Side by Side by Chris Kennelly

7/31/2019 Side by Side by Chris Kennelly

1/39

WSIDE BY SIDE: Part OneA Pointof ViewSEPTEMBER 24, 2012 INJOHNS BAILIWICK2 COMMENTS

Side by Side director Chris Kenneally.

ONE

On Friday, August 31, after an opening day screening of his

documentarySide by Side, about the intersection of film and digitalvideo, director Chris Kenneally faced a Q&A audience at LincolnCenters new Elinor Bunin Munroe Cinemas. Located across from the

Juilliard School on W.65th St., the complex is an integral arm of the FilmSociety of Lincoln Center. Kenneally had arrived from a similaraudience session downtown at Greenwich Villages Quad Cinema.I arrived early, but bought the last ticket for the screening in theAmphitheatre. Descending the stairs of the high tech but intimateroom, I saw not a white screen but a dark reflective surface that lookedto be about thirteen feet diagonally. I turned around to check theprojection booth and ports. There were none. Looking back to the

screen, I read the word Panasonic across the bottom of the bezel. Itsa televisionand I saw the whole room reflected in it.
http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/http://www.theasc.com/blog/category/john%E2%80%99s-bailiwick/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/#commentshttp://www.theasc.com/blog/?attachment_id=5492http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/http://www.theasc.com/blog/category/john%E2%80%99s-bailiwick/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/#commentshttp://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/09/24/side-by-side-part-one-a-point-of-view/


2/39

The 152 inch Panasonic Plasma screen at Lincoln Center Munroe cinema.

At first, appalled at the prospect paying to watch a movie on a bloatedTV, I caught my breath. Okay. It is a documentary shot on digital videoabout the ongoing dialogue between film and video. How appropriateto watch it on a giant sized TV, one that I later find out had required

considerable finesse to just get into the theater. I found a place amongthe bleacher style seats (no armrests, no drink cup holdersa barebones altar to cinema.) One man a few seats away was juggling a boxof popcorn. Afterwards, the audience (and who else actually matters)seemed to think the screen looked great. But at a sticker price of$680,000 it may not beyourlatest home theater upgrade unlessyoure James Cameron.

The small advance ads for the documentary highlight the names of sixmajor directors and the host/producer Keanu Reeves.
http://www.theasc.com/blog/?attachment_id=5493


3/39

Though no below the line filmmakers are included on the poster, thefilm highlights many cinematographers, editors, producers, actors andstudio executives. The documentary is certainly timely; it looks at theRed Epic and the Arri Alexa as the two most current cameras for stateof the art video cinematography. Most likely, the Sony F65 was not yetavailable when they were shooting. Here is the trailer for Side by Side:

The NY Times review written by lead film critic A.O. Scott featured apage one, six column photo of Keanu Reeves and Martin Scorsese, anindication of the importance the Times Arts section gives the subject.

The rather banal header of the review, Finding Drama In NewfangledFilmmaking was obviously written by someone unaware of just howlong HD video feature filmmaking has been with us. Its hardlynewfangled.


4/39

Keanu Reeves with Martin Scorsese.I believe the first dramatic feature shot in HD was the 1987 Julia and

Julia, directed by Peter del Monte and photographed by the great Fellinicollaborator Giuseppe Rotunno. The camera they used was the SonyHDC 300, an 1125/60i analog beast. Its the same system that PaulSchrader and I had considered in Tokyo for our 1985 bio-film Mishima.Instead, we opted to shoot the events of the writers last day in 35mm.with the Panaflex being used handheld. My own first video featurewas The Anniversary Party(2001). We chose the Sony DSR 500 at PALresolution, the only HD system, the Sony 900, being beyond our budgetmeans.

Scotts review reflects the sense of equanimity that Kenneally andReeves strive for. But he points out the tried and the true [film] hastrouble competing with the shiny and new. In fact, early on DavidLynch is asked point blank by Reeves if he is done with film. Lynchreplies, Dont hold me to it, Keanu, but I think I am. Late in the filmthere is a montage of news stories announcing that Panavision andArriflex will discontinue making film cameras. So, the film bookends theperception by general viewers that film is already on life support. Howwould the non-filmmaker viewer know that there are movie camerasover 100 years old that can shoot film that was manufactured only lastweek, or that 70mm. film is still alive with Paul Thomas Andersons

meditative The Master. There are equal time efforts given to filmin Side By Side, especially in the comments of veterancinematographers and editors who point out what is being lost in therush to what A.O. Scott calls digital utopianism.


5/39

The 15 perf Imax film frame next to 35mm frame.

To the credit of the behind the lens artists speaking for film, theircomments do not seem fustian or self-serving, but come from a deeplyrooted love and understanding of what many filmmakers value in thehuman, hands-on process of analog cinema. Much is to be lost inthoughtlessly embracing new technology from the sole perspective oftechnical and financial criteria. Its interesting that it is mainly below-the-line artists, schooled in the latest technology but also working infilm, who may be the most equivocal. Producers, studio executives, andmany directors seem willing to relegate film to the dustbina once

wonderful medium, but whose time is past. Christopher Nolan andAnderson are two of the directors who chose and speak for film in theirown work; Nolan points out that hundreds of CGI rendered VFX shots inthe Batman films were photographed on film. One has to askwhatdisplays more cutting edge technology than his films? Here is A.O.Scotts NY Times review:NYTimes.com Finding Drama in New Fangled Filmmaking article linkOne section ofSide by Side that cuts to the quick revolves around theissue of on set video display. Some see the too many cooks in thekitchen footprint of multiple HD monitors as antithetical to the close,even private, collaborative vision between director andcinematographer. A few auteurists like Robert Rodriguez seemreluctant for anyones input.

The reality is that almost everything about digital filmmaking presentsa double-edged sword, though time will necessarily resolve the thornyissues now besetting us. Initially, musicians, then editors, and now thecinematographers have had to confront the digital tide.Cinematographers may have been the most privileged by long beingmore immune to the vagaries of on set arbitration and gamesmanshipbut that is changing. Some veterans have sailed into an analogsunset rather than turn over the rudder to a recent film school gradproducer who stares at the on set HD monitor like an apparition fromon high. Others, especially young filmmakers, see a limitless horizon ofpossibilities promised by the democratization of digital media.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/movies/side-by-side-with-keanu-reeves-charts-filmmaking-advances.html?emc=eta1&_r=0http://www.theasc.com/blog/?attachment_id=5497http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/movies/side-by-side-with-keanu-reeves-charts-filmmaking-advances.html?emc=eta1&_r=0


6/39

Director Lena Dunham.

I have had two digital glitches in this brave new world. Several yearsago, while shooting a night scene with the Panavision Genesis, the firsttime director asked me repeatedly to make a shot darker by turning offlight after light. What little illumination that was left, registered at thedead bottom of the waveform monitor. I explained there would be noway to lift it later but I could easily make it darker in the DI. Thedirector knew what he wanted it to look like and what he saw on theHD monitor is what he wanted. Jump cut to the finished filmtheresnot much on screen but a foggy ambience, and sound.

I photographed another HD project with the Alexa framed at 1:85aspect ratio. The editor thought it would look cooler at 2:40 andbegan to re-format the dailies, shifting the frame line up or down, shotto shot. Over a quarter of the composition was simply matted out onthe Avid screen at his whim . I only found out about it when I saw aDVD of several edited scenes several weeks into the shoot. When Iasked him why he had recomposed the photography, he said thatnobody framed for 1:85 anymore: the film (an indie) would get betterdistribution at 2:40. It was with the intervention of the producer thatthe intended format was restored. This brings up the question: Are thecinematographers images photography or data?

These are incidents I can not imagine having happened during theanalog film erayes, there were occasional differences about lightingchoices or slight blow ups to reposition a shotbut nothing soegregious as what is happening more and more to youngcinematographers, including being excluded from the answer print orDI process.


