Peter Jackson's Movie Live

[Alexander Joyce]

Personally I was disapointed. Just my very humble opinion.

 

:o I am amazed!

[Mark Williams]

This the most common mistake here. The most important part of the image capturing chain is the light-sensitive device itself. Whether it is CCD, CMOS or old-fashioned camera tube, the light pickup is ANALOG. Only after the analog sensor has converted the photons to a mosiac of electrical charges in the shape of the image, it is then converted to your "Noughts and ones".

 

Film scanned in a telecine is also starting out analog and then converted to "Noughts and ones" but the pictures still look better than CMOS analog pickup converted to "Noughts and ones"!

 

As analog imaging devices go, film is simply better at capturing pictures with a wide dynamic range. 11 stops is quite good as the video camera goes, but it does not equal film. Nobody said film is easy cheap or convenient, but easy cheap and convenient do not impress the paying audience, picture quality does.

 

Well its capturing LIGHT and measuring it and iTS only a representation of the brightness colour etc by using a charge. The more light the higher the charge. That is not capturing an image its a reconstructed representation.

 

You could say film does similar BUT one is a physical process the other is not. For film the image is made by the light that hits the film the silver halides in color film are THEN removed leaving the color dye to form the image perhaps the removal of the halides and the exact intensity of the light being captured perhaps more truly reflects the outside world. And more the same way we see images ourselves.

 

In the fear of being shot down but because its new ground maybe an idea might be to put the footage onto real film and then back again? Could be each different film stock will be well represented? Im only guessing it might help and its just an idea?

[Mark Williams]

Wow... after a week of telling us that Red was going to take over the whole industry... that all the rental houses will just throw all their gear away and buy Red... ;)

My comments were always based on the fact red was said to give a rendition, In fact the same as film I never had any proof it was nor did I pretend to.. I left that area to those who know. I stated what I believed would be the outcome if the red footage was similar to and in the same class as film. If this was the case then a colorist could give many differnet looks grain or other effects could be added in post etc.

 

NOW I have seen red footage at this point in time I dont agree with those who say its in the same category as film however the latest camera has better latitude so it might be a different story.

[Nate Downes]

There are plenty of mirrors:

 

http://www.proapptips.com/redmirror/crossing1.mov

http://www.24puser.com/crossing1.mov

http://www.runjumpfly.net/crossing1.mov

http://www.pixelquestfilms.com/crossing1.mov

http://simplemente.net/crossing1.mov

http://www.3dspark.com/RED_One/crossing1.mov

http://www.appliedvisual.com/redclips/crossing1.mov

 

Ok.

 

Quite honestly, the slickest video footage I've ever seen. Major let-down. One of the reasons I shoot on video is for the dirtyness in certain areas. But then again, I've shot key bits on Super8 for the grain.

 

Clean != better.

[jan von krogh]

Clean != better.

 

Clean = better.

making clean images messy = no problem at all.

making messy images clean = hard to undoable.

[Nate Downes]

Clean = better.

making clean images messy = no problem at all.

making messy images clean = hard to undoable.

 

No problem at all? Then why can't anyone do it so that it doesn't look fake?

[Häakon]

I think there are a good deal of people who appreciate RED's pristine picture, and are enthused to be able to capture moving images at such great resolution without having something in the pipeline to muck it up. If you want noise, buy an HVX.

 

Seriously though, unless you're hell-bent on making the next triple bleach-bypassed "Se7en" wanna-be flick, can you give a compelling reason to want your images to look so grainy? I think it's just an aesthetic that most of us are comfortable with because that's all we've been exposed to (pun intended) our whole lives. I honestly believe that as new generations of film audiences become accustomed to movies shot with cameras like RED, "noise" and "grain" are going to become undeisred artifacts of the past, associated with an archaic format that will be used less and less as time marches on. Sure, plenty of people will still shoot film - as noted, some will have aesthetic reasons for using it, while others will continue to view it as a "purer," "organic," analog medium (like vinyl has in the world of audio). I wager however that the majority will be shooting digitally sooner than later.

