Side by Side - Keanu Reeves (!) documentary on digital filmmaking

johnny_ultimate

This looks very interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGJY_NJwwg

A documentary about the transition from traditional film to digital cinematography. Keanu Reeves is the presenter, and its directed by Christopher Kenneally.

They appear to have put together a very diverse range of interviewees, including high-profile digital proponents such as Soderbergh, Lynch, Scorcese and Cameron and determined 'film' fans like Chris Nolan and Joel Shumacher. By the sounds of it there are more digitally orientated directors - an inevitably in Hollywood these days - but the filmmakers also interview newer directors (Lena Dunham), cinematographers and editors (like the hugely influential Walter Murch) so should certainly provide some lively and varied discussion.

The IFI is showing it on Thursday at eight o'clock - sounds like it would be worth checking out for anyone interested in the way film-making is going.

Oh, and for what its worth, the docu was shot digitally on the DSLR Canon 5D and Panasonic AG-HPX170

krudler

Looks good, interesting to see the film v digital aspects from the directors themselves. There's a documentary on netflix about the AFI preservation of film and that goes into the same thing in parts.

Psychedelic

Saw it last week, excellent documentary. It has interviews with all the major names in film, some good film history and technical information about how film and digital work, and the advantages and disadvantages of both mediums.

roanoke

I thought it was well worth a watch. They had amazing access to directors. Also it was nice to get a bit of a look at the various camera's that have been the groundbreakers over the past decade or so. I'd read things in the past , like Herzog is using the "Red One" on his next movie, without really knowing what the significance of that was. So that was informative for me at least

The only downside was Keanu's narration which sounded stilted. Yeah I know, but it was bad even for him. He .... sounded ... like ... this , .... especially .... when .... reading .... any... technical .... narrative. Also something I noticed was there was a bit of a continuity issue as Keanu would have long hair one second, then head shaved the next, then long hair again, sometimes a beard , then no beard. I'd imagine these interviews were done over a long period of time, so it can't really be helped. But it did make me wonder why the camera was on him so much seeing as he was basically just an interviewer. Then I read that Keanu is the producer, so mystery solved.

One line had me unintentionally laughing was at the end when when addressing the question of archiving digital information Larry "Lana" Wachowski said "we all lose things. Losing things is a part of life." Well darling, you're living proof of taking that idea to an extreme!

roanoke

roanoke wrote: »

One line had me unintentionally laughing was at the end when when addressing the question of archiving digital information Larry "Lana" Wachowski said "we all lose things. Losing things is a part of life." Well darling, you're living proof of taking that idea to an extreme!

Its a few months since I saw it but I recall that the Wachowski brothers had very little interesting to say about the subject. Some of the interviewees were fantastic and clearly very passionate about their position on the film vs digital debate.

Renn

Good doc but missing a good few heads backing film - mostly pro-digital. Undoubtedly they tried to get some of the former to appear on it but just didn't happen for whatever reason. Also could have done with more Lynch.

And less of this guy. Odd inclusion!

don ramo

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a few months since I saw it but I recall that the Wachowski brothers had very little interesting to say about the subject. Some of the interviewees were fantastic and clearly very passionate about their position on the film vs digital debate.

they just go by the Wachowskis now:D:D

yeah it was a very good doco, very informative about the differences between celluloid film and digital film, how digital reduces shoot time and can be altered so easily, but that it also takes the joys out of framing a shot and waiting for the dailies to be processed, with the director of photography trying to calm the director and telling him just wait for the dailies, that it will look fantastic,

also that digital filming means that we get mountains of material each year, a lot by people telling great stories, that would probably never get told, but so much more about people telling idiotic ones, and probably in another few years it will become more and more difficult to filter through them, and in my own opinion it could turn a lot of people off films,

johnny_ultimate

Very well put together documentary. Energetic, entertaining and moderately enlightening. Glad they didn't spend too much time explaining everything to the audience - got the more technical stuff over and done with promptly and shifted the focus back on the speakers. A good variety of voices - if inevitably more digital fans than critics, although there usually was at least a brief voice of dissent - and the debate addressed most if not all of the important topics. Found the archiving section particularly interesting, as I thought there would have been far more proponents of digital archiving than there were. And the ones there weren't the most persuasive, especially when the likes of Soderburgh and Lucas saying "it's grand, it'll all sort itself out". It definitely has significant problems, but there were few speaking up convincingly about its benefits, which I found a bit unusual.

Renn wrote: »

And less of this guy. Odd inclusion!

He was on screen for about fifteen seconds

ScrubsfanChris

krudler wrote: »

Looks good, interesting to see the film v digital aspects from the directors themselves. There's a documentary on netflix about the AFI preservation of film and that goes into the same thing in parts.

