I was reading about the cinematography of _Collateral_, possibly the first large budget feature film to be shot digitally, and one of the issues back in 2004 when it was made was the amount of storage required for digital video and the risk of not being able to retrieve the images from the data stores:
> “We did massive testing with the hard drives, and everything was great, and then we had an experience where we shot, and when we sent in the material, they couldn’t get the information off the hard drive,” said Cameron. “So the studio went ballistic and was like, ‘There’s just no way we can we can let you guys do this.’”
> The compromise was the production would record to hard drives as well as SRW tape. And unlike today, verifying the digital footage was equally cumbersome and tension-filled.
> “We recorded everything two or three times on decks that we carried with us,” said Beebe. “So we were backing up, two or three times.”
https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/michael-mann-c...
> we were backing up, two or three times
So they just rediscovered what IT world knew for decades, or what am I missing?
When Data/File based workflows started in movies (around 2004), 2-3 copies was the standard from the get go and ideally this was with MD5 checksums (currently xxhash is more common because it's alot faster). LTO backups are also generally part of the copy chains as the 3rd or 4th copy. Before that, duplication with tape was while recording wasn't as common, but it was more common to duplicate after recording. Although you'd have some amount of generation loss depending on the format, not so with recording to multiple decks with the same source video. With film it obviously wasn't possible but original negative (o-neg) was much more cautiously handled. You'd have copies made going to an interpositive for editing and dailies process. Those wouldn't an identical quality so to get a negative copy, you'd be 2 generations of loss. By the time you're seeing a print in a theater, it would be 3 generations. (one->IP->IN->print)
3 different copies driven to 3 different places by 3 different people before you leave set for the day continued to be how it was when I was working on set. And believe it or not, there was still one incident in 2015 where Murphy's Law negated all 3 and I spent about a week file-carving the $60k worth of footage we didn't have the ability to reshoot again if we had to
That you don’t film on two or three wheels at a time
I mean they should, film can get damaged too. The reason they don't are probably because it would be too expensive, bulky and film is single-use so also wasteful.
Even hobby level DSLRs have two card slots with option to write to both.
Professional cameras have tons of gear strapped to them, a second drive or some link to external storage is a no-brainer.
probably 20 years and the switch from hard disks to flash drives.
I remember when hard drives started getting big that it took a long time to get data on and off them. They got bigger faster than interfaces could keep up.
I think about 2004, a "big machine" would be an aluminum powermac G5 with an 80gb sata hard drive. Or a powerbook G4 with a 60gb ATA drive.
Back then, it was basically the Wild West with digital cinematography. No wonder studios freaked out at the idea of lost footage
Weren't the Star Wars prequels the first big digital productions?
Phantom menace used some (pioneering) digital shots but Collateral is fully shot on digital from my understanding
Attack of the Clones (2002) was shot fully digital with an early Cine Alta camera.
So early the film isn't even in 1080p
Collateral was not the first fully digitally shot feature film. In fact, Collateral was not even fully digital. (The first major, all-digital, HD feature film was Attack of the Clones, but there were other fully-digital feature films before that, just not as major, and/or not always HD. Robert Rodriguez' Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2001) was fully digital.)
But you are right that Collateral did do something very new/unusual at the time, and that was shooting scenes in higher frame-rates than 24, and mixing multiple frame rates in a film. (This might not sound like much, but until this time, pretty much every film was 24fps for the previous eighty years and it had a very specific look that everyone's eyes/brains were conditioned for, unbeknownst to them.)
And the other thing that was very interesting thing about it (though not something very visible to a viewer) was that it was shot on the Thomson Viper FilmStream camera[1], which was the first major attempt at shooting not just digital, but very close to "raw". It was also a huge pain in the ass. The camera itself was massive, but due to the bandwidth, it recorded to an external storage array that had to be pushed alongside it at all times, and that was itself about the size of a shopping cart. (This device was hilariously referred to as the "Director's Friend.")
In 2002, my friend and I, both cinema nerds in high school, drove an hour away to the nearest theater showing a film called Russian Ark[2]. Why were journeying to to see a strange little Russian film where a never-named character walks the viewer through Russian history? Because just like each episode of the recently-released Netflix show Adolescence, this entire film was a single, very long, very complicated, unbroken shot. One shot. No trickery, no cuts that were just hidden to the audience, one shot, through streets, buildings, snow, ballrooms with a couple hundred choreographed actors, it was crazy. This is easy now compared to how it was back then.
