Jeff L'Heureux Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 So, I saw the new X-Men film this weekend, non 3D showing, and throughout the entire film I was noticing a strange "digital smear" of the frames that really stood out and telegraphed the movie as being shot on digital. It was especially apparent when there were fast moving characters on the screen. Did anyone else notice this? Did Newton Thomas Sigel shoot with a different shutter angle, or something that made this happen on the Alexa? I've seen movies shot on the Alexa that didn't have this same overtly digital look, like Skyfall and Thor: The Dark World, so what happened with this one? Any input? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 I know it was shot in native 3D so I'm wondering if it could have been a side effect of the mirror? Theres a bit of a review of the 3D "cinematography" here: http://www.businessinsider.com/dont-buy-3d-tickets-to-x-men-days-of-future-past-2014-5 Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Murphy Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Wasn't the movie shot 48fps too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted May 26, 2014 Share Posted May 26, 2014 Not sure if was 48fps. But as will not waste money on seeing it sorry dont care . !! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravi Kiran Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Could they have been using a slower shutter angle than 180 degrees? It's odd that a big production would do that on an entire film. I think 48fps was an early rumor that turned out not to be true. Edited May 27, 2014 by Ravi Kiran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 The shutter question is interesting. If there's a ton of camera movement, maybe they didn't want stuff to strobe like on fast pans, since strobing is supposed to be godawful in 3D (haven't seen a movie in 3D in more than 30 years, so I'm just taking folks word on that.) Haven't seen DAYS yet, but this 'digital smear' thread has kinda scared me off a little. I remember seeing X2 in a really bad digital theater and thinking it looked like it was shot on homevid and projected at a drive-in, so I'm extremely allergic to poor theatrical presentations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 I noticed the digital look though it didn't seem to be any type of mistake. It only really happened in the '70's section of the film. It looked like it was an attempt to emulate the look of the video of that time. I thought it was a great way to make the footage feel like it was shot in the 1970's and also blend in the TV news footage sections. In the same way people emulate technicolor processes to invoke older periods i thought the video look did a great job making the film feel like it was 40 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 By 70s looking video, do you mean it looks like BARNEY MILLER or ALL IN THE FAMILY? Cuz that ain't what I go to see movies for. There is probably an artistic way to do that kind of look ... I mean, TOOTSIE has the scenes on the soap opera set lit in such a fashion that it 'registers' on some level as video even though it is all very nice and on film. Then again, that was Roizman, and Roizman from the 70s up through the mid-80s was pretty close to perfection for me (in the span of about one year, we got TAPS and TRUE CONFESSIONS -- which for me is THE GODFATHER minus the golden hues -- and ABSENCE OF MALICE.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Wow you guys aren't selling me on this movie! Hopefully it won't look so bad by the time it makes it to DVD! Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I mean, I thought the cinematography was the art of telling the story visually. I didn't know that everything had to be only one way. I thought that selling the story with both a 70's news feel was clever and worked to root the story in the time. Not only the slightly video-y aesthetic, which I didn't find it to distract in the same way the the hobbit HFR did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Yuan-Vogel Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I just saw it in 2D as well and often noted several scenes with high motion blur that could have been a 270deg or 360deg shutter angle. It was a little jarring to me, but I didn't quite seem like the whole movie was shot that way, maybe certain scenes were? I also noticed a bit more digital colored noise in the shadows in some scenes which surprised me, but overall I definitely enjoyed the movie anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now