7/39

Developer tanks at Technicolor Lab, Hollywood.

TWOAfter the screening ofSide by Side, I spoke with Chris Kenneally; heexpressed enthusiasm about discussing the making of the film, a relieffrom the constant contending film vs. digital Q&A sessions he had beenfacing. Here are Chris own reflections:What is your reaction to the attention given to the film so far,not the least of which is A.O. Scotts lead review in the NYTimes?

The attention that Side by Side has received has been incredible. Thereviews have been so positive. Its a great feeling. I hoped there wouldbe an audience outside of real movie enthusiasts and industry insiders.

We wanted to make something that would satisfy people who alreadyhad some knowledge of the subject, but would also be accessible tooutsiders. We wanted to make a movie that was engaging andentertaining as well as educational. Hopefully we succeeded.How did you and Keanu Reeves come together to make Side bySide?I was post supervising a movie that Keanu was producing and starringin called Henrys Crime. Keanu was there for the DI, sound mix, costreports meetings, all the things many producers try to skip if they can,and we were discussing a lot of the same topics that we cover in thefilm. Keanu had seen another documentary that I had made a few

years ago called Crazy Legs Conti: Zen and the Art of CompetitiveEating, and I guess he liked it. He said, Youre a documentaryfilmmaker, why dont we make a doc about whats going on right nowin the movie industry. Lets document this moment of change. Iconsidered it for about half a second and said, Of course! Im in!How has your prior experience as a post-production supervisor

given you a unique perspective in making the film?Having been a post-production supervisor since 1998 in NYC, I was ableto see a lot of the technological changes first hand. For about thirteenyears Ive been explaining what it was I did for a living to friends andfamily, and I had an idea of what people would be interested in, and

what areas might need a further explanation. I also had connections


8/39

with folks at Technicolor, Sixteen19, Deluxe, Goldcrest and others that Icould reach out to for advice and help.In the Special Thanks To crawl at the end of the film dozensof recognizable artists are named that you must haveinterviewed, but who are not included in the film. How did you

decide to include or exclude a filmmaker?It was a really difficult editing process. We interviewed about 140people and only 70 made it into the movie. We had too many greatinterviews, which I guess is a good problem to have. We tried toinclude enough different people so that the conversation is coveredfrom a wide array of angles. And at the same time we want theaudience to feel that there are characters in the doc and people thatthey want to hear from again and again as the doc moves through itsstory.Clearly, the interviews not used constitute a significanthistorical repository. Are there plans to archive unused

material or make it available on the Internet or to filmscholars?We are currently figuring out a way to organize all the completeinterviews so that it is a resource for film students, scholars, fans andanyone interested in delving a little deeper. There is talk of a series ofbooks with the raw interviews as well.Speaking of archiving, not a lot of time is given in the film tothe subject of long term archiving. Its just not a hot topic. Ihave found in my own discussions with colleagues in theAssociation of Moving Image Archivists (AMIA) that thearchivists seem to be the only ones who are really sounding

the alarm about the fragility of digital media, and too fewfilmmakers are listening. Some of my own cinematographerpeers have not read the two Digital Dilemma reports byAMPAS. I wonder if you interviewed any archivists.I did read much of the Digital Dilemma as part of the research for thedoc. Archiving is definitely a big issue. Im not sure that I agree that wedidnt give this area enough time in the doc. There is a chapter nearthe end where we deal with this. We dont really give any answers, butwe get the opinions of Scorsese, Soderbergh, Lucas, folks from Kodakand The George Eastman House, and many people about archival. It isdefinitely a section of the doc that people really react to. Its scary tothink that things are moving forward so quickly and that no one has areally solid answer for digital archiving. Many people feel that film isstill the best way to archive moving images.


9/39

Archived film at the George Eastman House, Rochester.What cameras and formats did you use in making thedocumentary?We shot Side by Side digitally. We used Panasonic HPX 170s for theinterviews. Our DP Chris Cassidy also used a Canon 5D for a lot of theB-Roll footage.Are there any film prints or is all exhibition done digitally? Howare you archiving your own materials?So far we only have digital elements. Keanu and I definitely want tomake film materials at some point for archival. Also, I want a can ofreels to store in my closet.

What is the future of film prints for exhibition? Do you haveany thoughts about digital cinema or large TV screensreplacing digital projectors, such as the one in Lincoln Centerwhere Side by Sideopened?I think film prints are going to become the exception. Exhibition isdefinitely going digital. I wasnt at the screening at Lincoln Center. Isaw the giant TV screen after, during the Q&A. It was a great lookingspace to see a movie and the people I spoke to afterword said that itlooked really nice on that 152 plasma screen.Do you have any personal thoughts about the film/digitaldialogue you would share? Few people have had as broad an

exposure to a full spectrum of opinions as you. What would youask yourself if you were being interviewed?Digital is definitely on the rise and I think it will pretty much replacefilm as the primary means of creating and exhibiting motion pictures. Ilove film and Im amazed and inspired by the images and stories thatartists have been able to create with it. I hope that it stays around as achoice. I would (and do) ask myself how I got so lucky and was able towork on such an interesting and inspiring project! I definitely learned alot making this doc. It was an amazing experience and I reallyappreciate the opportunity I had to be able to meet and record thethoughts of so many wonderful and talented people. It was a lot ofwork, but I would love to do it all over again tomorrow if possible.A few weeks before the film opened you showed the film to themembers of the American Society of Cinematographers at their


10/39

Clubhouse. What was the reaction and did you glean anyinsights?Screening the doc at the ASC was a great opportunity. There weremany cinematographers in the audience that we had interviewed. I wasdefinitely nervous for the members to see it. These guys are the true

experts. I was ready to be crushed in the Q&A! Luckily everyoneseemed to enjoy Side by Side and a lot of the folks there expressed tome that they were really happy that someone had made a doc on thistopic. It was fun sharing a drink with the members and their guests andknowing that there are people out there that are going to make surethat the art of motion pictures will continue to advance artistically andtechnically. Its great to know that there is a group of people that wontaccept inferior images and are going to continue to fight, invent andmake sure that the images we capture, manipulate and share are ofthe highest standard. It was really inspirin

SIDE BY SIDE: Part Two Filmmaker CommentsOCTOBER 8, 2012 INJOHNS BAILIWICK3 COMMENTS

Two weeks after the release of Chris Kenneally and Keanu Reevess HDvideo documentary Side by Side, Paul Thomas Andersons magisterial70mm feature The Masterstruck a fortissimo chord for motion picturefilm amid the cacophony of the ongoing digital babble. Whether this isa resurgent hymn to the vibrancy and primacy of celluloid or its dirgeremains to be seen. My local cinema complex, the Lincoln Center AMC15, is projecting The Masterin 70mm and in a DCP. I chose the 9:30 am

Sunday film projectioncomplete with changeover cues. Rememberthem? The AMPAS member screening in Beverly Hills that sameafternoon was also in 70mm. The studios have stated there will be nomore film exhibition prints made by them within the next year andFujifilm announced on the same day as the release of Andersons filmthat it will by this years end cease the production of most motionpicture film products. So where, exactly, you might ask, do we stand?
http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/http://www.theasc.com/blog/category/john%E2%80%99s-bailiwick/http://www.theasc.com/blog/category/john%E2%80%99s-bailiwick/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#commentshttp://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/http://www.theasc.com/blog/category/john%E2%80%99s-bailiwick/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#comments


11/39

Cinema Precision 65 mm

Following discussions with many friends and colleagues about thefilm Side by Side, I decided to follow up my interview with ChrisKenneally by asking 13 professionals about their thoughts on thefilm/video dialogue. Most of them are feature, television ordocumentary cinematographers; some are camera assistants andoperators; several are film educators. None are directors or producersand none are featured in the documentary. I was looking for a viewfrom the trenches. I was intrigued as well by the opinions of those who

work in both film and digital video mediaswitch hitters who constitutethe front line experience. I asked the same five questions of eachcolleague. Some respondents are brief; others are expansive. Some arepurely professional and technical, and some are highly personal. All ofthem thoughtfully considered the questions.