 

Apple actually had a ProRes demonstration in their booth which coincidentally had this very same Red footage displayed on one monitor and an uncompressed 2K film scan on the other. The biggest difference I noticed immidiately was that the amount of grain in the film sample looked downright ridiculous compared to the stuff shot with RED. It reminded me of one of those Disney DVD commercials where they remaster the old film footage and they show you side-by-side clips of the original and the restored movie that's clean and vibrant and everything you'd want your four-year-old to see. Granted, I have no idea what the film was they were showing and the grain could've been intensified by an older, less dense stock, but the point remains that the RED images are pristine and beautiful and have enough resolution (finally) to hold up to pretty much anything else that's shot out there. Certainly this is by no means the "end" - there are still latitude hurdles to overcome and the images will undoutedbly continue to get bigger and bigger (with better ways to display it) as advancements continue to be made. But I have always been confused by those who would insist on a dirtier picture across the board just because that's the way it has "always been."

[Sam Wells]

Not everyone here associates a granular image structure with "dirty" or "messy"

 

-Sam

[jan von krogh]

No problem at all? Then why can't anyone do it so that it doesn't look fake?

 

its done all the time - but when its not looking fake, then you don´t see it.

 

what kind of "messy" are you looking for?

strong grain?

scratches?

hairs?

dirt?

flicker? (choose projector/m-cross/camera originated)

dust?

low resolution?

vertical/horizontal jumps? (with perfjump on one/two axis?)

vertical/horizontal smears?

vertical/horizontal jitter?

fading (monochrome/specific layer)?

aging & storage artefacts?

"ancient" framerates (18 fps etc)?

projector burns?

telecine artefacts?

over/underexposed?

... list goes on with lab mistakes, ntsc/pal transmission problems, video issues as v/hold...

 

.. the list above is pretty easy to handle meanwhile, however it takes -lots- of computing power, decent softwareplugins, a good >500GB library of 1080p/2k scanned originals of those problems, and first of all, a understanding how & why these problems originate in real world, and time.

[Ted Johanson]

FWIW... Battlestar Galactica is the new favorite series here in the studio. The dop does CC on set with his hdcams.

 

It's funny you should mention that show! It has to be one of the worst-shot television series ever! What's up that stupid exaggerated video camera look anyway? And what about the water hose-style shooting; did the camera operator have a little too much caffeine?

 

Producer: "We bought that new $15,000 zoom lens and I don't want it going to waste. I want to see it used more! Now, now, NOW!"

 

DOP: "Yes, sir. Right away, sir. I'll use it in every shot."

 

Producer: "And make sure you ZOOM it during each take! I want the audience to notice we have a zoom lens. Otherwise, we might as well have bought a prime lens!"

 

As Richard mentions, they had their reasons for shooting it in HD. They probably figured there is no point in using the quality of 35mm film when their intentions are to destroy the image anyway. Also, it's a series produced for the low-budget Sci-Fi channel (which seems to have a run of F900-shot productions lately). How can I tell on my SD TV? By looking at the skin tones and contrast range. It's either very poorly graded film material or it's the typical result from the F900.

 

Battlestar Galactica...probably one of the last series that Sony ever wants to be credited to their video cameras!

 

 

-Ted Johanson

Edited April 27, 2007 by Ted Johanson

[jan von krogh]

It's funny you should mention that show! It has to be one of the worst-shot television series ever!

-Ted Johanson

"...the Peabody Awards are generally regarded as the most prestigious awards honoring distinction and achievement within the fields of broadcast journalism, documentary making, educational programming, children's programming, and entertainment..."

they surely seem to have a different taste as BG won the peabody.

 

Producer: "We bought that new $15,000 zoom lens and I don't want it going to waste. I want to see it used more! Now, now, NOW!"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601822/

producer

i suppose after ~250 episodes of star trek as prod/writer etc he made a typical beginners mistake.

 

DOP: "Yes, sir. Right away, sir. I'll use it in every shot."

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002323/

dop

[Ted Johanson]

"...the Peabody Awards are generally regarded as the most prestigious awards honoring distinction and achievement within the fields of broadcast journalism, documentary making, educational programming, children's programming, and entertainment..."

they surely seem to have a different taste as BG won the peabody.

 

I've heard so many people express my exact thoughts: that show has a repulsive look to it. There seems to be no special consideration for lighting, which is made all the more obvious by the exaggerated video camera burn-out-style appearance. The jerky and always-zooming shooting style is akin to (very) amateur home videos.

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0601822/

producer

i suppose after ~250 episodes of star trek as prod/writer etc he made a typical beginners mistake.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002323/

dop

 

Ooooh, I'm impressed (NOT!). Is that supposed to make me think that they don't make mistakes? Is that supposed to mean that they're right and the VAST MAJORITY of people are wrong?

