Apocalypto

[Riku Naskali]

Saw it tonight and I was actually quite impressed with the Genesis. But what was up with the shutter speed? I don't get it why they had to do that. And they intercut it with some regular looking stuff, which made it look even worse.

 

I don't know about the highlights, I would think they graded most of it to look "raw" anyway. Also I noticed some stuff that didn't look so good when the tribe was around campfire and there was a blueish backlight. Somehow the blue looked bad to me.

 

Anyone know what lenses they used? They went pretty darn close to their subjects or had long lenses, I was just wondering if they had some glass that focused really really close?

 

As for the film, I felt it was a bit boring and tedious.

[David Mullen ASC]

I thought the jungle scenes actually had a problem with extreme contrast. Seemed the HD couldn't find a happy balance of dark or light, so neither came out looking good.

 

It didn't seem all that different than how film stock handles the extreme contrast in the jungle to me -- film stock has problems with that too (just watch the opening of "Raiders of the Lost Ark").

 

Areas in the shade had shadow detail and areas in the sun were very hot but still mostly held detail, which is what I'd expect color negative to do... but not HD usually. A camera like the F900 would have really crapped out in that situation but the Genesis did quite well.

 

I talked to Daryn Okada, ASC, who shot some 2nd Unit footage of the sailing ships in the U.K. and he felt that the Genesis handled the extreme contrast of the sun, sky, and sea quite well.

 

I don't think exposure latitude is really the main problem here. And fleshtones seemed pretty natural to me as well. The problems I mostly saw were motion smearing and occasional noise. And the basic limits of 1080P for holding detail in wide shots. But I suspect that if they had stuck with a 180 degree shutter, 80% of the objections people have with the image quality would be gone.

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

Just as a note, Dean did tests for running shots and tried the 360* shutter (1/24th motion) and liked it aesthetically ; most of the shots with the smeary shutter were done that way for the effect, which the only way you see it on film is if you're step-printing (from 6fps), in which case the action seems slow; obviously not the desired effect (speed was the order of the day). The gain in exposure was a beneficial side-effect.

 

The lenses used were all panavision primos and the zooms (4:1, 11:1, 3:1), with and occasional lightweight zoom or special lens (nikon 300mm, 10mm, etc.)

 

Best,

[Patrick Barry]

Raiders did have a high contrast in the jungle, but it seemed more real to me. The way my eyes see the world is much, much closer to film than video.

 

The HD didn't sit well with me. I actually found it distracting. I guess that's just personal opinion. I think I would have enjoyed it more had it been completely on film.

[Cole Webley]

The hardest part for me was trying to get into the film during the opening scene...the "smearish" quality of the motion really pulled me out during that first hunt scene. I agree with the D. Mullen's assumption that if it was shot at 180 degree shutter angle most of us wouldn't have had many negative reactions. All around, I liked the picture...I didn't like it as much as the Passion or Braveheart, but Gibson has established himself as a world-class director.

[Max Jacoby]

I didn't like it as much as the Passion or Braveheart, but Gibson has established himself as a world-class director.

Yes, definitely. He really is up there with Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos, Mizoguchi, Kubrick, Ozu, Bergman, Kar-Wai and co now, isn't he?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Yes, definitely. He really is up there with Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos, Mizoguchi, Kubrick, Ozu, Bergman, Kar-Wai and co now, isn't he?

 

That would depend on where you arbitrarily draw your imaginary little line now wouldn't it?

[Max Jacoby]

Well personally I'm hoping that good old Mel will shoot a romantic comedy soon. If he applies the same zeal to shooting love scenes than he does to shooting violence, he'll end up with a porn film ;)

[Matthew Skala]

The hardest part for me was trying to get into the film during the opening scene...the "smearish" quality of the motion really pulled me out during that first hunt scene.

 

 

I agree, I thought I was watching the discovery channel for a second there. What bothered me more than the smearing whip pans and such was the frame rate. It looked like 29.97. Even my wife noticed and she is not a filmmaker at all. It was really depressing actually, I watched it digitally projected and coming out of the film I was thinking, "I hope this isn't what films are going to start looking like, and I hope I won't be forced to make them look like this."

 

It was a good film when I was able to forget about the technical stuff. "Oh but wait am I watching the Discovery Channel again" was a thought that entered my mind at different times during the film.

[Brandon McCormick]

Some shots seemed like they were interlaced at some point, giving the movement that video look.

The quality of the image (resolution) overall was fantastic I thought.

I would love to see it on a true HD projector to see the difference.

 

Anyone know if they shot this on true 24p (or 23.98)?

I know that some of the stuff that looked so crappy on "Collateral" was because it was shot 60i.

 

I bet this will look great on HD-DVD and Blue-ray.

[Max Jacoby]

As had been said before, the reason why the picture has that vidoe look in places is not because it was shot interlaced but because they shot with a longer shutter. Same thing happened on 'Collateral'.

[Juan Guajardo]

Some shots seemed like they were interlaced at some point, giving the movement that video look.

The quality of the image (resolution) overall was fantastic I thought.

I would love to see it on a true HD projector to see the difference.

 

Anyone know if they shot this on true 24p (or 23.98)?

I know that some of the stuff that looked so crappy on "Collateral" was because it was shot 60i.

 

I bet this will look great on HD-DVD and Blue-ray.

 

i think this was shot on 24p but the shutter was fully open (360°) thats why the aspect looks like video 60i.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

I didn't like it as much as the Passion or Braveheart, but Gibson has established himself as a world-class director.

 

Yes, definitely. He really is up there with Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos, Mizoguchi, Kubrick, Ozu, Bergman, Kar-Wai and co now, isn't he?

Are you joking or just being sarcastic or is it just my impression? :rolleyes:

 

 

Well personally I'm hoping that good old Mel will shoot a romantic comedy soon. If he applies the same zeal to shooting love scenes than he does to shooting violence, he'll end up with a porn film ;)

:lol:

[Viktor Kaganovich]

Well, I'll say this much - it's videoish, the colors are terribly pale (especially the greenery, sky, etc.), and it makes you appreciate just how much more disciplined, compact and artistically precise the first "Predator" movie was (which, essentially, what the second part was all about). There were some attempts at recreating the stylized, 2D mural-like compositions that we know from pre-colombian art, but they were not consistent or bound by any internal logic.

 

And I'll make no comparisons to "The New World" for fear of offending Mr. Gibson's endowments.

 

BTW, how come at the end there was no disclaimer to the effect that "No jews or animals were hurt in the making of this film"?

[Paul Bruening]

Hey Gang,

 

I saw it last friday. Our new theater serves beer and wine. My wife and I love it. We call it "The Boozjou". I think we're all barking up the same tree in the assesment of the Genesis. It ain't bad. It's about as close to film as we've seen. Digital still stinks with motion. It still has trouble with latitude, though, it seems to deliver better on that note with the Genesis.

 

I'm not tickled with this news, since, I have spent good money to become a film snob. If they (the evil creators of digital cine cameras) can solve the motion problem, I'll be the proud owner of a techniscope paper weight.

[steve hyde]

...are there any critical views on the cinema of Mel Gibson? Placed in context with his last film (as it should) what is Mel trying to communicate to the world?

 

Steve

[Paul Bruening]

Hey Steve,

 

Sure. I got the point. The movie seems to revolve well crafted brain candy/action around a central scene... the diseased-prophecy-girl. It's not precisely a Christian/second coming chunk of presentation but it's not too far off. Yup, the name lets you know what's been on Mel's mind- the end is near.

 

I wouldn't even know where to begin to comment on that. Yet, it is on many people's minds and it seems reasonable that art (if one classifies movies as art) reflects society's issues.

[Guest John Film Runner Smith]

i think this was shot on 24p but the shutter was fully open (360°) thats why the aspect looks like video 60i.

 

The dailies looked horrible. They spent A LOT of time and money in post to get it theater worthy.

 

HD isn't there yet. People think they are saving time/money but that upfront savings is blasted away by all the post tinkering you have to do....

 

Again, HD isn't there yet.

 

But "Joe Six Pack" will be "visually educated" into thinking it looks great and won't "notice" a difference.

 

F.R.

[David Mullen ASC]

You're sort of missing the point of using your real name when posting here. If you don't like the rules here, then don't waste your time on this forum.

[Francesco Bonomo]

Again, HD isn't there yet.

 

I haven't spoken to Dean Semler, and I don't think I'll be lucky enough to do so in the near future, but I think people are putting way too much attention on some aspects of HD while "forgetting" others. As I said before, I haven't used or tested the Genesis, so my opinion is flawed, but I'm not against digital per se.

 

I think that if Semler and Gibson chose the Genesis and chose to use the infamous 360° shutter, they must have had their reasons. And both of them, from what we know, are quite happy about it (Gibson said it was good to be able to shoot at 1800/2000 asa). Does it mean it's better than film? No, but I don't think that should be the point: it's different, it's a very new technology, and there's plenty of work to be done yet, on the cameras, on the post-production side and on digital projection.

 

Can we please talk about that, rather than falling in the "HD isn't there yet" argument we hear every time a motion picture shot in HD makes its way, here and now, to a movie theater?

[John Holland]

This movie hasnt been released here yet , but have heard / read that a lot of pov. running shots weredone using 16mm cameras ! . Seems that people who have been argueing about shutter angles etc , couldnt tell that it had been shot on 16mm. doesnt say a lot for Genesis as far as i am concerned . John Holland. London.

[David Mullen ASC]

Can we please talk about that, rather than falling in the "HD isn't there yet" argument we hear every time a motion picture shot in HD makes its way, here and now, to a movie theater?

 

Here's the truth of it -- the closer digital gets to looking like 35mm film, the more it will then start to NOT bother looking like 35mm. There will never be some meeting point where the look is exact, because (1) you'd have to start adding artifacts like random grain, which no digital camera maker is going to bother with, and (2) most filmmakers will take advantage of some aspect of digital cinematography that film can't do, the 360 degree shutter being the most common trick. Same goes for digital color-correction -- there will always be a temptation to do what film timing can't accomplish.

 

"Apocalypto" is a prime example of this -- the Genesis is probably one of the closest-to-film digital cameras currently used yet almost everyone who uses it feels tempted to open up the electronic shutter, either for more exposure or more blur, and boost the gain...despite the fact that the camera is in the 500 to 640 ASA range naturally at 0 db.

 

It's a little like when Kodak tried to tell cinematographers to not push the new 5247 because it didn't push well, and people told Kodak to redesign the stock so it could be pushed. Filmmakers will always want to push the limits of a technology to the point where the basic structure, design, etc. of the process starts to become visible through artifacts, whether it's the flares in a lens, the grain in a film stock, or digital artifacts now.

 

The new digital cameras will get better and better over time -- more resolution, more latitude -- but that won't necessarily make the images look exactly like 35mm color neg and people are going to just have to embrace the new looks that are being created. I'm not suggesting that we can stop trying to make these digital cameras match the overall technical quality of 35mm film, just that there will never be an exact meeting spot.

 

John... if you see the movie, those 16mm POV shots are easy to spot. I thought maybe they used that PAL 2-camera rig like for "Seabiscuit". They do not match the quality of the surrounding Genesis footage, but they are very brief cuts, very shakey, where the actor is basically holding the A-cam in front of their face as they run.

[steve hyde]

I haven't spoken to Dean Semler, and I don't think I'll be lucky enough to do so in the near future, but I think people are putting way too much attention on some aspects of HD while "forgetting" others. As I said before, I haven't used or tested the Genesis, so my opinion is flawed, but I'm not against digital per se.

 

I think that if Semler and Gibson chose the Genesis and chose to use the infamous 360° shutter, they must have had their reasons. And both of them, from what we know, are quite happy about it (Gibson said it was good to be able to shoot at 1800/2000 asa). Does it mean it's better than film? No, but I don't think that should be the point: it's different, it's a very new technology, and there's plenty of work to be done yet, on the cameras, on the post-production side and on digital projection.

 

Can we please talk about that, rather than falling in the "HD isn't there yet" argument we hear every time a motion picture shot in HD makes its way, here and now, to a movie theater?

 

 

...could the reasons be big Panavision payoffs in the form of a generous package deal? Is this new movie good advertising for the new Genesis camera? I find it fascinating how new technologies are *placed* into industrial market places even when the new technologies are not *better* than what preceded it.

 

Personally, I think digital is a good format for films like "Apocolypto" because it looks more like a video game. It fits the story since the story is more like a video game concept than anything else.

 

Steve

[David Mullen ASC]

...could the reasons be big Panavision payoffs in the form of a generous package deal?

 

No, you don't really know how the system works if you think that. No DP shooting a multi-million dollar production would risk it on some new camera if they felt that the new camera produced an inferior image; it's not worth any cost savings because you will get the blame the moment something goes wrong.

 

When I did "Twin Falls Idaho", which was a $500,000 budget, I spent days testing the combination of Fuji stock, flashing, and silver retention printing. The day before production, the producer said he could now get 30,000' of outdated Kodak high-speed stock from a warehouse, and I refused to use it. So did the director.

 

DP's, if there is any flexibility in the budget at all, don't like to cut corners if it will undermine their own work.

 

I had to convince Warner Bros. to let me shoot "Astronaut Farmer" on 35mm Fuji, and that was a 10-mil feature! Semler had already used the Genesis on "Click" and liked the results.

 

The Genesis camera is something like 10 grand a week to rent and they don't have any problems getting people to rent it at those prices. They don't have to give it away for free for people to use it - there's a waiting list for the thing!

 

When you're shooting a 60-mil feature or so like "Apocalypto" the camera rental is not an impediment nor a major part of the budget. If I told Semler that he must have shot "Apocalypto" on the Genesis only because Panavision gave them to him free of rental, and because they couldn't have afforded to shoot in 35mm, he'd laugh in my face.

[John Holland]

David , why did Warners need convincing on your choice of Fuji ? . John Holland ,London.