Jump to content


Photo

Roger Deakins' thoughts


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
18 replies to this topic

#1 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 12 December 2008 - 12:00 PM

I grabbed this from his website...apparently it's an article in the Oct 08 edition of the AC mag.
For those that haven't read it here goes.......



"As a film-school student, I sough..." CONTENT REMOVED BY ADMIN
  • 0

#2 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 12 December 2008 - 05:22 PM

Serge,

It is not OK to include that much content from another site here. Snippets are usually acceptable to help reinforce a point, but not the whole thing like you posted.

I have invited Mr. Deakins to contribute to this forum in the past, but I don't think he's ever accepted.
  • 0

#3 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 12 December 2008 - 05:38 PM

I have invited Mr. Deakins to contribute to this forum in the past, but I don't think he's ever accepted.


What a shame. :(
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 12 December 2008 - 06:01 PM

Serge,

It is not OK to include that much content from another site here. Snippets are usually acceptable to help reinforce a point, but not the whole thing like you posted.

I have invited Mr. Deakins to contribute to this forum in the past, but I don't think he's ever accepted.


Yeah, why not just include a link? That'd make things "Kosher". Still an interesting, albeit rambling read:

Sorry, I still don't know how the hell to do titled links (so copy and paste):

http://www.deakinson...articles/di.php

Edited by Karl Borowski, 12 December 2008 - 06:04 PM.

  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 12 December 2008 - 06:07 PM

I have invited Mr. Deakins to contribute to this forum in the past, but I don't think he's ever accepted.


Maybe it is because he has his *own* forum Tim (maybe he is secretly jealous of Cinematography.com's greater membership and that contributes to his not posting here ;) ) . It is amazing what my bare-minimum search, prompted to find the source of this article, turned up!

http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/
  • 0

#6 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 14 December 2008 - 06:06 PM

Hey Tim,

Sorry about that.
I wasn't aware that was something which went against the rules here.
  • 0

#7 John Allen

John Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Iowa

Posted 14 December 2008 - 09:17 PM

I think it's so cool that Roger is one of those guys who are very slow to get into the whole digital show. I feel the same way. I mean even though I am still young I have gotten to work with 16mm film, and I agree with Roger, part of the fun is getting to be a little bit of a "mad scientest." I think Roger is the kind of guy that likes his job so much that working in labs and with chemicals is part of what he likes about it. I'm going to be very sad if digital takes over. I have a doubt in my mind that it will ultimately, because it's just so hard to mimic film, but I guess it could always happen. I just hope that I will be able to work with film for many and many years to come.
  • 0

#8 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 14 December 2008 - 11:46 PM

I think it's so cool that Roger is one of those guys who are very slow to get into the whole digital show.



Dunno about that.

In my books he was one of the first to embrace a DI with "o brother where art thou"

jb
  • 0

#9 John Allen

John Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Iowa

Posted 15 December 2008 - 12:23 AM

Dunno about that.

In my books he was one of the first to embrace a DI with "o brother where art thou"

jb



Yeah, but as you could see, in the article he was expressing his annoyance about the digital transition. Also, in digital I mean not shooting film. Shooting film and then using a DI for post, still has the same film look.
  • 0

#10 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 15 December 2008 - 03:14 AM

Shooting film and then using a DI for post, still has the same film look.


I don't know that i'd agree there either. It CAN have a film(ish) look. But it's not the same s traditional film finishing either.

I've always felt that film is as digital digital once it's been scanned anyway.

jb
  • 0

#11 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 15 December 2008 - 08:09 AM

I'm going to be very sad if digital takes over. I have a doubt in my mind that it will ultimately, because it's just so hard to mimic film, but I guess it could always happen.


There's been some pretty convincing digital getting out there recently. It's starting to be a real worry for me. Digital's a nice clean way of working, but there's no sould to it, it's all hard drives and wires. A film camera will forever be beautiful, but a ten year old video camera looks like an awful outdated carbuncle.

