Midday on Film Noir: June 7, 1-2pm

[NOTE: Missed the show? Check out the podcast!]

Film Noir Blog Pic

On Friday, June 7, Linda DeLibero – Director, Film and Media Studies, Johns Hopkins University – and I, Christopher Llewellyn Reed – Chair of Film/Video at Stevenson University – will do our monthly appearance on “Midday with Dan Rodricks” on WYPR 88.1FM, Baltimore’s NPR News Station, during the second hour, 1-2pm, to discuss film noir with Mark Osteen – Chair of the English Department at Loyola University Maryland – author of Nightmare Alley: Film Noir and the American Dream.

Have you always wondered what film noir is, and where the term came from? Tune in, and learn the answer. Do you have a favorite film noir? Send me a note ahead of time, and I’ll let you know if it’s on our list to discuss. If you can’t listen live, or locally, on the day of, you can live-stream the podcast here: http://www.wypr.org/listen-live

And you can always download the podcast afterwards, either via iTunes or the Midday page: http://www.wypr.org/stationprogram/midday

Enjoy the show!

Two Seasons of “The University,” Stevenson’s Webcast SitCom

The University

For the past two years, students in the Department of Film/Video at Stevenson University have written, produced, shot and edited a situational comedy for broadcast on Stevenson’s internal “portal” website. Loosely modeled on the U.S. version of “The Office,” “The University” follows the marvelous misadventures of one Hank Howard, videographer extraordinaire (in his own mind, anyway), played by yours truly.

Now, after two seasons, I share with you all 16 episodes (7 from Season 1, and 9 from Season 2). I am very proud of the work the students have done. It’s not easy writing an ongoing web series on top of one’s regular school work, and managing to keep the plot lines flowing consistently and continuously from episode to episode.

You can watch the series on Vimeo or YouTube. Take your pick. Enjoy! And thank you for watching.

NAB Recap: The Future Never Stops

NAB Graphic

Do you know what the NAB is? It’s the National Association of Broadcasters, which, according to its website: “is the voice for the nation’s radio and television broadcasters. As the premier trade association for broadcasters, NAB advances the interests of our members in federal government, industry and public affairs; improves the quality and profitability of broadcasting; encourages content and technology innovation; and spotlights the important and unique ways stations serve their communities.”

Every year, NAB holds a convention “show” out in Las Vegas, where technicians, engineers and vendors from all of the major (and minor) companies that sell any kind of film and television gear can demo their new products. It’s huge, taking up all three halls of the Las Vegas Convention Center.

I went there this year, for the first time, to see what it was like. It ran from April 8-11, 2013, with two days of conferences beforehand. I had signed up to attend the Technology Summit on Cinema. Sadly, I came down with something on the trip out to Vegas, and spent the first day of the conference sick in bed, in the lovely Trump Hotel Las Vegas. It’s always great to lie moaning in a hotel room in a city far from home. You should try it, if you haven’t already.

The next day, though still not at 100%, I decided to start forcing myself to see what was what, and so I made it to the second day of the conference. Here are my thoughts.

The main gist of both the Technology Summit and the products being hawked at NAB was this: you cannot rest – newer and higher resolutions of digital cinema, as well as higher frame rates, are barreling down on us, and we must adapt. 4K and 8K are the near future. We all need to start buying cameras, TVs and projectors that can showcase these amazing new technologies, or we will be luddites.

I exaggerate, perhaps.

To explain about 4k (and 2K and 8K) . . . The current standard for your high definition TV is either 1280×720 or 1920×1080, with 1920 representing the horizontal lines of pixels, and 1080 representing the vertical lines. That is “1K.” A very popular digital cinema camera, the Arri Alexa, typically shoots at 2K (or 2048×1152). Another very popular digital cinema camera, the RED, shoots at 4K (or 4096×2304). Actually, there are now RED cameras that shoot at 5K. And just down the pike is something called UHD, or Ultra High Definition, which will be in 8K. The question is, can you tell the difference? I guess you could if we were looking at images on giant screens, but since many of us watch films and videos on computers and mobile devices . . .

A director like David Fincher loves shooting in 4K, since no one really screens in that format. Which means he generally has at least 2 times more resolution in each shot than he needs. He can punch in and create close-ups out of wide masters. He can correct a shaky camera move since the edges of his frame are not necessary. It gives him freedom to keep reframing long after the movie is shot. I bet it drives his cinematographers crazy! If you’re curious about how he works, buy the blu-ray disc of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and watch the special features. They’re fascinating, and will help explain some of what I just wrote.

Remember 3D? Ha! I know, it’s still here, although it hasn’t been doing all that well lately. Well, it turns out that 3D might just work better in higher resolutions. Or . . . in higher frame rates. That’s right. We have clever engineers working on more than just higher resolutions. If you saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey last December, then you might just already know what to expect from these higher frame rates. Since the dawn of synchronized sound- on-film, in 1927, motion picture cameras and projectors have shot and played back movies at 24 frames per second (fps). It’s what we’re used to do. When the television standard was created in this country, the original frame rate adopted was 30fps (which has to do with our electrical currents running at 60hz). When color television was created, they had to adjust the frame rate to 29.97fps. You can read about all of that here. Regardless of whether it was 30fps or 29.97fps, those extra 6fps were enough to create a slightly different (smoother) look to the new medium that we have since associated with video. We know what film looks like, and we know what video looks like.

