Revenant/Mad Max prove digital is better?

[Freya Black]

 

Hey Freya,

When I said digital "upstaging" film I meant in general in the film industry. I am an ardent admirer of film and there have hardly been any film shot digitally which has really impressed me. I recently watched every Spielberg film and it only reinforced my belief that film stock simply has a different, and to me a better look. However few films have come by where I personally couldn't tell the difference. Apocalypto, Mad Max and The Revenant.

 

Revenant I saw yesterday and I will go again tomorrow for a second viewing, which is something I rarely do.

I loved the overall cinematography is what I meant. Awe inspiring shots and swooping vistas, long tracking shots. It was very visceral and overwhelming. I also really couldn't tell that it was shot digitally. At least to me it looked very good. I will see closely tomorrow. The movie "flowed" and the horse back scenes, the battles, the bear scene-everything was very well filmed.

 

I'm really surprised to hear you say that you couldn't tell the difference between The Revenant and something shot on film as judging from the trailer the movie has an extreme digital video look to my eyes. (See my reply to Tyler for more details)

 

One reason you might not notice so much could be that the movie was shot on the Alexa 65 so it probably has a bit of a different look to all the movies shot on the regular Alexa. I get the impression that the colour science might be slightly different although it still looks quite Alexa-y. The shot at 0:30 in the trailer really suffers from Alexa blue for instance but it's a bit less apparent than in a lot of Alexa stuff. (OTOH the tiny shot at 1:32 is full on Alexa blue). The depth of field is obviously very, very shallow on the Alexa 65 and the 6K might help too. It still looks very Alexa-y tho.

 

At 2:01 in the trailer we have a shot of burning torches. This is also something that digital video cameras handle really badly for some reason,or at least they have always done so far. It can look a bit strange in contrast when digital fire and explosions are added in afterwards. For instance gunshots and the like. The explosions and flames can look a lot better when they have been added in as cgi than when shot with a video camera in real life! A very odd situation.

 

I'm actually really surprised when people say they can't tell the difference between something shot on film and video and these days it's becoming more and more common as the general quality of digital video cameras become massively improved. DCP's do level the playing field a lot too as the overall look becomes a bit more similar but for myself I can still really see a dramatic difference between stuff shot on film and stuff shot on digital video. It doesn't help that so much stuff is shot on the Alexa too which has a very distinctive look.

 

I do find it really interesting when people say these things such as "I can't tell the difference" when to me the difference is obvious. It's very surprising and I am always interested in hearing more about it as it seems to be something like "The Dress" where we don't all perceive things in the same way.

 

Freya

Edited March 1, 2016 by Freya Black

[Peter Bitic]

Threads like this one make me want to leave this forum and never come back. Discussions like this have been raging for years, both here and elsewhere. Have a look through the archives, you'll find plenty. One thing you'll note is that no-one EVER agrees. There is no common ground, no agreement to disagree, no sudden conversions, just the same tired old dogma over and over again.

 

Film is a tool. Digital is a tool. They both have their strengths and their weaknesses. A smart film-maker recognizes these and utilizes whichever format serves the story best. If you're sitting there in a cinema worrying about what format the movie was shot on, you've missed the point. Arguing about whether such and such a movie would have been better had it been shot on a different format is like arguing that the Mona Lisa would have been better in watercolors.

No, it's not like that. Mona Lisa is an art piece made by one of the best painters of all times that you would have a difficult time trying to improve, which can't be said for lots of other stuff. Choosing a medium is an important artistic decision, and people can make decisions that other people won't think are good. It makes as much sense of debating this as it makes sense debating other artistic decisions (and it also makes sense debating whether Mona Lisa would be better in watercolors if that is truly what one believes).

 

In my opinion, almost nobody is making the right medium decisions in current times. And I am not talking solely about digital vs film, I am talking about how you treat each one. The same can be said for animation, and also for illustration for example.

[cole t parzenn]

join the Hasselblad and my 4x5 in the closet to be sold in the estate sale following my death... otherwise unused since being placed in the closet...

