Wall*E

[K Borowski]

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.

 

But they don't photograph it, it's virtual. It isn't photographed, it's programmed, rendered. That is NOT photography.

 

Taking a picture IS a physical action. It is defined as such.

 

I'm not saying CG animation is any less interesting than cinematography, it's just that it is NOT cinematography. Sure you can use a program that simulates cinematography, for comfort's sake, just as animators liked to throw their background paintings out of focus for a cinematic feel, that doesn't make cartoon photography really cinematography.

 

I'm not belittling either cell-drawn or CG animation, just saying that they are closer akin to painting than photography. They may utilize photography or photographic terms, and even simulate photography, but for me photography needs to involve light, a lens and a chip or a piece of light sensitive material.

 

Just as I consider digital artwork art, I don't consider it as painting. You need *paint* to paint.

[Ruairi Robinson]

But they don't photograph it, it's virtual. It isn't photographed, it's programmed, rendered. That is NOT photography.

 

Taking a picture IS a physical action. It is defined as such.

 

I'm not saying CG animation is any less interesting than cinematography, it's just that it is NOT cinematography. Sure you can use a program that simulates cinematography, for comfort's sake, just as animators liked to throw their background paintings out of focus for a cinematic feel, that doesn't make cartoon photography really cinematography.

 

I'm not belittling either cell-drawn or CG animation, just saying that they are closer akin to painting than photography. They may utilize photography or photographic terms, and even simulate photography, but for me photography needs to involve light, a lens and a chip or a piece of light sensitive material.

 

Just as I consider digital artwork art, I don't consider it as painting. You need *paint* to paint.

 

Yes, the term photograph is innacurate. Rendering is correct. That's why I avoided the word. Because... the word cinematography comes from the greek kinesis (movement), and grapho (to record) i.e. the recording of motion. Don't hear mention of photography anywhere there. And I think over time the definition will loosen up even more.

 

according to wikipedia, that incontrovertable bastian of accuracy, the ASC defines cinematography as:

 

a creative and interpretive process that culminates in the authorship of an original work of art rather than the simple recording of a physical event. Cinematography is not a subcategory of photography. Rather, photography is but one craft that the cinematographer uses in addition to other physical, organizational, managerial, interpretive and image-manipulating techniques to effect one coherent process

 

Well I think that definition sucks, but the point is - even the ASC don't regard it as a subcategory of photography. Photography is one tool in the creation of cinematic moving images.

 

Here's the thing... if you watch a live action movie, and the cinematography is hyper-mega-awesome, but in between live action shots, there was a cg shot you didn't know was CG, and the shot looked great, would you not agree that the cinematography was good in this shot?

 

(at least until you found out it was CG and backtracked saying that's not REALLY cinematography, even though for all intents and purposes it SEEMS like it is...)

 

Also, if you heard of any of the research by people like Paul Debevec into digital RELIGHTING, then you could see how the definition is going to loosen up even more in the future. He has created a technique, whereby you can shoot live action subjects, and relight them digitally... is it live action? yes. Is it CG? yes, it's both. It's footage captured with a high speed video camera, than can be relit with lights rendered on a computer.

 

http://www.debevec.org/Publications/DEBEVE...200608-high.pdf

[Ayz Waraich]

I couldn't get over how great the anamorphic scope look was in Wall-E.

 

Are there any other animated films that emulate anamorphic photography?

[Jonathan Bowerbank]

I couldn't get over how great the anamorphic scope look was in Wall-E.

 

Are there any other animated films that emulate anamorphic photography?

 

I think Wall-E is the first film to really nail the anamorphic look, scope and depth of field wise. This month's AC article is really informative and tells how the programmers at Pixar really put their feet in their mouths after tests revealed that they were wrong all along during initial tests.

[Michel Hafner]

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.

Huh? You are mixing up production and media standards with display standards. 1080p is very much a production standard (HD master tapes of film transfers of the last couple of years are 1080p24, not 1080i60) and on Blu Ray as well a media standard. The film data is stored as compressed 1080p24, not 1080i60. The player outputs 1080p24 or 1080i60 depending on what your display can accept and what you tell it to do.

