Roger Deakins is Bond 23 likely cinematographer

So Roger Deakins has been linked to Bond 23. He has previously worked with Sam Mendes in " Revolutionary Road " from 2008.

http://commanderbond.net/12971/roger-deakins-is-bond-23s-likely-cinematographer.html

Like I've said elsewhere, I am SUPEREXCITE at this idea.

Oooh, I really hope this is true...Can you imagine how beautiful the film would be with him as cinematographer? *drools*

If this happens it will be interesting. He's pretty much converted to digital cinematography at least according to that one interview he did with CHUD. But would Mendes go along with that, and would Mike & Babs go for that too? It's a pretty big leap if they do. I would have been 100% against this in 2002 when a movie like Attack of the Clones looked like a fan video on steroids, but technology has improved since then and I've seen plenty of recent films that actually look pretty damn good. So I'm open for it now.

Still I'd like Bond to hold onto film a little longer before it ever happens. At least the guy knows how to shoot/frame good stuff.

No problem for me going digital if Deakins makes the decision - it was only going to be a matter of time anyway...

Satorious wrote:

No problem for me going digital if Deakins makes the decision - it was only going to be a matter of time anyway...

Yeah, we all knew Bond was dead anyway. Digital is only part of embalming process.

Not true, although I understand your (and other peoples) sentimental attachment to traditional film against digital. Digital has the potential to be better than film, it just all rather depends how it's being used (the main problem is that it is being used badly far too often). However I'd trust someone like Deakins to know how to utilise this properly, I suspect he was not an easy convert to the format.

It's not just sentimental, and believe me, I haven't got much to be sentimental to be about. I was only 12 when I came down with a nasty ATTACK OF THE CLONES, and it hasn't improved since.

It has a lot to do with the nature of film vs. digital. I just find that film has so much more warmth, grit, and human imperfections to it. Feels more real. Digital is like Angelina Jolie, who in turn looks like a CGI creation.

Believe me - I'm not basing this on those Lucasfilm shatfests... Digital can look just as warm, it has more dynamic range - it's just it's shot either with horrible contrast or flat. Digital capture imperfections warts and all if you let it - Angelina looks like that because she made-up to look like a piece of plastic. As I say - all depends how it's used.

Satorious wrote:

Believe me - I'm not basing this on those Lucasfilm shatfests... Digital can look just as warm, it has more dynamic range - it's just it's shot either with horrible contrast or flat. Digital capture imperfections warts and all if you let it - Angelina looks like that because she made-up to look like a piece of plastic.

No, I'm convinced she's born that way. Even in CHANGELING she looked plastic. Nothing changes that.

Altering digital is just polishing a turd.

Well Angelina shouldn't be in a Bond film anyway - this plastic thing seals the deal.

I don't believe digital should really be altered, it should be shot correctly in the first place. This never happens of course. It can produce softer dreamy images just like film, but it seems everyone wants to shoot flat pin-sharp footage which gets graded to within an inch of it's life. That or they just want to shoot DOF shots.

Satorious wrote:

It can produce softer dreamy images just like film.

Any examples?

I hope to be able to demonstrate this myself at some point in the future - but that's a short way off still! ;)

Part of the problem is the pin-sharp nature of Digital which people like but they don't add enough soft diffusion too. This isn't helped by the fact that this image then tends to get digitally projected. Part of the asethetic gets lost if the 35mm blow-up stage is removed.

Sharky wrote:

It's not just sentimental, and believe me, I haven't got much to be sentimental to be about. I was only 12 when I came down with a nasty ATTACK OF THE CLONES, and it hasn't improved since.

It has a lot to do with the nature of film vs. digital. I just find that film has so much more warmth, grit, and human imperfections to it. Feels more real. Digital is like Angelina Jolie, who in turn looks like a CGI creation.

Better enjoy it while it lasts. With the conversion to digital, 3-D and 48 fps, movies are going to look a lot different.

Jack Wade wrote:

Sharky wrote:

It's not just sentimental, and believe me, I haven't got much to be sentimental to be about. I was only 12 when I came down with a nasty ATTACK OF THE CLONES, and it hasn't improved since.

It has a lot to do with the nature of film vs. digital. I just find that film has so much more warmth, grit, and human imperfections to it. Feels more real. Digital is like Angelina Jolie, who in turn looks like a CGI creation.

Better enjoy it while it lasts. With the conversion to digital, 3-D and 48 fps, movies are going to look a lot different.

A whole lot worse. I know, this is only the beginning.

Yes, it's too early to predict - but of course 48fps is going to be the next gimmick and it will no doubt make all movies look like a video-game rather than having that nice aesthetic blur in fast moving scenes. I'll reserve judgement until I see it - but I remain sceptical.

I'll wait to call 48 fps a gimmick until after I see it. But right now, I'll say it sounds like a step ahead. Remember, 24 fps was adopted long ago and not because it looked the best.

Nothing wrong with being a purist, but if technology and innovation will improve the experience, I'm willing to ditch the old for the new.

We'll see, as I say - I rather like the blur... I would argue if you were going purely going just for frame-rate, film playing at 23.976 fps still looks much nicer than footage shot at the higher frame-rate of 29.97 fps (eg. US TV/Video standard), but that was just me tinkering around with my HDDSLR camera for comparisons. But hey, I encourage them to push boundaries in terms of technology.

Apparently Roger Deakins at a recent seminar produced a audible gasp from the crowd by very plainly stating he doesn't see why he'd ever shoot film again. And yes - as we are all no doubt aware - Bond 23 is going to be digital with Deakins as cinematographer. This said, I still think traditional film has it's place (just like 24fps and 48fps will also be a stylist choice) - I just think it won't be as widely adopted. The main problem is in our cost-saving times - digital works out an awful lot cheaper/quicker/easier to shoot than film. I'm not saying this is a good thing - as traditional shooting forces certain key disiplines, but those are the facts that most people will base their decision on when making a film.