This is quite a long article; you may want to sample it or read it inseveral sittings. But if you have the time to engage it completely, youwill find a broad spectrum of opinions.


12/39

Technicolor 3-Strip

Here are the questions and answers:Caleb Deschanel, ASC is not only a colleague, but a good friend. Wewere fellow students at USC Cinema in the mid-60s.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in whatway?Deschanel: Ive not seen it but digital vs. film has become likepartisan politics no in between, no compromise. I frankly think thereis room for all means of image capture as long as they can hold onfrom a business point of view. Polaroid died but was revived by amanufacturer in Scandinavia. The more means to film the better.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?

I think film will last a while longer and if it continues to have itssupporters could even continue to be a niche of filmmaking for avery long time. We know it will last a long time as an archiving medium there are still Lumier Brothers films intact a hundred and 15 yearson.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do you experience digital video?I think those of us who have been around a while are nostalgic for filmas a medium for recording visual images but still the pristineprojection of digital and the way we can restore damaged old films withdigital technology is a wonderful thing. It is getting to the point where I

find it difficult to see the difference between digital and film. It doesnot really matter what I think, or what anyone thinks digital is the


13/39

medium of the future. It is a matter of just how long film will hold on?And if it like opera and other arts of another era is worthsupporting, [we need] to preserve what it is that makes it special.Super 8 film has a niche that will last and I believe at least for awhile, 35mm and 65mm film will have a certain cachet and there will

be people who only want to use it. I have gone back and forth and I likethe choices I have now.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technologyWell, they are trying to create digital cameras that have the look of film adding shutters to the F65 and the Alexa, for instance. So there is formany people the familiarity of 24 fps film as a way of seeing moviesin theatres. I think we tend to think of digital as the artificiallysharpened images that come from television where everything is infocus and we dont know where to look. But modern digital cameras

by using a larger chip and not sharpening the image electronically are coming close to imitating what we are used to seeing on film.Where we go from here depends on how audiences respond to otheradvances 48 fps shooting and projecting as in TheHobbit(something akin to what Doug Trumbull did with Showscan 60fps projected at 60 fps) I certainly think it is just a matter of timebefore the quality of digital in terms of image quality and color depthwill supersede film. The problem for me has always been that some ofthe promoters of digital forced it down our throats before it was evenremotely as good as film. I think we may look back on some of thosefilms with regret. Just the way I look back on tapes of my kids and

regret the day I abandoned Super 8 film to go to Betamax. In the past,the advances made in technology were to make things better bythat I mean better color better image quality better grain structure but now with many modern technologies, the advances are madetoward greater convenience or greater coolness. An iPod with 5000songs that dont sound very good, beats out great sound on a CD orfine record, or photos that can be emailed beat out fine sharp images.Nonetheless I find myself drawn to some of these attributes.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?I think this is the most serious consideration of the march to digital. Wehave not solved this problem. Digital preservation has to be constantlyrenewed every 5 years or so at this point. No doubt the GeorgeLucases and Jim Camerons who have the resources to constantlyupgrade the digital info will do so it is the lesser films that I worryabout like many made in the teens, 20s and 30s ones that wereignored in their day but later rediscovered and recognized as fineworks of art. Many managed to survive only because they werepreserved on film we may lose masterpieces like that ones thatare lost because they were shot digitally and not recognized at first asfine films. Films ahead of their time or films that become awonderful representation of a lost era that will never be seen again.


14/39

The Sony PMW 200

William McDonald is chair of the Department of Film, Television, andDigital Media at UCLA.Bailey: Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digitalin the future? If not, why?McDonald: I have to separate my answer into two parts: artistic andpractical. Artistically, film and digital should always co-exist. Acrylicsdid not eliminate oils in the world of painting. Some thought such athing would happen; after all, why deal with paint thinner and all thedifficulties of oil paints when working with acrylics and water was somuch easier? Ease of use seems to be a common thread with

changing methods or technologies. This argument has been applied tothe film and digital debate: digital is easier. But I will touch on thisissue in answer to another of your questions. Digital forms and filmoffer different filmmaking possibilities [in] the experience of shootingand the look of the visual material itself. The practical answer is drivenby economics. As where the cost of oil paints and acrylic paints may besimilar, the upfront cost of film and digital varies greatly. I say upfrontbecause we know those costs often even out in post-production. Filmrequires an extensive infrastructure to manufacture, process, etc. Isthere an economic will and incentive to maintain this infrastructure?Unfortunately, I have my doubts. I do believe film will remain as a

boutique technology at some point, to some degree. What thatindustry/infrastructure looks like I dont know.


15/39

Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?Artistic difference? In so far as the tools you use will influence whatthose tools produce, yes, there is an artistic difference. In my world of

filmmaking education, I see students approach their work verydifferently when they work in film and in digital. I am pleased to findthat students are still very excited to work in film. I believe it comesfrom their lack of familiarity with the technology. They haveexperienced digital video all their lives. It is common, ubiquitous, andfamiliar. The students marvel at the sophistication of the mechanical,analog, nature of film; their work becomes very precise, wellconsidered, and thoughtful. I train them in a system of shooting andthey pay attention because they know they will produce unusableimages if they dont use that system. In my undergraduateintroductory cinematography course, we shoot 16mm film for about 2/3

of the term. Then I introduce an exercise in which they use digitalcameras. On that day, I witness the students grab the cameras andhead for the door, assignment in hand. On each of the previous filmshoots, these same students spent 30 plus minutes carefully preppingtheir cameras, looking at the assignment, considering their choices,given their 100 ft. of film. With the digital shoot, they didnt even stopto see if their lenses were clean. I stop them at the door, point out thisdiscrepancy in preparation, and watch them return to the sound stage,ready to fully prep their digital cameras. Although this story could bedismissed as simply unimportant among the bigger issues, I think itvery much illustrates a profound impact digital is having on

cinematography. I do not see the CRAFT of cinematography beingtaught the same way with digital as I have seen with film. And it is thatcare of CRAFT that profoundly affects the art that that craft produces.Again, there will be those that dismiss this issue, but to me as acinematographer and educator, I take pride in the craft of what I doand teach. And to see a serious decline in that craft among newfilmmakers is beyond distressing. I believe such lack of attention toCRAFT ultimately weakens the very foundation of what we do asfilmmakers.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digital

materials?This is an excellent generational question that, unfortunately, ourindustry as a whole tends to ignore. Archiving, by its very nature, is anenterprise measured in generations. Current business practice comesnowhere close to thinking about long-term issues, much lessgenerational issues. In the current business models, thinking 24months out is long-term planning. Such thinking does not bode well forthe archivist. We already know, with even the best of effort andintention, the fragility of digital media becomes clear after just a fewyears. How many formats, compression schemes, architectures havechanged over the last 10 years? Try to find a fully functioning 1-inchtape machine. You will find a few, but they disappear quickly whenthere is no financial incentive to maintain such technology. I tell thefollowing story to my students: my brother-in-law, a man in his mid-


16/39

50s, has approximately 20 pictures paper prints of his entirecollege experience. His four years of life changing times, events,friends, are captured in those 20 pictures and he has them in hand,now, on demand, at the drop of a hat. I challenge my students whoshoot thousands of personal digital images a year to bring me 20

digital images from their freshman year in high school, a mere 6-7years ago. I watch the panic on their faces as they realize they have noidea what computer, what hard drive, what phone, what cloud site theirimages MIGHT reside on. Archiving is such a serious issue that I callthese first years of digital image making the generation of lostimages as the vast majority of people will never be able to find thesethousands of images again. Unfortunately, the same is roughly true forour industry. Keeping track of, or constantly migrating, digital files is atime consuming, costly endeavor. Is the economic commitment andtechnological wherewithal present that will be needed?