 

Seriously, do you think that show has a good look to it? Do really think all of that jerky camera work is necessary? Do you think the ultra-contrasty look is impressing and even attracting viewers? These guys probably thought they'd try something new and take the entertainment world by storm. Once they had that horrible look going, they couldn't stop it because of consistency reasons.

 

It's funny, that show all too often has scenes that aren't even supposed to be dramatic and yet the camera is whipping all over the place. If that's supposed to make you feel like you're there, since when can you zoom your vision? Why would you swing your head around as if excited to look at someone, even though nothing exciting is happening.

 

If it's supposed to look like ENG "footage", I've never seen an ENG camera operator who so carelessly swings the camera constantly and zooms far too often during the take and even has trouble deciding what zoom position to be at WHILE shooting.

 

"The Peabody Awards are generally regarded as the most prestigious awards honoring distinction..."

 

Battlestar Galactica is distinct alright! It's no wonder they got a Peabody Award.

[Ted Johanson]

Jan, please tell me why BG's particular shooting style and image aesthetics were chosen.

[David Mullen ASC]

Jan, please tell me why BG's particular shooting style and image aesthetics were chosen.

 

Isn't that obvious just by watching the show???

 

I, for one, like "Battlestar Galatica" and the way it is photographed. No, it's not pretty, it's not meant to be.

 

Yes, the original decision to switch from film (used for the original mini-series) was financial, but the DP was asked to find a way of creating a digital version of the grainy semi-documentary Saving Private Ryan-ish shakeycam style established on the pilot.

 

I think they've found their own aesthetic for the show, which is basically deliberately harsh and ugly, sometimes verging on the surreal, to reflect the harshness of their lives. Yes, the shakey operating sometimes crosses the line into unnecessary overkill, but it's clearly being done to create an unsettling feeling, a feeling of loss of control, a world constantly on the verge of falling apart. And I think producer Ron Moore is basically trying to get 180 degrees away from the conventional slick look of the Star Trek series. It's almost the raw look of an episode of "Cops" or "Blair Witch Project". Clearly not everyone's cup of tea... but the show has its fans. Sure, it goes too far sometimes, so what?

 

As for the clippiness of the HD photography, that's one of my favorite aspects of the show because they are clearly junking conventions about how to light and expose for digital. It's similar to what I like about how Michael Mann uses HD in his films ("Collateral" and "Miami Vice"), not even attempting to hide its digital origins, but allowing the image to almost breakdown and expose its electronic nature. Just as we need people finding ways of making digital match the quality of film better, we also need people to explore the digital image for the ways in which it is uniquely different from film.

[David Sweetman]

Ooooh, I'm impressed (NOT!).

Hahahaha. Nice Borat reference. Unless you were serious? No, couldn't be.

 

I'll have to check out Battlestar Galactica. I like anyone who does anything unexpected or unaccepted in the world of cinema.

 

Is the PJ clip here the whole thing, or just the same "fix bayonets" clip?

[Häakon]

Not everyone here associates a granular image structure with "dirty" or "messy"

 

-Sam

Not yet. :)

 

Is the PJ clip here the whole thing, or just the same "fix bayonets" clip?

Same one.

[Mark Williams]

The first time I watched battlestar Galactica was in Aspen colorado 1977 fully appreciated on a trip to utah falling asleep in the desert looking at the FANTASTIC view of the stars. The feeling that anything was possible.

 

The new version of Battle star Galactica Yes I can see the reasoning and sometimes it may work but for the most part Im thinking about the camerman and wow careful you will fall over in a minute OR how that wobble was a little contrived or over the top. I think the moment the camera becomes the topic of conversation then there is something wrong because the camera is not supposed to be noticed in fact the best camerwork is never even commented on just like editing if you dont notice the edits then its good. yes you can have a camera that shakes all over the place as long as its enhancing the action it wont even be noticed. So why would being aware of the camera contribute to the drama? The truth is doesnt. Although it may have novelty value in seeing the production values and what would happen if someone who had never used a video camera before was put in charge of the camera department.

[Max Jacoby]

Why does it strike me that the only people who don't like grain are the ones not shooting on film in the first place?

[Nate Downes]

Isn't that obvious just by watching the show???

 

I, for one, like "Battlestar Galatica" and the way it is photographed. No, it's not pretty, it's not meant to be.

 

Yes, the original decision to switch from film (used for the original mini-series) was financial, but the DP was asked to find a way of creating a digital version of the grainy semi-documentary Saving Private Ryan-ish shakeycam style established on the pilot.

 

I think they've found their own aesthetic for the show, which is basically deliberately harsh and ugly, sometimes verging on the surreal, to reflect the harshness of their lives. Yes, the shakey operating sometimes crosses the line into unnecessary overkill, but it's clearly being done to create an unsettling feeling, a feeling of loss of control, a world constantly on the verge of falling apart. And I think producer Ron Moore is basically trying to get 180 degrees away from the conventional slick look of the Star Trek series. It's almost the raw look of an episode of "Cops" or "Blair Witch Project". Clearly not everyone's cup of tea... but the show has its fans. Sure, it goes too far sometimes, so what?

 

As for the clippiness of the HD photography, that's one of my favorite aspects of the show because they are clearly junking conventions about how to light and expose for digital. It's similar to what I like about how Michael Mann uses HD in his films ("Collateral" and "Miami Vice"), not even attempting to hide its digital origins, but allowing the image to almost breakdown and expose its electronic nature. Just as we need people finding ways of making digital match the quality of film better, we also need people to explore the digital image for the ways in which it is uniquely different from film.

Agreed 100% I love the new BSG's look and feel, partly because it feels very digital. It is fitting the style and feeling of the whole series, and that is what I think is missing from these "conventional" viewpoints. Rather than try to impersonate film, to try and be film, instead try and be the best digital you can be. Same reasons why I loved Collateral and Crank (I didn't like MV's plot, but it was great looking).

 

I have a project coming up that's to be shot on HD, and the goal is to make it look like digital, not some filmatic asthetic. I'm teaching myself how to use a DV cam now as a result.

[jan von krogh]

When we decided to look at the new BSG, we basicly expected yet another make-up-galore with glorious pilots, bigger-than-life-heroes, 45 min episodes with a plot wort 15min and maybe some 1-2 emotional subplots per episode.

 

also we expected to have the typical clean, sterile or plastic-noir sci-fi sets.

 

basicly yet another series in the prison of todays sci-fi, stargate, andromeda, enterprise, sg:atlantis etc.

 

when we then saw what they done we were -really- impressed, and i am rarely really impressed by tv-series.

no reset button-plot engine (tough for the writers), excellent references to politic, moralistic and psychic dilemmas, a villain which maybe even is a superior being and is uncertain in his actions, broken charakters, complex and long storylines which span 3,4,5,6 episodes or ever seasons, hard-to-follow side&subplots, killing important roles, not-so-childish conflicts as in "you took my spacecraft!" but rather hidden, ongoing conflicts below the surface with deep feelings of sorrow which then go volcano and leaving the involved realizing their failure in overcoming the real reasons of the differences...

 

... basicly they touched every taboo and YOU-SHALL-NOT for TV-series. its an very adult show, which again is daring, as tv-sci-fi sudiences can be pretty young those days. i would have hard times selling such to a network, and we have made quite some underground and uncommon shows & features over the years.

 

to the style of shooting.

first, i was disturbed. (also i didn't understand how the camera operator could throw around >40 lbs all day long).

then i begun to like it. we had some talks with directors and basicly came to the conclusion, that with a standard shooting style, static & gliding as seen in most series, the roughness, dangerous and "everything-can-change-any-second" mood of BSG wouldn't be so intense. (btw some of the directors who we talked to were inspired and also are asking for that style now). meanwhile i think it was an experimental-film element which turned out to highly add as well to aestethics as well as the dramaturgy of the show.

 

from a pure position of craftmansship btw, its much harder to archieve this look than to shoot with a prime from a dolly or crane. if you examine the shots you will notice that often they travel through 6,7,8 areas of interested, covering with ease 10-200 mm, often are doing dirty things (like having decalibrated backfoucs in order to refocus after changing focal lenght) and are often using extremly planned shots (CU eye - zoom back DT table - hand comes - goes out of focus - crashzoom to CU face etc). these shots look "effortless", sloppy, but believe me, they must be pretty hard to archieve.

