I was listening to Rick Steves' radio show interviewing Martin Clunes. He's the producer and Mr. Clunes says it's shot on film. He says he liked the look of it. The show does looks lushous to me.
“We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance and wealth with happiness.
We are monkeys with money and guns.”
― Tom Waits
Actually, his wife Philippa Braithwaite is the producer.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
During its fundraising right now, our local PBS station is running a "making of" short about the program that was shot last year during Series 6 production. I was excited to no end when it revealed that film cameras are still being used. One can actually see a magazine being attached to one.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
Thanks for the tip; I'll try to find an on-line way to hear that Rick Steves interview.
EDIT: OK, here's the link:
Clunes' interview starts at 33:30. Steves does call him co-producer, although on-screen credits identify only Braithwaite. The shot-on-film comments can be found from 39:00 - 39:20.
Last edited by Sal Santamaura; 02-03-2014 at 11:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Well, time to eat crow. Yesterday, as has been our tradition, my wife wanted to "go see a movie" on Christmas day. So, even though the theater we've patronized (that until last year had kept one screen with film projection) has capitulated to distributors and gone fully digital, I agreed to see "The Imitation Game," which was originated on film. I'm not sure what projection equipment specifications were involved, but the image was still acceptable to me. Small differences included no image wander and a lack of flicker, but otherwise film's superior characteristics came through. Preview trailers for features shot digitally had an obvious "video" look. My new line in the sand is "only features originated on film.
Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
The end of film? First studio stops distributing celluloid
I still like to go to this one theater in my area which did not convert over to digital and continued using the old film projectors for movies since they still distributed movies on film.
Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura
Well, now that some distributors are not sending out film movies, the theater hasn't done so well and they will be closing the doors early this upcoming year...
I agree, movies that were originated on film still hold at least some of the film characteristics, and are certainly better then the digital originated movies in terms of subtle image quality.
I do not purposefully go to movies that were only originated on film, however I can instantly tell when they were, and after the movie is over I go home and look it up to see if I was right, I have not been wrong once yet
When digital can fool me, it will be an interesting day.
I'm really not sure I can tell the difference, and honestly I care even less than I can tell. I shoot film because I enjoy the process. But the process of watching the movie is the same either way. If I could tell a difference it might matter to me but I never notice one. Now some of the previews, and the definitely crappy resolution advertisements before hand, those I can tell.
But I rarely go to theaters now anyway. I'll probably see the newest Hobbit movie because I'm a big Tolkien fan. But I have seen exactly one movie in a theater (Guardians of the Galaxy) since the last Hobbit movie last year. Instead I just wait for their release on Blu-Ray or Netflix and watching at home on my very digital projector with the 11' wide screen and 5.1 sound. More than close enough, the popcorn and snacks are much cheaper, no gas burned, no waiting in line, pause any time, bring my dog down to sit on the couch with us, whatever. Of course it's digital. Looks great to me though so I don't care.
I'm a bit fanatical in my devotion to USING film, but even then not 100% - I shoot my share of iPhone snapshots and it's mainly trying to save money that's stopped me from buying a digital camera for all those family and vacation shots I just don't have time (or inclination, to be honest) to do properly in the darkroom.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It's usually a straightforward task to tell if something was made on film-- look at the highlights. Digital still can't manage the highlights, unless the lighting is well controlled. Skies continue to be blown out in digitally recorded films if there's a big enough difference between the highlights and darker areas. Movies done with film just don't have that problem. It's most obvious on low-budget documentaries, and sometimes high-budget ones as well (sports is another area where you see this a lot) Camera pans to the sky, and the highlights are completely gone.
So long as digital can't manage highlights the way color negative film can, I'll keep right on using film. That and I strongly prefer a 4x5 crop and dislike 35mm, but that's another story.
In the loooong past it was about 90%.
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
Still and movie cam film may have contracted pro rata.
But the key point is Ron's if Sony have 'rented' Kodaks coater for five years of ECN then we (would) have five years of fresh Tx and TMY-2? A possible alternative is less good
Not been in movie theatre since the general release of Alien, only watch TV in shop windows.
Note ilford made mono cine until 2002-2004 I still shoot HP5+ B&H sprockets.
I watch old movies on TV. Some are well done, others have issues simply because of the state of the technology back when they were made. I watch them because I like them or find them interesting.
I'd do the same with movies captured on digital... except it seems most new movies are about showing off CGI, or merely being a poorly executed remake of an older movie (or subject matter that doesn't interest me, but that is outside this post).
For example, I grew up on reruns of Speed Racer. When the movie came out, the trailers communicated it was all about the special effects - so I've not seen the movie. A friend went to see it, and confirmed my suspicions.
The Haunting is another example. The remake was all about the special effects. The only "special effect" in the original was a couple guys pushing on a door with a piece of wood - plus I'd only seen it on late night TV and VHS... yet I liked it better, because it was about the story.
I did see one Harry Potter movie at the theatre, and I did like it (plot-wise). However, it was captured on digital, so there were artifacts throughout the movie - and they really annoyed me. The artifacts were of the kind that film surpassed by the 1940s (if not earlier); I was watching a modern movie with problems that film resolved before my parents were born. Kind of sad.
I wouldn't mind so much if the movies were otherwise good.
Not too long ago I saw Philomena in the theatres.
The movie was excellent. It was shot digitally on "Red" technology.
The digital technology did an excellent job of capturing lots of drearily lit scenes - which was entirely appropriate for the movie.
It would be interesting to see how a film cinematographer would have dealt with the situation.
Most importantly though, it was a well done, interesting movie with superb acting.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
The last motion picture I saw was Intersteller. Saw it at the Boeing IMAX theater at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle, Washington. A true full-on film work-of-art. Shot on film. Projected on film. Appreciated on film.
There is no comparison to the IMAX 70mm 15-perf per frame ~18K resolution format. None. Brilliantly projected onto a six-story screen the colors and resolution take your breath away. When coupled with a screenplay that treats gravitational time-dilation as matter-of-factly as morning breakfast, it was an intellectually marvelous experience.*
If you walk around to the back side, the IMAX theater has a large public picture window into the projection room. You can watch the ~600-pound horizontal platter of 70mm film feed through the computerized projector. It's an amazing sight in itself.
We were told to be in our seats directly, as there were no lead-in previews or other commercials before the film started. This was because the film itself was planned and built directly around the IMAX format from the beginning. The full running time takes every last wind around that enormous platter.
I won't pay to see digital theater movies. Ever. I can get those cheap, cheap, cheap from Netflix. And watch 'em in the basement with the dog, if I'm interested. The vast majority of the time, I'm not.
Honestly? My life is not really dominated by things jumping out into my face. Somebody needs to clue Hollywood in to that...
* I kept having to suddenly think "Wait a minute! What exactly did I just see?" Then think it through for a moment, only to realize that hey, I think that's actually correct! Or pretty darned close.
For readers who have seen the film, remember the line "This all probably happened only about an hour ago?" Had to momentarily work the frames of reference backwards in my head until I got that. So damned cool!
Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 12-29-2014 at 03:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"Take her to sea, Mister Murdoch. Let's stretch her legs."
The First Officer then reaches out and confidently rings the engine room telegraph over to ALL AHEAD FULL...
— Captain Edward John Smith to First Officer William Murdoch, on the bridge of the RMS Titanic, 11 April 1912