Shot on tape? That's SUPERMAN RETURNS off my to-see list

[Carlson2005]

I'm probably way behind the pack on this, but I've just found out that, although Singer originally wanted to shoot the film on 65mm film, to keep the budget down its been shot on HD video instead. Since this has less information than 35mm and even with top of the range systems simply looks sub-standard when shown on a big screen, I'll be sitting this one out until it hits video where it belongs. It costs more to see a movie in the UK than it does to buy a DVD, and that's far to much for something that doesn't even have decent picture quality.

[Monterey Jack]

That's a pretty stupid reason not to see a movie.

[Carlson2005]

Why is it stupid to not bother seeing something where the visual quality is so bad? Especially when so much money is being spent on it. The film industry is currently in a bizarre phase where the actual image quality is getting worse and worse while more money is being spent. If I'd seen a single film shot on video that actually looked good, it might be a different matter, but tape has less detail and a completely different texture to film, and in every way watching it on a cinema screen is an inferior experience. It's okay on a small screen but it doesn't stand up to being blown up on a 40ft screen.

[DavidBanner]

There are more and more films and TV shows being shot on HD right now. The quality is not necessarily lower, but the technology is still evolving. The last two Star Wars films were completely digital, as was the majority of the footage in the movie "Collateral", among others. The last season of "Enterprise" was shot on HD. Robert Rodriguez seems to shoot everything on HD.

Having worked with it onset, I can tell you it is simply a different method than using film. It is not necessarily better or worse. Given the images that have already been released of the new Superman movie, I am not seeing a dramatic reduction in quality as of yet.

As for HD saving money - it does, in terms of not having to develop film and transfer the image. The show I was on switched to HD because it could save up to 40 grand per episode in post production costs. For a big movie, you could be looking at over half a million dollars in post production savings.

If I have any issues with the Superman movie or with Singer, it's that he is only too eager to take his movies out of the US to shoot somewhere else - anywhere else. In the case of the X-Men movies, he was pretty gleeful about this on his commentary for the first film, mimicking a grip crying over losing his job. In the case of Superman, the fact that it was shot in Australia specifically to avoid paying union wages in Los Angeles or New York is really unfortunate. (Some IA guys I know in LA were referring to the new Superman is standing for Truth, Justice and the Australian Way) This is not to defend xenophobia, but to say that the logic of moving a production to another country to avoid paying wages while still paying the executives a horrifying amount of money simply escapes me.

[Carlson2005]

The last two Star Wars films were completely digital, as was the majority of the footage in the movie "Collateral", among others. The last season of "Enterprise" was shot on HD. Robert Rodriguez seems to shoot everything on HD.
Having worked with it onset, I can tell you it is simply a different method than using film. It is not necessarily better or worse. Given the images that have already been released of the new Superman movie, I am not seeing a dramatic reduction in quality as of yet.

The trouble is that I've yet to see a single digital feature comparable to film when projected. Each year I go to the demonstrations of the latest systems at Cannes (thankfully I'm not going this year, which is saving me a fortune) or in London, and each year I'm unimpressed. In most cases it's not even a financial saving - on FX heavy pictures it does save money because you don't have to go through several film stages first - but to get it even vaguely comparable to film on 'ordinary' scenes, you often end up having to spend more money than you would with 35mm (as many low-budget producers have discovered).

There's also the very noticeable (to my eyes at least) difference in texture between film and HD. There's no richness to it, no magic. The Star Wars films are a good example of the problems: you had the bizarre discrepancy that the digital FX shots had depth, yet anything filmed with real actors or real sets looked surprisingly flat, while there were still problems with certain colours (the reds in Palpatine's chambers in AOTC were particularly awkward). And I found that, for all the advantages with low light levels, there was still that flatness in Collateral, while 28 Days Later often looked disastrous whenever it attempted extreme long shots because of the lack of detail.

I'm also noticing more and more that to compensate for the limitations of the systems, direction is becoming more and more televisual - more two shots and close-ups that the system can cope with, less grandeur and ambition. And that's not a look I really feel is going to do Superman any favours - especially when they're spending so much money in other areas.

[romanD]

Silent Hill was shot in HD whenever they entered the other dimensions and honestly, it looked great... but that's because all the images were digitally altered...

still I agree on that HD is still no substitute for real film!

[Paul MacLean]

I think Carlson2005 brings-up some good points, but as Wendy Carlos once said of arts-related technology "there's no point in challenging the innevitable" (or words to that effect).

I think HD video is here to stay. Whether or not it renders film obsolete is debatable. Certainly film is doomed in the "average Joe" still photography market (as camcorders likewise doomed the Super8 market).

As for cinema, its hard to say. Digital audio was going to render analog obsolete in recording studios. Today analog is the prefered method for many professionals.

I thought Attack of the Clones and Sith looked good. But its hard to say given that much (of not most) of the imagery in those films was digitally-generated with CGI to beging with.

I think the subdued reds in Star Wars are due more to George Lucas' preferences than equipment limitations. I have an HD set and I am continually impressed by the look of even simple HD programmes like Rick Steves' Travels in Europe or the odd Discovery Channel documentary. My own camera, a Sony HDR-FX1 renders a fairly spiffy image itself (and it is a low-end HDV camera).