Or so we thought. Over the past 15 years or so, more and more video cameras have added 24fps shooting options, to allow video to look more film-like.

But now, filmmakers like Peter Jackson and James Cameron are pushing higher frame rates, telling us that the 24fps standard was arbitrary, and that with more frames per second, we will see more detail in the image, and thereby enjoy higher resolution. If one wanted, one could view their proselytizing with a cynical eye, since they are both making 3D movies, and 3D, apparently – as I noted above – looks better at higher frame rates.

During the Technology Summit on Cinema, James Cameron appeared in a pre-taped video presentation, during which he presented examples of scenes shot in 24fps, 48fps, and 60fps. He made his own opinion very clear that there was no comparison between the lower and higher frame rates: higher = better. And yet, to this viewer – weaned on 24fps – higher looked too smooth, and the stuttering (in 24fps) that Cameron kept on telling made the lower frame rate images unwatchable was perfectly normal to me. I didn’t like the HFR images, in fact (nor did many of the critics who watched The Hobbit). I expect, however, that if Cameron and Jackson – and the companies that support them – have their way, a new generation of film viewers will be weaned on HFR, and will then find 24fps strange.

I’m OK with that – with changing technologies, tastes inevitably change. When I go back and watch the 1980s TV shows that I enjoyed in my youth, I am appalled at how bad they seem to me now. But what I’m not OK with is the ceaseless promotion of new technologies every few years. Or rather, even that I’m OK with, since companies need to make money, and the market is currently saturated with HDTVs. But please don’t promote new technologies, like 4K and 8K, 48fps and 60fps, or 3D, as if we all must use/have them, and as if everything that has come before them was terrible (which was the gist of Cameron’s message at NAB), when what you really want to do is sell more cars, I mean, cameras. Show me your new toys, let me enjoy them, but don’t try to destroy the memory of my old toys in the process. The cinema that many of us love and cherish was created using technology that lasted for over 100 years. Perhaps we can celebrate the new without denigrating the old.

The future may never stop, but the past will always be with us.

Here some of my notes from the actual Technology Summit:

Saturday, April 6, 2013:

Was very sick with nasty fever. Stayed in hotel room, in bed, all day. 😦

Sunday, April 7, 2013: see my photos in support of these notes

Technology Summit on Cinema, Day 2

SMPTE is sponsor

They have June 18-19 conference at Stanford:

Entertainment Technology in the Internet Age

1.  A Tidal Wave of Pixels: New Workflows for Digital Production

New Capabilities:

  • 3D
  • 4K
  • HFR
  • HDR (High Dynamic Range)
  • Wider Color Gamuts – UHDTV
  • 8K

A data-driven world

Motto in this brave new world is “do or die”

Workflow is the new term of the last 20 years:

  • To and from
  • Place to place
  • System to system

Designing workflow – managing data – must have at least 3 copies

2.  James Cameron on HFR – 24, 48, 60 – plus, show HFR screened at 24

  • I ask – do we want this clarity?
  • I can’t tell the difference between 48 and 60
  • High res is driving HFR, because without it you can’t see advantage of HFR
  • 3D, also, along with High Res, drives the HFR revolution, because it requires smooth edges of the frame.

3.  Advanced Image Capture

UHDTV – way over my head . . .

4.  Jon Landau (producer for James Cameron) interviewed by David Cohen of Variety

Video of the conversation here.

“New Digital Storytelling” (focus on HFR)

  • Filmmakers have to ask why they are using new technologies
  • Nobody watches movies/TV for the technology, but for the content
  • Problems in business model for SFX houses (his answer was lame)
  • One sees more provocative TV than films, these days, as far as content, style & technology are concerned
  • [I am getting tired of the triumphalism of HFR/3D – I think he’s wrong about the theatres in new countries.]
  • Last 3 Oscar winners for Best Cinematography were all 3D films
  • If you want a movie in 3D, shoot it in 3D. [apparently, he’s not a fan of conversion of 2D to 3D.]
  • They edited Avatar in 2D – Jon Landau doesn’t think 3D requires any new film grammar.
  • Stereoscopy = seeing in 3D
  • There are autostereoscopic screens, where you won’t need glasses, being developed.

5. HFR – “What’s the big deal?”

“Neuroscience and HFR” – Christopher Peck, McGill

  • reactions to Hobbit = a) looks weird and b) looks too fast
  • His research shows that 30-60 fps is a powerful stimulus, but one is not necessarily responding to the additional frames
  • But higher frame rates allow us to see faster motion more clearly

Stuart Hameroff, U. of Arizona – “What Is the Frame Rate of Consciousness?”