Apart from that whether it's 1080p24 or 1080i60 with correct pulldown, after reverse pulldown the 1080p24 is the same if the 1080i60 is not more filtered than the 1080p24 (which it might be). > 95% of current Blu Rays of feature films are 1080p24. Most of these are original 1080p24, not 1080i60 converted to 1080p24.

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)

Don't know what Vertigo has got to do with this. It's a Vistavision film restored to 70mm. With 70mm and 35mm prints. I stand by what I said, Good 1080p HD is sharper looking and more detailed than standard prints, especially if made from 2K DI. The reason is obvious. The HD can keep the MTF of the DI minus some compression losses and color subsampling while the print had a film out stage and a copying stage added, removing >= 30% modulation. That's visible. The print might be about the same for some saturated colors, but not luma. With traditional non DI prints compared to 1080p from the negative the print has no chance.

[K Borowski]

The HD can keep the MTF of the DI minus some compression losses and color subsampling while the print had a film out stage and a copying stage added, removing >= 30% modulation. That's visible. The print might be about the same for some saturated colors, but not luma. With traditional non DI prints compared to 1080p from the negative the print has no chance.

 

Let me say this again, since the "30% modulation loss" the digital projection advocacy group keeps throwing about here is completely off the mark. . .

 

modulation is NOT the same as resolution. You're loosing detail in the extreme highlights and extreme shadows that isn't important ANYWAY.

 

The only system that can actually pick it up is a human eye staring at the negatives through a loupe.

 

Please please please don't use particle physics in a real-world context. In the real world, everything is a compromise on something.

 

How many theatres clean their lenses after each show? How many check films for critical focus right before the show? How many theatres have a dirty piece of glass between projector lens and screen. Ever think of the amount of "modulation loss" that entails?

 

Every filter you stack in front of a camera lens hurts the resolution. Should there be a Digital Cinema Initiative to ban the use of filters?

[Nate Downes]

Don't know what Vertigo has got to do with this. It's a Vistavision film restored to 70mm. With 70mm and 35mm prints. I stand by what I said, Good 1080p HD is sharper looking and more detailed than standard prints, especially if made from 2K DI. The reason is obvious. The HD can keep the MTF of the DI minus some compression losses and color subsampling while the print had a film out stage and a copying stage added, removing >= 30% modulation. That's visible. The print might be about the same for some saturated colors, but not luma. With traditional non DI prints compared to 1080p from the negative the print has no chance.

That would make sence, if HD had equal color information to begin with. As you can scan film at up to 32 bits per channel, yes, 128-bit color depth, loosing 30% of the information still leaves it with several orders of magnitude more than HD has ever accomplished. So, I will have to politely disagree with your statements in this fashion.

 

And if one did an optical print-out, that information would not be lost, correct? So, you now have undermined your own points, as Nolan has demonstrated that 35mm can do 8k scans easily with his latest work.

[Ruairi Robinson]

That would make sence, if HD had equal color information to begin with. As you can scan film at up to 32 bits per channel, yes, 128-bit color depth, loosing 30% of the information still leaves it with several orders of magnitude more than HD has ever accomplished. So, I will have to politely disagree with your statements in this fashion.

 

And if one did an optical print-out, that information would not be lost, correct? So, you now have undermined your own points, as Nolan has demonstrated that 35mm can do 8k scans easily with his latest work.

 

according to the latest American Cinematographer, the 35mm stuff was scanned at 4k.

 

"the final Imax print combined the 4k DMR filmout, 5.6k and 8k imax filmouts, and 18k contact prints from the imax negative"

 

It also says (re: the 2.40 extraction of anamorphic 35mm from the imax frame for 35mm prints) "in fact, due to oversampling, it's probably the best anamorphic image we've ever seen. If we'd had time to scan the original negative at 6k, we could have produced even higher quality. The information is on the negative - 35mm film captures the equivolent of 6k and a color bit depth of 14 bits plus"

 

But that's the executive vice president of Imax corp speaking, so he's obviously objective about film vs digital :)

 

Not that I'm saying he's wrong... the film looks incredible. But using my incredibly scientific method of judging the film by eye from a single viewing, I'd say 6k for 35mm film may be stretching it a little. It was blatantly muddy and soft compared to the Imax footage, and actually sometimes it was distracting when it cut back and forth between them...