Do you have the name of that documentary and if its on Irish Netflix?
Thanks

krudler

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

Do you have the name of that documentary and if its on Irish Netflix?
Thanks

Its called These Amazing Shadows, not sure if its on the Irish netflix but the whole thing is on youtube (sadly only in 480p)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtvGfQnO_ns

the restoration and preservation part is about a half hour in.

jaykhunter

Watched this last night. Thought it was generally very interesting, as a non-film person I appreciated them quickly going over the process of how films are recorded. There was an odd lull here and there as they get bogged down in somebody else's film for no good reason, but was a nice look at film. Beyond reverence for the past 100 years of physically having film and the colour variance, I don't think they sold why they should stick with film very well. From the film you'd think HD (2K) is already better than 35MM stock. I do think Lucas is right that digital is the future so help make it better/improve faster but I can also see Nolan's point on things, although Pfister gave a more 'shut up shut up i'll use what I know until I die shut up' approach.

I assume DI is Digital Intermediate? Having to go from film to DI back to film sounds incredibly laborious and inefficient so hopefully digital surpasses film soon enough. Also I assume they're talking about colour grading towards the end, but they use another name (I've first heard of it from LOTR's DVDs as Colour Grading).

On the point of Sin City, how could it only have been shot with Digital? Like how does shooting on digital make it easier for that contrast effect rather than shooting in film and scanning it in to a computer?

On a separate point I did hear about it somewhere but was shocked to see one of the Wachowski brothers is a woman now. Keanu Reeves comes off as a really nice, humble guy. It's also funny to hear the talking heads chat about what's "real" in cinema, that digital isn't "real". It's not too technical and the pace is generally kept up and has a cavalcade of famous directors/editors giving their 2 cents. The film gets a bit long-winded trying to wind down as well, could've done with 20 minutes cut out. But it's definitely worth a watch if this kind of thing interests you.

krudler

I've yet to watch this but from what I got on the Mark Kermode podcast where they interviewed Reeves on it and the whole real/digital thing came up I'm guessing stuff like physical sets and stunts and the like. The Star Wars prequels and their digital sets have aged horribly and look flat and fake, something like Alien will never age because it's real and superbly designed set wise. But as James Cameron said in the clip "when was cinema ever real, look off camera on set and there's a guy on a ladder with his asscrack hanging out", mans got a point :pac:

mike65

krudler wrote: »

I've yet to watch this but from what I got on the Mark Kermode podcast where they interviewed Reeves on it and the whole real/digital thing came up I'm guessing stuff like physical sets and stunts and the like. The Star Wars prequels and their digital sets have aged horribly and look flat and fake, something like Alien will never age because it's real and superbly designed set wise. But as James Cameron said in the clip "when was cinema ever real, look off camera on set and there's a guy on a ladder with his asscrack hanging out", mans got a point :pac:

Cameron is wrong then! The reality of the film frame is the only reality that matters.

Will watch this latter but will already disagree with anyone who thinks digital is a better aesthetic medium!

krudler

mike65 wrote: »

Cameron is wrong then! The reality of the film frame is the only reality that matters.

Will watch this latter but will already disagree with anyone who thinks digital is a better aesthetic medium!

I get what he meant though behind the magic and wonder of a movie its all bells and whistles and stuff.

johnny_ultimate

mike65 wrote: »

Will watch this latter but will already disagree with anyone who thinks digital is a better aesthetic medium!

'Digital' is not in itself an aesthetic, much like 'film' is not in itself an aesthetic - they are tools that can flourish or feel absolutely wasted depending on the people behind the camera. It does not only refer to loading an image with CGI and otherwise impossible post-production tinkering - that's an incorrect assumption perpetuated by the high-profile filmmakers who misuse the technology and distort the debate. In the hands of talented cinematographers and directors, utilising tried and tested cinematic language, there is no reason why a digitally captured film shouldn't look absolutely wonderful (and of course the post-production opportunities afforded can be extremely beneficial). And many digitally shot films do indeed look absolutely wonderful through predominantly on-set and in-camera effects. I despise CGI crippled blockbusters and wish more filmmakers would utitlise practical effects work (no surprise TDKR and Skyfall were probably the two best-looking Hollywood productions of last year), but at the same time a considerable percentage, perhaps even a significant majority, of my favourite films from the last two or three have been shot digitally.