  • What is “consciousness?”
  • [I don’t want to be someone railing against new technologies just because I don’t understand or like them yet.]

Howard Lukk, Walt Disney

  • If we can do it, should we?
  • Just another tool in the toolbox
  • High Resolution demands high frame rate (Cameron said the same thing) – a direct correlation
  • As we increase dynamic range and resolution, we will have to incerase frame rates

Bert Dunk, DP

  • I like some of the extra detail, but don’t like the way image moves
  • With a higher shutter angle, the greater motion blur that he introduced makes it look more appealing
  • Seeing stereoscopically is affected by age
  • [My main issue with the push to HFR/3D is that it seems driven by engineers, not artists/designers]
  • [For every Life of Pi, there are 10 Oz films]

6. HFR, part 2

Wendy Aylsworth of Warner Brothers on The Hobbit

  • In April 2011, Peter Jackson announced at NAB his intention to shoot The Hobbit  in HFR
  • [Now – not only do theatres have to upgrade to digital projectors, but to ones that can also do HFR – is The Charles doing this?]

Odeon UCI guy – The Hobbit in Europe

  • He admits that the HFR push is to monetize 3D (refresh it)

Oscars 2013 Recap

Oscars Statuette

So another Academy Awards ceremony has come and gone. I’ll leave most of the commentary about Seth MacFarlane’s hosting job to others, though allow me to point you to this well-written critical piece, this mixed-bag of a review, this positive one, and this analysis of the ratings for the night. I will say this about MacFarlane, which is that if you invite someone responsible for Family Guy and Ted to host the ceremony, you should be surprised by none of what happened. To protest otherwise is the height of hypocrisy (protest the jokes, by all means, but don’t act surprised that he did them).

As a side note, I was in a room full of women during the “boobs” song, and most were laughing, which proves nothing other than that there is never one monolithic reaction to, well, anything. My favorite bit of the night? Sock-puppet Flight. My least favorite moment? MacFarlane making fun of how Oscar recipients (for Make-Up in Les Misérables) Lisa Westcott and Julie Dartnell looked (well, OK, the Don Cheadle/Lincoln joke and the Jews-in-Hollywood joke also bothered me, and yes, the boobs song was very problematic, if also outrageously funny).

But let’s talk about the awards, which is what the night was supposed to be about. First, here is the Midday with Dan Rodricks show podcast, from Friday, February 22 – Midday with Dan Rodricks: 2013.02.22_Academy Awards* – so you can hear my thoughts, and those of Linda DeLibero, before we knew the results of the big night. Below is a list of my Oscar predictions, with the ones I got right highlighted in green, and the ones I got wrong highlighted in red. Please note that there were two winners (a tie) for Sound Editing. For a list of the winners online, visit imdb, among other sites.

Reed 2013 Oscar Ballot

Which awards surprised you? I loved Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained, but was surprised that he won, as the odds seemed to be in De Niro’s favor (or Jones’s). I was also surprised by the Ang Lee win (though not unhappy). I really wish that Emmanuelle Riva had won (and it was even her birthday that night), but thought Jennifer Lawrence was pretty good in Silver Linings Playbook.

However, all of that said, although my ballot reflects the films I thought would win, the films and people that I wished had won, in certain categories, if different than the actual winners, are here:

BEST PICTURE: Django Unchained

BEST DIRECTOR: Michael Haneke

BEST ACTRESS: Emmanuelle Riva

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Helen Hunt (who showed a lot more than just boobs, but for good narrative reason!)




BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Beasts of the Southern Wild



An interesting night, for sure, and a good year for movies, in which many of the Oscar-nominated films actually had good box office receipts.

* I have to issue 2 corrections to things I said on air:

  1. All members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are eligible to vote in all categories of the Academy Awards:http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/about/voting.html. It is only the NOMINEES for the individual categories that are determined by the members of the respective branches (editors, cinematographers, actors, etc.). While discussing the nominees for Best Cinematography, I expressed disbelief that Claudio Miranda (“Life of Pi”) could be the front-runner over Roger Deakins (“Skyfall”), since most of the work we see on screen in “Life of Pi” is the work of the Visual Effects Supervisor and his team. How, then, could other cinematographers not recognize that fact? Well, now I know why Miranda won: there are a lot more non-cinematographers voting for the award who don’t understand the distinction and are just reacting to the pretty images.
  2. Dan asked Linda and me if Harvey Weinstein had something to do with the success of “Silver Linings Playbook,” and we replied that we didn’t think so. We were wrong. The film – which continues to do well at the box office – was produced by the Weinstein Company (though Bob and Harvey only show up as “Executive Producers,” which is why I didn’t see them listed as the Producers).

Extraction Mode: How “Inception” on Blu-Ray Delivers Its Kick

I am finally (but slowly) beginning to buy Blu-ray discs. As someone who spent over 10 years amassing a decent DVD collection, I have been loath to throw money down for a new set of discs. As the price of Blu-rays has dropped, however, and as more films have come out in the new format, I have started to pay attention to what these larger capacity discs have to offer.