 

The imax footage on the other hand... holy poop. It's amazing. I thought these were supposed to be slow lenses they were using, but you can see right into the shadows and pick out incredibly subtle fine details that are barely shades apart on some of the aerial shots. I really appreciate how the film has gone against the current trendy of applying some heavy handed overdone "look" and instead kept the colours natural and real...

 

Oh wait, this is the Wall*E thread. Bleh.

[John Holland]

Wally Phfister is a fantastic DoP and all the films he has shot with Nolan look great , all [ i think ] anamorphic and no f---ing 2K Di .

[Ayz Waraich]

I think Wall-E is the first film to really nail the anamorphic look, scope and depth of field wise. This month's AC article is really informative and tells how the programmers at Pixar really put their feet in their mouths after tests revealed that they were wrong all along during initial tests.

 

Is this article available online anywhere? Sounds interesting...

 

I could swear I've seen another animated film or short with anamorphic characteristics. Hmm... might be imagining it.

[Tom Lowe]

Nolan has demonstrated that 35mm can do 8k scans easily with his latest work.

 

That has not been "shown" or proven in any way. I can do a 5K scan of a Polaroid print. That doesn't mean it's 5K.

[Nate Downes]

That has not been "shown" or proven in any way. I can do a 5K scan of a Polaroid print. That doesn't mean it's 5K.

It does not mean it is not either.

 

I have had this arguement before, when people claimed that film could never handle 2k scans, then that 4k would be a waste...

 

And I will hear it all again when people are debating the validity of 16k scans.

[Tom Lowe]

It does not mean it is not either.

 

I have had this arguement before, when people claimed that film could never handle 2k scans, then that 4k would be a waste...

 

And I will hear it all again when people are debating the validity of 16k scans.

 

Uh huh. That's your evidence? Rhetoric? Where is the scientific evidence to back up your claims?

[Steven Parker]

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

 

Nice.

 

Japanese anime' as well as video games have been using "DPs" for many years. Western filmmakers are just now starting to see the benefits of that.

 

Cinematographers do a hell of a lot more than take pictures... they discuss theme and mood and help to realize them, help maintain (or grow or change) a visual language across the length of the story, help directors build scenes with their understanding of cinematic grammar and editing, help to avoid a redundancy of style within a story, the list goes on...

 

It's good to know there's a purist out there who's aware of the true value a cinematographer can bring to a project.

[John Brawley]

But they don't photograph it, it's virtual. It isn't photographed, it's programmed, rendered. That is NOT photography.

 

 

Just as I consider digital artwork art, I don't consider it as painting. You need *paint* to paint.

 

 

Right so then you don't shoot films you shoot High Definition ?

 

You're a videomaker not a filmmaker ? You shoot digital movies ?

 

I disagree completely and you're pretty offensive with your gay porn remark.

 

Our skills as cinematographers translate very well into animation, because just the *tools* we use are changing. It's still got to be lit, framed and covered. These are the same basic skills no matter the origination format.

 

I bet you haven't actually acted in the role as a DP on an animated film otherwise I suspect you would feel differently.

 

I recently DP'd a 100% animated film and not only did was it not very dissimilar to a live action film in process and application, but I have also been able to approach my live action work with a new perspective and understanding. 3d Animation is incredibly complex and time consuming to learn. Yet I was able to light and frame shots to convey *story* much faster than animators that had been doing it for years.

 

To be snobbish about it and say that it's not true to the art of cinematography is pretty blinkered I reckon. If cinematography is *painting* with light, then questioning if the light being virtual makes or real or oil based paint is as silly as saying that the film has to be lit only with the sun and not this manufactured artificial lighting everyone's been using these days.

 

jb

[Michel Hafner]

That would make sence, if HD had equal color information to begin with. As you can scan film at up to 32 bits per channel, yes, 128-bit color depth, loosing 30% of the information still leaves it with several orders of magnitude more than HD has ever accomplished. So, I will have to politely disagree with your statements in this fashion.

We are talking about different things. I'm talking about spatial detail, not shading detail (how many different shades of colors between color x and y, what primaries, what gamut).

Prints can show colors the 1080p can not because it's limited to HD primaries. Agreed. And normal prints can show more colors in between 2 colors as well since consumer HD is limited to ~8 bit per primary. The prints are not, But they are noisier and lose HF detail which degrades the color as well. It's not a clear cut comparison in overall quality. But in the spatial detail department the 1080p has an advantage with luma compared to regular prints.