Eclair NPR

Buddy Squires is an Oscar and multiple Emmy nominateddocumentary cinematographer who has been Ken Burns collaboratorsince 1985.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in what

way?Squires: While Side by Side tries valiantly to present all sides of thefilm/digital debate, the production conveys a feeling that the end offilm is near. When Keanu Reeves spoke at the Side by Side screeningat the ASC in August, it seemed that he considers Side by Side anhomage to the magical alchemical world of film in which he was raised.My sense is that some viewers might come away with a feeling thatphotochemical film is similar to a typewriter and that digital is thehottest new laptop computer.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?

Certainly, I will be using both technologies in my documentary work foryears to come. Shooting Ken Burns National Parks series on anything


17/39

but Super 16mm film would have been a very different and difficultexperience. That series was built on a tremendous amount oflandscape cinematography all across America using a very small crew.Film handled the subtleties and range of natural light beautifully with awonderfully smooth rendering of highlights and shadows. The process

of capturing these images on film is entirely simple and direct. Shotsare composed looking through a high quality optical viewfinder thatshows color, contrast and the qualities of light exactly as they exist innature without any electronic intermediary. There is no monitor toconsult, no LUT to consider, just a direct connection between onesbrain and an image coming through the lens, then bouncing off of amirror and into ones eye. There are practical considerations as well.

Things change very quickly in the natural world. Its not uncommon tosee an image, put a tripod down, mount a camera and begin shootingwithin 20-30 seconds. Film requires no warm up or boot up time, noneed for cables and monitors, no crashes or reboots, one is always

ready to shoot. A film equipment package can also be very lightweightand compact. My basic camera package is an Aaton, 2 zoom lenses,300 mm lens, a couple of superspeeds and 3 batteries. My assistantand I carried all of this on our backs for a week while backpackingthrough Kings Canyon. Power consumption and batteries are anotherissue. For 10 days of filming on the Colorado River through the GrandCanyon I carried 5 on-board Aaton batteries and had plenty of powerfor the entire shoot without ever having to charge a battery or figureout how to get power at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.Many of my projects currently use film and digital side by side with filmfor landscapes and impressionistic imagery while the digital is used for

interviews and verity sequences.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do you experience digital videocompared to film?I try to use whatever medium is best for the job. On a verity project,digitals ability to instantly change ASA and color temperature makes itideal for following action across a broad range of lighting situations.Digitals longer run time between reloads is helpful in both verity andinterview situations. However, being able to shoot 30-60 minuteswithout stopping is a mixed blessing for interviews. When shooting filmon 11-minute loads, the limited time and expense of each roll brings anintensity and discipline to the interview that is lacking on digital shoots.Often when shooting digital formats the interviewer feels that it is fineto chat and let people ramble. I often find that lack of disciplineyields less dynamic and less interesting footage.It is disheartening that our professional world seems to be increasinglydominated by trends and fads. In the all-film era our cameras werebeautifully made, thoughtfully engineered machines designed to runfilm through a gate. They were extremely reliable and did their jobsvery well. With a couple of notable exceptions (Alexa and F65) thecurrent crop of cameras is dominated by a Frankenstein collection ofsensors connected to computers mounted on makeshift rigs withwoefully deficient viewfinders. Very little is designed as an integratedcamera system built to work and last for years.


18/39

While all of this attention has been placed on large sensor cameras,there has been almost no progress in the world of 2/3 cameras, thedigital equivalent of Super 16mm film.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the look of images shot on film, or is it just a matter of still

developing technology?I do think that film has a distinctive feel and texture. The very analognature of a negative means that many of its qualities are solidified inthe emulsion at the moment of exposure (and processing). In digital,there really is no equivalent master, the original file is just a startingpoint for later manipulation.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials.While one can argue about the relative merits of film vs. digitalcapture, there is no question that film is a superior archival media.

There is a reasonable chance that film I shot 25 years ago will beusable 100 years from now. It is highly unlikely that most of the digitalmaterial shot by me over the last 5 years will exist in 50 years. Since Ioften work on films that make extensive use of archival motion picturematerial, I am keenly aware that the visual history of our time may belost as hard drive after hard drive becomes useless after sitting instorage for a few years. Even if the studios find a way to preserve theirprecious commercial digital property, much of the visual documentaryevidence of our existence is likely to be lost. I think of everything fromglass plate photographs of the Civil War to the now famous but onceunknown work of New Orleans photographer EJ Bellocq. We have these

iconic images today because they were created using a stablephotochemical process that allowed them to suffer decades of physicalneglect without disappearing.


19/39

RED Epic

Stephen Lighthill, ASC is President of the American Society of

Cinematographers and Senior Filmmaker In Residence of thecinematography program at the American Film Institute. He speaks asa filmmaker, not as the ASC President.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in whatway?Lighthill: In my opinion, the film is journalistically balanced, Isuppose, but the film fails to recognize the enormous tragedy ofcinematographers losing the highly portable film camera, and of losingthe lovely skin tones of film and the lovely rendering of images filmprovides. In addition, the documentary does not, in my opinion,

address adequately the destruction of traditional set procedure and setcraft that seems to come with digital.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?I do see the two media continuing to co-exist. There is currently abudgetary sweet spot for low budget production where digital is tooexpensive but 16mm film is affordable. Also there is no realistic digitalcompetitor to 65mm film and currently several productions are using65 mm for all or part of production.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do you experience digital video?

I have used film and video side by side for 35 years. I have no problemmoving from one to another. The confounding issue for the filmmakers


20/39

ofSide By Side is the debate that involves the near hysterical faddismof [digital] filmmakers whether producers, directors, or others who seem to treat each new camera introduction as the coming ofsomething nearing perfection when all it is, is incrementalimprovement with tradeoffs! Tradeoffs of all kinds, whether

ergonomic, workflow, etc., etc.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?

Yes, there is a fundamental difference: film moves by the aperture andeach resulting frame is unique; in digital cameras the frame is thesensor and it never movesso, focus pulling is different, out of focusroll off is different. Set procedures are different: In digital, too much isshot and there is too much caucusing on set about images. Digitalintroduces a fear of trusting each other on set because it is so easy tosecond-guess your collaborators.

What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?

The Side by Side film did not adequately suggest the huge challenge toarchiving digital video. In brief, there is NO real solution other than filmitself or a constantly updating library run by robots.

Canon EOS 5D


21/39

Jozo Zovko is a camera assistant who loves the history of art cinemaand its uncompromising filmmakers like Tarr and Tarkovsky. He is alsotech-savvy with current digital cameras and has recently worked on thefirst feature photographed with the Sony F65.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects a

balanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in whatway?Zovko: I didnt feel that it was balanced at all. Near the end, I almostfelt like it was set up from the beginning to end on the hallelujah ofdigital. I would have liked to hear from more old time directors andcameramen, as well as doctors/neurologists or scientists who havepossibly done studies on the senses of motion and perception (since tome one of the major failings of digital is in the simple act of looking atit and its odd feeling in motion.) I wasnt against the findings of thefilm, as long as it is clear and honest that it wasnt so much about anysort of side-by-side, but more of a history lesson and the birth of our

digital future.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?No. Simply because some really big people will abort it. But I do believethere will be a small batch of art filmmakers in NY who will be able toget by for decades on freezer cans and clippings from the estates salesof old dead cameramen in LA.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do you experience digital video?I just think of it as different colors and textures. I really do wish we can

just keep the old tools, as well as the new ones and live happily ever

after. I would have hated to have taken away the egg tempera fromAndrew Wyeth and being the one to tell him that, folks round hereaint using dat paint no mo, now take this copy of Adobe Photoshopand this Wacom tablet and git (emphasis on the stereotypicalportrayal of an ignorant redneck).Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the look of film and video images, or is it just a matter ofstill developing technology?I cant see into the future, but everyone assumes that the feeling offilm can be replicated. But talk to any HiFi tube amp audio guy (Iverecently become one) and they will tell you that digital and solid statesound is in no way similar to analog, even after all these years. Theyare still recording quite a bit of music on tape and selling thoserecordings on vinyl these days. Why is that?What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials.Never mind that. The future will take care of it. Hmmm. now that I thinkof it (Note to self. Make sure you have your brain parked next to WaltDisneys when you die. Those future people will know what to do withit.)