Whereas a regular single-layer DVD holds 4.7gb worth of information, and a dual-layer DVD twice that much, a single-layer Blu-ray disc holds 25gb, and a dual-layer Blu-ray twice that much. If you’re confused about what that means, you can look at the FAQ (frequently asked questions) section of Blu-ray.com.

One thing I have most definitely  appreciated about Blu-ray players, from the beginning – which is why I bought one – is that they can play both DVDs and Blu-rays. This was a smart move on the part of manufacturers, as it allows both formats to exist side by side, as opposed to VHS tapes (remember those?) and DVDs, thereby limiting consumer backlash from people fed up from being forced to upgrade. Keep the movies you have – on DVD – but buy your new movies on Blu-ray. This goes some way to addressing the objection I raised in my first paragraph.

I will admit that I am not a resolution nut. While I appreciate nice looking images as much as the next person, I do not require the films I screen at home to be as crisp and clear as they can possibly be. I have a 1080p 42-inch TV and a Blu-ray player that up-converts standard-definition DVD discs to a respectable approximation of high definition, and I am perfectly happy with that. I do like high quality transfers of films to video, however, and thanks to the Criterion Collection – among others – there are many such transfers out in the world (on DVD and Blu-ray, both). But if the transfer is good, I don’t care if it’s on DVD or Blu-ray (for now – my eyes may get used to the higher resolution over time, just like they no longer like looking at 1980s-era TV shows shot on video). I’m even happy watching films streamed through Netflix, which play at 720p on my Roku box.

Where Blu-ray discs have started to pique my interest, though, are in the possibilities they offer for even more extras than we can currently find on DVDs. Now that is worth spending more money for. If you’re a cinephile, that is . . .

And if you are, then Blu-ray.com will help you  discover which discs come with the best special features (and the best transfers). I’m actually amazed at how much great info is available on that site (including detailed price variation graphs for individual titles). The reviews of the films are incredibly detailed! I mean, who has time to spend writing reviews of movies if it’s not your real job? Um, yeah, like, who does that . . .

Which brings me to . . . 

Inception Blu-Ray

Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010) – the Blu-Ray Release

I watched this film in a theater when it first came out, and liked it but didn’t love it. I found the dream-within-a-dream story quite compelling, but thought the movie was almost too clever by half. I was, however, intrigued by the special effects, and was curious to know how they were done. Not so curious as to make any effort to find out much about them, though.

Then, this past fall, I watched the documentary Side by Side, in which Christopher Nolan and his long-time cinematographer Wally Pfister discussed their preference for film over digital, and how they preferred to do as many of their effects in camera, rather than in post-production, and I began to think back to Inception. When I recently saw the Blu-ray for sale on Amazon for under $10, I figured, why not get it? That’s a good impulse-buy price for a disc with loads of extra features on it.

Of those special goodies, the one that has most sold me on not only this particular disc, but also on the potential awesomeness of the Blu-ray experience is “Extraction Mode:” a movie that plays within the feature (a dream within a dream?). With the juxtaposition of documentary and feature, we are offered glimpses into the construction of scenes right after (or before) we see them. Every time a scene with a lot of visual or special effects is about to start, the feature pauses and rolls over to the documentary, which explains the how-to of what you will soon see. Then the feature begins again, where it left off. [For a great explanation of what visual effects are vs. what special effects are, click here.]

The original movie, itself, is 148 minutes long. In “Extraction Mode,” it’s 190 minutes. If you’re not in the mood to devote that much time to Inception, you can just jump to the scenes about which you have questions. But for those of you willing to spend the 3+ hours, this is a terrific way to re-connect with the film. I wouldn’t want to watch it this way on a first viewing, but “Extraction Mode” definitely enriched my return adventure to the world of Nolan’s vivid imagination. For all I know, this might have happened to me anyway on a second viewing, even without this feature, but I have now begun to change my opinion of the film from, “Hey, that was pretty cool, but so what?,” to thinking it’s one of the most complex and well-constructed science fiction films of the past 20 years. Or maybe that idea was just implanted in my mind while I watched the film within a film, and I’m still within that film, as in a half-remembered dream . . .

Here are some of the things I discovered:

  • It’s remarkable how much Christopher Nola re-made Leonardo DiCaprio in his own image. Cobb’s hair and the suit are vintage Nolan. I would have missed this if we hadn’t been cutting back and forth from DiCaprio to Nolan.
  • As repeated time and time again by Nolan, Wally Pfister, Special Effects Supervisor Chris Corbould and Visual Effects Supervisor Paul Franklin, the mantra was to do as much as possible in camera so that the effects enhance what is already in the frame. That means that explosions happen with the actors in frame, and water actually falls on them. I understand now why everything feels so real and tactile!
  • The freight train (built around a truck so it could actually run in the street) is a great example of the need to do things in camera.
  • The tilting hotel bar had to be real (see above), so they built it as a giant see-saw that could go back and forth at 20/25 degree angles. They had to test the extras so they could behave normally in that environment and not get seasick.
  • For the hotel corridor scenes, Chris Corbould (the Special Effects Supervisor), designed and built a 100-ft horizontal rotating corridor. The engineering had to be precise, and the device was enormous. And this was all done so that the actors would actually be in that environment, and it would look and feel like it was happening. As actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt says, “There’s no substitute for real human energy in performance.”
  • I was gratified to hear that Nolan was thinking about 1970s Roger Moore-era Bond films when he designed the snow fortress sequence. He wanted (of course) real ski stunts. They even made real avalanches happen. None of this changes the fact that this is the least interesting set for me, but since my first thought when I saw the film was, “Ugh, Roger Moore Bond,” I laughed when I heard him describe his thought process.
  • For the “zero-g” corridor sequence, they built a set that was identical to the horizontal corridor, only vertical. Again – simply incredible!
  • The description of how they designed and built “Limbo City,” combining digital effects and actual streets and sets, is fascinating. Nolan says that the “line between visual effects and practical photography was as blurred as we could make it.”
  • As a result, when there is almost pure CGI (computer generated imagery), such as in the scene where  Cobb confronts Mal, and Ariadne jumps out of the window, it ends up looking very fake by comparison.
  • At the end, it really is even more striking how much DiCaprio really really really looks like Nolan in the scene with the very old Saito.
  • One of the final bits in the documentary features composer Hans Zimmer talking about the music. He initially generated electronic sounds, and then asked the orchestra to imitate. That’s a nice reversal of the way that synthesizers have long mimicked orchestras.

For those of you who have not seen the film, it centers around a man, Cobb (DiCaprio), who is a specialist in entering the dreams of others to “extract” information. It’s a form of very advanced corporate espionage. He works with a team that includes Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Eames (Tom Hardy) and Ariadne (Ellen Page), among others. They are hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to implant an idea (which they call “inception,” the opposite of “extraction”) in the mind of a corporate rival of his, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In order to accomplish this, they must create dreams within dreams within dreams. Each layered dream presents new challenges and dangers, including the increasingly menacing apparition of Cobb’s dead ex-wife Mal (Marion Cotilard), who lives on in Cobb’s subconscious. If you think about the plot too much, the explanations of what is happening can sound like psycho-babble, but it somehow captures the imagination through its visual brilliance.

Once you watch it the first time, get ready to then get the Blu-ray and watch it in “Extraction Mode.” If all Blu-rays were like this, I’d be buying them all the time!

Friday, 1/4/13, Midday on Film: The Movie Star Edition

Gods Like Us

pg. 350 – Traditionally, “movie stars … have served a crucial and psychologically necessary function as role models for trying on different identities and projecting alternate ways of being.” But now, we do the same thing for ourselves.

pg. 357 – “By their very existence, movie stars insist that entropy cannot exist, that glamour and youth never fade or, if they do, get resculpted into something of harder, better value.”

Join us on January 4, 2013 at 1pm, as Linda DeLibero (Associate Director of Film and Media Studies at Johns Hopkins University) and Christopher Llewellyn Reed (Chair of the Department of Film/Video at Stevenson University) speak with Boston Globe film critic and author Ty Burr about his new book, Gods Like Us: On Movie Stardom and Modern Fame, on the second hour of Midday with Dan Rodricks on WYPR, 88.1FM, Baltimore’s NPR News Station.*

You can read a review of the book on the Entertainment Weekly website, if you’d like (it’s a good review).

We look forward to your questions via email or phone. You can listen live on 88.1 FM, in Maryland, or stream live from the show’s website (linked to, above – you’ll also find the phone and email info there). If you miss the show, you can podcast it later (and that info is also available from the show’s site).

*NOTE: Missed the show? Have no fear. Here it is: Midday with Dan Rodricks: 2013.01.04_Ty Burr

Film Is Dead – Long Live Film!

Today’s Midday with Dan Rodricks show – on WYPR, 88.1 FM, Baltimore’s NPR News Station – Linda DeLibero (Associate Director, Film and Media Studies, Johns Hopkins University) and I discussed the demise (or premature demise?) of the film format (but not of cinema).  We paid special attention to the recent documentary Side by Side, produced and narrated by Keanu Reeves, and directed by Chris Kenneally (who  joined us for a bit, from Brooklyn, via phone). It was a great and lively discussion on a timely topic. If you missed the show, you can listen to it here: Midday with Dan Rodricks: 2012.11.02_Is Film Dead

I thought I would share some of the research and notes from my prepping for this show and for the October 14 Cinema Sundays screening of Side by Side that I presented.