 

to the colorcorrection.

from a producer pov - awesome. that steve mcnutt as dop takes out a whole process (hes doing grade on the set while shooting, well preplanned amd mostly only by using the sony hdcam camera) reduces tools, effort, time, budget, necessary communication and crew. also it brings creative decision and communication to one person, which makes planning much easier.

from a colorist pov - honestly said, given that i correctly understood what he was aiming for, i have seen several shots where i was thinking to myself, hmmm, i could have made that even better (no pun intended). i do notice the absence of travelling vignettes, overlaying colors etc - basicly i see filters where i am used to see postproduction/di. however, it still surpasses most of the CC and grades i am used to see and, sorry to say so, he is really bullish, not to say "he has balls in his cc". tough, over/underexposed, tinted... may things i usually wouldn' t dare are standard in his arsenal.

from a filmscience pov - to boldly go where no one has gone before :) they are pushing boundaries and limits. i like that.

[jan von krogh]

Why does it strike me that the only people who don't like grain are the ones not shooting on film in the first place?

I did my first 35mm shooting in 89, first theatrical 35mm in 92.

 

having to -have- grain is a bad thing.

 

i would like to have asa>500 with asa 50 grain as stock option, don't you?

sometimes i like grain, sometimes i hate it, and certainly prefer to add it in post.

[Ted Johanson]

Isn't that obvious just by watching the show???

I suppose it is obvious...to some extent. But as you mentioned, it sometimes goes overboard. In my opinion, when it does go overboard, it goes too far overboard (maybe even taking a few innocent people with it :lol: ).

 

Sure, it goes too far sometimes, so what?

It's a distracting look. The show's already hard enough to watch because of the seemingly hopeless outlook for the good side.

 

With all due respect, it seems silly to intentionally go to the other exteme in lighting and contrast just because a video camera is being used. That's almost like stepping on the accelerator when you realize there's no hope of avoiding the brick wall straight ahead. Or...it's like a person with poor vision deciding they might as well go all the way by getting glasses that blur their vision further.

 

Is that contrasty look actually recorded that way onto the original camera tape?

Edited April 27, 2007 by Ted Johanson

[David Mullen ASC]

The look of the show is meant to call attention to itself, to stand out from the pack of shows on the Sci-Fi channel to some extent. It doesn't want to look like all those safely-shot, well-lit & exposed HD shows. I mean, do we need one more show like that, like "Stargate SGI" for example? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a range would be nice.

[Douglas Hunter]

It's funny you should mention that show! It has to be one of the worst-shot television series ever! What's up that stupid exaggerated video camera look anyway? And what about the water hose-style shooting; did the camera operator have a little too much caffeine?

 

For me, your comment is a total head scratcher; the visual elements are well controlled, and I think well done. These guys are clearly making decisions and thinking about the look of their show. I think they do a great job in that regard. So much TV production lack real throught as to how the visuals should work, or worse, the thought is put in and the results are completely bland. I am also glad that the nextwork allows them the freedom to do so much with the visuals. Networks can and often do crack down on shows that look different, or are "too dark", etc.

 

If you don't like their aesthetic choices they make, so be it, there will be disagreements on easthetics. But you are completely wrong if you think they are just being sloppy or making mistakes. That show looks exactly how they want it to look and for my money that's half the battle, the fact that the look really works for the show is the other half.

[Adam Thompson]

Um, anyone realize that they almost directly copied a show's style that started in 2002? Anyone watch the Shield? (shot on S16mm) Now that show stands out and used to be alone in terms of risky style. Ronn does a great job of pushing the stock now, even overexposing and racking the iris in-shot and not letting operators see rehersals to name a couple of tricks. I think they pushed TV styles the furthest, first. I know they are using the HD scan film now and even highlight hot spots in the DI, for example. Everytime I see BSG I can't help but think it's little Sony HDV cam time. It's at least worth the thought to wonder how it might feel if they had the budget for film; I'd certainly, subconsciously, give it more credit if stopping to watch it for a second. Good thing they have some top-notch actors involved to give it back what it initially may look like it's lacking.

 

 

And is anyone like me with this RED footage sample? I feel strangely confused now. I was one of the guys that was very likely going to buy one 6+ months from now since I know I could get certain types of work with it. But now I have an HVX taste in my mouth. I know, I know, watching a download doesn't say much, but it does speak a little. Maybe video is just going to have to be a look in it's self. Or, maybe some on-lens filters would help people (the ones like me) like it more. I don't know, I'm more confused now.

 

Thinking any one device will buck the system is certainly wrong though. It takes people and compaines alike so very long to accept a different approach to a perception of quality. Film is surely going to live on for a long while, it just needs to get freaken cheaper!