22/39

Bolex H16

Fred Goodich, ASC is Secretary of the ASC; he has conducted in-depth side-by-side tests of high-end digital video cameras.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion?Goodich: Yes, with the exception of the archiving issues, which Ithought a bit inadequate.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?I wish it could be so. But home video doesnt require it and as more

theatrical venues worldwide switch to digital projection, the need forfilm prints disappears. Film labs have always depended on release printorders as their main source of revenue, and looked on the processingof negative and dailies as a loss leader.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do you experience digital video?I recently completed a short film shot with the F65. We graded at 2K,the norm these days; we saw rich blacks, natural skin tones and colorstrue to the original production design during digital projection. Butwhen the final piece was projected at 4K on the same 18-foot screen,all the blacks were lifted and milky. I sat stunned and somewhat

panicked through the entire screening. When the lights came up, I wastold this is pretty much the norm with current 4K projectors, the


23/39

exception being Sonys. The trade-off is that the SONY has a lessercolor palette than those others. When I suggested we go out to a filmprint where the blacks would remain no matter the projector, thepeople in the room seemed stupefied. Fred, nobody projects filmanymore!

Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?Film and video are different technologies. Additionally, manufacturerswithin each category provide unique styles of imaging. As artists, welearn to use the specific tool to create the look(s) we require. One filmstock generates a certain look. One digital camera produces an imagedifferent from another. Side by Side did a great job of examining howpeople will use the different technologies. Film seems expensive whenwere shooting, so lets do action specific takes that run to specificlengths. Digital seems cheaper when were shooting, so lets let the

camera run, let the action be more improvisational, let the actor repeatthe actions and not cut the camera. Lets shoot everything thathappens and sort it out in post! These shooting styles will producewholly different aesthetics.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?One wonders whether the filmmakers ofSide by Side (shot digitally)have considered how long their original master will remain playable in20 years.

Sony F65

Frank Prinzi, ASC is a New York based cinematographer of features,television and documentariesBailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in what

way?
http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/sony-f65-digital-camera-img2/


24/39

Prinzi: The film Side by Side appears somewhat unbalanced in its view(mainly pro digital.) It may be that its only a reflection of the popularthought these days. The filmmakers may have come to feel that wayfrom all the interviews they conducted. From my perspective, thedigital revolution has taken hold and is rapidly becoming dominant

(especially in TV). The documentary reinforces that idea. I wonderhow many pro vs. con interviews there were in the finished film? I didnot take a count. Of the total number of people they interviewed,before editing, what were the percentages?Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?I am now in a place where I feel that both film and digital captureshould co-exist but I dont believe they will for long. As with everything,it has to do with economics. There is too much money to be made withvideos dominance. There seem to be unending financial gains relatedto all that is digital. (The fact that there has been an end to film

camera production, along with the gradual demise of Kodak, reinforcesevidence of its decline.) For a while the tide of digital was held backdue to its obvious inferiority to film acquisition, but as we all know, ithas become incredibly workable, with many wonderful options. It isnow a great way (with limitations) to acquire images and tell stories.Another big reason for the future end of film is that the education ofthe new generation of filmmakers is now dominated by digital. Theeasy financial accessibility to young students, independents and no/lowbudget is a major factor in the digital revolution. Most people can nowafford to make something they call a movie, working on their SLRs andhome computers (though distribution is still a challenge). It is the Art

of the Masses more than ever. The politics of filmmaking has changedwith the digital world now becoming the party of choice. Much like thepolitical climate today, money and powerful companies rule. With allthe R&D focused on digital, I dont see film existing side-by-side withdigital too much longer. I hope I am wrong.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do you experience digital video?I love the Movies. I love the process of making movies with film. I needthe discipline that using film requires. The focus and thought processthat is needed to shoot a film movie has been the standard for ahundred years. It is how I was brought up in the film business.Whatever the means of acquisition today, I will create images with thesame discipline that I always have. Process and emotional results aremy priority. Though I have my preferences, I will use any device that isavailable to tell the story. I am open to new ideas, possibilities andadventures as long as care and respect for the art and craft is present.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?

There has always been a marriage of art and technology in film. Weknow they go hand in hand. There will always be people whosestrengths and focus favor one or the other. Because the technologytoday is so new and constantly changing, many people spend muchtime and effort on the technological side to keep up. That creates theappearance of it being artistically different. In the end, all the tools


25/39

serve the story (same as it always did.) No, I dont think there is afundamental artistic difference inherent in the recording of film anddigital images. It is technical, attitude and process.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digital

materials.Again, its about economics and attitude. As with much in our societytoday, we are concerned with the here and now and less and less withthe future. Its an attitude of instant gratification, do it quick, makemoney, move on, and well fix it later. Its a pity that the digitalrevolution/dilemma has coincided with a time where this attitudeprevails. Until the dilemma is solved and attitude changed, existingside-by-side seems like a good temporary solution. Film (information)preservation is not negotiable. If a shortsighted attitude based oneconomics creates neglect, we better all have good memories Letshope much money can be made with film preservation; we can then be

assured it will be around and protected for a long time.

Panavision Panaflex

Howard Rodman is Vice President of WGAW, Professor, School ofCinematic Arts, USC, and on the Executive Committee, Writers Branch,AMPAS.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in whatway?Rodman: I have not yet seen the film.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?I hope that theres a side-by-side existence for film and digital otherwise, film is dead. But I fear that film, with all its riches, and itsunique ability to haunt, will be relegated to archives, basements, andthe furtive gatherings of the faithful.


26/39

As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do experience digital video?Regardless of how it was captured, I have never seen a film projectedin digital video that spoke to my heart, or moved me in the deepestway. Less a question of pixel density, or contrast ratio, than the fact

that digital projection doesnt allow one to enter into the dream. One isalways outside, viewing clear images not what one wants from onestime in the big dark room.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?

Transferring to digital is not archiving.

B&H Filmo DR-70

Curtis Clark, ASC has conducted in depth tests of various digitalcameras, most recently of the Sony F65 in the short film The Arrival. Hehas been a leader in developing the AMPAS ACES workflow system.

Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in whatway?Clark: I have not yet seen Side by Side.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?

There are, of course, two components to your question: imageorigination and theatrical distribution. Since 2009, there has been anincreasing momentum shift toward shooting with digital cameras,starting with prime time TV series, and more recently, feature filmsintended for theatrical release. Recent advances in digital motion

picture camera technology, in conjunction with more sophisticatedcolor management, i.e., ACES (Academy Color Encoding System), have


27/39

enabled some advanced digital motion picture cameras to movebeyond the constraints of video broadcast imaging parameters, towardemulating a more filmic look (wider dynamic range; greater color bit-depth rendered in ACES, along with spatial resolution beyond sub 2KHD1920x1080 to 4K: 40962160).

Parallel with the emergence of the non-video digital motion picturecamera has been the steady expansion of digital cinema distribution,which is near the critical inflection point of 50% installation of digitalprojection in US theaters, now migrating from 2K to 4K. Also, 4K digital

TV is on the horizon, which will incorporate expanded color gamutreproduction (closer to digital cinema P3) beyond the current Rec 709HD TV.

