Scary Movie 4

[Keith Mottram]

Well all that you have said so far, suggests that you don't see it. Which is perfectly ok, not everyone is sensitive to the same things, I'm sure you are a great singer or something else. But a lot of people do see it and it makes a world of difference to them.

 

It really does not depend neither on motion, or subject. Take a flower pot, put it on a table in your backyard, shoot a single frame, and you'll still see the difference.

 

Put grain on 24P video footage, and it won't look like film, it will look more like: 24P video with grain on it

 

On the contrary I can see the difference between different aquisition mediums very clearly at certain stages of production and if there are significant problems with highlight clipping, for example, then it is clearly apparant that digital aquisition was used. My point is that the terms 'video' look and 'film' look are completely outdated in a world of digital finishing. i dont care if you say you prefer raw film optically blown up or whatever- it is irrelevent, the majority of people will see anything photographed be it still or moving post digital finish. you say 'Put grain on 24P video footage, and it won't look like film, it will look more like: 24P video with grain on it' i assume that alongside your extensive filmmaking experience you are also a highly experienced fx artist, because I can assure you that shot in the right conditions you can recreate any film emulsion you please. this is not to say that you can take a 35mm film camera point it at something and then replicate it with a dv camera. in other words i am not saying your beloved film is dead or anything stupid and crude like that, but i am saying your ideas of 'video' and 'film' looks are. You say you are a photographer, I assume you have shot with a high end digital slr, like the canon D1 for example- are you honestly going to tell me that you would regularly see advantages of shooting on an eos 1 over it? I admit to working in various aspects of post for over a decade, but surely you must apreciate shooting in RAW format? If you want to move up a res, have you shot with a Blad and a Leaf back, the images are outstanding. You should not mistake an open mind for some kind of mentalist hatred of film. Finally I have no idea what your talking about when you refer to flower pots and singing ability, but if it is of any interest to you I have been shooting still photographs for twenty years, mostly on medium format, but like any other decent photographer 35mm and 5x4 occasionally. I must admit I haven't printed any of my own photographs for five years or so, but I cant do everything- and I prefer the digital darkroom now. I'm open to technology I suppose.

 

Keith

[Dan Goulder]

I can assure you that shot in the right conditions you can recreate any film emulsion you please.

Emulate, yes. Recreate, questionable, at least at the current level of technology. Of course, stills printed to a common medium will take on the characteristics of that medium, which can obscure the differences in acquisition formats. This is also partially true when it comes to the theatrical projection of film. However, differences in acquisition are also magnified when blown up on a large screen.

[Guest obie williams]

I saw this movie last night, unfortunately. First, let me say that I had no prior knowledge that this movie was the debut of the Genesis. In all honesty, I've read little about the camera. I just wanted to enjoy a finely crafted work where (spoiler!) a cat attacks a gigantic inflatable penis. Avante-garde film making at the cliff's edge. Thank you David Zucker.

 

Anyway, I agree with everyone who has stated that the initial scenes appear to be shot on film. But at some point, and I am uncertain as to where, the video cadence began. I actually looked over at my wife and said "That looks like video." It was one of those statements that wasn't so much a statement as it was a masked question needing verification and shared concern. Her perplexed eyes gazed at mine... blue pools of longing mixed with extraordinary confusion... and she said "I want some MilkDuds."

 

Video motion isn't something that I can get used to. It doesn't tango with my eyes properly. In all honesty I can say that what I saw was very reminiscent of Collateral. So similar, in fact, that one thought came to the front of my cortex: some of this was shot on a Viper. Sure, that's a knee-jerk assumption considering I never saw Collateral on the big screen, but many of the motion characteristics where there. The only thing that appeared off about my inference was the tonal range. It was phenomenal.

