Saul Pincus
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Saul Pincus
-
-
The Kodak "Perfect Touch" printing/processing system uses cutting-edge HDR image processing to extend dynamic range:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDe...ectPB2003.shtml
Very interesting demo, John.
I was referring more to how soon we might see HDR capture applied to motion image use; i.e. when it might outclass current CCD technology and render the "lack of dynamic range" argument with regard to HD and other video cameras obsolete.
Of course, you'd then need realtime color presets to monitor the image on set, or for dailies, lest everything look too flat like David points out.
Saul
-
If your scan contains all the exposure information on the negative, I don't see why that's necessary. I'm sure for some effects & color-correction work, being able to adjust highlights separately from shadows is useful, but I believe that is done anyway with a typical 10-bit Cineon log scan.
The main thing to remember is that you often don't want to have the full exposure range visible because it can look too flat. Even with the HD features I shoot, I spend more time adding contrast to the image in post than taking it away. I like contrast I guess...
I assume a 20-bit scan wouldn't have more dynamic range, only finer tonal gradations.
HDR (High Dynamic Range) still photography is very common these days. Usually it's used by visual effects houses when they want to capture the textures or geometry of an existing set, but retain the look established by the DOP. The advantage is that the VFX people can work with something that's been expertly lit by the main unit DOP while maintaining control over manipulation of that image for effects purposes.
It's a little early, but it's only a matter of time before true HDR technology evolves reliably beyond the realm of still photography. Perhaps it already has?
Saul
-
Is there any way to avoid it?
I'm going to do some tests again tommorow and speak to Panavision.
It's hard to believe there's no solution for that problem, as they say. Platinum is at least 15 years old camera. Didn't anobody shoot a B&W movie with it?!
One would think Robert Richardson, ASC would be an expert on this, given all the 35mm B&W scope vignettes he shot for several Oliver Stone films (JFK, etc.) in the early nineties. (Then again, he was probably looking for "the nitrate glow" on purpose...)
Saul
-
It's just a little Kafka-esque because when I asked if I could shoot the movie on Fuji, I was told that I could only do that for a compelling artistic reason, not because of trying to save money. Great philosophy. So why is the reason for picking a print stock now financial and not creative? It makes no sense from a photographic point of view to say that the choice of negative matters creatively but the choice of print stock has no effect on the image creatively!
So in a sense, you might be better off knowing you're only going to project digitally (not an option at this point in time, of course) so that you could aim and optimize for that one DI-like master element, and that's it. Naturally, you wouldn't have the richness of a pure film finish. And in a hypothetical world of universal digital projection, you might end up fighting the studio over your *medium* of origination, let alone which stock. Catch 22! :o
Saul
-
Thanks again for posting your heart out, David. :)
Incidentally, what stock were you printing your dailies on?
Saul
-
It was shown in LA in 70mm for a few weeks.
A 70mm print ran for many weeks at the Imperial Theatre in Montreal.
Saul
-
I couldn't believe my eyes when I ran into this article. Frankly, I don't even know if I should laugh, get mad or cry. Please take a minute to read Michael Bay's (director of The Island) article on March of the Penguins.
http://theonion.com/opinion/index.php?issue=4133
I haven't seen March of the Penguins, but it doesn't really matter... I don't know if this is some kind of joke. I am aware that Bay isn't really appreciated in the film environment, but...
Just incredible.
Mariano, THE ONION is parody. Fake news - like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Saul
-
Did not see a print. Was the print worse than the 2K DLP projection in this respect?
I have't seen the DLP version, but the specific type of "ailasing" I'm referring to shows up in other ILM effects shows from time to time. I recall the film prints of "Attack of the Clones" having this. It's noticeable right off the bat in both "Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" when the "Star Wars" main title receedes into infinity. At the very last moment just before it fades out, you see it. This "aliasing" has a very specidic look to it.
Saul
-
Watched it from 2K DLP. The Picasso had aliasing. Not a super 2K DI it seems.
miha
Yes, but on film much of the effects work aliased badly. Particularly establishers of the clone city.
Saul
-
I'd google that issue if I were you so you feel secure in knowing just what you're getting into. But yes, there can be similarities, but not *too* much, or *too* many. Derivative is one thing, copying is another.
I never advocated "copying" or plaigarism of any kind. All I'm implying is that you can author new music in a similar key with structural similarities to the temp cue you replace. There are many, many aspects of a single piece of music that make it appropriate for a given scene, not just the obvious things like melody.
