Revenant/Mad Max prove digital is better?

[Ari Michael Leeds]

Yeah, you're exactly right, Freya. That's what and why I thought you were saying the Alexa is bad.

I'm not gonna lie, I don't like its colors as much. Then again, it's no RED color palette, either.

[John E Clark]

 

I've not seen Hugo and don't know much about it.

It's shot on a mixture of digital video and film you are saying?

 

As far as I know, the 'live action' portions of "Hugo" were filmed via 3-D digital cameras. The irony is that the subject of the film, Georges Melies, was an early film maker who used hand tinting to make his films in 'color' in an era when Color was not otherwise an economical possibility.

 

In other words, Melies was not satisified with 'pure film'... but wanted more... and that more, in such areas as creative control of the image, would have to wait for at least the Digital Intermediary process to be invented. Even more... in the Melies era, Film film was not very responsive to the 'red' portion of the spectrum. That had to wait for the late 20s and the general use of "Panchromatic" B&W film stocks...

 

Here's a sample of a hand tinted Melies shot...

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by John E Clark

[Freya Black]

On the upside Bridge of Spies seems to do as well as the Alexa in low light then! ;)

 

*Freya decides that she has stirred the pot up enough for one night and shuffles off into the darkness*

[Stuart Brereton]

You don't need to be a practical expert to have a theoretical opinion on film vs digital and on the specific practices in filmmaking. Nothing that I have said requires practical experiences.

 

I assume you've heard the term 'Monday morning Quarterback'?

[Manu Delpech]

What the hell is going on here? How could you think Bridge Of Spies was shot on Alexa? For Wolf, it's easy, "Thus, says Scorsese, “we took advantage of both worlds, shooting most of the movie on film, and then using the Alexa for night scenes, experiments with shutter speed, and greenscreen visual effects.”"

[Freya Black]

What the hell is going on here? How could you think Bridge Of Spies was shot on Alexa? For Wolf, it's easy, "Thus, says Scorsese, “we took advantage of both worlds, shooting most of the movie on film, and then using the Alexa for night scenes, experiments with shutter speed, and greenscreen visual effects.”"

 

 

Yeah google is easy but there is a great article on the ASC website about the shooting of The Wolf Of Wall Street and the different cameras used:

 

https://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/December2013/TheWolfofWallStreet/page1.php

 

So what makes you so sure that "Bridge of Spies" wasn't shot on the Alexa? ;)

[Jeff L'Heureux]

So what makes you so sure that "Bridge of Spies" wasn't shot on the Alexa? ;)

 

This B-Roll says so! Haha.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB1XqYGaOHw

 

In fact, at around 7:20 in this clip, Spielberg is playing around with a 16mm camera with the actors. My guess is it was a prop used by an extra in the background.

[David Mullen ASC]

How much to let fire overexpose is an old discussion, ever since film stock got fast enough to overexpose fire. "The Revenant" played their firelight scenes on the bright side, clearly a choice, I probably would have exposed them darker myself.

 

One of my favorite shots, probably done on the Alexa 65 (looked so clean and clear) was the twilight shot of the men on horseback with torches crossing the river, led by General Hux :D

 

As for the shade of a yellow, that is easily adjustable in color-correction, though I'm sure yellow in digital projection is a bit different than yellow in a film print.

[Victor Xia]

Wow, another digital vs film debate. That's exactly what this started as...

[Satsuki Murashige]

 

I would really hope they have tried to get the colour space as close as possible in the trailer to the theatrical version although there could be some difference but it's worth noting that anyone seeing the movie on blu-ray or DVD are going to see the movie in Rec709 just like the trailer.

 

Also I feel I can comment on the colour as it's the standard Alexa Yellow that you see in Alexa movies.

I'm quite familiar with that yellow and as I say it works well in some contexts, I just don't feel it works so well in this one.

 

You have seen a DCP of it I assume? Did you think it looked similar to the trailer or can you not really remember now?

 

Freya

I'm sure they do try their best to match to the DCP. However, when you're compressing to 8-bit, down-resing, throwing out a ton of color information, and converting color space, some stuff is going to get lost in the translation. This is not even taking into account everyone's individual device screens with their own display gamuts, brightness levels, etc. Sure, for most people watching a Blu-Ray on a somewhat calibrated hdtv is probably the best case scenario for home viewing, as it is for me. But web trailers, especially ones that are not the direct Apple downloads are a total crapshoot in my opinion.