[Filip Plesha]

On the contrary I can see the difference between different aquisition mediums very clearly at certain stages of production and if there are significant problems with highlight clipping, for example, then it is clearly apparant that digital aquisition was used. My point is that the terms 'video' look and 'film' look are completely outdated in a world of digital finishing. i dont care if you say you prefer raw film optically blown up or whatever- it is irrelevent, the majority of people will see anything photographed be it still or moving post digital finish. you say 'Put grain on 24P video footage, and it won't look like film, it will look more like: 24P video with grain on it' i assume that alongside your extensive filmmaking experience you are also a highly experienced fx artist, because I can assure you that shot in the right conditions you can recreate any film emulsion you please. this is not to say that you can take a 35mm film camera point it at something and then replicate it with a dv camera. in other words i am not saying your beloved film is dead or anything stupid and crude like that, but i am saying your ideas of 'video' and 'film' looks are. You say you are a photographer, I assume you have shot with a high end digital slr, like the canon D1 for example- are you honestly going to tell me that you would regularly see advantages of shooting on an eos 1 over it? I admit to working in various aspects of post for over a decade, but surely you must apreciate shooting in RAW format? If you want to move up a res, have you shot with a Blad and a Leaf back, the images are outstanding. You should not mistake an open mind for some kind of mentalist hatred of film. Finally I have no idea what your talking about when you refer to flower pots and singing ability, but if it is of any interest to you I have been shooting still photographs for twenty years, mostly on medium format, but like any other decent photographer 35mm and 5x4 occasionally. I must admit I haven't printed any of my own photographs for five years or so, but I cant do everything- and I prefer the digital darkroom now. I'm open to technology I suppose.

 

Keith

 

 

I'll believe it when I see it. Everyone is talking about computer manupulations for emulating this or that, well all those are just words, I still haven't seen any successful emulation of either film by using digital, or

old film by using new film, yet everyone is talking about how easy it is to do.

Would you look at Aviator without knowing about that movie and the actors, in 4:3 crop on TV and instantly say: gee, this film must have been shot in early 50's technicolor? Of course not, because while it reminds it is obvious that it is a new film.

But would you ever mistake Singing in the rain for a brand new film? No

Because you take one look at it, any frame in the film, and you can say its something from 50's.

 

 

And as for D1, yes I see advantage in shooting film over it, for some kind of work. If you want to get a classic film look to your photographs, any Canon DSLR is going to look too cartonish and too clean, and too "right" for that job.

What's art without imperfections?

 

What makes a real violin sound better than a synth sample: well a real violin can't make perfect steady notes like a synth. A real violing has all kinds of shifts in frequency and texture, something you can't control, that's what makes it alive.

And what makes an analog synth sound fuller than a digital sample synth?

Well the VCO's are always somewhat detuned due to temperature changes, and they have random shifts in frequency, irregular waveforms etc.

Those are all technical errors, yet some musicians still use huge analog dinosaurs to get that extra life in their music.

 

I find no real emotion, no life in perfect eletronic machines. That's robots art.

a D1 is a machine without a life of its own, predictable, rigid, one dimensional

 

I'd like to have it as tool for earning money, because it earns money more easily than film, but

that's about it.

 

 

I understand that a new age is comming, one in which people will be used to the esthetics of electronic image capturing devices, and will forget about film, and I really don't care, because so many great movies have already been shot on beautifull old film emulsions, and are still being made on today's film which has its own different beauty too. And as for me, I still have a fridge full of film I like in both MF and 35mm, so everyone can turn digital for all I care, my life does not depend on photography since I'm not a full time pro, I can stop earning money from it when I feel like it, and do it just for pleasure.

[BradHruboska]

Gentlemen I will pass on your concerns and comments to Jasper Vrakking. He served as the on set engineer for the Genesis camera during the production of Scary Movie 4. He is currently working on a film festival where he is helping co-ordinate Hd projection systems. He loves to answer tech questions.

 

Brad Hruboska

Stadicam Op and Jasper's friend

B)

[Guest Kai.w]

What's art without imperfections?

 

I find no real emotion, no life in perfect eletronic machines. That's robots art.

a D1 is a machine without a life of its own, predictable, rigid, one dimensional

No offense but maybe you have a very limited idea of what art can be...?