The inexorable transition toward an end-to-end digital imaging systemis well underway but this does not mean that we must surrender ourtraditional photographic image qualities. Digital, especially with ACES,has the power to retain traditional photographic image qualities.

Filmmakers need to understand how to achieve results within newdigital imaging workflow that best serve their creative requirements.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do experience digital video?As a filmmaker Ive always been interested in how imagingtechnologies, both photochemical and digital, impact the creativepotential of the cinematographic art form. Film established ourcinematographic aesthetic foundation which digital needs to protectand further expand using its greatly enhanced imaging capabilities.Kodak initiated the digital imaging revolution with Cineon which was ahybrid film-digital system designed to protect and replicate

photographic film imaging parameters within non-video digitalintermediate image processing. The latest generation of digital motionpicture cameras that go beyond HD video imaging parameters (widerdynamic range; greater color bit-depth rendered in ACES, along withspatial resolution beyond 19201080, e.g., 4K) provide a robustphotographic foundation that, if understood and used properly, canprotect current film look parameters and provide a scalable platformfor further development. For me as a filmmaker, this offers newcreative opportunities that not only retain the best of film, but alsohave the potential to go beyond its photochemical limitations,especially regarding sensitivity to low light levels with an expandeddynamic range of scene tones that can be cleanly reproduced withoutthe threat of film grain or digital camera noise.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?As I mentioned above, the latest non-video-based digital imagingtechnologies (digital camera(s) and ACES color management) arecapable of reducing and/or eliminating differences compared to film.Future digital imaging technology developments will further reinforcethis new reality, which is, indeed, fortunate timing since the availabilityof film as a routine option for both image recording and theatricalexhibition may not be guaranteed going forward.


28/39

What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?

This is still a work in-progress which poses technological challenges forlong-term fail-safe reliable and cost efficient solutions that are still not

yet available. Robust solutions for long term storage and archiving willemerge, but they are lagging the advances currently being deployed inimage capture, look management and data management through postfinishing and distribution.

Arri Alexa

Ethan Borsukis a NYC based camera assistant, well versed in filmand digital technologies.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in whatway?Borsuk: Side By Side shows the film community at large coming toembrace digital filmmaking. Leading Hollywood filmmakers as well asIndie darlings express their love of digital as a new tool in their belt,the medium that opens up the craft as art, and, in some cases, thewings to truly give their stories unfettered flight. While a few arguethat film still holds fast for them, allowing them to work best within

their own realm, the skew is towards an impassioned move to 1s and0s.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?For the immediate future, filmmakers who desire to shoot on film willhave the opportunity. And as long as film stock is still beingmanufactured there will be those who make it their medium. Oil is stillthe choice for some, but fewer and fewer painters see it on theirpalette.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do experience digital video?

As a technician, digital filmmaking has changed the tools by which Iapply my trade. In the past 10 years, I have seen 15 or 20 different


29/39

cameras and formats come and go. At the dawn of digital video, forme, HD cameras were nearly identical to the SD versions already inuse, with improved guts for better resolution. Lenses were built fornews crews. The rental houses who had these cameras were notequipped with film gear-matte boxes, follow focuses and gear heads.

They were set up for ENG and event shoots. Only once did I have a DPsay he was excited to be shooting in HD. These cameras were workaround to fit into budget requirements. As tools, they had not yetmatured. Now, with Panavision and Arri embracing the digital format,we are seeing cameras that give traditional feel back to thetechnicians.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?Filmmaking as an art is beautiful in its form as collaboration, eachcraftsman adding up to bring about one singular piece. This is the

artistry of filmmaking, the skills and vision brought together. Both filmand digital provide the opportunity for this. Each allows for differenttechniques to be applied, with both resulting in merging of craft. As forlook, no longer is digital beholden to a video aesthetic. Alexa givesDPs 13 stops of latitude with a filmic shutter. And while film still hastexture and a more pleasing image quality, it is only a matter of timebefore digital cameras are adapted to this or the public no longerneeds them.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?

For nearly a century, reels of films were set to languish on shelves instorerooms. Why? At the time, no one was concerned with archivingthe material. Eventually, these prints began to degrade or worse, andarchivists set out to restore and preserve them. While no great archivalmethod has yet been found for digital with its ever-changing formats,the unreliability of storage media, and the need for continual re-mastering, perhaps one of the last holdouts for film will be in archival.A 100-year shelf life is hard to argue against.


30/39

Panavision PSR

Rob Hummel is President of Group 47, currently developing the DOTSarchiving system from Kodak patents they acquired. He is an expert onfilm formats. Rob also has a killer radio voice.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in what

way?Hummel: I think it presents as balanced a perspective as can behoped for. At the ASC meeting where the film was presented, BobPrimes, ASC said, Everything said in your film is true, the point beingthat everyone that spoke in the film believed what he or she wassaying, whether precisely accurate or not.What it didnt represent properly was the ridiculous notion that filmwas a mystique and that cinematographers didnt know what theywere going to achieve. I offer a unique perspective of a handful ofpeople still alive today that viewed film dailies at a film laboratory, andwas the first person to see the 35mm prints after the negative wasprocessed.Have there been incompetent cinematographers? Absolutely, and theywere the bane of my existence in my years at Technicolor. However,they were few and far between. The norm was the cinematographergetting precisely what he expected. His or her greatest concern wasdid the negative make it through the soup okay, not whether theimage was what they expected.

The myth presented in the film from directors about cinematographersbeing un-truthful about what the director should expect to see indailies, means they should have hired better cinematographers.

The other issue I think in the documentary that is wrongly presented isthat all the cinematographer does is set lights and set the exposure.An experienced cinematographer brings so much more to the tablethan that, and I could tell volumes of stories of the ingenuity that


31/39

cinematographers have brought to films that saved money orempowered a director to get precisely the vision he was seeking due tothe breadth of experience brought to the set by the DP.Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?

In 1998, when negotiating the DreamWorks/Kodak film deal, I askedKodaks Jack Tehan to tell me how much of Kodaks business wasmotion pictures. He found out, and told me in 1998, motion picturesmade up 6% of volume, and 7% of revenues. The vase majority of thebalance of their business then was snapshots.So you can see that in films heyday, the motion picture business was

just so much extra capacity for Kodak, and supported by the massivesize of their consumer business. Now Motion Pictures make up easily95% of their total film business, yet motion pictures havent grown atall; the snapshot business has decreased to nothing, and as a resultweve become a bigger portion of whats left of their business. There

wont be any side by side in the future because, unfortunately, therewont be any film. We arent a big enough market to support Fujifilmand Kodak to continue to manufacture it.Why else would Kodak ask the bankruptcy court to allow them to add aclause to all their studio contracts that they can exit the film businesswith 180 days notice?As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do experience digital video?I am disappointed that cinematographers havent held digital to thesame metric that film is held to. Wally Pfister and Christopher Nolanare correct that film is superior to digital capture. However, what

weve witnessed is that it doesnt matter to most filmmakers and manyhigh profile directors.Consider one of the opening shots ofSide By Side, where the cameralooks through the slits of a Zoetrope. The slits are tilted at almost a50 angle in the digital photography, even though they should bevertical. This artifact of the cameras rolling shutter is just accepted,rather than filmmakers demanding that its unacceptable.My position is that we should be holding digital camera manufacturersfeet to the fire so that they are delivering imagery that is superior tofilm, as flexible in its application, ability to capture acute light rayswithout chromatic artifacts, and as robust in its long term storagecharacteristics. Arri is thinking out of the box by giving a 1.33 sensorand allowing the use of anamorphic lenses, vs. everyone elses slavishadherence to the broadcast 169 aspect ratio of the sensors (thoughSonys F-65 is actually a 1.9:1 aspect ratio. Wherever the heck thataspect ratio came from).Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?Its a matter of still developing technologies. For example, somecamera manufacturers are finally realizing that a mechanical shutter isnot actually a bad thing, especially if it can eliminate rolling shutterartifacts that used to be the domain of slow focal plane shutters fortyfive years ago.