 

Not even for fun? Most Hasselblad owners have an almost carnal fascination with theirs.

[Stuart Brereton]

It makes as much sense of debating this as it makes sense debating other artistic decisions (and it also makes sense debating whether Mona Lisa would be better in watercolors if that is truly what one believes).

 

 

 

It makes no sense whatsoever. The Mona Lisa is not a watercolor. It's never going to be a watercolor. Arguing that it would be better as a watercolor would be an inane, pointless argument that would serve no purpose except to fill countless pages of internet forums. It truly is debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Film looks good. Digital looks good. They are different, not better. Accept it, and move on.

[Freya Black]

Threads like this one make me want to leave this forum and never come back. Discussions like this have been raging for years, both here and elsewhere. Have a look through the archives, you'll find plenty. One thing you'll note is that no-one EVER agrees. There is no common ground, no agreement to disagree, no sudden conversions, just the same tired old dogma over and over again.

 

Actually the O.P. does appear to be claiming to have had a kind of "road to Damascus" style conversion after seeing Mad Max and the Revenant and not being able to tell the difference. I find it really interesting when people say they can't tell the difference because I hear it more and more. It's fascinating to me as the difference seems really obvious so clearly I am perceiving things differently.

 

This seems to also seem to be starting to overlap with people saying that some really awful looking video that looks like ungraded log looks completely fantastic and more recently, really terrible low light footage looking outstanding. This is actually becoming more and more of a problem for me as more and more stuff is starting to look unwatchable. See the new movie "the Witch" which looks like just my kind of movie but also looks like it would be painful to sit through an hour or more of footage that looks like that. It's very frustrating as it's rare that there is a movie like that which I would be interested in. The Revenant does not look like my kind of movie thankfully (guy gets fed to bears but escapes?) but I don't really want to sit through something that looks like that either although it's nowhere near as bad.

 

Another example. Wolf Hall, looks awful and shoddy but massively acclaimed (although often it's the BBC blowing their own trumpet to be fair)

 

I agree with you however that there is too much dogma and proclamations where people are saying very little in these kind of threads which makes it all the more frustrating for me when I'm trying to understand.

 

Oddly for me it's not really a film vs video thing as I love them both and often have different projects in mind for each when I'm shooting as they have very different advantages and they lead to different ways of working and thinking about things but I do struggle to understand where people are coming from with the things they say in these threads too and they do seem genuine, which makes it all the more mysterious to me.

[Manu Delpech]

Lol Tye, did you do a 180 on The Revenant? You made that thread "The Revenant was an amazing experience", what the hell? Saying it's a bore visually is really pushing it, no CG in the film looks atrocious either, the bear is extremely impressive. The Revenant is not my cup of tea visually in the sense that it's not a look I love but it looks pretty beautiful, what they accomplished is pretty impressive, it couldn't look more digital if it tried and I wish the weather wasn't overcast, so bleak and white (well yeah duh, the snow) all the time, but Chivo is one hell of a DP. (duh)

 

I think it's the hyperreal look of the film that does that. @Freya: it's a true story jesus, and it's not bears, it's A bear, he gets mauled and yeah, survives.

 

They only shot 13 % of the film on Alexa 65 according to Chivo. For the people who can't tell the difference between film and digital for some movies, yeah, it is surprising, I think that's how you find yourself in situations where even big DPs and directors say they shot tests and couldnt see a difference between 35 mm and Alexa, everyone sees a different thing, it doesn't matter as long as you see the difference yourself.

[Jay Young]

I for one was not impressed with The Revenant (or Birdman or Gravity for that matter).

[Manu Delpech]

Well, I'd much rather see The New World or The Tree Of Life.

[Peter Bitic]

 

It makes no sense whatsoever. The Mona Lisa is not a watercolor. It's never going to be a watercolor. Arguing that it would be better as a watercolor would be an inane, pointless argument that would serve no purpose except to fill countless pages of internet forums. It truly is debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Film looks good. Digital looks good. They are different, not better. Accept it, and move on.