There are thousands of artist that produce work that never left the digital realm.

 

Too much esoterics in those digital vs. analogue debate.

 

 

-k

[Filip Plesha]

No offense but maybe you have a very limited idea of what art can be...?

There are thousands of artist that produce work that never left the digital realm.

 

Too much esoterics in those digital vs. analogue debate.

-k

 

 

Maybe, but It really doesn't matter what is what in the end, I just follow my guts, and my mind

can't see tetris as something natural and real. Maybe its the human desire to quantiy and capture everything, to have it in perfect control. I just see that control as an escape from nature and mistique of art.

I can't imagine painting where an artist would control every hair on his brush and what kind of stains it leaves on the canvas.

 

But in the end, I just expressing my opinion, it doesn't make me really popular, nor does it

make me look very smart, but that IS my opinion

[Dan Goulder]

Gentlemen I will pass on your concerns and comments to Jasper Vrakking. He served as the on set engineer for the Genesis camera during the production of Scary Movie 4. He is currently working on a film festival where he is helping co-ordinate Hd projection systems. He loves to answer tech questions.

 

Brad Hruboska

Stadicam Op and Jasper's friend

B)

The weakest link in the chain is probably beyond the control of the camera...the transfer to 35mm. HD works best as an acquisition format when the display or projection format is also HD.

[K Borowski]

Gentlemen I will pass on your concerns and comments to Jasper Vrakking. He served as the on set engineer for the Genesis camera during the production of Scary Movie 4. He is currently working on a film festival where he is helping co-ordinate Hd projection systems. He loves to answer tech questions.

 

Brad Hruboska

Stadicam Op and Jasper's friend

B)

 

I appreciate that you folks with the Genesis are more open to criticism than some other groups on this board. However, "Revolution" or "Judgement Day" not panning out, I don't think kthis is something that Mr. Vrakking can fix. The people that build CCDs and CMOS sensors for still cameras have all the same issues that are being attributed to the Genesis. It's just the standards for commercial still photography are lower when the output is a 4x5 inch proof or a picture in a newspaper. These aren't glitches in software or easy fixes, they're issues as fundamental as grain is in film.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Leo Anthony Vale]

No offense but maybe you have a very limited idea of what art can be...?

There are thousands of artist that produce work that never left the digital realm.

 

---Have you ever looked at an early book of 'computer art'?

 

The examples are uniformly ugly and boring.

 

Those 'thousands of artist' aren't necessarily producing something that's actually good.

 

---LV

[Max Jacoby]

I have a feeling that if Scary Movie 4 hadn't been shot on the Genesis, it never would have been discussed here...

[K Borowski]

I have a feeling that if Scary Movie 4 hadn't been shot on the Genesis, it never would have been discussed here...

 

The same can be said of the latest Star Wars Trilogy. Were it not for the SFX in that film, would a compelling-enough story have existed underneath for ANYONE to have gone to see it?

 

As for the comment on 35mm film recorders, having used a 35mm recorder, there can some color fringing, but only if you don't have the proper settings for the film stock you are using. The weak part is more likely the 2K transfer. Film, especially print film, can resolve MORE than 4K of information. I'm not referring to camera negative film, but rather IN film or print film. THe resolving power, since it is designed with multiple generations of copying in mind, is truly astounding. The new 50D probably has close to 4K of res. too. Film also has much greater gamut and no color-space limitations.

 

Regards.

 

~Karl Borowski

[Guest Kai.w]

---Have you ever looked at an early book of 'computer art'?

 

The examples are uniformly ugly and boring.

 

Those 'thousands of artist' aren't necessarily producing something that's actually good.

 

---LV

I was not talking about 80s computer gnerated images, which in 99% percent of the cases have been produced by technicians/operators/programmers. But to say you cannot create art digitally is ignorant and plainly stupid. I was talking of video artists, musicians, photographers, animators, designers, media artists, and.... yes, filmmakers...

