Jump to content

Wally Pfister, ASC on digital cameras


Recommended Posts

I thought I'd share this, thanks to my friend, Clyde Bryan:

‎"Frankly, when you're blowing up a 4-story building in a oner, you can't take any risk at all. And I think we all believe strongly that it would be a great risk to do something like that on a digital camera."-Wally Pfister, ASC

Best regards,

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All cameras are not fail safe. Saying film cameras are more reliable than digital is an opinion coming from someone that has never shot a feature on digital, so it should be taken in context.

I've never shot on film and I love digital, so my response is: "Film is expensive and impractical. Digital allows me to roll 10 crash cams on a oner for the cost of 1 film camera. That way, I can be sure that I got the shot."

See how obnoxious that sounds from the other side of the fence?

Sincerely,

Ridley Scott

Peter Jackson

David Fincher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All cameras are not fail safe. Saying film cameras are more reliable than digital is an opinion coming from someone that has never shot a feature on digital, so it should be taken in context.

I've never shot on film and I love digital, so my response is: "Film is expensive and impractical. Digital allows me to roll 10 crash cams on a oner for the cost of 1 film camera. That way, I can be sure that I got the shot."

See how obnoxious that sounds from the other side of the fence?

Sincerely,

Ridley Scott

Peter Jackson

David Fincher

So which one of those signers are you? Around here we appreciate argument from posters who sign in under their actual name. Besides keeping the level of civility higher, it also allows readers to judge your comments in light of your accomplishments and experience.

I'll bet Wally never shot a building being blown up with only ONE of any type of camera!

phil p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides being a great guy and a friend to the sound department, Wally has shot more film n digital images than most Cameramen I know other than say Haskell Wexler or Caleb Deschanel. He also has more friends than most. I don't think it is a generational thing he said. The only stupid thing I read was what douchbigalow said.

All cameras are not fail safe. Saying film cameras are more reliable than digital is an opinion coming from someone that has never shot a feature on digital, so it should be taken in context.

I've never shot on film and I love digital, so my response is: "Film is expensive and impractical. Digital allows me to roll 10 crash cams on a oner for the cost of 1 film camera. That way, I can be sure that I got the shot."

See how obnoxious that sounds from the other side of the fence?

CrewC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet Wally never shot a building being blown up with only ONE of any type of camera!

phil p

Since he worked for Roger Corman after he got out of AFI, I'm pretty sure Wally's done a ton of stuff with just one camera.

I'd tend to agree with Vin and Crew. At least back when we were colleagues here in the late '80's, Wally was a genuinely nice guy and a gas to work with. We spent a lot of time in a 15 passenger van driving through Arizona and some other parts of the country shooting a show for a big national charitable organization. One of the reasons I think Wally's such a nice guy is that he feels pretty lucky to end up where he has, a cancer survivor and family man that's risen to the top of a field he really enjoys. And I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about as well.

Best regards,

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never known a digital camera to suddenly sound like a kid's bicycle with baseball cards on the spokes. One of the most predictable things about a film camera is that after the focus puller bangs the sides of the magazine with both hands, the next take is going to just as noisy as the one before.

As long as the cameras are quiet enough (both film cameras and digital cameras are often not), then it's not our department, which is reason #37 to always record double system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides being a great guy and a friend to the sound department, Wally has shot more film n digital images than most Cameramen I know other than say Haskell Wexler or Caleb Deschanel. He also has more friends than most. I don't think it is a generational thing he said. The only stupid thing I read was what douchbigalow said.

All cameras are not fail safe. Saying film cameras are more reliable than digital is an opinion coming from someone that has never shot a feature on digital, so it should be taken in context.

I've never shot on film and I love digital, so my response is: "Film is expensive and impractical. Digital allows me to roll 10 crash cams on a oner for the cost of 1 film camera. That way, I can be sure that I got the shot."

See how obnoxious that sounds from the other side of the fence?

CrewC

Making it personal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfister is one of my idols- a true genious. It would be fantastic to see what he could do with a RED camera.

