Transformers 2 is out in theaters now, and if you see it with the amazing special effects made by ILM then you’ld assume the entire movie was digital. Not so, as Micheal Bay is a fan of classic film.
Bay insists on employing film rather than digital recording partly because he likes the grain and color range of film and partly because he prefers spectacular natural locations. Farrar scans the negative to create a pristine digital copy for ILM. A high-def digital camera requires an unwieldy electronic “umbilical chord” that makes it hard to maintain out of the studio especially in the Jordanian desert. It s heartening to think of Bay getting a thrill out of shooting in Wadi Rum Jordan where David Lean directed part of Lawrence of Arabia.
This does, however, create alot of problems for the digital effects people who then have to recreate alot of work that could have been captured better with digital imaging.
Outsiders tend to think of techies as slaves to the computer. Farrar though says “Computers are dumb they can t do anything unless they have a ton of information.” ILM must translate into digital language every surface and texture in each shot and set up lights within each scene s 3-D landscape according to “how a particular location looked at a particular time of night or day.” Because of the shifts in shadows and light the images in a sequence set in a deep forest could turn brownish yellowish or vivid green. Since the robots are reflective they would look markedly different depending on the circumstances. An ILM craftsman on set stands at camera position for most of the set-ups and swings around in a circle to photograph the environment.
via ‘Transformers’ special effects guru gives machines a ninja-like fluidity – baltimoresun.com.
Film has many assets which digital doesn’t have. Digital images are very clear per pixel but are very flat. Film has grain but has larger colour range and resolution. The images are more natural in film and when projected on film look far better than digital projection.
its true that its harder adding cgi to a film print but the end result is far more impressive when added correctly to a film picture. Digital photography is good because its clear but the depth percievable isn’t very good.
Look at star wars 1,4,5,6 which are captured on film and look at 2 and 3 which were digitaly recorded. although ou really woould need an Hd copy to really tell, the film versions do have more detail. the digital ones are very clear but lack detail in comparison. The digital effects fit more easily on the digital movies. But when done right. seem to have more substance on the celluloid prints.
Digital doesnt require much work to get a decent picture but, film if not done withe an experience film photographer can turn out really bad.
Film in the right hands can yeild more impressive results than digital but its cheaper and easier to go digital.
michael bay should try super dimension 70mm film as its new and suppose to be the best available. it can record at 24 an 48 frames per second and the projector can do the same. no dee for image distorting anamorphic lenses.
http://www.superdimension70.com