 

These arguments are ignorant at best.

 

-k

[Filip Plesha]

Film, especially print film, can resolve MORE than 4K of information.

 

Well it has to, otherwise prints from negatives that contain 4K of resultion would be really poor. It has to resolve at least two or three times 4K resolution to succesfully maintain sharpness from a negative that contains 4K information.

 

But as for original negatives, a tip for every doubting Tom out there. Buy yourself a $800 (or something like that) Minolta 5400, and a roll of any decent film, and see how much detail can you resolve at 5400dpi which is well beyond 4K resolution.

 

I feel like the whole digital generation is waiting for us to come up with a number to beat in resolution, the number we come up with is different with every new generation of scanners, so the "digitals" keep asking: ok how are we supose to contain film frames within DVD disks, computer hard drives if you can't come up with a specific number for the resolution. The answer is of course, you don't, you make a decent enough digital copy and live with it. Unless you can come up with a replicator machine like in Star Trek, that would scan all the atoms and store then in digital format. Otherwise, scanning film always introduces its own variations.

Asking how to fully scan film is like asking how to make a perfect film copy, or a perfect analog print. You don't. Scanning is an analog process, and will always be, just like optical copying

 

 

I was not talking about 80s computer gnerated images, which in 99% percent of the cases have been produced by technicians/operators/programmers. But to say you cannot create art digitally is ignorant and plainly stupid. I was talking of video artists, musicians, photographers, animators, designers, media artists, and.... yes, filmmakers...

 

These arguments are ignorant at best.

 

as art is a relative idea, so is the interpretation of what art is.

 

Saying that something is NOT art is no less subjective and relative than saying what IS art.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I have a feeling that if Scary Movie 4 hadn't been shot on the Genesis, it never would have been discussed here...

Wow; you have so-o-o-o-o-o got that right!

I can certainly think of better ways to spend the time and money, but unlike a lot of the punters here, I wanted to actually see it for myself.

[Dan Goulder]

Wow; you have so-o-o-o-o-o got that right!

I can certainly think of better ways to spend the time and money, but unlike a lot of the punters here, I wanted to actually see it for myself.

I had no interest in seeing the performance of the Genesis, but instead went to see the movie for its deeply moving portrayals of angst, as well as its Shakespearean command of poetic irony, in addition to the breathtaking display of thespian mastery in all its glory. Of course, your use of the term "punter" may have been a bit off base, as I'm not sure how many of us play football.

[Max Jacoby]

I had no interest in seeing the performance of the Genesis, but instead went to see the movie for its deeply moving portrayals of angst, as well as its Shakespearean command of poetic irony, in addition to the breathtaking display of thespian mastery in all its glory. Of course, your use of the term "punter" may have been a bit off base, as I'm not sure how many of us play football.

So you mean that I will actually have to watch this movie twice? Once for the Genesis and once to grasp it in all it's phsychological and artistic depth...

[Michel Hafner]

Well it has to, otherwise prints from negatives that contain 4K of resultion would be really poor. It has to resolve at least two or three times 4K resolution to succesfully maintain sharpness from a negative that contains 4K information.

Huh? Why?

But as for original negatives, a tip for every doubting Tom out there. Buy yourself a $800 (or something like that) Minolta 5400, and a roll of any decent film, and see how much detail can you resolve at 5400dpi which is well beyond 4K resolution.

Motion picture photography and still photography are two different pairs of shoes. Wrong experiment.

Michel Hafner

[David Mullen ASC]

OK, I just saw the movie...

 

First of all, yes, the opening 35mm sequence does have a nicer look than the rest of the movie. Not dramatically different, but better overall. Thomas Ackerman did an excellent overall job for this sort of material, and I'm sure he wasn't allowed to give it any more mood than it had.