32/39

Current top of the line digital still cameras can exceed thephotographic quality of film, and are able to do so because of theamount of time allowed them to apply image processing to the imageafter its captured; sometimes as much as a quarter of a second.Motion Picture cameras dont come close to a Nikon camera or Canon

5D or 7D in still mode, because they cant afford a of a second ofimage processing when shooting at 24fps. The DALSA 4K cameracreated remarkable images, but was burdened by post processing ofthe images that todays instant gratification filmmakers couldnt waitfor.As processors increase in power, and software is written moreefficiently, we will, at some point, have motion picture camerasshooting at normal and very high frame rates at image qualitiesrivaling their still camera cousins.It should be mentioned that when the SLRs like the Canon and Nikonstill cameras shoot in video mode, they throw all that image processing

out the window, as they cant apply the same image processing at 24or 30 fps.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSic-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?

This is where I think Side by Side really stands out when it points outthe fragile nature of digital storage.Ive spoken to a major postproduction company in Hollywood that hasbeen discovering loss of data on their data tape backups of films, onthe order of 1500 missing consecutive frames, and discovering this inless than three years after making the tape. Fortunately, this data loss

they have uncovered so far has been on motion pictures originated onfilm, so they still have the film to go back to a recover the data. Theyare very concerned about films that have originated digitally.

This same less than three year data loss on magnetic tape has beenverified to me by two other major archive storage companies. As to thedigital dilemma reports by the Academy, they state a clear problemthat is staring us in the face.

You know, John, what I am up to with DOTS [Digital Optical TapeSystem], and whats great about DOTS data storage is it embraces allof the qualities that make film a reliable storage medium.Suffice it to say, kudos to the Side by Side filmmakers for covering thisdisturbing part of digital filmmaking. When Chris Kenneally was askedat the ASC evening how he was going to Archive Side by Side, he saidhe hoped theyd get sufficient funding to record it out to 35mm film.


33/39

Panavision Genesis

Steven Cueva is a camera assistant who has come through the ranks,beginning as a camera loader in 1999.Bailey: Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital

in the future? If not, why?Cueva: I feel film and digital can co-exist. There are a few examples ofmovies using both mediums. Currently I am aware ofThe LoneRangerdoing just that. I worked on a movie a few years backcalled State of Playthat did that as well. There are creative as well aspractical reasons to using both film and digital. It certainly depends onthe material as well as an artistic perspective.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do you experience digital video?As a matter of personal preference I would prefer film to digital. I liketo feel the film in my hands, the hum of the camera as the film goes

through; I like the discipline required to shoot film rather thanto continuously roll on digital.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?As digital technology continues to evolve, I feel it may be a matter oftime before even the most trained eye wont know with certaintywhether something was filmed using film or digital.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?


34/39

I have not read the reports, but I feel people will think of it as otherpeoples problems. Another cost to incur, while taking from the profits.Sadly, movies are not being made with archiving as part of the budget.

iPhone 5

Matt Moriarty is an A camera/ steadicam operator. I have workedwith him for 15 years, since he interned onAs Good As It Gets.Bailey: Do you think the documentary Side by Side reflects abalanced view of the film/digital discussion? If not, in whatway?Moriarty: Aside from the fact that the sections dealing with imageresolution were those pertaining solely to digital, I found the film ratherimpartial on the whole issue. It does give you the sense that Yes, filmis the superior format, but So the point ofSide by Side andcertainly the only point left to consider as I see it is that the ship hassailed. The time to warn of some impending cultural crisis and manydid warn has passed. Now were basically left with the admissionthat this thing happened and what does it mean? and how shallwe proceed? That is my impression of what Kenneally was trying to dowith his documentary and I think he succeeded in asking the rightquestions.

Do you see a side-by-side existence of film and digital in thefuture? If not, why?For the next three or four years, sure. There are plenty of directorswho want that color in their paint box and a few heavy-hitters like ChrisNolan will have the influence to make it happen. I used a film cameraas recently as two weeks ago so, sure, film is still being shot and itsstill the ultimate storytelling canvas and it still feels like home. But inthe long run, sadly, I dont see film surviving. Lets face it; we arewhere we are because of financial considerations. Lucas himself sayshe went to digital because he could save a tremendous amount ofmoney avoiding telecine. Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister say in the film

that theyre constantly asked to justify the use of film and yet no such


35/39

requirement applies to the choice of digital. Anyone surprised by that?Im not.

There will be a point in the next five or ten years where there simply isno fiscal model that can pay to heat the negative bath, much lesssustain the whole film workflow. Some company might make film

negative, another company might develop it, a third company mighthave the capacity to transfer it but the economic reality is that thechance of all three being in business at the same time five or ten yearsfrom now gets slimmer and slimmer. Some enterprising person orperhaps each studio will have an in-house boutique operation doing allthree elements for the strict purpose of archiving. But the large-scaleprocess will most likely become unsustainable.Do I like it? Nope. The changeover has diminished all of our crafts. Fiveyears ago, over a few drinks, you probably could have gotten me to cryabout it. But as someone whos watching this changeover happensmack in the middle of his career, I dont have the luxury of moping. I

dont allow myself regret or guilt as this whole issue is so utterly out ofmy control.As a filmmaker, how do you see your own position in thisongoing discourse and how do experience digital video?As a camera operator who does steadicam, I find myself ratherembarrassingly untouched by the whole affair aside from the factthat Im constantly buying new cables and brackets to make the newgear fly and the fact that I have to watch the cinematographersauthority and prestige continually eroded. That is certainly depressingand for that I blame the atmosphere of too many cooks in the kitchen,too many opinions and not enough protocol as to who is allowed to

offer an opinion. There are also now about four billion DPs whorepresent probably the most diluted talent pool below the line in ourindustry, resulting in a high degree of leverage on the part ofproducers. I used to want to be a cinematographer. Not anymore.My professional satisfaction comes from executing the shot that tellsthe story and I can do that with whatever camera they hand me. Forme, the shot, (whether its big or small, lasts four minutes or fourseconds) exists in a glorious, eternal and absolute vacuum independent from the format its viewed on, unsullied by the number ofpixels devoted to it, wholly devoid of anything related to how it wasachieved, only that it was achieved.For example: theres a single-take steadicam sequence in the Thaiaction film, The Protector, (Tom Yum Goong) operated by SomsakSrisawat, that Ive never seen on anything bigger than an iPad (eventhough it was shot on 35mm film) and I can tell you, unequivocally, itsprobably the most logistically impressive single take in the history ofcinema. Forget Touch of Evil and Russian

Arkand Rope andAtonementand Children ofMen andUntouchables and Goodfellas. The levels of imagination,planning, athleticism and the courage required to pull that shot off are,literally, superhuman. Would it be nice to see it on a big screen in ashow print from the original 35mm neg? Sure! But can I infer theultimate impact of that sequence from the 3 screen I first saw it on? Of course I can. And does that little screen diminish in any way theamount of skill and effort that went into realizing it? Absolutely not.


36/39

How was the lighting? I have no idea. Will let you know when they re-run it at Manns Chinese.DPs on the other hand are stuck in a kind of Stockholm Syndrome affairwith technology. They know theyre being held hostage and theymight not survive but at the same time they kind of like it: Those ten

people at the HD monitor sure are annoying when they tell you theycant see their eyes but look at what I just did with the gamma curvein the LUT! Its two full minutes of lighting I didnt have to do!I have great empathy for all the amazing cameramen Ive worked forwho are now just praying to make it to retirement. And yet Ill probablyspend the next half of my career working for guys who thinkcinematography is about fiddling with their LUTs. Little by little, Imfiguring out how to handle it.Do you think there is a fundamental artistic difference inherentin the recording of film and video images, or is it just a matterof still developing technology?

