This quote from the late Robin Williams was originally from an observational joke he made about former President Ronald Reagan when he was quoted as saying, "What would this great country be without this great land of ours?" To which many of us understandably responded, "What?" This politically charged joke is the perfect analogy for today's subject: a practice utilized in Hollywood and some independent groups to chase that mythological perception of the "cinematic" look. One that I can't help but feel is far too costly and, as you might expect, redundant for its own good.
I have discussed the unhealthy, impractical, and ultimately defeatist idea of defining a "cinematic" look many times on this blog before. Be it regarding color correction practices, production design & lighting choices, and especially camera selection, placing any hard and fast rule as to what constitutes "cinematic" is, and always shall be, counterproductive to the very nature of cinema itself. As far as I am concerned, cinema is the art of creating movement through manipulating images to tell a cohesive and engaging story. That's it!
However, some people prefer a more complex definition, especially those well-embedded within the industry. They want you to believe you must have a blurry background or a specific halation of the lights and colors. All of these basically boil down to the aesthetics associated with celluloid film. In an age where digital cameras are significantly superior to celluloid film and have their own unique cinematic aesthetic and identity, the assumption that celluloid film must be the only viable option for cinema remains as absurd as it ever was!
This is not to say that making your digital images look more like celluloid film is inherently ridiculous; it is an entirely valid option should the story you're telling call for such aesthetics. There are plenty of creative and affordable ways to recreate that aesthetic regardless of capture format: specialized filters, grain overlays, color LUTs, etc. All of which can assist in creating the desired look for a fraction of the cost of using actual celluloid film.
However, one practice has my head spinning with its ridiculousness and not the good kind.
This machine from Arri, the company behind much of the equipment used in movie productions, mostly cameras (both film and digital), does something that, while impressive in its own right, seems wholly unnecessary to me personally. The purpose of the machine is to take a digital video file, print it onto a roll of celluloid film, and then rescan that film print to create another digital video file. This aims to create a brand new digital copy of a finished movie that was captured digitally but has now been imbued with the aesthetics and qualities of celluloid film. For more details, check out this video explaining the process: The Arri Machine.
Producing a film print from a digital file is more common than it may sound. Most theaters had yet to adopt digital projectors in the early days of using digital cameras for making movies. So, creating film prints from digital video was necessary at the time. Plus, film prints remain the best way to preserve and archive works of art better than any highly advanced hard drive ever could. Yes, physical media has more significant advantages, but film prints only require you to shine a light through the frame to see the action.
Making a film print of your digital movie is one thing, but spending the time and money to create a film print only to turn around and immediately rescan the film to create yet another digital file is entirely wasteful. Many theaters have mostly, if not wholly, adopted digital projectors by now, and the ones that still feature classic film projectors seem few and far between. Yes, the new film print may be used in some markets, and having a film print at your disposal can provide a wonderful sense of collector pride, but beyond that, this all seems rather silly and not the good kind.
As I mentioned earlier, there are numerous ways to recreate the aesthetics of celluloid film when using digital capture that don't require costly machinery and harsh chemicals. At the risk of sounding like an old man yelling at the sun, this practice seems impractical. It comes across as yet another way the film industry is undermining the potential for exploring cinematic aesthetics within digital video itself.
I will never tire of saying this so long as it bears repeating: cinema is not defined by what format your story presents itself in but by how well you tell it. If your story needs to look like film but you can't afford it, there are plenty of creative and cost-efficient ways to achieve that look. Otherwise, feel free to present a story that looks like video. It might add more to your story than you think.
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment