Jump to content

Apocalypto


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Matt, I haven't seen it yet, but there's a pretty good review at Variety.com. I didn't read it all, I'd rather see the movie knowing as little as possible about the story, but they say it's a remarkable film and that it's "he best-looking big-budget film yet shot digitally; one can't tell it wasn't shot on film.".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can base my judgement on the trailer ive seen and yes, the imagery was very pleasing. however, some shots give away the fact that it was shot digitally, especially the one with the panther and some close ups of the little (freaky) girl. having said that im sure things may be different in a theater and i hope the review is right.

i believe that a part from scrupolous cinematographers and other folks involved in filmaking, the majority of the people who go and watch well done HD films never notice the difference with celluloid.

Edited by freddie bonfanti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, Francesco.

 

From the movies I saw this year shot on the Genesis camera (Superman, Flyboys, and Click), I honestly couldn't tell much of a difference both on DVD and in the theater when it came to distinguishing Genesis from 35mm film. When I saw Flyboys in the theater (don't remember screen size), it seemed cleaner and pastel-- but I think that was probably from compositing work and look-driven DI. Compare that to Miami Vice (shot mostly on the Viper), and those are obviously different looks. Most of the time, though, I hate to draw conclusions just from grain, DOF, rez and color fidelity when it comes digital vs. film, as so much of a movie's look can be manipulated in post.

 

I saw the Apocalypto trailer last week in the theater, and tried to catch anything that stood out that told me 'this is video', and couldn't tell the difference. Less for some of the scenes in Flyboys and Superman (mainly VFX shots), as of today I think that the Genesis replicates a 35mm film-look very well.

 

As for non-technical aspects of the film, it will be fascinating to track the financial performance of this film, considering all the variables it has to work with-- Gibson's current reputability, ultra-gore, and just the imaginative idea behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

There's a good article from the LA Times talking about the challenges of shooting digital in the jungle as well as the 'Mel' factor:

 

Waiting for the end to come on 'Apocalypto'

 

Consider this oft-repeated account from the crew on location in Veracruz, Mexico, this spring: Makeup and wardrobe departments arrived at 1 a.m. to outfit more than 1,000 extras with elaborate wigs, prosthetic ears, scars and body paint for the eye-popping Mayan City sequence. Eight hours later, when the entire cast and crew were ready for the first scheduled shot, Gibson was MIA. When the director rolled onto set around noon he opted out of the planned schedule and instead shot running scenes with two lead actors until the sun went down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Interesting article.

 

But if I were a cinematographer I would not admit the following:

 

'Neither the director nor the director of photography could tell what was shot on film versus tape, the cinematographer recalls.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if I were a cinematographer I would not admit the following:

 

'Neither the director nor the director of photography could tell what was shot on film versus tape, the cinematographer recalls.'

 

I've never worked on a HD production or shot with the Genesis yet (and I guess it'll take a long time before we even see one on set here in Italy), but why would a cinematographer never have to "admit" that? If Dean Semler actually said that (I don't think there's an exact quote anywhere in the article, though), why should it be an issue anyway?

I'm not arguing with you guys, just curious, I guess..I think there's nothing to lose in having better tools at our disposal, including digital acquisition systems (again, I've only worked with film, so I lack experience in the digital realm).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think it's a cinematographer's job to be able to see the difference between film and HD. It's certainly very obvious to me.

 

Max, maybe I misread the article, but isn't that the whole point of that quote in the article, i.e. the quality of the genesis footage being as good as if it was shot on film? If someone like Semler said something like that, couldn't it actually be true? Shouldn't we give the guy the benefit of the doubt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francesco,

 

i am sure that the footage they looked at was surprising and very film like. what we are trying to say is that normally most of the people will never spot a noticeable difference between the two formats, but certainly a cinematographer or who is involved in filmaking and has a special and very scrupolous way to look at a picture would do.

i personally notice a digital image mostly when theres camera movement and i tend to notice it on the skintones. for istance, have a look at the trailer of "flags of our fathers", shot in anamorphic, and you will see what i mean. the difference is quite big with the resolution of Apocalypto.

I was very disappointed by the latest Genesis features, above all "Superman", but i hope things will improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

'Neither the director nor the director of photography could tell what was shot on film versus tape, the cinematographer recalls.'

