Greetings, digi-pals! ROBOGEEK here with yet another report from the ever-effervescent DORM LOG, fresh from this year's fine installment of the CINEQUEST San Jose Film Festival.
In a follow-up of sorts to his excellent report yesterday on the Sony Digital Panel/Presentation, today the Log offers his first-hand impressions of an indie feature shot on Sony's 24P digital camera (actually a prototype of the ones Lucas used for EPISODE II), as well as the Q&A that followed. Therefore, be warned that the Log veers a bit techie, but it's an interesting read nonetheless - especially if you want a peek into the future of cinema...
CINEQUEST DXD: Digital Presentation of NICHOLAS (Shot in 24P)
Reported by Dorm Log, Special to AICN
Although the Q&A session actually followed the film, let me get that out of the way first so as to present the film in its best light (there go those darn puns again).
On hand at the screening of this film were the producer/director Peter Shaner, and the director of photography, Steven Douglas Smith (whom astute readers will recognize as a panelist from Sony's DXD presentation). Peter mentioned that, although Lucas was the first to use the production model of the Sony 24P [24 frame-per-second, progressive scan digital] camera, the filmmakers of Nicholas were actually the first to use the camera to shoot a feature-length film by virtue of acting as beta-testers for Sony. He mentioned that there were a few bugs to work out, but that in each case Sony was able to solve the problem. One example he gave was that the camera's built-in digital audio recorder would cut out under low power conditions - but do so without alerting the cameraman. If it were not for the fact that they were simultaneously capturing the audio on DAT tape, they would have had to loop a lot of the dialog.
There were several questions to the crew regarding cost savings using the digital technology versus traditional film. Those of you who have read the review of Sony's DXD presentation will already have heard the answers given out during the post-screening discussion as well. Basically, the cost of materials and processing is approximately 10% of the cost of using film. Steven then remarked that in their case the costs of media were reduced from $80,000 for film to about $3,000 for the digital tapes. As a comparison, he said that had Lucas used celluloid for Episode II, he would have had to budget close to $2 million. By using the digital format, his costs were only around $10,000. The total savings gained from using the digital technology are not overly significant (Steve said that he saved perhaps 5% of his budget, and guessed that in Lucas' case it was more like 2-3%), they do add up. However, the final stage of transferring the digital version to celluloid will generally run about $40K, bringing the costs more in line with traditional productions. One big advantage of the digital format, however is the fact that all of the editing and color correction can be done on-line, without the need to transfer the film to an analog format. For this particular project, data throughput speeds of about 100MB/sec are required to stream the data between the storage unit and the editor.
Another advantage of using the digital cameras that was mentioned was in synching on-screen monitors to the camera. In the case of 35mm and other traditional-format cameras, a downconverter is necessary to reduce the monitor's refresh rate to that of the camera (24fps), then the monitor has to be directly tied into the film camera to achieve a perfect synch. With the digital cameras, the frame rate of the camera can be adjusted, or "dialed in" so that it matches that of the monitor. Such gross adjustments can be done in-camera, thus precluding the need for all of the other expensive hardware. It should be noted that this is not a perfect solution, and the monitor's scan line will eventually start to creep into the picture, but for short-duration shots it is enough.
Finally, the filmmakers brought along two copies of the theatrical trailer, one digital and one in 35mm. Though they both looked clean and sharp, the digital version was by far the more superior, seeming almost to be a window into the next room rather than a projection.
Now for the film. I should preface my review by saying that I have not seen a large number of independent films. As such, I have a definite bias towards the blockbuster film with the dramatic scores, eye-popping special effects, and basically no story whatsoever. As such I'm likely to be kinder to the movie because it actually has a story, but harsher on it because almost all of the effects on this film were created in camera.
The basic story is of a woman, Laura, who is haunted by a dream lover. As her real life begins to fall apart, her dreams take on a more sinister tone and become harder to separate from reality. Without going too much into the story (on the off chance that it gets picked up for wide release), I will say that the constant shifting between dreams and reality - accompanied by a rather Clive Barker-esque series of gotchas as to which state is real - tend to muddle the situation a bit. Since we are not quite sure of whether Laura's actions are really affecting those around her it becomes harder to care if she's making the right choices. Additionally, Laura's dream lover seems to always appear and disappear in a flash of light, and significant lines of dialog are at least twice emphasized by an obvious clap of thunder, often with no accompanying storm to make it more believable.
That being said, I have to admit that I enjoyed the film. The major characters are all played by actors who really understand their parts (Laura's boyfriend, Matt, is portrayed by Jason Connery, who reminded me more of his dad in this film than in anything else I've ever seen him in), and the story is tight and keeps the audience wondering. Perhaps the most enjoyable aspect to the film comes in the form of two small roles (almost cameos) played by Max Gail and John DeLancie.
And now the technical review. The clarity of the 24P print... I mean tape, was amazing. In close-up shots I could practically count the pores on the actors' faces, or the nose hairs (something the director specifically discussed in the Q&A). The film took full advantage of the Sony camera's visual dynamic range with all of it's bright primary colors (at times I expected Dick Tracy to walk into the shot), though this sometimes had the effect of "popping" me out of the movie as I analyzed the shot. The blacks did appear a bit milky, but Peter mentioned that this had more to do with the projector than the tape. With the exception of dramatic moments I noticed that there was very little scoring on the film, leaving the dialog and in camera sound effects (plus whatever additions were made by the foley artists) to carry the view along.
Perhaps the most amazing difference is that most of the lenses showed off the camera's incredible depth of field. It was subtle enough that I didn't catch on to it for almost half the movie. There were shots where the foreground detail (say the pillows on a couch in the forground) was just as sharp as the background detail (a painting on the back wall) with no loss in clarity for mid-ground objects (you know, minor things like actors and props). In fact, only the close-up shots, and a few long-range shots showed any blurring at all. This was most likely done in an attempt to make the film appear more "normal" to the typical viewer as otherwise something was always nagging me, insisting that there was something different about this format.
Every filmmaker at the festival who spoke of using digital cameras for filmmaking has said s/he has an interest in using them again. A few have even said they don't want to go back to traditional methods. I can say that after seeing the prosects and potential of the new technology from the point of view of a moviegoer I am hoping that many will follow through on that desire.
- DORM LOG OUT -
