Wall*E

[Tom Lowe]

Haha, great movie.

 

I definitely noticed the work Deakins and others put into enhancing the "cinematography" on this all-CGI movie. The camera "moves" and "focal lengths" and the lighting all evoked subtle clues in the mind of the viewer, helping us suspend disbelief - much more so than any previous CGI movie. I thought the first 30 minutes or so of Wall*E were just a complete and total masterpiece. The lonely world Wall*E inhabits was one of the richest and most interesting I have seen in any film in recent years. The last half of Wall*E descends into a more typical Pixar movie, but is still fun.

 

For anyone interested in taking a quick preview glimpse at a minute or so of footage from early in the picture, check out the HD clip called "A Day at Work"....

 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/walle/hd/

 

BTW, I noticed that the 1080p version on my computer screen was much, much, much sharper and clearer than the analog projection at my local theater.

[David Mullen ASC]

BTW, I noticed that the 1080p version on my computer screen was much, much, much sharper and clearer than the analog projection at my local theater.

 

Is your computer screen 50' wide? If not, then how do you know if your 1080P version is actually sharper? Maybe a 35mm print shown projected onto a 17" sized screen would look pretty sharp!

[Miguel Bunster]

Thats pretty funny.....

m

[Michel Hafner]

BTW, I noticed that the 1080p version on my computer screen was much, much, much sharper and clearer than the analog projection at my local theater.

That's pretty much a given for CGI material created in >= 1080p. Film prints can't hold the high MTF while 1080p data with 1;1 mapping to 1080p monitors can.

[Tom Lowe]

Is your computer screen 50' wide? If not, then how do you know if your 1080P version is actually sharper? Maybe a 35mm print shown projected onto a 17" sized screen would look pretty sharp!

 

I'm just telling you what I saw, David. I didn't have any instruments with me, but the amount of fine detail in that 1080p clip online was far, far more than I was able to see at the theater sitting only about 8 rows back. Not even close. I watched these essentially back to back, and I was paying attention.

 

On the other hand, the copy of No Country for Old Men I saw on the big screen was sharper and more detailed than the 1080p copy. Maybe that print was better, the projection lens was better.. I'm not sure.

 

It would be interestig to see Wall*E back-to-back in a digital theater and analog. You should check it out...

[K Borowski]

Oh my God, these assertions are giving me a headache.

 

Computer geeks should always use technical equations and at least one scientific datum in support of their ridiculous claims.

 

So are you saying that your computer, hooked up to a 1080i and projected onto the same theatre screen would be as sharp?

 

What David is saying is that what you are saying is irrelevant because you are comparing apples and oranges. You'd have to either project the computer version at 1080i or run a 35mm print through a film editing table with a comparably sized viewing screen.

Edited June 30, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[Tom Lowe]

What I am saying is that there is far more detail in the 1080p version than the one I saw projected at the theater. That's all I'm saying. Sheesh. You would think I had insulted the Queen or something.

 

I did not need to project the No Country Bluray onto a screen to see that there was at least as much detail on the theater screen as there was on the Bluray. In other words, the projected No Country was at least as good if not better than the 1080p Bluray. Why is this so hard to understand? The print I saw of Wall*E was no more than 700 lines of horizontal resolution. It was very soft and dull. Maybe it was the print. Maybe it was the lens. I don't know.

[K Borowski]

What I am saying is that there is far more detail in the 1080p version than the one I saw projected at the theater. That's all I'm saying. Sheesh. You would think I had insulted the Queen or something.

 

I did not need to project the No Country Bluray onto a screen to see that there was at least as much detail on the theater screen as there was on the Bluray. In other words, the projected No Country was at least as good if not better than the 1080p Bluray. Why is this so hard to understand? The print I saw of Wall*E was no more than 700 lines of horizontal resolution. It was very soft and dull. Maybe it was the print. Maybe it was the lens. I don't know.

 

So now you can count LP/mm by eye?

 

I consider myself to be pretty good at evaluating image resolution, but I have to look at things side by side to be able to subjectively evaluate which is better, or see them flashed on the screen one after the other within a couple of seconds.

 

You were able to tell that your computer had 400 lines more resolution several hours or days later?

[Tom Lowe]

I might not be able to nail it down to the pixel, but I have a decent eye for resolution. When you watch a bunch of DVDs, 720 HDTV rips, 1080p Blurays, 35mm theater screenings, etc, and you pay attention, you can develop a good eye for gauging resolution.

 

Is this really so hard to believe?

[Jason Anderson]

How many times has a animation studio hired a well known DP? Pixar is the first?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork

 

Jason

[K Borowski]

How can one even direct "photography" in a movie that doesn't have any? :unsure: Maybe it is necessary if they are shooting background plates of some sort.

 

In that regard, Disney, real Disney not Disney we bought pixar and fired all of our traditional animators modern day disney, beat pixar out by about a decade with that CGI dinosaur movie that had all real background plates, forget the name.

 

They did the same thing earlier with the documentary back circa '97 about the Dinosaur Era, forget the name of that too.

[Michel Hafner]

So are you saying that your computer, hooked up to a 1080i and projected onto the same theatre screen would be as sharp?

Blu Ray is mastered 1080p for almost all feature films. What's that fascination with 1080i?

And yes, good 1080p projected with a 1080p/2K projector often looks sharper and more detailed than standard prints projected in standard cinemas, on the same screen.

[Guest will griffith]

In that regard, Disney, real Disney not Disney we bought pixar and fired all of our traditional animators modern day disney, beat pixar out by about a decade with that CGI dinosaur movie that had all real background plates, forget the name.

.... "Dinosaur"? (The creativity of the name showed the level of work Disney was doing at the time.)