A.  This film came about as a result of conversations between Keanu Reeves and Christopher Kenneally on the set of the 2010 film Henry’s Crime, which Keanu Reeves produced and starred in, and on which Christopher Kenneally was the post-production supervisor. A post-production supervisor is in charge of the entire workflow process from media acquisition to final output of the final cut. Kenneally had directed one short and one documentary feature before this, but he and Reeves shared a passion for the changing nature of their field, and so they embarked on this project together. Keanu Reeves lent the project stature and his presence made it easy to secure interviews with the big filmmakers out there, and Kenneally brought years of post-production expertise to the table to write and shape the story. {Source = https://tribecafilm.com/stories/side-by-side-director}

B.  Producer’s statement: “In 2009, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE won the academy award for best cinematography. It was a point of inflection for our industry. For the first time, the award for cinematography went to a movie shot almost entirely digitally and not on film. Over the last decade movies shot, edited and distributed digitally have become an acceptable alternative to a photochemical process with over one hundred years of history. At this moment in time, the digital world and the photochemical world exist side by side in the movie industry–from image capture to visual effects to color correction to exhibition. The master cinematographers and directors are now crafting work in both mediums.

I have seen this quiet revolution unfold in front of me on sets, in edit rooms and post- production facilities and on screens around the world. With that in mind I have embarked on a major documentary project directed by Chris Kenneally to explore how this change will impact motion pictures and the way stories are conceived, created and experienced. I am producing the documentary and have hands-on involvement both behind and in front of the camera. The goal is to examine the worlds of film and digital cinema as they exist side by side.

The documentary will investigate the history, process and workflow of both digital and photochemical film creation. We aim to show what artists and filmmakers have been able to accomplish with both film and digital and how their needs and innovations have helped push filmmaking in new directions. Interviews with directors, cinematographers, colorists, scientists, engineers and artists will reveal their experiences and feelings about working with film and digital, where we are now, how we got here and what the future may bring…” {Source = Side by Side Press Kit}

C.  From CreativeCow.net (“The Mazgazine for Media Professionals in Film, Broadcast & Production”), 2011, in article “Film Fading to Black,” by Debra Kaufman: ” While the debate has raged over whether or not film is dead, ARRI, Panavision and Aaton have quietly ceased production of film cameras within the last year to focus exclusively on design and manufacture of digital cameras. That’s right: someone, somewhere in the world is now holding the last film camera ever to roll off the line.”

D.  From Variety, Feb. 4, 2012, in article “Film survives amid digital world,” by  Karen Idelson: ” While the switch to digital production in the movie industry has been much ballyhooed — and indeed, both Panavision and Arri have stopped manufacturing film cameras — it could easily still be decades, if at all, before film is a medium of the past.

Indeed, the industry’s digital changeover has been dramatic in areas like episodic television, but bigger-budget studio films have been slow to follow the trend. Johnathon Amayo, VP of production and post-production for Moviola Digital, believes the percentage of movies shot on film currently ranges between 50% and 70%, since many established helmers still insist on using film to get a certain look for their project. Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder, among others, have persisted with film for various projects for aesthetic reasons. Snyder and d.p. Larry Fong pushed to shoot “300” on film to get the painterly, grainy look they felt would mirror the feeling of the comicbook that inspired the movie.”

E. From Scientific American, Nov. 18, 2011, in article “Digital Movies to Replace Film by 2015,” by Samantha Murphy: “The standard 35 mm film we’re all used to seeing in movie theaters will be replaced worldwide by digital technology in the next few years, and the hit blockbuster film “Avatar” is to blame for the shift, according to a new report.

A report from the IHS Screen Digest Cinema Intelligence Service said that 35 mm film, which has been the dominant projection format in movie theaters for more than 120 years, is nearing the end of its life, as the majority of cinema screens in the U.S. are expected to go digital in 2012.

In fact, IHS expects 35 mm will be replaced by digital technology globally by 2015, the report said. By the end of 2012, 35 mm film in movie theaters is expected to decline to 37 percent on a global scale, which is a dramatic decline from 68 percent of global cinema screens in 2010.”

F. That same IHS Screen Digest reports that 35mm prints will cease being produced in US by end of 2013, according to June 9, 2012 article in ArsTechnica, “Celluloid no more: distribution of film to cease by 2013 in the US,” by Megan Geuss

G.  From me, Chris Reed: This film spells out something that has been very much on my mind of late, thanks to the many hours I have to spend thinking of how to devise a curriculum at Stevenson that best address the challenges of media production and media education in the 21st Century. We are seeing a strong and inexorable shift away from the primary creative moment of image creation happening in production to it happening in post-production. How you capture the image is now less important that what you do with it aftewards, in whatever editing or coloring or special effects program you happen to be working. I recommend watching the extensive BLU-RAY extras for films like Avatar and Girl with a Dragon Tattoo.