If the question really is: Can the origination format make or break afilm? Id have to say the capture medium is way down the list ofreasons why a filmmaker connected so well with his audience.Successful filmmaking is the result of good choices in the prep, on theset and in editing. Its the skill behind those choices, the skill behindthe writing, the acting, the pacing, the editing, and the top-to-bottomemotional value of the piece as a whole. Could film emulsion add acertain subtlety or nuance to an otherwise good film? Sure. Can high-end digital like Alexa or Epic ruin an otherwise good film? Nope.Sometime in the last year or two we reached the point where goodfilms cannot be ruined by the best digital cameras and I consider it

quite a milestone.If the question is actually about the level of artistry possible in eitherformat, Id say this: The democratization of the medium has elevatedto positions of creative influence a huge number of people who dontknow anything, while old-school film capture tends to attract those whoare skilled and experienced and disciplined. We as an industry shouldbe a lot more worried about the skill of our filmmakers than about thenumber of pixels we send out into Middle America.What about the two digital dilemma reports by the AMPASSci-Tech Council concerning the archiving problems of digitalmaterials?

The guy in the film says it: Were screwed!Its true, not necessarily because of the technology being employed inthe movie business right now, but rather because history is just acompletely lost concept nowadays. To your average twenty-something,history is the period between MTV and the iPhone 4s. Its not an issuethats unique to the movie business. Its cultural (although Ill admit ourindustry is certainly complicit in shortening the attention spans ofAmericans a topic for an entirely separate discussion).Maybe thats the reason my wife and I are raising our children on asmall farm in the wine country of Oregon. When my 9 year old decidesshe wants to play the saxophone, we make her listen to John Coltraneand Dexter Gordon. When my 7 year old wants apple juice, we makecider from the apples on our tree. When they want to watch a Blu-Ray,I put in Wizard ofOz. Those are things I can control. Those are concrete


37/39

ways in which I can keep history alive, even if only with my wife andtwo children. But the movie business? The formats and cameras weshoot on? So utterly beyond my control that I just try to stay ahead andbuy the right gear and rent it back to maintain a standard of living thatis under constant assault from democratization.

As far as archiving goes, the studios are either going to learn that thisrush to digital will rob them of future revenue (and rob, in the process,generations of entire swaths of their history) or they wont. GeorgeLucas says, theyll find ways around the archiving problem just likethey found ways around all the other problems of digital. Who the hellam I to disagree with the man who basically holds the patent on everysingle aspect of modern workflow?

Billy Bitzer Bioscop

NEXT: A silent film photographed by a Hollywood legend.

3 Responses to SIDE BY SIDE: Part Two FilmmakerCommentsLeave a CommentFEED FOR THIS ENTRYTRACKBACK ADDRESS

Stephen MurphyOCTOBER 8, 2012 AT 11:24 AM

Great post John I think this is the best summation of the film/digitalissue Ive seen in print. Bravo!Reply

Frederic Goodich, ASCOCTOBER 8, 2012 AT 10:25 PM
http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#respondhttp://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/feed/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/feed/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/trackback/http://www.stephen-murphy.com/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#comment-25397http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/?replytocom=25397#respondhttp://www.fredericgoodich.com/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#comment-25410http://www.theasc.com/blog/?attachment_id=5532http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#respondhttp://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/feed/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/trackback/http://www.stephen-murphy.com/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#comment-25397http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/?replytocom=25397#respondhttp://www.fredericgoodich.com/http://www.theasc.com/blog/2012/10/08/side-by-side-part-two-filmmaker-comments/#comment-25410


38/39

John, My position with respect to the film vs. digital debate is everevolving: pro and con film (in the digital age), pro and con digital (fromthe perspective of a film guy). A few weeks ago, I conducted a MasterClass in the Czech Republic as a guest of the Kamera OkoCinematography Festival in the city of Ostrava, some 3 hours by train

from Prague. In attendance were Walter Lassally BSC, Jaromir Sofr ACK,Martin Preiss ACK, Louis-Phillipe Capelle SBC and Willi Kurant ASC AFC.For his lecture, Mr. Kurant intended to screen a 35mm print ofMasculin Feminin that the Festival had obtained. The printsprovenance was questionable: who knows how old and what generationremoved from the Master? The projected image was soft and had noproper contrast. The projector and its lens were set for 1:78 and thescreen shaped to accept that format. But the film is 1:33 and portionsof the image exceeded the Festivals screen! On top of which, the firstreel tore twice in the projectors gate. In frustration, Mr. Kurant called a

halt to the screening. His lecture was to include discussion of hisworking experience with Godard and personal notes on shooting andprocessing B&W. At first, it seemed the Festival audience was to berobbed of the pleasure of seeing the film and hearing Mr. Kurantslecture. Many had never seen Masculin Feminin before. But while Mr.Kurant and the audience bemoaned the situation, it occurred to me Ihad a DVD of the film back at my hotel room, which Id intended toview as a refresher prior to Mr. Kurants lecture (Id seen the film atleast 3 times before). And if people didnt mind the delay, I could bringit and my laptop (to play it on) back to the screening room within thehalf-hour. Which is what happened. Mr. Kurant hoped the DVD was

from the Criterion collection, for which hed recently digitally re-mastered the film. Indeed it was; the DVD we viewed was sharp, ofexcellent contrast, with no scratches, in short, pristine. It wasformatted to fit 43 within 169. Thus no part of the image was lost onthe Festival screen. In comparison to the unfortunate B&W print, Mr.Kurant seemed pleased with the blacks, whites and mid-tones of theDVD. (Note: Back in the 1950s, before working as a Cinematographer,Mr. Kurant worked at a film lab, processing B&W. Hes quite familiarwith the relationship of exposure to processing. Hes currently set toshoot a feature on Kodaks Double-X B&W in Anamorphic using

some of the lab/exposure techniques hed applied when shootingMasculin Feminin). For me personally, the kafuffle at the screening ofthe film print and the use of a DVD to address the problem seemed aproper introduction to my Master Class, Let The Light In, set to takeplace the following day. My subject was quality of Light with respect todifferent generations of Lenses, Film and Digital sensors. It wouldinclude reference to generational loss of detail that occurs when ourwork is saved to a newer format. My screening of a commercial Idshot in 35mm back in 1989 (the only master copy I have is mini-dv)illustrated that point perfectly unfortunately! In the case of MasculinFeminin at Kamera Oko, it would appear that a newer generationsaved the day. Yet during my Master Class the next day, the color


39/39

space and saturation of a 4K DCP and the color space and saturation ofimages from my MacBook Pro differed significantly. One source was aPower Point containing video clips, stills and text, and the other sourcea short film Kick Start Theft, an F65 project Id made recently incollaboration with Vilmos Zsigmond ASC. One source was Rec 709, the

other P3. We couldnt get a proper color balance on the 2K Christieprojector between the two. Not unexpected, but frustrating. Toparaphrase Randy Newman, the singer-songwriter, It is indeed a

jumble out there!JOHNS REPLY: Thanks, Fred, for such a detailed presentation of theperils and pitfalls we encounter in trying to show older work. Theproblems were severe enough in the photochemical analog era butnow we are experiencing the illusory promises of perfect projection inthe digital era as well. I fear we have yet to encounter the worstproblems far worse than bad dupes and low contrast film prints. When

digital fails us it doesnt degrade it simply disappears. God help us in

Side by Side by Chris Kennelly

Documents

Transcript of Side by Side by Chris Kennelly