 

Pixar puts more emotion/realism into their characters than most of the high paid pop stars you see on screen today can ever hope to produce.

[Nate Downes]

Blu Ray is mastered 1080p for almost all feature films. What's that fascination with 1080i?

And yes, good 1080p projected with a 1080p/2K projector often looks sharper and more detailed than standard prints projected in standard cinemas, on the same screen.

1080p is not a standard, 1080i is. That means one companies 1080p might differ from anothers, resulting in a movie which looks 'wow" on one and "blah" on another.

 

And I will disagree that good 1080p projectes looks sharper and more detailed than standard prints in a standard cinema. But then again, I've also seen Vertigo in the cinema... (anniversary print)

[Tom Lowe]

You know, in hindsight, I should have never mentioned resolution. I should have guessed it would cause a massive derail and the whole topic of the thread - Wall-E - would get tossed aside. :(

[Jason Anderson]

How can one even direct "photography" in a movie that doesn't have any? :unsure: Maybe it is necessary if they are shooting background plates of some sort.

 

This link is to an interview with the cinematographer of finding nemo. Although nothing is being photographed, the responsibilties to the director are still the same as a film/video DP.

http://www.pixar.com/artistscorner/sharon/interview.html

 

Jason

[Ruairi Robinson]

How can one even direct "photography" in a movie that doesn't have any? :unsure: Maybe it is necessary if they are shooting background plates of some sort.

 

In that regard, Disney, real Disney not Disney we bought pixar and fired all of our traditional animators modern day disney, beat pixar out by about a decade with that CGI dinosaur movie that had all real background plates, forget the name.

 

They did the same thing earlier with the documentary back circa '97 about the Dinosaur Era, forget the name of that too.

 

er... because CG still uses lenses, albeit virtual ones, because the camera still has to be positioned, and moved, and because the shots still have to be lit.

 

That's why.

[K Borowski]

er... because CG still uses lenses, albeit virtual ones, because the camera still has to be positioned, and moved, and because the shots still have to be lit.

 

That's why.

 

Umm, you're kidding, right? So do video games need "cinematographers" too? Don't get me wrong, I happen to love CG animation. Toy Story is a film I'd watch over Pocahontas any day, but just as I don't consider the photographing of a cel-animated film to be cinematography, neither do I consider CG cartoons to be cinematography.

 

It's just a different artform. Do they need focus pullers and camera operators too then? They must by your definition. Or are those positions filled by "virtual" people, or robots? How does the union deal with their memberships?

 

Come on. . .

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I have to agree that "DPs" are as important in CGI films as they are in real ones. The major difference between the CGI of a film and that of a video game is that regardless of whether or not they're created in reality or in a computer, they are movies, and games are games.

[Tom Lowe]

Karl, when you're in a hole, stop digging. ;)

[K Borowski]

Karl, when you're in a hole, stop digging. ;)

 

I'd rank being a "DP" on a CG film as one step below working on gay porn.

 

Again, how do you pull focus or change your f-stop. Filters? Lenses? Zooms?

 

Lights???

 

Maybe it'd be like playing a "DP Your Own Movie" video game.

 

I've actually contributed to an abortive attempt to make a video game. I was taking real photographs, scanning them into a computer, and we were using them as textures, stuff like brick walls, and it looked pretty good. I'd be interested in shooting a plate for a CG movie, but directing the "photography" for it?

 

This is something that is in the realm of what fx people do, not usually cinematographers.

Edited July 1, 2008 by Karl Borowski

[Adrian Sierkowski]

From what I've heard, a good number of those animation programs do have digital lenses/lights/filters etc which function the same as the real thing. I would say, building a visual narrative language by such techniques as "choosing," which filter/lens/light is what makes a DP. Not to mention working on the visual language of a film; even if such language and the film to which is applies is construed in 0's and 1's before hitting a release print.

[Ruairi Robinson]

From what I've heard, a good number of those animation programs do have digital lenses/lights/filters etc which function the same as the real thing. I would say, building a visual narrative language by such techniques as "choosing," which filter/lens/light is what makes a DP. Not to mention working on the visual language of a film; even if such language and the film to which is applies is construed in 0's and 1's before hitting a release print.

 

Basically, all the same techniques apply to CG as live action cinematography - just the method is slightly different in some cases. Focus pulling is not "live" - you set keyframes. So you aren't limited to one shot at getting it right, etc. you could place a different camera to catch the same "performance" of an animated character from a different angle, etc. Or relight it any way you want...

 

In Vray, for example, the camera has controls for film gate, focal length, focus distance, f stop, you can control lens distortion, you set the film iso speed, you set the shutter angle, the exposure, you can set the number of blades on the iris, and the anisotropy of the lens to simulate the DOF of anamorphic lenses. You can create light sources that obey the inverse square falloff of real light sources, and set the colour balance to simulate daylight flourescent, halogen, sodium, xenon, whatever...

 

You can even place bounce cards in your scene to reflect light around.

 

Because guess what. CG films - they have to light 'em too.

 

People who light in CG are called technical directors. Focus pullers? they are animators. They just do other things besides pulling focus, because setting two keyframes usually ain't a full time job. The job of DP? handled by the director who generally decides the framing, and the other tasks are subdivided among the animators and TDs, with some overlap...

 

R.

[Tom Lowe]

Ruairi have you seen Wall-E?

[Vanessa Ward]

just as I don't consider the photographing of a cel-animated film to be cinematography, neither do I consider CG cartoons to be cinematography.

 

There is some great camera work in Wall*E. I'm not sure what you're so confused about. The story has to be photographed just as much as live action films. And I don't mean the physical action of taking a picture.