 

Color-wise, I don't think the pastel quality is particularly an attribute of the Genesis (and Ackerman's previous film work like on "Jumanji" and "George of the Jungle" tended to favor a softer more pastel look). The filmmakers are emulating horror films that did not have a strong color pallete in the first place. The only problem is that they did not emulate the deep blacks that the prints of "War of the Worlds" had using the ENR process. This would have helped, to use a print stock with a higher D-max.

 

I can't tell if some mild diffusion filtration was used throughout, but the movie is definitely a little soft, like some 2K D.I.'s I've seen but maybe even softer -- but considering that the lighting is generally soft, there is a lack of contrast that makes the image feel softer. So my guess is that the Genesis image is about as sharp as a 2K D.I. of 35mm, and would be helped technically by more contrast in the lighting and printing to create some snap.

 

There was a lack of telltale digital artifacts compared to movies shot on the F900. The highlights seems natural, the image did not have the sharpened-and-clippy look of much HDCAM-to-35mm, nor did the Genesis seem unflattering to the female actresses the way the F900 can be.

 

So I guess I'm saying that it's a big improvement over the F900 more than I'm saying that it's equal to 35mm, but I think it's pretty close. I've seen 35mm movies that were less sharp.

 

The motion artifacts were normal and film-like except for the low-light and night scenes where they obviously increased the shutter speed beyond what a 180 degree film camera shutter can do, creating that slightly laggy-smeary look.

 

Skintones weren't great, sort of like some mediocre D.I.'s I've seen. On the pale lead actress, they were fine, going for a pastel pink, but on the tanned face of the male lead, it sometimes looked off. This is probably one reason for the overall softer color saturation of the timing, because any skin artifacts get worse as you push more chroma into a face with a digitally-shot image.

 

A few blue-lit night scenes had some blue chroma noise and I saw the infamous vertical Genesis flare from the cigarette lighter flame, but it wasn't that bad, just odd.

 

Overall, though, I'd say it's the closest to looking like 35mm of any digitally-shot movie that I've seen. The real question is that since 35mm still seems to look better all-around, what the reasons for shooting with the Genesis are since it is not much cheaper than 35mm, compared to reasons for using the F900, let's say. You'd have to have some compelling reason, like a really high shooting ratio. Or if you wanted that clean digital look.

 

I think it would be a great camera for TV work, and for feature comedies or even comic book films (so it may be fine for "Superman Returns" -- hopefully the grade will be bolder and more saturated than "Scary Movie 4") but I question using it for Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" when 35mm anamorphic seems more in line for that type of movie (like "Apocalypse Now", "The New World", or "The Thin Red Line.") But then, I don't want to second guess Dean Semler and what look he's going for.

[Roberflowers]

With everything being said that," film is dead", and the whole analog vs digital debate. I keep thinking that it should be an aesthetic choice for the film whether it is to be shot digital or on film...And believe me I LOVE film. It seems that the new high end HD cameras will give the medium another range of possibilities, but not eliminate the choice for film aquisition.

 

I hear about this all the time at my university, which pushes the film capture, digital post workflow. We are constantly having to learn about new technologies as well as the old. I think both should be able to coincide. It seems that whenever new technologies arise, people fear that the old methods will die off. But that hasn't been the case with radio, theater, newspapers. Should the visuals be looked at in the context of the story, rather than what is bad or good, isn't that, like art, subjective? Isn't cinematograpy an art?

[Filip Plesha]

Huh? Why?

 

In short.

Because when you copy one picture with resulution x to a medium of resolution x (same resolution),

you get x/2 resolution, same goes for everything, telescopes, camera lenses, film printing, microscopes everything.

It's basic phisics of optical resolving power.

 

That's why since the begining of time print film was always a high-resolving slow emulsion, it had to outperform negative film by 2-3 times to get a good print.

 

 

Motion picture photography and still photography are two different pairs of shoes. Wrong experiment.

 

Really? And why is that? Why would Kodak put cheaper technology in motion picture emulsions when it can

put the latest and the best, same goes vice versa.