Mr. Pfister is a real gentleman and extremely articulate. I worked on a documentary shot at the ASC about six months ago where he talked at length about his experiences on Inception and the recent Batman films, and he was very passionate about why he preferred the look of film to digital. At the same time, Pfister is a realist: he has done test shoots with all the major digital cameras, but so far, he and director Chris Nolan have not been happy with the resolution, dynamic range, and reliability of digital cameras for their projects. He also expressed sadness that we're almost definitely in the twilight of film's existence. He was also adamant that all the cameras on the market this past summer that claim to be 4K were not actually 4K. (I think this may change once the Sony F65 comes out next year.) Pfister's new Dark Knight Returns is 75% shot on Imax 65mm, which is so far beyond what any digital camera can capture, it isn't even funny.

Me personally, I think it's great to have film as a medium, if only to give cinematographers the choice of different ways to capture images. Hell, if you want to, you can still go out and find a Nagra and brand-new 1/4" stock and roll in analog if you want, and that might be appropriate for certain kinds of projects. Having options is always a good thing. Life would be much too boring if there was only one camera and one recorder to choose from in the whole world.

I've never shot on film and I love digital, so my response is...

...not very fair and balanced, if you haven't shot on the format you're criticizing. I'm far from a cinematographer, but I've shot plenty of film myself (only 16mm negative, reversal, and ECO), plus old-school video, new video, HD, standard def, Red, Canon, and everything else. The great thing about film is that it'll usually save you if you screw up, or mother nature interferes. There's almost always a way to get the detail back in film if the whites blow out or the blacks get crushed by a stop. This is much harder to do in digital, and in some cases, it's impossible.

I think the main reasons film is on the way out are due to economics -- not picture quality, and not convenience. Digital is faster in some ways, and can do certain things film can't do, but there are pros and cons either way.

--Marc W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making it personal When someone attacks or slanders or besmirches a friend I do take it personally. CrewC

Just stating the facts. I don't know the man, but I appear to have struck a nerve with you, so I apologize for making your blood boil CrewC. I thought I made it clear that I was intentionally being bratty about it, but that looks to have been lost in translation.

I like to play devil's advocate when people make sweeping generalizations. The man has a right to his opinion, just like I do, and I happen to strongly disagree that digital is unreliable.

The point I'm trying to make is not to take away from anything Wally Pfister has done on film. Film has its merits (retaining highlights, grain, etc.), but digital trumps it in other areas (low light performance, cost, size, etc.). To dismiss digital outright is a tragedy for the digital film making community. He could provide valuable insight on how to improve digital cameras so that they are more 'filmic' going forward. Isn't that the goal?

Mr. Pfister is comfortable in film, so I applaud him for championing it and for standing firm against the studios that are trying to cram digital 3D down his and Nolan's collective throat. He gets a standing ovation from me for that.

Around here we appreciate argument from posters who sign in under their actual name. Besides keeping the level of civility higher, it also allows readers to judge your comments in light of your accomplishments and experience.

I didn't realize this was a 'Real Name' forum, but I can change that(?) When I signed up, I didn't see any sticky stating this, and I see many in the community have 'old school' nicknames.

+1 on keeping it civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" "

most of us here use their real names, either as "screen names" or as signatures. This is intended as a professional forum, and many of us actually know each other ... As such, knowing who we are discussing things with is helpful, as we know who the old timers are, and (hopefully) are meeting the newbies, and seeing them grow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

I think the main reasons film is on the way out are due to economics -- not picture quality, and not convenience. Digital is faster in some ways, and can do certain things film can't do, but there are pros and cons either way.

--Marc W.

This is true of the supply side as well as the demand. As much as the cost of film influences the decision to use it, the falling demand has endangered the viability of manufacturing it. I've been through a coater and the volume of product that comes shooting out the business end requires a robust demand to swallow it up. These plants are scaled for a market that no longer exists. Unless someone finds both the capital and the energy to retool them so that they are economically viable producing for niche markets the manufacturers will turn out the lights long before the demand reaches zero. Labs too... sigh.

Celac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...