As we've now established with Collateral (and this film predates it by 2 years), digital cinematography existed, but the storage was a real problem, the power was a real problem. Since this film was one shot, it needed almost 100 minutes of both, unbroken. And since it was a very complex moving shot, it had to be operated handheld. So essentially they had an incredibly ripped director of photography who operated the camera on a steadicam the whole time while a giant array of daisychained batteries and hard drives were lugged behind him. And they did it something like 100 times until they had a few takes where there were no mistakes.
None of this really means anything to anyone anymore, but at the time, to cinematography nerds at least, this stuff was all absolutely insane!
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040103133953/http://www.thomso...
Around 2004 I worked for a company in The Netherlands that owned a Viper camera (one of the few in NL, I guess because they were based in Breda and Thomson had an HQ there). The company actually had a big Mercedes van that contained a Quantel iQ system just to record and postprocess the video coming out of that Viper.
In the years after that I worked with them to write a custom application based on a Bluefish444 card combined with some ATTO fiber channel storage just to get the frames to disk fast enough. A lot of custom code, overlapped I/O, that kind of thing. We had a beast of a JBOD RAID setup, must have been about 12 spinning disks.
The only alternative in those days were systems that stored to tape, but could only do so in a compressed format (I think Sony had a solution that did 4:2:0 instead of the 4:4:4 coming out of the Viper). People were scrambling for these storage solutions so much that we even got Arri to lend us their prototype D-20 camera (which turned into D-21 which turned into Alexa) just so we could make sure our storage system worked with their camera. We just had this amazing prototype camera sitting around our office for what must have been a year. They just lent it to us. Wild. I think our only main competitor at the time was Codex, which admittedly had a much slicker system.
We visited the CINEC trade show and got a ton of interest. I think I still have a business card of the DoP that did all the miniature work in Lord Of The Rings. He loved the fact that we would store things uncompressed, which would make things like compositing a lot easier.
Unfortunately, mismanagement caused the whole thing to collapse. Oh well. Nowadays you just use a CompactFlash card :)
A Mercedes van to lug it all around is both hilarious and also probably the coolest way to do it.
While working on set between 2012-2014, we were shooting all RED, and I had a 12-disk ATTO FC RAID10 rig on set at all times borrowed from RED. Not needed for speed of frames by this time of course, but for the ridiculous total storage required shooting 6.5k raw and the time needed to copy it all. On paper this system should've been good/safe enough. In practice, we almost lost it a handful of times within a month, each in a unique way, including the time a stunt driver messed up, veered off course, and plowed directly into video village, striking the RAID and killing exactly the maximum number of disks in one mirror it could tolerate, but thankfully no more. (Needless to say the shoot was a massive learning experience and I have never managed data the same ever since.) By the time the shoot was over, the RAID was alive, but it was absolutely beat to shit, and I was afraid of how the guy from RED would react when he came to pick it up. When he did, he was completely unphased. He chuckled and said, "You should've seen how messed it was after Ridley Scott's crew borrowed it!"
Very cool background though, I was not quite old enough to get into it all quite that early! When the Viper came out, I was still in high school, just exceedingly nerdy. I believe to this day I have PCs with ATTO Disk Benchmark on them
I saw Russian Ark! Definitely a piece of art made by film buffs for film buffs; impressive to see, but far more impressive when you understand the amount of work that went into it.
I'm wondering why people would have chosen to do early digital if it was so inconvenient. When did the cost and flexibility advantages start to really kick in?
So in the context of this specific goal—shooting a feature film in a single unbroken shot—digital was a pain in the ass, but this was close to impossible to do on film, and Russian Ark was the first to ever do it, on any medium.
Simply shooting a feature film digitally was not that complicated by this time, or at least it didn't have to be. The Sony CineAlta F900 was the camera developed to shoot the Star Wars prequels, and was revolutionary at the time, became the gold standard for years, and very convenient relative to film. Tons of things started to be shot in 1080p around that time, and it was very nice to work with. Collateral was insane because they wanted to shoot raw and at high frame rates. Russian Ark needed a single unbroken shot in a form factor that one human would be capable of holding for that long. Aside from very specific and/or boundary-pushing needs, the arrival of the F900 in 2000 was effectively when digital was more convenient than shooting film while also meeting the technical requirements of high-end production (though it was many more years before most cinematographers agreed that the image quality was comparable)
"But you are right that Collateral did do something very new/unusual at the time, and that was shooting scenes in higher frame-rates than 24, and mixing multiple frame rates in a film. (This might not sound like much, but until this time, pretty much every film was 24fps for the previous eighty years and it had a very specific look that everyone's eyes/brains were conditioned for, unbeknownst to them.)"