By the way Karl, that link you mentioned is called an embedded link. There a button at the left of your post toolbar that allows you to do 'em. Just paste your link into the box that appears whan you click, and then write you title into the next box. It looks rather bulky in the typing box but that's OK. :P

Edited by Matthew Buick, 15 December 2008 - 08:09 AM.

  • 0

#12 John Allen

John Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Iowa

Posted 15 December 2008 - 09:30 AM

I don't know that i'd agree there either. It CAN have a film(ish) look. But it's not the same s traditional film finishing either.

I've always felt that film is as digital digital once it's been scanned anyway.

jb


Ok well you are intitled to your own opinion, BUT this still doesn't change what I was saying, because all I was doing was commenting on Rogers own words. Maybe you should read the article yourself, cause the point was that Roger isn't liking the whole digital transition, and that's the reason why he wrote what he did. So if you want to argue his words, then you'd best take it up with either Roger himself or American Cinematographer.
  • 0

#13 jake harris

jake harris
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 15 December 2008 - 09:54 AM

Ok well you are intitled to your own opinion, BUT this still doesn't change what I was saying, because all I was doing was commenting on Rogers own words. Maybe you should read the article yourself, cause the point was that Roger isn't liking the whole digital transition, and that's the reason why he wrote what he did. So if you want to argue his words, then you'd best take it up with either Roger himself or American Cinematographer.

...oh dear.
  • 0

#14 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 18 December 2008 - 04:13 PM

I know this is a tad off topic, but not much seems to be happening here so I'll just come out with it.

I don't think film will ever become obsolete or extinct. I think with people like Roger behind it there'll always be film suppoters (myself included). I think film plays to too many human emotions, the sense of good thing coming to those who wait, and maintaining a sense of purity, spontenaity, and originality to an artform, and as John Allen previously mentioned, being a mad scientist, for film to ever be superceeded by anything else. I honestly think it'll live on, even if the only film factory is in a beardy man or woman's shed in Germany somewhere. I completely disagree with people who say film'll be dead and buried within a decade.

Right! That was (vaguely) related to the topic, so I'll step off my soapbox now.
  • 0

#15 John Allen

John Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Iowa

Posted 18 December 2008 - 04:20 PM

I know this is a tad off topic, but not much seems to be happening here so I'll just come out with it.

I don't think film will ever become obsolete or extinct. I think with people like Roger behind it there'll always be film suppoters (myself included). I think film plays to too many human emotions, the sense of good thing coming to those who wait, and maintaining a sense of purity, spontenaity, and originality to an artform, and as John Allen previously mentioned, being a mad scientist, for film to ever be superceeded by anything else. I honestly think it'll live on, even if the only film factory is in a beardy man or woman's shed in Germany somewhere. I completely disagree with people who say film'll be dead and buried within a decade.

Right! That was (vaguely) related to the topic, so I'll step off my soapbox now.


Cheers to Matthew!! Greatly put! :)
  • 0

#16 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 18 December 2008 - 04:30 PM

Cheers to Matthew!! Greatly put! :)


Wow! Thanks. I was expecting the moderators to come over here and beat me up! Happy imaging! ;)
  • 0

#17 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 December 2008 - 09:07 PM

There's way too much ignorance on both sides. I've done both film and television work and it's amazing how the opinions are polar opposite between the two.

Come here, most people are pro-film. Come to my television college Ravensbourne, and everyone’s pro-digital.

Although broadcast and cinema are slowly merging. The technologies supporting both are closing in.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 18 December 2008 - 09:07 PM.

  • 0

#18 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 18 December 2008 - 09:31 PM

There's way too much ignorance on both sides. I've done both film and television work and it's amazing how the opinions are polar opposite between the two.

Come here, most people are pro-film. Come to my television college Ravensbourne, and everyone?s pro-digital.

Although broadcast and cinema are slowly merging. The technologies supporting both are closing in.


Are we really pro-film here? I'd say we are balanced, not pro-film.
  • 0

#19 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 18 December 2008 - 10:22 PM

(I think we have plenty of Film is Dead / Film Will Never Die threads already.)
  • 0


Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Opal

The Slider

Glidecam

Ritter Battery