Saul
-
Yeah, I know this guy whos a music teach, brilliant artist. I'lll show him the film and he could def. write a score. But hell, "This Is Going To Hurt" is the music I need for a sequence...it fits so great, I don't know what I would do if I didn't use it. What usually the costs?
You'd probably enjoy hearing that the pros have the same problem you do - all the time. Many great films have had this issue surface during postproduction. Even John Williams admits that "Star Wars", for all its craftsmanship, is really just one great long ode to its very elaborate and mostly classically-derived temp score.
There is almost always one, two (or more) temp music cues the director is convinced must make it into the final mix of their film. Usually the solution is pretty simple: a talented composer is hired to do his or her rendition of it. There are many things about a piece of score or a song that make it "fit perfectly." More often than not, after a few kicks at the can, a new piece can be created which fits the film as perfectly as the temp. Have faith and hire someone talented - you'll be amazed.
Oh, and when mentioning that cue from 'The Ring", you may choose to refer to the composer by his real name: Hans Zimmer (not Zimmerman.)
Best of luck.
Saul
-
I think those 24 bit surround sound mixes can appear to sound better if they stay in the 24-bit realm all the way to the finished product Saul. Actually, I don't think they sound better; I believe however that most people that sit close to the speakers can hear a little bit better stereo seperation and this they percieve as better sonics.
I can appreciate your perception, your professionalism and your experience, Charlie. Perhaps it's just better stereo separation, but I can indeed perceive the difference when listening to 24-bit material. I'm speaking not as a mixer, but as someone who's run a good number of them. I'm also speaking as an audiophile. Maybe I'm imagining things, but in side-by-side comparisons with 16-bit material I feel I perceive a definite improvement with 24-bit material not only in stereo separation or dynamics but in resolution as well.
I didn't say that a symphony could sound better at 24-bit. I said you'd have more headroom available. That's a slight improvement in "volume" dynamics, meaning you can have sounds that are a tad louder before distortion sets in.You're correct - you didn't say that. But I feel strongly those "volume" dynamics matter, particularly within quieter and less bombastic sections of symphonic score. I realize I'm speaking primarily through perception here. But I'm most assuredly not forming my opinions though industry demos! I recall, for example, Dolby's early travelling demo of Dolby Digital (then called Dolby SR-D). They ran the last reel of "Star Trek VI" in SR, then again in SR-D. This had the audience in awe - though not me. The 70mm Dolby SR magnetic print was much, much better to my ears.
Saul
-
now just imagine that the film did look even better than what you experienced in that 70mm show! I don't mean to do any nitpicking on the restored version, but when they preserved the film some 15 years ago, the dupe stocks were not as good as today.
It's true duping stocks have improved since then, but even within the restoration there are many prime examples of how damn good the original OCN looks. I'm talking specifically about the restored footage, which of course didn't go through the 1960s duping process before being cut back into the film for the 1989 restoration. Every time a restored section shows up, it looks much sharper and of more "normal" contrast than the original cut around it.
Saul
-
Yes, you get a bit more headroom at 24 bit, but unless you're recording a symphony with huge volume dynamics you probably won't benefit from it. And yes, you get a little bit of a better signal to noise ratio at 24-bit, but we were practically dead silent at 16-bit anyway, so again--it was a mostly useless benefit. And yes, you can make more changes to a 24-bit file before hearing any degradation in the sound, however; you could already make at least 6 changes to a 16-bit sound file before hearing any degradation, which is more than most people will ever make.
24-bit may look good on paper but it won't sound any better or different to your ears in my opinion.Sound Test
You're absolutely right you'll hear the difference recording a symphony in 24-bit. I have. But you'll also hear the difference when you pre-mix those tracks for the final mix, then hear the difference again when those tracks are combined with dialogue, sound FX and ambiences at the final mix.
As for public exhibition, I'd have to agree 24-bit isn't necessary in most cases. But thick 5.1 film mixes done in the 24-bit realm sound better. I have heard it myself vividly on mix stages over the past five years.
Saul
-
My first three features were cut on film and I learned more by watching those projected dailies than I practically have learned since. Now I rely on my experience from seeing those old dailies!
I rely on my extensive past experience with film dailies when judging soft focus material on video. Even with the tremendous number of variables built into the telecine process, I've found over a number of features that I can pretty accurately surmise how grave the focus issue will be when projected.