And if one did an optical print-out, that information would not be lost, correct? So, you now have undermined your own points, as Nolan has demonstrated that 35mm can do 8k scans easily with his latest work.

You can scan at 20K if you like, That's not the point. That oversampling is beneficial is very old news. I'm not interested in what the people scan at. I'm interested in the differences on the optimally derived 4K master versus an optimally derivd 6K master from the same 35mm elements. Project them at 4K/6K split screen. Any relevant difference visible? Project them at 6K (or a zoomed in section in 4K). Any relevant difference visible?

But this thread was about watching Wall-E, a digitally created motion picture, in 1080p direct digital versus some print in a cinema. And in this case it's silly trying to deny that the 1080p has better luma detail and sharpness than some normal print.

[Michel Hafner]

Let me say this again, since the "30% modulation loss" the digital projection advocacy group keeps throwing about here is completely off the mark. . .

What has this got to do with digital projection? It's what's on the film elements, The (analogue/digital) projection makes it even worse, of course.

modulation is NOT the same as resolution. You're loosing detail in the extreme highlights and extreme shadows that isn't important ANYWAY.

There are different kinds of resolution. There is spatial resolution, there is color and gray scale resolution. And there is color gamut and dynamic range. They all interact to some degree.

I was talking about spatial resolution. How you resolve fine SPATIAL detail in textures, how you resolve egdes. The MTF refers to the loss of resolution in this regard brought about by loss of modulation of frequencies. It's not directly about the other types of resolution. And it's not about latitude or dynamic range either! The shadow and highlight detail argument is about dynamic range and latitude, not spatial resolution and MTF.

How many theatre s clean their lenses after each show? How many check films for critical focus right before the show? How many theatres have a dirty piece of glass between projector lens and screen. Ever think of the amount of "modulation loss" that entails?

Every filter you stack in front of a camera lens hurts the resolution. Should there be a Digital Cinema Initiative to ban the use of filters?

Don't be so polemic. That projection and typical real world conditions cause further loss of spatial resolution and modulation is a given. Does not change anything about what's going on when you copy from one film element to another.

I know why I cherrish my home cinema where I call the shots concerning ambient light, dirty lenses, misfocused lenses, babbling, cell phone wielding and popcorn munching patrons and other potentially disruptive interferences to my viewing pleasure. :lol:

[K Borowski]

Right so then you don't shoot films you shoot High Definition ?

 

You're a videomaker not a filmmaker ? You shoot digital movies ?

 

I disagree completely and you're pretty offensive with your gay porn remark.

 

Our skills as cinematographers translate very well into animation, because just the *tools* we use are changing. It's still got to be lit, framed and covered. These are the same basic skills no matter the origination format.

 

I bet you haven't actually acted in the role as a DP on an animated film otherwise I suspect you would feel differently.

 

I recently DP'd a 100% animated film and not only did was it not very dissimilar to a live action film in process and application, but I have also been able to approach my live action work with a new perspective and understanding. 3d Animation is incredibly complex and time consuming to learn. Yet I was able to light and frame shots to convey *story* much faster than animators that had been doing it for years.

 

To be snobbish about it and say that it's not true to the art of cinematography is pretty blinkered I reckon. If cinematography is *painting* with light, then questioning if the light being virtual makes or real or oil based paint is as silly as saying that the film has to be lit only with the sun and not this manufactured artificial lighting everyone's been using these days.

 

jb

 

I'm not saying it is any less of an art than filmmaking is (or videography, I really don't have a problem with referring to videos as films, that's silly).

 

When the role of the camera is merely to record digitally rendered images or animation plates onto film, I don't understand how you can consider that in the same realm as cinematography.

 

I am saying that, as a personal preference, I wouldn't be interested in working on a CG cartoon. I find them quite enjoyable to watch though, and I am in no way belittling people that work in them. Theirs is a completely different artform thought.

 

Yeah, cinematography is called "painting with light". Are you a good painter? I fu**ing suck at it, can't even draw stick figures or do a decent water color.

 

Are guitar players in rock bands going to be good at playing the violin? One isn't better than the other, they're different realms, and it is silly to try to lump them into the same category.

