So, who's seen "Click!"

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Excuse me if it's been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything on a search.

I saw the trailer some months back and the pictures were pretty awful, and other people mentioned vertical smear on some of the night time scenes, although I didn't remember seeing that.

 

But the actual movie isn't too bad at all. OK, resolution-wise, it still looks a very average 2K DI; as with both Superman Returns and Scary Movie 4 bright sunny exteriors were conspicuous by their near-absence; there is painfully obvious highlight crushing on the few sunny outdoor scenes it contains, and it just doesn't have the colour saturation of film origination, but overall, the quality is quite acceptable for a run-of-the-mill comedy like this. As with Scary Movie 4, the rendition of flesh tones is quite good, and I didn't actually see any sign of the dreaded vertical smear, (although I wasn't always paying attention as it was quite an enjoyable movie in its own right). I wonder if either the film was either re-edited or the "we'll fix it in Post" boys got into the act.

 

But again, the whole question is, exactly what was achieved by shooting this with the Genesis? There were relatively few special effects used, and none of them were particularly challenging-looking. There were some quite convincing renditions of the year 2021 and lots of cleavage, which would have looked even better if it was shot on film. Well, I thought so anyway :)

[Tim J Durham]

Excuse me if it's been discussed before, but I couldn't find anything on a search.

I saw the trailer some months back and the pictures were pretty awful, and other people mentioned vertical smear on some of the night time scenes, although I didn't remember seeing that.

 

But the actual movie isn't too bad at all. OK, resolution-wise, it still looks a very average 2K DI; as with both Superman Returns and Scary Movie 4 bright sunny exteriors were conspicuous by their near-absence; there is painfully obvious highlight crushing on the few sunny outdoor scenes it contains, and it just doesn't have the colour saturation of film origination, but overall, the quality is quite acceptable for a run-of-the-mill comedy like this. As with Scary Movie 4, the rendition of flesh tones is quite good, and I didn't actually see any sign of the dreaded vertical smear, (although I wasn't always paying attention as it was quite an enjoyable movie in its own right). I wonder if either the film was either re-edited or the "we'll fix it in Post" boys got into the act.

 

But again, the whole question is, exactly what was achieved by shooting this with the Genesis? There were relatively few special effects used, and none of them were particularly challenging-looking. There were some quite convincing renditions of the year 2021 and lots of cleavage, which would have looked even better if it was shot on film. Well, I thought so anyway :)

 

We saw it at the Cherry Bowl drive-in in Honor, Mi so it was tough to make any difinitive judgements about the quality of the DI, but here's my boy at his first drive-in movie:

 

 

As for the film itself, it was highly schmaltzy and rarely funny.

[David Mullen ASC]

Certainly the movie could have been shot in 35mm and the digital efx done in the normal manner, but it occurred to me that for "Click" at least, the use of the Genesis was similar to the reasons why Michael Haneke's "Cache" was shot in HDCAM.

 

You have what seems to be a "real" image... that suddenly freezes, then fast-forwards or rewinds like a videotaped image (although in "Click" it's supposed to resemble DVD random-access, not tape playback as in "Cache".)

 

So reality is meant to resemble a digitally-stored movie. In this case, the use of the Genesis for "Click" makes more sense in some ways than any of the other movies using it. Certainly I have trouble understanding why Semler picked it to shoot "Apocalypto".

 

I also think that the clean but slightly soft Genesis look seems well-suited for romantic comedy type of movies.

 

In some ways, the closer a digital camera comes to looking like 35mm, the "so what" factor kicks in, since we have 35mm movies already and these new cameras aren't really any cheaper or easier to use.

[Dan Goulder]

Supposedly, on the David Fincher HD movie currently in production, there have been complaints about his penchant for endless takes of even the most mundane shots. Thus, we've found a newly-evolving argument for shooting in 35mm.