According to your logic it makes no sense debating anything, as everything is what it is. It makes no sense debating if the casting decisions of a movie were correct, because those decisions will never going to be any different, it makes no sense debating if the screenplay was good, because the screenplay will never be different etc.

 

The purpose of these debates is not to change whatever has been done, but to think about about the artform and to converse with other who are interested in these topics. Since this is a cinematography forum, of course people will debate about this aspect of filmmaking. It's a very important aspect to many people.

 

I see you like to think about this in very simplistic lines like "Film is a tool. Digital is a tool" and "Film looks good. Digital looks good." which don't really say anything. Yeah, digital looks good. Yeah I guess medium can be considered a tool. So what? I am not arguing that digital doesn't look good, I am arguing that people are choosing and treating the mediums incorrectly in my opinion, and that goes beyond what looks good.

 

Of course digital and film are different. Whether one of them is better is subjective, and for you to say they are no better than each other is expressing your view the same as people who are expressing their view that indeed one is better than the other.

 

To me it's unimaginable to be able to consider these two mediums as the same in quality (meaning that one is not better than other). They have totally different feel to them, and based on that I form my preference on one or another.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Freya Black]

I know that I budgeted for a low budget short I'm directing this summer for 35 mm 2 perf, and it's much much cheaper than shooting on Alexa for example. Shooting an entire feature on 10 grand though today, even on super 16, unless you got a two person crew and nobody gets paid and you have like one or two actors, I don't see how that can be achieved.

 

As I understand it Christopher Nolan's first feature WAS shot with a 2 person crew and nobody got paid.

That's been normal at that level for a long time in the UK.

Lighting kit was a set of 3 redheads and the windows.

10K was a lot more money back then too, don't forget about inflation.

 

Little known fact... cut on video! :)

[Aapo Lettinen]

Not yet another film vs digital debate

 

here we go again :lol:

 

---

It doesn't really matter which format is technically "better" or "worse". you just have to pick right tools for the job and the best choice varies from project to project.

I would not shoot on 65mm over Alexa in the middle of Namibian desert for example, you can do it of course but it is highly unpractical: high temperatures, flying sand and dust, thousands of miles to the nearest lab, horrible logistic challenges to get the dailies on time... if you had the Alpha Lab type service with you it might be ok but otherwise I would definitely go digital.

 

film is great when you have a risk of great amount of overexposure, digital is better when shooting in low light and usually better in tough conditions as long as you have enough batteries for the more power hungry cameras. (if not, then film is usually better) . Digital is also excellent for VFX and green screen because it has lesser noise ('grain' if you like) and usually better shadow response (more dynamic range in shadows and less noise/grain) depending on the equipment and settings used

[Freya Black]

@Freya: it's a true story jesus, and it's not bears, it's A bear, he gets mauled and yeah, survives.

 

I got the impression that he was attacked by a bear and then his mates tried to feed him to the bear perhaps to try and appease the bear or something? It's hard to tell from the trailer however.

 

Not sure why you say it's a "true story jesus," but actually that puts me off even more. One thing I like about narrative film is the honesty of it. "Sit back and we are going to lie to you for the next couple of hours it will be fun!" as opposed to documentaries that often have the pretence that what they are portraying is in some way real, or the truth, when actually it's generally just a massive pack of lies. Same with so called "reality" TV. To me these are the lowest media forms. Saying it's a "true story" (and usually they are a bit more honest and say that it was based on a "true story") is taking narrative cinema back closer into the murky depth of true lies.

 

Not my kind of thing.

 

Freya

Edited March 1, 2016 by Freya Black

[Peter Bitic]

 

here we go again :lol:

 

film is great when you have a risk of great amount of overexposure, digital is better when shooting in low light

I have to disagree with the latter (unless we are talking about really, really dark places where film is simply too slow). I really like how the low light stuff looks on film. For example, I can't imagine Taxi Driver being shot digitally and have the same hypnotic night atmosphere.