Saul
-
According to the AC article, Bay had Panavision make anamorphic versions of a few close-focus sphericals and an Angenieux zoom. I haven't seen the film, but I wonder if the shots in question used these conversions?
Saul
I just found another fascinating article on these conversions at Millimeter.com:
http://millimeter.com/mag/video_bay_method/
Much more detail here. Very cool.
Saul
-
But this wasn't a soft vignette.
According to the AC article, Bay had Panavision make anamorphic versions of a few close-focus sphericals and an Angenieux zoom. I haven't seen the film, but I wonder if the shots in question used these conversions?
Incidentally, didn't Panavision also make a lens for him on "Pearl Harbor," a 20mm anamorphic?
Saul
-
The question though is how thriving is the "old school" of British production craft that made all those great war movies and sci-fi films of the 1960's and 1970's -- it seems a lot of those folks are retired or dead by now.
True, but those folks had apprentices, so some of their methods survive.
Did Stuart Freeborn do the Yoda puppet in "The Phantom Menace"? I hope not, because it was terrible compared to the one in "Empire Strikes Back".No, Freeborn wasn't involved in the prequels. I believe it was Nick Dudman.
It's interesting that they tested 65mm and then the Genesis -- maybe they were both disappointed with the graininess of "X-Men 2" (shot in Super-35) but didn't want to deal with anamorphic lenses again as with the first "X-Men".Other than issues of economics and the thrill of being the first to use new technology, I just can't see how 65mm wouldn't be the ideal format, given the choice. But I'm not Singer nor Sigel... nor Mullen!
Saul
-
Yes, I know my feelings are sentimental, dated, nonsensical as far as the movies characters and narrative are concerned- but I'd be lying to say it doesn't irk me that that level of UK film heritage has gone away.
I agree with you completely, and adore the Superman series for many reasons aesthetically, but you neglect to mention Batman Begins, a film that in my opinion does a fabulous job of combining current tastes with "old school" British film craftsmanship. I think you can feel it in every frame.
An issue I have with the last two Star Wars prequels, for example, is that despite Lucas' edict that they follow the stylistic plan of the previous films, they frequently feel composed for "recomposable" Super 35 rather than the more absolute dimensions of the anamorphic frame. Add to that a feeling that the live-action compositions are less precise - even on partial or full sets - and I sometimes get a feeling of stylistic disconnect (content assessment aside.) It doesn't have to be your approach, but really tight shooting schedules and multiple camera setups on dialogue really promote this.
I recall reading a story about Gary Kibbe's photography of John Carpenter's They Live where either Carpenter or Kibbe lamented the lack of "discipline" in the industry with regard to camera operation and composition, how he strove to be the ultimate craftsperson as an operator and was now concerned that as a DOP he would pass this legacy on. Craftspeople are no less caring today, it's just that it seems there's increasingly less and less respect for the "stagecraft."
Saul
-
I'm going to chime in with a little bit of my experience, since I was 8 when I first asked my parents for a Super 8 camera and I'm now 35 and a successful industry professional.
It was the summer of 1978, and I had been chasing down books on filmmaking from my local library for about a year. All I had done to reseach this cool thing called film was the result of my father's suggestion and encouragement, but now I'd popped the big question and wanted to get more serious about it. So my dad took me to one of the big downtown camera stores and had the store manager - a distant cousin of ours - show me the latest Chinon gear. I was of course dazzled and was anxious for it to all be over so I could just say "yes - that one!" So I did. My dad then did a wise thing: he told me that if in a years' time I still wanted a camera, we would return to this store to get one. It didn't just take wisdom to say that to me; it also took discipline. I spent much of the year being a royal pain in the ass, begging him to relent! Finally, on August 9th 1979 (yes, I recall the date) we walked back into that same camera store together. Though I didn't get the high-end Chinon Pacific gear, I went home with a Chinon 407XL - a sound model with minmal manual override features. I then requested a projector, and my father said the same thing as had before: if in a years' time I still wanted a projector, we would return to this store to get one.
Though I struggled to get a hand on technical matters, that wasn't the focus of my first few years with my camera. Every few months, I would manage to convince my parents to give me a bar of gold - Kodachrome 40 or Ekatchrome 160 sound stock. I was happy as a clam, and not having a projector on hand, while occasionally frustrating, in a way freed me up. I could concentrate on cutting in camera, thus strengthening my filmmaking at the concept stage. Finally, in August of 1980, I took home a Chinon projector.