The emulsion technology of still film and motion picture film pretty much goes in step. Ask John if you will.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Filip Plesha

[Michael Most]

The real question is that since 35mm still seems to look better all-around, what the reasons for shooting with the Genesis are since it is not much cheaper than 35mm, compared to reasons for using the F900, let's say. You'd have to have some compelling reason, like a really high shooting ratio. Or if you wanted that clean digital look.

 

Or if you have a lot of visual effects.

[Max Jacoby]

If this film hadn't been shot on the Genesis I wouldn't have bothered to see it.

 

Judging by how this film looked the Genesis is not a camera that I'd want to use if the end result was meant for the big screen. It looks very flat and the colors, especially the skintones do not feel very natural. Although the unimaginative lighting is partially to blame for this as well (how can you spoof horror films and still make it look like a bloody soap opera is beyond me), but most of the time it looked like the actors were performing in front of a backdrop. The 35mm depth of field is there, but the image is lacking in three dimensionality. Also the motion didn't look very crisp. Not just in the night scenes whoch wer eobvioulsy shot with a longer shutter, but also during daylight scenes it felt a tad odd. I don't know what it is about digital cameras but they never represent motion in a way that seems natural.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

I had no interest in seeing the performance of the Genesis, but instead went to see the movie for its deeply moving portrayals of angst, as well as its Shakespearean command of poetic irony, in addition to the breathtaking display of thespian mastery in all its glory.

Well, yeah ... there is that, but you can get all that for free on any number of excellent TV shows such as "Survivor Panama" :D Why throw money away?

 

Of course, your use of the term "punter" may have been a bit off base, as I'm not sure how many of us play football.

In the UK a Punter usually refers to the non-cognicenti (or however you spell it). You know, the vast hordes of unwashed cinema patrons whose financial contribution is what actually makes the film industry possible. It originally referred to the similarly vast majority of racecourse patrons, who just come there for a bit of light entertainment; "a bit of a flutter", rather than any serious gambling.

Edited April 27, 2006 by Jim Murdoch

[Alessandro Machi]

On the contrary I can see the difference between different aquisition mediums very clearly at certain stages of production and if there are significant problems with highlight clipping, for example, then it is clearly apparant that digital aquisition was used. My point is that the terms 'video' look and 'film' look are completely outdated in a world of digital finishing. i dont care if you say you prefer raw film optically blown up or whatever- it is irrelevent, the majority of people will see anything photographed be it still or moving post digital finish. you say 'Put grain on 24P video footage, and it won't look like film, it will look more like: 24P video with grain on it' i assume that alongside your extensive filmmaking experience you are also a highly experienced fx artist, because I can assure you that shot in the right conditions you can recreate any film emulsion you please. this is not to say that you can take a 35mm film camera point it at something and then replicate it with a dv camera. in other words i am not saying your beloved film is dead or anything stupid and crude like that, but i am saying your ideas of 'video' and 'film' looks are. You say you are a photographer, I assume you have shot with a high end digital slr, like the canon D1 for example- are you honestly going to tell me that you would regularly see advantages of shooting on an eos 1 over it? I admit to working in various aspects of post for over a decade, but surely you must apreciate shooting in RAW format? If you want to move up a res, have you shot with a Blad and a Leaf back, the images are outstanding. You should not mistake an open mind for some kind of mentalist hatred of film. Finally I have no idea what your talking about when you refer to flower pots and singing ability, but if it is of any interest to you I have been shooting still photographs for twenty years, mostly on medium format, but like any other decent photographer 35mm and 5x4 occasionally. I must admit I haven't printed any of my own photographs for five years or so, but I cant do everything- and I prefer the digital darkroom now. I'm open to technology I suppose.

 

Keith

 

 

Film tends to look like storytelling, video tends to look "live", like reality tv. There is a difference.

 

In the area of digital stills, I find that digital tends to not handle the very fine subtles such as the bridge of the noise, the curvature of the cheek, color seems to fall off instantly.

 

Where digital excels in is the ability to keep shooting until you get what you want.