Recently in Post Production Category

New York Times published a piece today "Studios Shift to Digital Movies, but Not Without Resistance" by Scott Kirsner:

The product market for digital cinematography has established first entrants like Panavision and Thomson Grass Valley ( and Arriflex), but writes Scott Kirsner:

"[M]any new cameras are on the way, from established companies like the ARRI Group of Germany and a start-up, Red Digital Cinema."

Also cited:

“We’ve reached what may be looked at, five years from now, as a tipping point in the use of digital cameras,” said Curtis Clark, a cinematographer who is chairman of the American Society of Cinematographers’ technology committee."

Aside from technological advances in image quality vis-à-vis 35mm, I would add that digital acquisition is reaching critical mass as the gaming generation of below and above-the-line creators and technicians enter their "journeyman" or productive years. Unlike their predecessors, this generation does not have the residue of the long-standing infrastructural culture war between film and "video".

The cost savings of newer technology are often emphasized by OEM's, and certainly the viability of digital technologies arises primarily from the growing emphasis on solving the endemic vagueness and inefficiency in Hollywood financials. This trend is ultimately a result of the emerging Creative Economy. The engine of economic growth in the developed world is sustained creativity and the production of high-value intellectual property whether pharmaceuticals, video games, or movies.

In the shift to digital, infrastructure is often overlooked by commentators; while emphasis is frequently placed on the efficiency and aesthetics benefits of newer technologies. As the gaming generation matures, the industry will continue to develop a culture of technicians with dramatically different training cycles and models then its traditional and waning culture of apprenticeship. OEM's, however, are not in a rush to push out traditional acquisition technologies, unless they rely solely on digital for revenue streams. In fact, revenue streams inform the marketing strategies and angle of manufacturers when it comes to their positioning on newer digital technologies. Are they still making money from traditional technology? Then why disparage film. Are they a diversified? Then why not emphasize their choice. Common wisdom in business is that the most profitable years in a technological lifespan are the last years when there is less money invested R&D. Then, it's pure profit.

Here is a summary of upcoming pieces in my four part series on digital technology and emergent media trends for 2006:

The second installment will focus on the changing nature of our industry’s below-the-line labor market vis-à-vis digital acquisition and post, and how newer technologies are transforming our industry’s culture and training cycle. I will illustrate how our industry is moving from a culture of apprenticeship to a culture of technicians, and how this development fits into the larger context of globalization and the creative economy.

The third piece will focus on growing demand for greater clarity and efficiency in the way that Hollywood and other creative industries do business. I see the viability of digital technology as part of an emerging trend in Hollywood towards solving the endemic vagueness around creative financials that are symptomatic of our outmoded ideas about creativity.

The fourth piece will focus on emerging markets and the changing nature of content that is resulting from these newer technologies and other generational and economic trends.

Cheers,

Alexa D. O'Brien

Every Oscar for Best Picture since the first Academy Awards in 1928 has honored a motion picture recorded on film from the Eastman Kodak Company. Since the dawn of the motion picture industry, Kodak has served as a driving force in filmmaking science and technology, providing negative, print, and sound film, digital intermediate post-production work, and digital cinema products and services. In a November 2005 Lehman Brothers Equity Research Report, analysts Sabbagha and Talbott, estimated that Eastman Kodak earnings from entertainment film revenues were $1 billon annually, forty percent from their origination stock and sixty percent from their print stock. I wanted to learn more about how Kodak intended to protect is legacy brand in the midst of the emerging digital motion picture marketplace. Last month, I spoke with Bob Gibbons, Director of Marketing and Communications at Kodak Digital Cinema.

Alexa O'Brien

How has Kodak been preparing for the digital marketplace in regards to motion picture film?

Bob Gibbons

Let me just give you my view of digital cinema, because I have been involved with it since the beginning at Kodak. Around 1980, probably around the time of Disney's TRON, postproduction started going digital. The problem with computers in 1980 was that you needed a lot of power. You needed silicone graphics. Even if you had big computers, the quality of the postproduction, the special effects and so forth, was far less than film quality. So we said, why don't we come out with some sophisticated scanners and recorders to help maintain the quality of the product? So, we came out with a brand called Cineon. We also opened up a laboratory so we could improve those products and that was Cinesite, an effects company. As it turns out, other people started to come out with products. Pretty soon, there was a lot of good quality capability out there. Prices came down and there were more competitors in the marketplace.

Then we said, maybe we don't need to be in the product side of things. Maybe we ought to be in the service side of things, and continue to do effects. So we have two digital service companies: one in Hollywood called, LaserPacific, and one in London called, Cinesite that has done effects for Harry Potter and Narnia.

If you watch television or go to the movies, you have already seen Grass Valley™ brand products and their Emmy® award-winning technologies at work. Mark Chiolis is the Senior Marketing Manager of Thomson Grass Valley’s Strategic Marketing and Business Development Group, based in Burbank, California.

Alexa O'Brien
How does the Viper FilmStream fit into the marketplace against digital cinematography cameras like to the Panavision Genesis and the Arriflex D-20?

Mark Chiolis

Both the Genesis and the D-20 are using single CMOS based sensors that are capable of using legacy 35mm cine lenses. The benefit of a single sensor is that you eliminate the prism but there are trade-offs in having to split out the Red, Green and Blue signals from the single sensor. Our philosophy on the Viper is to utilize three high-quality patented Frame Transfer (FT-DPM) Digital Pixel Management CCDs that take advantage of today’s latest design technologies in optics, providing a combination that yields what we at Grass Valley believe is the highest quality digital image available in a production camera today. The Viper also has four distinct modes of operation which makes it the most versatile of the digital cameras. Depending upon the project it is possible to shoot in the “raw” 4:4:4 FilmStream mode, a fully color corrected and processed 4:4:4 mode, a semi-processed 4:2:2 mode (which is perfect for cost conscious television work) and of course “regular” fully processed 4:2:2 HD mode. Additionally, because of our unique ability to reconfigure our sensors to different formats, the Viper is the only digital camera that is capable of shooting widescreen (2.37:1) aspect ratios that use the full vertical resolution of 1080 lines. Because other digital cameras are not capable of reconfiguring their sensors they are forced to “chop off” the top and bottom of the picture creating a faux widescreen image. This lowering of the vertical resolution can really display itself especially when going back to film for release.