H.  To enjoy this film, you do not have to be a filmmaker or an expert in film processes, because it has enough explanatory information in it for the layperson, but you do have to PAY ATTENTION – this is not a good film during which to turn to your neighbor and ask questions, or you might miss essential info – so don’t talk, don’t text, don’t take calls, and stay focused!  🙂

Some Media Shot Digitally

I.  with the ARRI Alexa

A.  Feature Films:

1.  The Avengers

2.  The Dictator

3.  Drive

4.  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

5.  Hugo

6.  Life of Pi

7.  21 Jump Street

8.  Young Adult

B.  Television:

1.  “Blue Bloods” (also below, under RED)

2.  “Californication

3.  “Desperate Housewives

4.  “Downton Abbey

5.  “Game of Thrones

6.  “Girls

7.  “Happy Endings

8.  “Homeland

9.  “Sons of Anarchy

10.  “Supernatural

11.  “Teen Wolf

II.  with the RED

A.  Feature Films:

1.  Beginners

2.  Che

3.  District 9

4.  Fair Game

5.  The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo

6.  The Hobbit

7.  Inside Job

8.  The Muppets

9.  Prometheus

10.  The Secret in Their Eyes

11.  The Social Network

12.  Winter’s Bone

B.  Television:

1.  “Blue Bloods” (also above, under ARRI Alexa)

2.  “ER

3.  “House of Cards

4.  “Justified

5.  “The Mob Doctor

6.  “Pretty Little Liars

7.  “Southland

III. with DSLR (Digital single-lens reflex) cameras

A.  Fantastic Mr. Fox (Nikon D3)

B.  For Lovers Only (Canon 5D Mark II)

C.  Tiny Furniture (Canon 7D)

Film lovers take heart, however, as directors like Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg are still shooting their movies, such as The Dark Knight Rises and Lincoln, on actual film . . .

Thanks for reading and thanks for listening!

Errol Webber, Baltimore cinematographer, will appear at Stevenson on Sep. 13 @ 7pm

We have a new look to our sufilmvideo.org website. Check it out!

And while you’re there, note our first big event of the year, which is a visit from local cinematographer Errol Webber.

Here is that same info:

Sep. 12-14, 2012: Cinematographer Errol Webber will be the Fall 2012 Film/Video Artist-in-Residence. See the flier, above. For a trailer of Ithemba, the film that we will screen on Thursday, Sep. 13, click here. For directions to the campus, click here.


I’m tired after another full day and tonight’s final banquet at the Adler Planetarium, so I will try and post today’s blog without too much annotation.

Today was the day that that Stevenson delegation (plus one guest) presented our panel.

Here is the prezi that I made, that covered both the intro and my part of the presentation.  And here is the outline I prepared to go along with it.

After the panel, I had coffee with Kevin Dole, a director I met at last year’s UFVA conference, since there were no panels/workshops/screenings, etc in the second session of the day (it was award ceremony time, and I chose to skip it). Kevin is a longtime Los Angeles-based director of commercials who is working on shooting his first feature film, Kiss the Frog. It was nice to catch up, and I look forward to seeing the film when it is done.

I then had lunch with my friend Savvas Paritsis and with G.T. Keplinger at the Eleven City Diner, which was fun.

Then two more panels, and finally the banquet.

What a day and what a week! I enjoyed myself, but I’ll be happy to go home tomorrow!

This is a record of my notes, taken during the UFVA 2012 sessions that I attended today.

PANEL 13K, 8:30-10:15am: Final Cut Schmo: Why “Flexible” And “Adaptable” Are The 2 Most Important Qualities Of The 21st-Century Media Education Model

Christopher Reed, Stevenson University, Moderator

Love The One You’re With: Lessons From Apple On ‘Flexibility’ And ‘Adaptability’

Brett Levner, University Of Nevada Las Vegas

Leaving Final Cut Studio, But When And To What?

Dina Fiasconaro, Stevenson University

Writing And The New Technologies

G.T. Keplinger, Stevenson University

Is Bad The New Good On YouTube?

You can look at the prezi and the outline that I linked to, above.

Here is the photo I had Savvas take after the panel (from the crappy camera on my phone … ):

(from l-r: G.T. Keplinger, Brett Levner, Dina Fiasconaro, me)

We had a great group in attendance, and a very lively discussion followed.

I learned a new word, thanks to Brett Levner – a “predator:” a producer + editor. Love it!


PANEL 15K, 1:30-3:15pm: Our Conversion Story: Forward Thinking, Slow Moving, Fine Tuning The Balance Between Tradition And Innovation At NYU

The range of challenges and triumphs associated with transitioning a large department’s signature film production class into an all-digital version while keeping the spirit, intensity and traditions of the original.

Rosanne Limoncelli, New York University, Moderator 

Rick Litvin, New York University

Peter Rea, New York University

This was the “Sight & Sound” film class conversion story


It’s the passing of an era: going from Arri-S to Sony FS-100, and from Steenbecks to AVID

  • signature class
  • 5 films in 1 semester (limitations)

We wanted to switch away from infrastructure that was no long supported

Once decision was made, would need one year to make the conversion and educate and inform everyone.

To be consistent with tradition of the class, we needed people to “earn” what they would accomplish

  • Zeiss prime lenses (28, 50, 85)
  • light meters
  • b&w
  • disabled on-board mic

Production, post and projection would have to all be compatible

It would have to remain manual, physical, systematic, and working with tools that require collaboration (part of tradition)

We needed feeling of being able to touch the tools

To convince the faculty, we framed argument as:

  • what happens if one reversal lab closes?
  • the 6 spare projection bulbs disappear?
  • what happens when suplies for Steenbecks disappear?