[Aapo Lettinen]

we have to also remember that the viewers don't usually notice nor care what format a movie is shot on (after they have watched it about 5 minutes as long as it looks great and doesn't distract them from the story. I personally think that with digital projection, the Ultra Panavision origination added maybe 15-20% to the Hateful Eight experience for average viewer and the rest is just marketing. Haven't seen it on film, maybe would add more to the experience. and if most of the viewers are watching movies on 2k dcp it is quite difficult to benefit from for example IMAX origination. maybe some added contrast may be there but otherwise it just adds almost nothing to the experience I think. it's a great marketing tool though

[Aapo Lettinen]

I have to disagree with the latter (unless we are talking about really, really dark places where film is simply too slow). I really like how the low light stuff looks on film. For example, I can't imagine Taxi Driver being shot digitally and have the same hypnotic night atmosphere.

I was talking about technical differences, film usually has something like 3.5 - 4 stops of dynamic range below middle gray which is not much for low light work

[John E Clark]

 

I got the impression that he was attacked by a bear and then his mates tried to feed him to the bear perhaps to try and appease the bear or something? It's hard to tell from the trailer however.

 

Not sure why you say it's a "true story jesus," but actually that puts me off even more. One thing I like about narrative film is the honesty of it. "Sit back and we are going to lie to you for the next couple of hours it will be fun!" as opposed to documentaries that often have the pretence that what they are portraying is in some way real, or the truth, when actually it's generally just a massive pack of lies. Same with so called "reality" TV. To me these are the lowest media forms. Saying it's a "true story" (and usually they are a bit more honest and say that it was based on a "true story") is taking narrative cinema back closer into the murky depth of true lies.

 

Not my kind of thing.

 

Freya

 

The Glass character is attacked by a she-bear. Eventually Glass kills the bear at great injury cost to himself. His 'mates' eventually leave him and two 'mates' to bury him when he's dead... eventually those two abandon him, and one thinks he makes Glass 'dead'...

 

The story is a novelization based on some 'true' events.

 

One can class the film themes as 'man against nature', or 'man hell bent on revenge'... or both...

 

As for is it real or is it memorex... unless there's full body sensaround, smell around, etc... one will never experience the Real unless of course... one has had a near death bear and subsequent abandonment experience...

 

The 'closest' I've gotten to anything in the 19th century was my grandfather telling me about seeing Buffelo Bill's Wild West show... and an aging grand aunt who was born on the way to California in 1850... she was over 100 when she died...

 

Ok... said grandfather showed me how to harness up a horse to a wagon... never used that skill ever... although I did crank start my Renault Dauphine a couple of times... just for that old time experience...

[Peter Bitic]

I was talking about technical differences, film usually has something like 3.5 - 4 stops of dynamic range below middle gray which is not much for low light work

 

It is enough, if you like the results.

 

Also, what viewers think is irrelevant unless you are trying to make a profit off of them, which then becomes a completely different discussion. Public opinion is not something that should influence artistic decisions. People are ignorant about all kinds of stuff, and their taste is terrible imo.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Freya Black]

 

They only shot 13 % of the film on Alexa 65 according to Chivo. For the people who can't tell the difference between film and digital for some movies, yeah, it is surprising, I think that's how you find yourself in situations where even big DPs and directors say they shot tests and couldnt see a difference between 35 mm and Alexa, everyone sees a different thing, it doesn't matter as long as you see the difference yourself.

 

Actually it does matter to me on two counts.

Firstly the audience watches my work and they don't see what I'm trying to achieve.

Secondly movies I'd like to see but don't think I can face sitting through the nasty video (for example "The Witch")

[John E Clark]

I have to disagree with the latter (unless we are talking about really, really dark places where film is simply too slow). I really like how the low light stuff looks on film. For example, I can't imagine Taxi Driver being shot digitally and have the same hypnotic night atmosphere.

 

I think 'Taxi Driver' would be shot digitally if it had been available at the same 'level' it is today... In fact, I think someone may be shooting the 'Taxi Driver' that will be the classic of tomorrow, right now somewhere on the crappiest equipment they can barely afford, steal, or otherwise requisition...