I'm glad there are still film out there smartly utilising the distinctive look and feel of 16mm, 35mm and 65mm - whether that's The Master, Moonrise Kingdom, Samsara or TDKR. All of those films had strong artistic motivations for their choice of format. But I'm also excited by the opportunities afforded to filmmakers by the low-cost, dynamic technology of the ARRI Alexa, Red EPIC or even the Canon DSLRs. Guy Maddin - whose Keyhole was IMO one of last year's most intoxicating and purely 'cinematic' films - weighs in here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t__e6J6CCz8

The transition is ongoing, although as Side by Side proves there are fewer and fewer practical and artistic justifications for shooting film. I also hope it won't go away for good - there will always be a minority of films that need film. And the capturing and projection technology are ever advancing (as proven at JDIFF this weekend 35mm is often a welcome relief following some digital mishaps). But the argument is much more complicated than film > digital point blank, and I think Side by Side does a good and balanced job of articulating the ever-shifting discussion.

Technocentral

mike65 wrote: »

Cameron is wrong then! The reality of the film frame is the only reality that matters.

Will watch this latter but will already disagree with anyone who thinks digital is a better aesthetic medium!

As we Cineaste's say "35 is yer only man".

johnny_ultimate

Technocentral wrote: »

As we Cineaste's say "35 is yer only man".

Except for, you know, 8mm, 16mm, 65mm and the various other alternative and distinctive film stocks available to filmmakers.

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

'Digital' is not in itself an aesthetic, much like 'film' is not in itself an aesthetic - they are tools that can flourish or feel absolutely wasted depending on the people behind the camera. It does not only refer to loading an image with CGI and otherwise impossible post-production tinkering - that's an incorrect assumption perpetuated by the high-profile filmmakers who misuse the technology and distort the debate. In the hands of talented cinematographers and directors, utilising tried and tested cinematic language, there is no reason why a digitally captured film shouldn't look absolutely wonderful (and of course the post-production opportunities afforded can be extremely beneficial). And many digitally shot films do indeed look absolutely wonderful through predominantly on-set and in-camera effects. I despise CGI crippled blockbusters and wish more filmmakers would utitlise practical effects work (no surprise TDKR and Skyfall were probably the two best-looking Hollywood productions of last year), but at the same time a considerable percentage, perhaps even a significant majority, of my favourite films from the last two or three have been shot digitally.

I'm glad there are still film out there smartly utilising the distinctive look and feel of 16mm, 35mm and 65mm - whether that's The Master, Moonrise Kingdom, Samsara or TDKR. All of those films had strong artistic motivations for their choice of format. But I'm also excited by the opportunities afforded to filmmakers by the low-cost, dynamic technology of the ARRI Alexa, Red EPIC or even the Canon DSLRs. Guy Maddin - whose Keyhole was IMO one of last year's most intoxicating and purely 'cinematic' films - weighs in here:

The transition is ongoing, although as Side by Side proves there are fewer and fewer practical and artistic justifications for shooting film. I also hope it won't go away for good - there will always be a minority of films that need film. And the capturing and projection technology are ever advancing (as proven at JDIFF this weekend 35mm is often a welcome relief following some digital mishaps). But the argument is much more complicated than film > digital point blank, and I think Side by Side does a good and balanced job of articulating the ever-shifting discussion.

It was interesting enough overall but I thought that there was too much emphasis and exaggeration in it on directors having to wait for rushes to see if their DP's had captured their vision or even if it was in focus etc, the cinematographers who shot the likes of Bladerunner, 2001, Terminator 2, Manhattan, Taxi Driver or virtually any decent budgeted film shot on film were (and are) craftsmen and artists who had pride in their work, all that talk about directors not being able to sleep at night worried about the film not being exposed properly was nonsense. I agree that the RED Epic especially and the newer digital cameras will make lower budget filmmaking more affordable and much higher quality than I suppose the 16mm that low budget films used to be made on, I shot some for a documentary years ago and loved the process, 16 had its own charm (just look at the amazing documentary "American Movie", something so nice about him shooting on 16 and not tape) ) but Cinema for me will always be 35mm, because its something special that you never could have got at home, whereas Blu Ray (which I love) on a decent size telly is a very close approximation of digital projection in the cinema, ie less magic.

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Except for, you know, 8mm, 16mm, 65mm and the various other alternative and distinctive film stocks available to filmmakers.

Well I was only kind of joking but 35 was "the movies" for 95% of what was shown in cinemas before digital if you know what I mean and you could have 8mm and even 16mm at home (only knew one guy who had 16 though).

johnny_ultimate

Despite offering significantly less raw resolution (only 2K), the Alexa has actually been more positively received by a lot of established cinematographers compared to the EPIC (which is no slouch). It's the first camera that people like Roger Deakins feel poses a genuine equivalent to the look and feel of celluloid. Skyfall is a good example, which despite its digital capturing looked great on 35mm prints too.

krudler

Watched it earlier, enjoyable stuff. It's as pro-digital as I expected and you were never going to hear guys like George Lucas and James Cameron mourning the death of celluloid, seems films biggest champion these days is Christopher Nolan, I'd imagine he will make the move to digital at some stage in the next few years as a necessity.
Interesting to see young film students shooting on film you'd imagine given the limited budgets and resources of student filmmakers that digital would be the way to go but obviously not.