There's a lot more to my story, but I won't bore anyone with it. Bottom line is, a kid with a camera can learn almost everything he or she needs to know about filmmaking with the camera alone. Today, if I were 8 again, I'd want a simple DV camera. Later, as I develop, my parents could buy me that projector...err, home computer.
Saul
-
Just saw the IMAX version. DMR has really come a long way since "Apollo 13"; the "blockiness" is virtually gone. Contrast was also improved considerably over the "Matrix" sequels and "Harry Potter - excessive contrast is usually the case with DMR, due to the "sharpening" (edge enhancement) process.
Perhaps these improvements are the result of originating from true 4-perf anamorphic, I don't know. Previous live action DMR releases have originated on Super 35.
Saul
-
I sat far enough back so it wasn't ridiculously huge -- plus the IMAX print is matted to 2.35 anyway (being an anamorphic movie) so there's not a lot of up & down to look.
It's more like seeing a normal 5-perf 70mm print like they used to make for movies. Just sit farther back in the IMAX theater than you would for something shot in true 15-perf 65mm and you'll be fine and get all the advantages of the super steady and super bright IMAX projection. Blows even 2K DLP projection away.
Wouldn't Batman Begins be the first IMAX DMR blowup to originate from an anamorphic negative? All others have been Super 35, or in the case of "Clones," HD.
I'd expect an even crisper blowup in this case...
Saul
-
There is a difference between having an artistic point of view and manipulating people to get your message accross. Spielberg is not an artist in the vein of all the people you mentioned above.
Well, to make your point effectively you need to define precisely what constitutes an artistic point of view in relation to movies. Where would you draw that line? If not, it's hard to take names alone as proof of your point. IMHO, Shakespeare left behind works that are brilliant in execution, but - heresy! - rarely art. His voluminous catalogue is mostly wonderfully crafted, and even his lesser works are often enjoyable purely based on the fact that it's *his*, but how can you empirically state Spielberg isn't his equal? I'm not saying he is, but Stanley Kubrick - never one to throw around compliments about other filmmakers - openly admired Spielberg's abilities, even to the point of collaborating with him on the early stages of "A.I." And Kubrick wasn't just a cinematic god, he was a master chess player, a brilliant man who truly appreciated and collected paintings and objects many consider to be "great art."
If you don't approve of everything Spielberg does, then join the club - I don't either. But he has reached the level of craft in his work that few, if any, ever have. And yeah, even like Shakespeare, at times, it's art.
Saul
-
Speilberg is OK... If you like the type of films he makes. More than anything, my type of films that are worth going to the theater for are film that transport me to another world. The problem with Spielbergs recent films like "Terminal" "Saving Provate Ryan" ect is that they don't transport me to another world. They show mw Life, and If I wanna see life, I'll go live it and not pay $7.00 for the experiance.
The type of films I go to the theater to see are films of worlds that I will never be able to see in real life, or situations that are so magical there beyond the real world. Like for instance, I'll never be able to see a real Hogwarts Castle, but if I wanna see a terminal I'll go to my local Airport.
I'd agree with you on this. But the bulk of his output as director and producer, particularly in the 70s and 80s, was just the opposite - he rarely made anything that wasn't extraordinary, that didn't transport you...
To end this, Im not saying that Spielberg is a BAD director, I'm just saying that I don't like the kind of films he makes for the most part. They are just not my style...You're entitled to your opinion of course, but you still seem to be basing your opinion mostly on his current output. Trust us, Landon, the Spielberg brand virtually redefined escapist entertainment - nearly flawlessly - for almost two decades before he began an emphasis on stories that didn't. This man has has an incredibly varied career, and he's a geek at heart. He (along with Lucas) made it OK to relish these kinds of films again, and gave filmmakers (but then writers) like Robert Zemeckis and Chris Columbus their chance.
And incidentally, does anyone recall how Robert Zemeckis agreed to exec produce Peter Jackson's "The Frighteners," effectively giving Jackson his first chip at studio clout?
This is becoming a rant, I know, but for god's sake give these people their due!
Saul
"Hostel"
in On Screen / Reviews & Observations
Posted
It's funny, but of late I've felt that Spielberg's approach - at least in terms of shot breakdown - isn't too dissimilar to what Hitch would have done.
Saul