3 options:

  • do nothing
  • shoot film, post video
  • switch to all digital production and post


There is still film at NYU, just not in this intro class for sophomores

2 biggest programs @ Tisch are undergrad film/tv & theatre

Freshman year:

  • language of film (history)
  • script
  • 2 colloquia
  • a sound or some kind of visual course
  • no film production

“Sight & Sound” is the primary intro course. It’s divided in 3 – “film,” “studio,” “documentary” – students choose one of 2 second ones.

Meets twice a week for half a day

In adapting to new digital format, they kept the syllabus workflow from the film years (although students finish faster)


Prime lenses a good longterm investment


In defense of slowness of process to convince Deans.


Needed a robust camera to replace the ARRI-S

[à propos of nothing, but I didn’t know this, God of Love was shot on the RED]

In class, being able to freeze frame on a project image is a very lovely surprise (different form film projectors)

PANEL 16G, 3:30-5:15pm: Transmedia: One Story, Many Media

The modern narrative property cannot exist in one media alone. From film to television to games to webisodes to novels to comic books, and beyond, any major media property that expects to stand out from the crowd has to do so
on multiple platforms. Traditional single media, or simple adaptions – where
the storyline from one media piece is adapted into another media – is rapidly becoming old school. In its place is the idea of transmedia storytelling, where one giant, encompassing, engaging story is told across multiple media, with each platform telling its own contained story, but at the same time only part of the larger story.

Michael Niederman, Columbia College Chicago, Moderator 

Tom Dowd, Columbia College Chicago

Joseph Steiff, Columbia College Chicago


What is “transmedia?” … One story across many media


  • Multimedia – uses multiple media as part of a presentation
  • Crossmedia – marketeers use “crossmedia” when they want to talk about pushing a brand across multiple media
  • Transmedia – really just “multimedia” – to use multiple media to tell one story
  • Transmedia storytelling/narrative – take one master story and tell is through multiple channels (Producers Guild of America definition) a 3 or more narrative storylines within the same universe, and not the same as repurposing (adapting) material from another platform. Must be original. Narrative continuity across multiple platforms. Interactive endeavors to unite uss across platforms.
  • East Coast Transmedia – smaller, more intense, ARG-driven
  • West Coast Transmedia – writ large, driven by movies tv games


  • Transmedia requires mass media
  • The Wizard of Oz (1900) – books, stage, film, tv, comics, games, lectures across country by L. Frank Baum

Michael Niedermann doesn’t think transmedia really didn’t start until TV

  • And you have to talk about Disney when you talk about TV, ‘cos Walt “got it.”
  • After 1950s: Toys, games, books, clothes, comics – urge always there because of $$$$$
  • An opportunity to generate additional $$$$ from a property
  • All about the marketing
  • The “Roddenbury Urge” to make a universe

Now, it is still about the $$$$, but it is conceived from the start

Lucas understood that the value (thanks to Star Trek) of the universe lay in the toys.

Star Trek – ability to perceive a universe in an intellectual property at heart of other source materials. Star Trek engaged in a completely new way with the fans (conventions!).

What 1950’s merchandising did was allow fans to take the world home with them (deep impact).

An ideal idea source for transmedia treatment:

  • Big Canvas
  • Consistent universe
  • Big supply of story fodder
  • Other validation/core audience

What works best?

Star Trek as a property marked the emergence of transmedia: “organic transmedia” (it just happened) – first big modern property that overflowed its medium. Arguably birthed the mass-media sci-fi/fantasy industry.

Fanzines were emerging at the same time as Star Trek‘s ratings failure and cancellation. It was the syndication that “made” the show. TVs in college dorms helped.

  • Playing with ideas big and deep: race, tech, etc.
  • Raised questions that fans wanted to explore and DISCUSS!
  • Illusion of depth that needed filling

1975 – Franz Joseph Schnaubelt (an aerospace engineer) – Star Trek Starfleet Technical Manual – fan-driven transmedia. People who came afterwards used THIS as source material …

At the same time, Star Trek novels start to come out – it becomes a “franchise.”

Fans are discussing continuity and truth of storyline.

Star Trek + moment in culture + media = Transmedia

People who were weaned on Star Trek eventually became its masters (fanboys grow up to become creators) – Dr. Who as another example.

Where do we find Q&A in Transmedia narratives?

  • Plot/Story
  • Time/Place. Society/Culture
  • Characters – History and Motivation – the “Luke, I am your father” moment made backstory important
  • A sense of meaningful information in the gapes or just around the corner.
  • Meaningful is key

Modern transmedia storytelling is about mythology

Stories and mysteries across multiple media

Star Trek Countdown links the Star Trek reboot to the known Star Trek universe.

And now there is a series of comics/graphic novels that re-tell original series stories with the situations from the re-booted situations.

Teaching Transmedia storytelling

  • sequential vs. simultaneous
  • materials that same to work best are high-concept action

Book: Transmedia Storytelling: One Story – Many Media (Focal Press, 2013) – no link available yet.

And that’s all folks, from the UFVA 2012! Thanks for reading!