 

I happen to know people that shoot porn and derive enjoyment out of it. Some even do it well. I wouldn't partake in that field as a personal choice.

 

I'd probably be willing to work in cell-animated cartoon work, because at least there is a camera there, something I am familiar with. But I wouldn't consider that real camera work any more than supervising the motion-control photography of a model or photographing a bunch of actors in front of a bluescreen. It's necessary, but it's devoid of the elements I consider necessary for expressive emotive photography.

 

Digital has blurred the lines between painting, art, photography, animation to some extend, but surely there still needs to be some delineation between each field, as specialization is what allows people to really excel in what they do.

[John Brawley]

I am saying that, as a personal preference, I wouldn't be interested in working on a CG cartoon. I find them quite enjoyable to watch though, and I am in no way belittling people that work in them.

 

 

Yeah but you did.

 

That's why I responded with the post...

 

But we can move on......

 

jb

[K Borowski]

Yeah but you did.

 

That's why I responded with the post...

 

But we can move on......

 

jb

 

No, you know who I belittle John, people that make these asinine comments for the sake of argument. . .

:rolleyes:

[stephen lamb]

I was very impressed with the rich visuals of Wall-E. They made a great story out of the visuals, there was very little dialogue after all. I agree about how much they nailed the look of anamorphic photography as well. I've read the AC article about bringing in Deakins and another cinematographer ( I forget who) to help them with their camera work. Very cool of them to do, and it worked, look at the finished product. To add my thoughts to the discussion about cinematography within CG animation: If you define cinematography as shooting images strictly on film, then no, it is not, it's rendered of course. However, if you define cinematography as a craft that creates images with which you tell a story, then by all means it is. I would ask that anyone here who has not undertaken the creation of CG animation themselves (including the cinematographic aspect of it) to leave off explaining in such a courteous fashion how much they apparently know about the subject. To all who have not seen the movie, I would highly recommend it.

[Jason Reimer]

I've got an idea: how about someone start a new thread in one of the other categories where one can argue film vx digital, animation vs cinematography, etc, as long as they want? When we get to two or three or four pages of these same arguments that have increasingly less and less to do with Wall*E or The Dark Knight for example, and increasingly more personal attacks, bad attitude, one-ups-manship, etc, the quality of this board starts dipping down into just a more technical version of any other forum out there, rather than a community of film and video "professionals". We might be using our real names here, but at times like this it seems like the only thing that separates this forum from some teenage gamer's forum is the absence of some leet-speak terminology.

 

All that to say keep it on topic!

[Nate Downes]

Just got back from seeing Wall-E on the big screen, film print. I was amazed over the visuals, the incredible storytelling, the use of silent-movie techniques to tell a story. I was also amused over the slight Apple insertions throughout, from the iPod, Apple TV, and even Wall-E's boot-up sound right off of my PowerMac at home. It made the whole movie appealing to the whole family.

 

Throughout I kept telling myself "This looks like anamorphic or cinemascope." Then, as the credits rolled, I turned around and looked up at the projector.... and right into a clear 2:1 cinemascope lens with the logo still across the bottom. I stood for a full two minutes processing that, then turned my wife around and showed her. I got the usual "smile and nod" from her as I usually get when I talk camera.

 

Some may not classify the DoP on a CGI movie as a cinematographer, but I would never dare to after seeing this. Weither you see through an eyepiece, ground glass, parralex, monitor, or a computer pre-render, the same eye and skill is required. To deny the talent, the eye, is to deny our own skill. What matter is it if we visualize onto a piece of cellulose, a CCD/CMOS, or into a computers memory bank, what matters truely is, what does the audience see?

 

And here, in Wall-E, they see the beauty and art, and the touching story of a rolling trash compactor.

[Tom Lowe]

Yeah maybe we need a "Wall-E Redux" thread. In hindsight I should have known I was asking for trouble by mentioning the resolution of the print.

[K Borowski]

Yeah maybe we need a "Wall-E Redux" thread. In hindsight I should have known I was asking for trouble by mentioning the resolution of the print.

 

I'm sorry if I came across in too belittling a manner Tom. I respect your experience, and shouldn't have been so quick to discount it. . .

 

~KB