 

 

It should be noted that they were watching a film out, of which one byproduct of that process inevitably imparts a film look to the footage. So, they were basically comparing a hybrid of film and digital with straight film. I still find it surprising that they couldn't tell the difference, and wonder if they were being literal or diplomatic with their response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Max, maybe I misread the article, but isn't that the whole point of that quote in the article, i.e. the quality of the genesis footage being as good as if it was shot on film? If someone like Semler said something like that, couldn't it actually be true? Shouldn't we give the guy the benefit of the doubt?

I have seen Genesis footage myself and while it was getting closer to film than other digital cameras (mainly due to the 35mm sized chip), I could still see a difference. Like Freddie says, you can see it in the way it captures motion and in the skintones which do not look as nice as those on film.

 

To be fair I don't know what comparison they saw, but the film very likely went through a DI, so in a way it didn't look its best, depending on who did the DI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freddie, I can usually tell the difference between digital footage and film on the screen, I'm not that blind or unexperienced. I have nothing against digital acquisition systems (having not tried or tested them yet) but I'm not a "film is dead" kind of guy.

 

I'm just saying that I don't think we should rely on our own point of views to criticize a cinematographer who found some genesis footage to be indistinguishable from film. As I said before, I've never tested the Genesis and I haven't seen any Genesis-shot movie, so my experience is limited. Anyway, I think that if Demler said that, it just means that the quality of the Genesis footage he shot was very good for his standards. Maybe you or Max would think the quality of that footage is poor and not even close to the quality of the film footage, I guess we'll never know that.

 

Looks like Demler could have (1) lost that ability or (2) shot very good stuff. As I said, I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt and go for (2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freddie, I can usually tell the difference between digital footage and film on the screen, I'm not that blind or unexperienced.

 

i didnt mean that, i just gave you my opinion and some examples of why I THINK the two format still differ a lot. i am a huge fan of HD but i still see the limitations.

 

Maybe you or Max would think the quality of that footage is poor and not even close to the quality of the film footage, I guess we'll never know that.

 

as i said on the post, I HOPE the genesis will prove to be a good choice in terms of digital filmaking. i never thought it was poor, what i thought was very strange was the fact that a professional cinematographer said that he could not see a difference between the Genesis footage and film footage. my judgement does not come from experience, but from watching recent Genesis features which to be honest looked quite bad, like "Superman". "Flyboys" was better, still some skintone problems (very orangy at times), but definitely not like film.

in the end, Francesco, i think that all the mediums have their pros and cons, its just a matter of taste and an artistic or logical choice of a cinematographer. there is no right or wrong.

 

all the best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as i said on the post, I HOPE the genesis will prove to be a good choice in terms of digital filmaking. i never thought it was poor, what i thought was very strange was the fact that a professional cinematographer said that he could not see a difference between the Genesis footage and film footage. my judgement does not come from experience, but from watching recent Genesis features which to be honest looked quite bad, like "Superman". "Flyboys" was better, still some skintone problems (very orangy at times), but definitely not like film.

in the end, Francesco, i think that all the mediums have their pros and cons, its just a matter of taste and an artistic or logical choice of a cinematographer. there is no right or wrong.

 

all the best

 

Well said. But as can be seen from either people's own third-person accounts or direct use with Genesis, the Genesis/film differences are much debated and considered. On my own side, without ever using the camera and interpreting current Genesis films to celluloid films, I'm satisfied with the Genesis' internal processing and gamma curves deployed to achieve desired results. Nonetheless, I still take into account the way both acquisition formats are structured-- simply said, one is via celluloid and the other as video signal. These are the main differences when comparing both formats of acquisition-- it's just that Genesis uses video technology to render a film-like image, that often is appreciated and the main aesthetic excuse of using it as an alternative to film.

 

On the flip side, I felt that Superman Returns wouldn't have been the same film if shot on 35, 65 or 16 mm film. I can appreciate if it was also used a maneuvre to handle the visual effects easier as 4:4:4 HD RGB files rather than 2k or 4k rasters, but ultimately, it provided a 'cleaner' and pasteller look, which may or may not have been significantly attributed to impactful DI. To think if they shot Superman Returns on film, it is certainly very possible to consider that it would have looked very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw Gibson on Leno last night, and at the end of his segment they showed a clip from the film. Now, a clip shown on a TV talk show isn't much to go by, but the look of the clip they showed REALLY looked like it was video. It looked really flat, jerky like a home movie and highlights weren't picked up very well at all.