They're right about championing the cinema as a social and shared thing though, no matter how convenient it is watching a movie on a tv or a phone or a laptop will never, ever compare to the cinema experience with a good crowd.

Does anyone else miss the sound of a projector whirring? I definitely do.

charlie_says

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The transition is ongoing, although as Side by Side proves there are fewer and fewer practical and artistic justifications for shooting film. I also hope it won't go away for good - there will always be a minority of films that need film....... But the argument is much more complicated than film > digital point blank, and I think Side by Side does a good and balanced job of articulating the ever-shifting discussion.

I agree with your summary here. Especially with the practical aspect you mentioned, although I would imagine there is market forces at work also that steer the production of camera equipment in one direction.

Each medium has it's own advantages and disadvantages like any other competing storage medium for anything, really.

The desk and setup the Colourist had (can't remember if that is the correct term) gave me an instant nerd boner

I enjoyed the documentary overall. Great to put some faces to the names of many of the interviewees!

ScrubsfanChris

jaykhunter wrote: »

On the point of Sin City, how could it only have been shot with Digital? Like how does shooting on digital make it easier for that contrast effect rather than shooting in film and scanning it in to a computer?

Everything in Sin City besides the actors (The bar and one apartment where the only sets) was shot in green screen. Recoding it on film would have been pointless, would have taken and very long time and the end output wouldn't have been as good.

Renn

mike65 wrote: »

Will watch this latter but will already disagree with anyone who thinks digital is a better aesthetic medium!

Just another medium...

Jumboman

Cameron said you cant shoot 3D on film :rolleyes: whats he talking about ? they have being shooting 3D movies on film since the 1950s.

Technocentral

Jumboman wrote: »

Cameron said you cant shot 3D on film :rolleyes: whats he talking about ? they have being shooting 3D movies on film since the 1950s.

I hate 3D but he didn't say that, he said for what HE wanted to do Digital 3D was the only option.

tommyboy2222

This film is available on Irish Netflix now

Jumboman

Technocentral wrote: »

I hate 3D but he didn't say that, he said for what HE wanted to do Digital 3D was the only option.

At 102 into the trailer he says "you cant shoot 3D on film".

tylercheribini

very interesting doc. your man claimin all hard drives go "click click" and fail after a while got my tits after a while tho..and as for the producer of "Transformers" claiming more access to technology will just lead to more worse films....

Technocentral

Jumboman wrote: »

At 102 into the trailer he says "you cant shoot 3D on film".

Im sure he knows like everyone else that 3D has been done before on film hundreds of time, that is just a sound bite from his interview were he said that for what he wanted to do you can't shoot it in 3D on film, whether he's right or not that one can't I don't know.

Technocentral

tylercheribini wrote: »

very interesting doc. your man claimin all hard drives go "click click" and fail after a while got my tits after a while tho..and as for the producer of "Transformers" claiming more access to technology will just lead to more worse films....

Had a good laugh at that alright, a bit like Jedward saying that all these reality tv shows are leading to crap pop music

Technocentral

Jumboman wrote: »

At 102 into the trailer he says "you cant shoot 3D on film".
[

Very good article here: http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/news-and-features/features/technology/e3if3d775aa9c43698eab6fb2500f376296

on that subject Jumboman, to sum up the pertinent part, they say that Digital was better than the older 35mm based 3D system because of improved "tolerances and image stability" with Digital but now two new film based 3D systems, Technicolor 3D and Oculus3D using 35mm are just as good, audiences shown it couldn't tell if it was film or digital apparently, maybe Cameron should read it too!

krudler

tylercheribini wrote: »

very interesting doc. your man claimin all hard drives go "click click" and fail after a while got my tits after a while tho..and as for the producer of "Transformers" claiming more access to technology will just lead to more worse films....

this from the guy who produced Doom, Transformers 2, The Devil Inside, Salt and GI Joe claiming that movies are getting worse, yeah because of people like you ya fcuker!

tylercheribini

i know it was the very definition of pot and the kettle

tylercheribini

and not a hint of irony when he said it either,yanks dont do that anyway i suppose..

PerrinV2

This is on tonight on Film 4 for any1 interested

mike65

Its on Film4 again tonight