[Stuart Brereton]

 

I see you like to think about this in very simplistic lines like "Film is a tool. Digital is a tool" and "Film looks good. Digital looks good." which don't really say anything.

 

To me it's unimaginable to be able to consider these two mediums as the same in quality (meaning that one is not better than other).

 

I see things in these simplistic terms because there is zero point in debating these choices after the fact. The movie has been made, and endless discussions about how it would have been better on Format A rather than Format B are just waffle.

 

I also never said Film and Digital were the same in quality. I said they each had their own strengths and weaknesses.

[Freya Black]

As for is it real or is it memorex... unless there's full body sensaround, smell around, etc... one will never experience the Real unless of course... one has had a near death bear and subsequent abandonment experience...

 

The 'closest' I've gotten to anything in the 19th century was my grandfather telling me about seeing Buffelo Bill's Wild West show... and an aging grand aunt who was born on the way to California in 1850... she was over 100 when she died...

 

Ok... said grandfather showed me how to harness up a horse to a wagon... never used that skill ever... although I did crank start my Renault Dauphine a couple of times... just for that old time experience...

 

You misunderstand what I mean. I'm not talking about trying to get closer to some kind of idea of a real experience or some objective idea of reality but that there are people who have editorial control over what goes into a movie or documentary. There are even the decisions that go in to how to portray subjects at the point of shooting or even in pre-production. Documentaries are loaded up with someones agenda or often that of a whole organisation or sector of society. They twist peoples perception of reality through all the lies they tell. Obviously narrative cinema has this going on too to some extent. Kenneth Anger even suggested that cinema was intrinsically evil and I can understand that point of view although I believe that narrative cinema is more honest in that it is somewhat clear about the fact that it is lying to you and you sort of enter into the experience with that expectation. Claiming it is "based on a true story" diminishes that side of cinema.

 

Narrative cinema is usually more honest because they are straight up about the fact they are lying to you.

[Peter Bitic]

 

I see things in these simplistic terms because there is zero point in debating these choices after the fact. The movie has been made, and endless discussions about how it would have been better on Format A rather than Format B are just waffle.

 

I also never said Film and Digital were the same in quality. I said they each had their own strengths and weaknesses.

First paragraph is just repeating what you already said (that it makes no sense to discuss about artistic choices after the fact) and to what I replied in the very post you are only partially quoting.

 

As for you saying that film and digital are the same in quality, I qualified what I meant by that in the paranthesis ("meaning that one is not better than other") which is exactly what you said. You said that they are different but not better, and I disagree with that. I think film is better than digital. That is my subjective opinion the same as your subjective opinion is that they are not better from each other. Of course we both agree that they are different.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Stuart Brereton]

Peter,

 

I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion about whether discussion is valid. I've made my view very clear. If you truly believe there is any merit to a Film vs Digital debate, I suggest you head off to the archives and read the numerous threads that have discussed it before. You'll find no-one ever agrees, no-one ever compromises, no-one ever changes their mind. This discussion has been flogging a dead horse for many years now and serves no purpose.

[Freya Black]

I was talking about technical differences, film usually has something like 3.5 - 4 stops of dynamic range below middle gray which is not much for low light work

 

 

See here we are. The low light stuff I have seen shot on film looks great!

Video not so much.

Lets see an example from the Revenant trailer the first of which is even swamped in Alexa Yellow and can be seen at:

 

2:01

 

...followed by more low light nastyness at: 2:10

 

All looking really quite bad. Not wolf hall bad but getting there.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Freya Black

[Manu Delpech]

To Freya, I meant it doesn't matter in the sense that YOU know that you shot on film. The idea though that because the general audience doesn't know, doesn't care and won't notice (although they'll feel it subconsciously) is one that I hate because it's like saying "well, let's all shoot digital so it can all look the same".

 

Of course it matters in the sense that the director and DP chose to shoot on film for a reason. Anyway, this is going nowhere, it keeps coming back, there's no winner in this debate. I love film, I think it looks leagues better than digital, and that's it.