 

Again though, a clip like this isn't much to go by. I'll probably see it next week and give a final observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Looking at the 1080p trailer I was hard pressed to spot anything that strongly identified it as being shot on video besides the blown out highlights in the fire. The darker skin of the natives & Mayans I think helps with the skintones. Some of the images have what looks to be some video noise but I'm not sure if that would be noticable on the big screen.

 

Image 7 looks like film to me:

 

th_apocolyptoImage1.jpg th_apocolyptoImage2.jpg th_apocolyptoImage3.jpg th_apocolyptoImage4.jpg

 

th_apocolyptoImage5.jpg th_apocolyptoImage6.jpg th_apocolyptoImage7.jpg th_apocolyptoImage8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the 1080p trailer I was hard pressed to spot anything that strongly identified it as being shot on video besides the blown out highlights in the fire. The darker skin of the natives & Mayans I think helps with the skintones. Some of the images have what looks to be some video noise but I'm not sure if that would be noticable on the big screen.

 

As many people have said before, it's very difficult to judge from a trailer on a computer screen. I watched a behind the scenes featurette on a hd television yesterday and I have to say every single shot that had a character running or the camera moving looked very "video-ish". Still, I can't say anything about it because I'd rather see the movie projected on a big screen in a theater first.

Edited by Francesco Bonomo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the film today. Some of the shots felt interlaced and 'non-converted', almost in high-speed fashion. At the same time, some of the shots felt s35, depending on the composition. Bottom line-- the video-like look felt present in some places, and in others (i.e. most of the film) it felt as though it was shot on 35mm or even better. This may have not been recognized to the untrained eye, though, and I only have one perspective. It was also well edited and I really enjoyed the music complementing.

 

It was also the most violent film I think I have ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I just saw the film print today at The Bridge Cinema in Culver City.

 

I was a little surprised it was 1.85 -- I just sort of assumed it was going to be cropped & released as a 35mm scope print, since most of Mel Gibson's movies have been 2.35.

 

Overall, it looked pretty good. The best shots had a clean film-like quality that reminded me of a slow-speed stock like 5212. It definitely seemed comparable in sharpness to most 1.85 movies and less grainy -- when it wasn't so noisy. I thought the Genesis handled the extreme contrast of the jungle, with patches of sunlight & hot sky through a canopy of leaves, and that white dusty quarry scene, quite well. The sunny scenes in general, like in the Mayan city, looked really good.

 

The most obvious non-film-like artifact throughout came from the use of a longer shutter speed, noticable even in the first tapir-hunt scene. All the fast motion had a smeary quality. Now I suppose if the alternative would have been noise from cranking up the gain, maybe the smeary motion was the better compromise, I don't know, but on the other hand, a more consistent but more visible noise level might have looked more like a film artifact (grain) whereas the motion smearing seems very un-film-like.

 

Some shots were noisy, probably due to failing light in the jungle during the last minutes of daylight, but then, a movie shot on film might have opted to underexpose those shots too just to complete the scene ("Last of the Mohicans" for example, was made in all sorts of light levels in the woods, and some shots look pretty thin.) And there was some noisy and smeary night shots obviously shot in very low light levels. Again, you could ask yourself if the alternative (using more artificial light and then not boosting the gain or increasing the shutter time) would have been better if it made the scenes look less naturally-lit.

 

Despite the common belief that film negative likes overexposure / digital likes underexposure, it seems to me looking at the latest digitally-shot features that the cleaner shots with better blacks and contrast generally had a decent exposure and were maybe darkened for effect, rather than shot underexposed for effect.

 

My favorite part of the film was the trek to civilization, almost a silent movie in showing the problems of large urban populations and their effect on the environment, not to mention the introduction of a class system, of poverty and wealth, of crime, large institutions (military, religious, governmental, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got out of a screening of the film here in Florida.

 

I'll admit that I'm a film snob, but I am also a fan of Mel's films (the ones under his direction). And for the first time, I went in with an open mind about video, but, if anything, I emerged reassured about film.

 

The trailer I downloaded and some stills I've seen (like the ones above) looked much better on my computer screen in a 2 by 3 inch box than how they appeared on the big screen. And I completely agree with Mr. Mullen's "Smeary Motion" notes, but I would have happily taken grain any day over that. I thought the jungle scenes actually had a problem with extreme contrast. Seemed the HD couldn't find a happy balance of dark or light, so neither came out looking good. That mixed with Smeary Motion made me feel like I was watching a History Channel special from 1998. (no offense, History Channel). It was the kind of look I could accept from a no-budget flick by a guy who just wants to make movies anyway he can, but not from Mel Gibson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...