Why was certain scenes in Collateral filmed in other frame rates than 24 fps (unless you are doing slow motion of course)? AFAIK it was never projected/shown in anything else than 24 fps.
Correct, theaters at the time could not really been project anything other than 24fps. So there were 2 parts to the shooting style, and one of them is what you describe, shooting at the higher frame rate used in order to have it play back slower when conformed to 24. But they did this in a pretty unusual way. During the action sequences, they would ramp up frame rate from 24 to 30 and back down. They would do adjust during the shot, so the action scenes had these subtle but constantly-occurring increases and decreases in speed that looked very interesting and had not been done before.
The other major part was the shutter speed. They of course could not actually shoot/project 48/60fps, but they a shot a lot scenes at the high shutter speeds one typically uses when shooting those frame rates, a lot of it had that "ultratrealistic" look that people had weren't used to in films, resembling more the look of video, TV soap operas in 60i, etc.
I feel slightly absurd even writing about this considering how little of this really applies today, and how inconsequential changing the shutter speed on a camera is now. "I hit the '+ shutter' button a couple of times, revolutionary!" But it's crazy how conditioned everyone was to these looks at the time due to how little variety there was. I taught this film class where I would demonstrate to everyone, with nearly 100% success, that they all were influenced by and conditioned for these frame rates, even if they didn't know what a frame rate was. We'd shoot a scene with multiple cameras side-by-side shooting at different frames rates, play it back to the class later, and ask which one looked "more like a movie" to them. Invariably, even if they couldn't explain why, everyone always picked the 24p version
"Correct, theaters at the time could not really been project anything other than 24fps. So there were 2 parts to the shooting style, and one of them is what you describe, shooting at the higher frame rate used in order to have it play back slower when conformed to 24. But they did this in a pretty unusual way. During the action sequences, they would ramp up frame rate from 24 to 30 and back down. They would do adjust during the shot, so the action scenes had these subtle but constantly-occurring increases and decreases in speed that looked very interesting and had not been done before."
Wouldn't this just lead to judder? Maybe that was something that had not been seen before in a movie shown at cinemas.
I've heard that sometimes scenes like kung fu fights were filmed in a lower frame rate (maybe 20 fps) and then it got faster when it was projected in 24 fps. If you do it the other way around movement just get slower (which is what you want for slow motion).
"We'd shoot a scene with multiple cameras side-by-side shooting at different frames rates, play it back to the class later, and ask which one looked "more like a movie" to them. Invariably, even if they couldn't explain why, everyone always picked the 24p version"
Isn't this the most expected result? How could it possibly be anything else?
At the time, yes, absolutely, and that's why I did it. It was a lesson that everyone understood intuitively the moment the saw the comparison, even if 30 seconds prior to that they thought it was nonsense, or didn't really have thoughts one way or the other because they never given much thought to frame rates before.
But would this experiment yield the same results today? For people in certain demographics or below a certain age, I think almost certainly not.
I also think that a lot of the people who would've easily identified the 24p clip back in 2004ish when this class took place may no longer do so now. I never would've thought this before 2018ish, but I had experiences with people around and since that time that surprised me and turned me completely around on this view.
Though there is one other alternative that that I wouldn't have difficulty believing. I think it's possible that more people than I just predicted would identify the 24p clip as "cinematic", but that they may not view it as a desirable look, inherently more dramatic, having much impact on the viewer, etc.
In the book _In the Blink of an Eye_ by Walter Murch (which is generally about film editing), there's a section that speculates that 24 frames per second somehow resonates with some innate constant of how human vision works, which is wild to think about!
I remember exactly when I learned that, and indeed I found it interesting and thought-provoking at the time. And it's still interesting now, but I personally think it's way less likely true than I did back then
> large budget feature
What does this mean?
You parsed it wrong - it's a large budget feature film. A feature film is a theatrical movie too long to be called a short film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film