All the same, I've only seen one movie which was both shot and projected theatrically in HD. It looked...good, but not "like film". Maybe if the movie wasn't a pile of crap I would have noticed it less, but to me, although it was sharp, crisp, 24p -- the whole nine yeards -- it "felt" like watching TV. While it certainly didn't have the unpleasant motion quality of interlaced video (it was definitely 24p) it didn't feel as "organic" (tho I know that's kind of an arbitrary, innarticulate way to put it).

Anyway, as far as seeing Superman, if I could put-up with old Doctor Who episodes which were shot on 50i video, I think I can get through a 1080p movie!


Paul

[AndyDursin]

Regardless of how SUPERMAN RETURNS was shot, I have to say I just don't care for the look of the movie. It's got that washed-out appearance most modern movies have (at least from looking at the ad), right down to tweaking the blue on Superman's costume, which has, oh, only been around since '38 or so and didn't need any tweaking I assume that's a style, and not technical, issue, but it's curious how much Singer said he wanted to emulate the original movies, but obviously didn't in terms of its appearance as SR looks like X-MEN and every other superhero movie in the last few years.

[Eric W.]

I think I can get through a 1080p movie!


Paul

Exactly right. I don't know how anyone could complain about that.

[Carlson2005]

[

quote="EricRWem"]

I think I can get through a 1080p movie!

Paul

Exactly right. I don't know how anyone could complain about that.

There's a big difference - you're seeing an old episode of Dr Who on a TV screen less than two feet wide, not a 40ft cinema screen, which makes a helluva of a difference. No-one ever thought that Dr Who was ever exhibtion quality for a $250m+ movie.

Recently I broke my 'no video' cinema rule to see Cache/Hidden (superb film, incidentally: probably the best of the year) on the grounds that there is a valid textural reason for shooting on HD - the film revolves around a series of video tapes and it's essential that you not always be able to tell what is a tape and what is 'reality,' which would be given away by the change in formats. Yet even though that was filmed on the same system as Superman Returns, the lack of depth in some shots, not to mention the more problematic 'edging' errors (I don't know the proper term, I'm afraid) where windowframes or straight edges in the background would flicker or be broken up into a number of smaler lines is extremely distracting, drawing your attention away and taking you out of the movie.

It just seems amazing to me that more than a hundred years after the invention of movies, the image quality is actually steadily declining to something worse than the Lumiere brothers presented!

[Eric W.]

I know what Carlson's talking about here and I agree with him...especially after reading Widescreen Review issue 109 for June 2006 that just came out.

I always recommend this magazine to everyone anyways...but Carlson, this one's for you especially. You NEED to read this issue, especially the articles written by Mr. Joe Kane himself.

EVERYONE needs to read this stuff. NOW.

[Paul MacLean]

There's a big difference - you're seeing an old episode of Dr Who on a TV screen less than two feet wide, not a 40ft cinema screen, which makes a helluva of a difference. No-one ever thought that Dr Who was ever exhibtion quality for a $250m+ movie.

You've got a point there!

But where I was coming from is that, the actual artistic, creative work onscreen -- the story, direction, acting, score, photography, montage, etc. -- are the point. The method used to capture it is secondary. Within reason of course -- I'd certainly have major issues with a sprawling period epic being shot on a one-chip Hi8 camcorder! But in all honesty I don't understand why HD is any reason to avoid seeing a film.

Its all in how its used. Plenty of movies shot on film have CGI sequences which are essentially video-generated. And being shot on film didn't keep the Lord of the Rings films from looking more like a video game than a movie.

It just seems amazing to me that more than a hundred years after the invention of movies, the image quality is actually steadily declining to something worse than the Lumiere brothers presented!

Well, HD cinema is still in its infancy, relatively speaking. Give it time. It will improve. And for all of HD projection's current limitations, it does advantages over film -- it is free of such celluloid flaws as scratches, dirt, breaks, and other deterioration which results from repeated projections.


Paul

[Carlson2005]

But where I was coming from is that, the actual artistic, creative work onscreen -- the story, direction, acting, score, photography, montage, etc. -- are the point. The method used to capture it is secondary. Within reason of course -- I'd certainly have major issues with a sprawling period epic being shot on a one-chip Hi8 camcorder! But in all honesty I don't understand why HD is any reason to avoid seeing a film.

As I said, I'll see it on DVD, but it's not worth paying $15 to see blown up in a cinema. It simply doesn't look good enough to justify the effort and at that price there's no reason not to wait for it on DVD where the limitations will be less noticeable. And all too often the limitations of HD do have a direct effect on exactly how certain things are filmed, just as the initial problems with the earliest CinemaScope lenses or the lack of zoom lenses in the early days of cinema limited the opportunities to directors. The method used to capture it dictates what is on the screen.

Well, HD cinema is still in its infancy, relatively speaking. Give it time. It will improve. And for all of HD projection's current limitations, it does advantages over film -- it is free of such celluloid flaws as scratches, dirt, breaks, and other deterioration which results from repeated projections.

But HD has limitations of its own - picture wobble that's far more irritating than sideways weave was on 35mm, pixellation, not to mention many of the same kind of problems you get with scratched DVDs.

The problem is that a format that is still not anywhere near as good as 35mm is being used now - not in the future when or if the bugs are ironed out. In terms of picture quality its the great leap backwards, and on a film the size of SR it seems like penny pinching.

[Paul MacLean]

Bump.

Going over this old thread, it's interesting how digital cinema's limitations were, at the time, enough for some people to avoid seeing a movie altogether.

Today, celluloid is all-but-gone, and everything is shot digitally.