 

Yes, the trailers on my displays look 'similar' to the DCP I saw in the theater. But I wouldn't judge minute details of color off of it. That's like only seeing a photograph of a famous painting and judging its color and texture. You can, but it's not an entirely credible opinion compared to someone who's seen painting first hand. At least you don't have to travel far to see a movie in wide release! :)

[Satsuki Murashige]

Wow, another digital vs film debate. That's exactly what this started as...

I know, right? Didn't see that coming...

[Carl Looper]

I understand a decision on the Revenant was to exploit natural light. So I imagine the contrast between the fire and that of the surrounding environment would tend to be somewhat greater than one in which, for example, some additional light might have otherwise been used (to reduce that contrast).

 

All else being equal the same scene shot on film would only differ insofar as it would not be possible to shoot the same scene without additional light - and as such the additional light would reduce the contrast that one might have otherwise wanted between fire and environment.

 

To put it another way, if some colour in the flames were desireable, both film and digital would be both capable of providing it (not just film). It's the opposite desire that becomes more difficult with film because one would have to somehow increase the amount of light that flames otherwise emit.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

Neither the Revenant nor Mad Max are necessary to prove video is better than film.

 

We can go back to 1969, at the very least, to demonstrate that video is better than film. Simply put, if film were otherwise better than video, why was the live telecast of the Lunar Landing not done on film?

 

While there are plenty of hilarious answers (and equally rhetorical questions) to the stupidity in this question, the question itself is not the actual stupid part.

 

It is the question's premise: that film and video are interchangeable, that is the stupid part.

 

C

Edited March 3, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Tyler Purcell]

We can go back to 1969, at the very least, to demonstrate that video is better than film. Simply put, if film were otherwise better than video, why was the live telecast of the Lunar Landing not done on film?

Umm because it was a live broadcast and you can't make film, live.

 

Mind you, the "archives" of those telecast events look like crap and the filmed material has been used in countless documentaries, including ones blown up to IMAX.

[Robin R Probyn]

 

Not sure how wolf of wall street got in there.

Going a bit too fast with the cut and paste there.

Has Martin Scorsese ever shot anything on digital cameras?

 

Bridge of spies keeps taking me in tho, over and over. I've mistaken that for Alexa when it first came out.

and then I keep mistaking it for Alexa again and again even after people say "Freya that was shot on film".

This will probably happen again in a while once I forget it was shot on film again.

I did mean to include those shots of bridge of spies.

 

Sorry about that. It wins the award for most alexa-y looking film footage for me.

 

 

Sort of makes my point really.. people dont know the difference.. and in all these pic,s is totally down to grading lighting to suite the scene.. Arri RAW can be made any color .. thats the whole point..

And sorry but I would say RED had plenty of problems with their sensor.. hence the multiple OLPF options.. :)

Edited March 3, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Manu Delpech]

 

 

Yeah google is easy but there is a great article on the ASC website about the shooting of The Wolf Of Wall Street and the different cameras used:

 

https://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/December2013/TheWolfofWallStreet/page1.php

 

So what makes you so sure that "Bridge of Spies" wasn't shot on the Alexa? ;)

 

Dude, that is LITERALLY where this quote comes from. Are you trolling? (and just you know, yeah, it's not like I have a subscription to American Cinematographer. Oh wait, I do).

 

What makes me so sure? Well, my eyes + the fact that, lol, Spielberg only shoots on film (he insisted on it one more time in an interview a few weeks ago). I mean, just from the 1080p trailer, you couldn't tell it was shot on film? Wow, seriously, I don't know if you're kidding, but if you really had a doubt as to whether Bridge Of Spies had been shot on film, I'm not sure what your comments on this thread really mean.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Manu Delpech

[Carl Looper]

Umm because it was a live broadcast and you can't make film, live.

 

Full marks Tyler.

 

And indeed the fact that there is a simple answer to the question means the question itself it not actually the problem. It's the premise which is the problem. The premise is that film and video are interchangeable when clearly, if only in this context, they are not interchangeable.

 

And indeed one will find that the context is rarely one in which film and video are interchangeable - that what one chooses will be according to all sorts of criteria which push one in one direction rather than another. The notion of which is "better" becomes far more a function of this larger context than almost anything else.

 

For example, I shoot film because it's not digital (amongst other reasons). Using such criteria it makes it impossible (obviously) to shoot digital as a substitute. And that's just one of any number of reasons one might entertain in shooting film.