[Brad Grimmett]

Supposedly, on the David Fincher HD movie currently in production, there have been complaints about his penchant for endless takes of even the most mundane shots. Thus, we've found a newly-evolving argument for shooting in 35mm.

I'd heard that complaint about him when he was shooting on film, so I don't think the format changed that aspect of his style too much. One mag will run 11 minutes, which is pretty long for a take already.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

As for the film itself, it was highly schmaltzy and rarely funny.

Well I don't know; I thought it was funnier than Scary Movie 4! I only watched it to get a look at another Genesis offering, but I didn't have to actually endure the process this time. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't have watched it, even when it eventually came to TV.

 

Interestingly this time, the cinema was nearly full. I stuck my nose into one of the Superman Returns theatres on the way out, and yep, hardly anybody in there.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

In some ways, the closer a digital camera comes to looking like 35mm, the "so what" factor kicks in, since we have 35mm movies already and these new cameras aren't really any cheaper or easier to use.

Ah but Jim Jannard is going to change all that :D I still remain skeptical about his ability to actually pull this off, but if he does, it's going to make Panavision look pretty silly. I mean if a movie with image quality equivalent (or better) to Click! could be shot on a $17,000 camera (plus lenses of course), I'd think that would be a pretty major step forward!

 

However, doing it with a camera that costs more to rent than any current Panavision film camera, is not <_< ....

All that it shows is you can do it, not why you should do it.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Jim Murdoch

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Thus, we've found a newly-evolving argument for shooting in 35mm.

Surely one of many the reasons productions shot on film tend to be of higher quality is that because of the extra cost and inconvenience involved, it normally mandates higher quality personnel who are more likely to get it right the first time (or couple of times at any rate). This "halo effect" must flow through to the actual footage itself to some extent.

 

I call it "Murdoch's Law" although I'm sure there are other terms for it. It's like:

 

"Well sure, if you shoot on 16mm and use extreme care and attention to detail with the focus and so on, you can make a pretty good blow-up to 35mm.

"Trouble is, to do that reliably you need Top-Dollar dudes, and they aren't as a rule likely to be found on Bottom-Dollar productions..."

 

Which is pretty much the rule for everything from the script, actors, makeup, wardrobe and catering down!

 

OK, there are exceptions, but not that many exceptions.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

(I don't know what happened here, but I've just realized half the above post has gone missing!).

 

What I was going to say was that there is a certain mentality in the "Digital Acquisition Roolz!" camp that all deficiencies of one's technical production or other experience can be overcome by the simple expedient of shooting dozens of takes, coz, like, tape is so cheap, y' know?

 

While this certainly can be a sound technique for capturing the right shot with unpredictable inanimate objects or animals or children (or certain actors:-), mostly all it does is make life harder for the editors who might have to wade through say, 20 half-baked takes instead of four or five carefully thought-out ones. By the end of the day this can get extremely tiring, because every extra take swallows up more minutes deciding which is the best one to use. Inevitably any savings you make in acquisition are likely to be swallowed up in increased "downstream" costs.

 

A process of Darwinian selection will eventually tend to weed out such people in the "serious" industry.

[David Mullen ASC]

A process of Darwinian selection will eventually tend to weed out such people in the "serious" industry.

 

If that were true, the movies would only be directed by highly proficient craftspeople by now...

 

Maybe in TV directing where one's "traffic cop" skills in staging, covering, working with actors, etc. are highly valued, but unfortunately in the feature world, what gets rewarded is box office success no matter how good the actual directing was.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

If that were true, the movies would only be directed by highly proficient craftspeople by now...

No, Darwinian selection does tend to look at the whole picture.

 

I mean take the human species. Compared to all other primates, human babies are born in a very immature and helpless state, and birth is a painful and dangerous process for most women, because of the large size of a baby's head. But obviously our big brain gives us an overwhelming advantage over most of the competing organisms on this planet, and so evolution has decided to "overlook" these problems.

 

Similarly, to a certain extent studios will tend to overlook the deficiencies of a director if he delivers the goods, but only if he delivers the goods. There are any number of David Lynch's out there....

