT "fix in post" or perhaps you prefer to use an ND? Why stick a cheap bit of plastic over an expensive lens which is not necessary. (I actually prefer to get a sharper image by closing the shutter) All very sad… Future films will be cold and calculated. Happily I will not be around, and I'm glad I have used a 35mm Mitchell BNCR on an Oxberry - the same as Hitch used on Rope. Again, a type of film which will never be seen again.

Actually Andrew that is only half correct, yes the technology has been in use since the late 70's and on but what i am talking about is a new tech piece that has components of 3d and Laser 3d mapping , with avatar actors , CG, that is now quite affordable and great quality that Jack Beckett who has been in Hollywood for 50 years has developed that we will be using on a big feature film next year. Its quite impressive what can be done now a days

Franz Art over Technology. Ever seen a dramatic film about test charts? Prefer wham bang films? No, quite the opposite. I'll go for story, beauty, character, complexity and broad emotional arc every time. 50 ASA film like the current Kodak 5203 is indeed very fine grain film, that make wonderful pictures. I do love the colour. Interesting that their push is to finer and finer (less apparent) grain, what does that sound like? The random structure of the grain does have an effect, but what is that effect? Knowing the feel of the effect means I can either then emulate it or make the same feel in various ways. The softness that the grain structure allows for a visual balance with resolution to create a desired feel. Knowing that, I can use grain emulators, or electronically noisier cameras, or other visual means to generate the same effect just in a different way. Thus, sorry but no, an emulator is not an admission of "better" but delivers an expected part of a "look" for the exact same impact. This is not re-inventing the wheel, it is adding more choices in types of wheels. Choice is good because I'm kinda picky Many pictures shot on film have electronic images and sequences within them and they are indistinguishable from the rest of the picture. Years ago I was shooting the fall launch for a car manufacturer and we inserted at least 1 HD originated shot into every commercial. Nobody could pick the shots out of the finished spots, including me. This is just part of the imaging palette that we approach film-making with at this time. The more resolution and colour space I have available in an image, the more I can selectively degrade it technically to enhance the esthetic effect I wish to create while maintaining the deliverable image quality. Some of this image modification is done in camera and on set, some in post. As a DP, my contracts now include guiding the image through myriad post processes in order to protect the artistic intent from fiddling fingers. Please don't consider these changes a loss of older methods of doing things but as a technology enabled evolution. The new technology can do the same things and more just using different techniques. Current tools allow us unheard of control over the images we create and make that process easier as well. Your point about 50 ASA and neutral densities is a good example. Shooting Kodak 5203, the first consideration is the "sunny 16" rule, or with the sun behind you, 50ASA, f/16 at 1/48 of a second exposure time. f/16 gives a pretty big depth of field that I do not often choose to shoot. To lessen the depth of field, you could use a smaller shutter angle, which changes the appearance of motion, or use neutral density filters. Cheap plastic ND filters? I agree with you. Do not use cheap plastic filters. While the CR39 resin used in good plastic filters has excellent optical properties, it does damage easily. My preference is always multi-coated optical glass from many many sources that I have tested to ensure the resolution and colour qualities. There is nothing wrong with using neutral density filters but with much more sensitive sensors, electronic cameras do need to use a lot more ND which can have unexpected consequences. Future films will not be cold and calculated unless that tells the story most effectively. Our current camera technology has not created an imaging dystopia with pixel-packin' poindexters running amok. Unless you allow that to happen. The technology, and knowledge of it, allows me an equal or greater ease of creating images or better yet creating images that could not be created in the past. Warm, romantic images with electronics cameras is pretty simple. That is the good part of the technology. Artists with the necessary knowledge experience and skills will continue to create images that move you, that transcend the everyday and work with the story to bring your imagination to the screen . Or we will just screw it up and it will all look like local news :-) remember, Art over Technology BTW light field camera systems are in development which actually will allow us to choose depth of field in post.

David Looking forward to seeing the results and hearing about the actual efficacy of the process. Good luck

It’s Roger Deakins! Of course it’s intentional. He would know the limitations of the camera he is using. Did I say it already. It’s Roger Deakins!