 

And the same goes for digital. I shoot it for any number of reasons.

 

C

Edited March 3, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Carl Looper]

Accepting the title of this thread is like accepting that Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles proves that house paints and cigarette butts are better than chalk and charcoal. The painting might very well prove that one can make a great work using house paints and cigarette butts, but it doesn't preclude an equally great work being made in chalk and charcoal.

 

Was just watching a doco on cave paintings (discovered in 1994) that are 30,000 to 32,000 years old, and they are absolutely stunning. And they were able to do such without house paints and cigarette butts.

 

C

Edited March 3, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Robin R Probyn]

How did they look in low light.. crap Im sure..

[Carl Looper]

How did they look in low light.. crap Im sure..

 

They would not have looked crap at all. Cave paintings were originally illuminated by fire, and fire provides sufficient illumination in terms of natural perception. Some theories suggest the dancing shadows produced by fire light on the cave walls would have interacted with the artwork to produce a quasi-animated effect.

 

We know they must have been illuminated by fire because their position deep within the cave would have made them otherwise impossible to paint, let alone see the result.

 

C

[Freya Black]

 

Dude, that is LITERALLY where this quote comes from. Are you trolling? (and just you know, yeah, it's not like I have a subscription to American Cinematographer. Oh wait, I do).

 

Totally Dude, I just thought that article was most bodacious so we should all like totally read it.

Hey like thanks for showing me such an excellent way to tell film from digital.

Yeah just google it man!

*Freya throws hair over face and plays air guitar*

[Carl Looper]

 

Totally Dude, I just thought that article was most bodacious so we should all like totally read it.

Hey like thanks for showing me such an excellent way to tell film from digital.

Yeah just google it man!

*Freya throws hair over face and plays air guitar*

 

:)

 

[Robin R Probyn]

 

They would not have looked crap at all. Cave paintings were originally illuminated by fire, and fire provides sufficient illumination in terms of natural perception. Some theories suggest the dancing shadows produced by fire light on the cave walls would have interacted with the artwork to produce a quasi-animated effect.

 

We know they must have been illuminated by fire because their position deep within the cave would have made them otherwise impossible to paint, let alone see the result.

 

C

 

 

It was a joke.. pertaining to other earlier comments .. :0

[Tyler Purcell]

And indeed the fact that there is a simple answer to the question means the question itself it not actually the problem. It's the premise which is the problem. The premise is that film and video are interchangeable when clearly, if only in this context, they are not interchangeable.

Ohh I whole heartedly agree, they are two completely different animals which have little to do with one another outside of the final result. It's like physically drawing animation on paper, tracing it to cells and filming those cells vs using a stylus to paint in photoshop and doing all the animation steps digitally for a digital output.

 

To me, the biggest difference is the lack of a physical asset. One could say that video tapes and SD cards are a physical asset, but they really aren't. Paper drawings/cell's and film are physical assets because the image created exists in the same analog plane as our bodies until it's destroyed. Sure film needs to be processed in order to see an image, but that doesn't take away from it's final appearance since you COULD do this work at home.

 

When our race is pushed to extinction, be it war, famine, plague, asteroid or unforeseen circumstances, what we leave behind for the survivors won't be digital technology, because none of it will work. It will be analog that will survive; statues, buildings, bridges, roads... and our past will be remembered not through a computer display, but through printed pictures and paintings, records that can be played by spinning by hand and using a needle as a stylus, musical instruments and of course film.

 

In my eyes, this is one of the reasons why formats which can be heard and seen by humans without the use of "decoders" are so important. Motion picture film is one of those formats and in this example, it shares nothing with it's digital and even analog "video" component.

 

Can I be so bold to predict that digital technology will be our undoing as a culture and perhaps eventually lead to the end of our civilization? We spend so much money and time developing worthless nothingness that is to be consumed using digital devices and no time researching/studying how those developments have destroyed our culture and planet. When everyone can do anything at any time, what is the reason for existence?

[Manu Delpech]

Bold thoughts but very much agreed. There's something about something physical, that you can hold in your hands that is really special. I love holding a comic book in my hands rather than reading a digital version of it, I love having an awesome Blu-Ray digipack with an awesome cover art rather than plugging the Ipad into the receiver and seeing it instantly, holding a piece of film in your hands, seeing the image imprinted on it.