 

I'm sure most studio executives privately think George Lucas is a complete prat, but they overlook this because he is their only access to the lucrative Star Wars brand!

[Hal Smith]

My standard rant on the subject of what makes for great movies is just how often Art Direction is overlooked as absolutely crucial to great film-making. The best direction and cinematography can't overcome a boring set, the Art Department's visual candy is absolutely essential.

 

Disclaimer: I have never worked as an Art Director or in the Art Department - I just worship at their incredibly talented feet. :D

 

Hal Smith

Edmond, OK

[Dan Goulder]

I'd heard that complaint about him when he was shooting on film, so I don't think the format changed that aspect of his style too much.

These complaints are coming from those who've worked with him on prior film projects, with the point that the 'unlimited' shooting potential of HD has only exacerbated those tendencies (for endless takes) even further. I brought that up merely in musing about a hidden advantage of working in a more 'finite' medium, such as 35mm film. Sometimes it helps get things done when money IS an object.

[Brad Grimmett]

These complaints are coming from those who've worked with him on prior film projects, with the point that the 'unlimited' shooting potential of HD has only exacerbated those tendencies (for endless takes) even further. I brought that up merely in musing about a hidden advantage of working in a more 'finite' medium, such as 35mm film. Sometimes it helps get things done when money IS an object.

The thing is, I don't think the cost of film really matters to him. I've heard stories of him doing dozens of takes of an insert of a hand opening a glove box. If that tendency has been exacerbated, it wouldn't seem to me that HD has anything to do with it, but I guess you never know....

[Adam Frisch FSF]

My standard rant on the subject of what makes for great movies is just how often Art Direction is overlooked as absolutely crucial to great film-making. The best direction and cinematography can't overcome a boring set, the Art Department's visual candy is absolutely essential.

 

Disclaimer: I have never worked as an Art Director or in the Art Department - I just worship at their incredibly talented feet. :D

 

Hal Smith

Edmond, OK

 

You are absoluetly right. Good cinematography is 50% good art direction and design.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Average hollywood fare.

 

A teen movie that came about 3 years ago called "ClockStoppers" had the same basic premise and was much more entertaining to me. It was directed by that Fraker character from the Star Trek next gen show...

 

Christopher Walken should have been in the film the whole time...Who can't love this guy...? He makes hollywood turds come out less smelly..... :P

 

I know I'm showing my ass here but,..

 

The director should have cut in a 5 min. montage of slow-motion boob shots from around the world. Just plain insane Airplane type stuff. Would have made it better. Sometimes the more juvenile aspects of a story can actually help the film more when exagerated. Natl-Lamp Vacation film are an example. My 2 cents...

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

The director should have cut in a 5 min. montage of slow-motion boob shots from around the world. Just plain insane Airplane type stuff. Would have made it better. Sometimes the more juvenile aspects of a story can actually help the film more when exagerated. Natl-Lamp Vacation film are an example. My 2 cents...

Damn Straight! Tits are cheaper than talent any day and unlike capable actors, they can be successfully manufactured. Just look at "Las Vegas" :D

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Damn Straight! Tits are cheaper than talent any day and unlike capable actors, they can be successfully manufactured. Just look at "Las Vegas" :D

Continued... (timed out during editing; I wanted to check first it the word "tit" would be accepted:-)

 

Tits cross all cultural boundaries. And you never know how your actor is going to work with a particular script, but tits don't need a script; just the right sort of inexpensive bra (or some rubber bands) and an occasional ice cube or two. Just look at "Las Vegas" :D

 

Tits are a greatly underrated cinematic resource in my opinion. No other on-screen scenic device lends itself so much to manipulation and illusion. You can't make someone who can't sing into a singer, you can't make someone who can't dance into a dancer, but you can sure make the lesser-endowed woman look positively voluptuous.

Edited July 16, 2006 by Jim Murdoch