Revenant/Mad Max prove digital is better?

[Peter Bitic]

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.

Well, you *are* discussing whether the discussion is valid, so there is no need to drag you into it. Actually, that is all you have been doing in this thread (your consistennt point being that the discussion is useless).

 

I have read all the film vs digital debates in this forum that I could find (and I did actively search for them), I have also searched for such discussions and reflections elsewhere, because this is a very interesting (and important) topic to me, and I like to read about it. I also like to talk about it. For me such debates do serve a purpose, an intellectual one, and I don't consider them flogging a dead horse.

 

The fact that no-one ever agrees is a characteristic of all debates, but that doesn't make them useless. I have learned a lot by debating and reading debates, even if I didn't change my mind at that very moment. It is a progressive change in one's thinking and knowledge that can take years to form. Your arguments are very anti-debate in general, since they basically apply to all discussions, not just digital vs film.

[Freya Black]

even better here are screen grabs that show clearly how bad the low light stuff looks in The Revenant and lets remember this is an expensive production shot on high end digital cinema cameras:

 

 

Check out those great looking flames and be prepared for much more of this nonsense in the future.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Freya Black

[Peter Bitic]

Yeah, that is just terrible looking. Digital night footage gives me kind of impoverished, sick feeling.

[Freya Black]

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.

 

 

I agree that people can often tell at some level and I notice the general public seems better at this than people involved in cinematography sometimes.

I notice there are often disparaging remarks about the general cinema going public but I feel they are more savvy than people often think.

 

I also very much dislike the argument that the general audience won't care about the cinematography even if there is sometimes some truth to it.

Some do, some don't... just like everything...

 

but that actually wasn't my point. I was more coming at it from the point of view that if my views on cinematography are so wildly out of step with other cinematographers then my intentions may not be so apparent or may be confused. I'm trying to understand the other point of view.

 

This is why I'm even giving clear examples that relate directly to one of the movies in this thread.

[Manu Delpech]

Making a point with extremely low quality screencaps, we've hit a new low. What is this nonsense? I can tell you that the 1080p trailer looks ten thousand times better than that on my setup.

 

I'm not sure you're reading what I wrote, I mean the general audience won't know or care if a movie is shot on film or digital, which is absolutely true, not everyone, most of them. Also, a thread calling the low light scenes in The Revenant "terrible looking", keep on sinking people.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Manu Delpech

[Freya Black]

Making a point with extremely low quality screencaps, we've hit a new low. What is this nonsense? I can tell you that the 1080p trailer looks ten thousand times better than that on my setup.

 

I'm not sure you're reading what I wrote, I mean the general audience won't know or care if a movie is shot on film or digital, which is absolutely true, not everyone, most of them. Also, a thread calling the low light scenes in The Revenant "terrible looking", keep on sinking people.

 

Hey Manu, it sounds like you are just the person I need to speak to then! :)

 

Those were the best screencaps I could find I'm afraid. Point taken they are bad.

I'm lucky to find some that match the points in the trailer I mean tho.

 

I can't see the trailer in 1080p and I DO often wonder if a lot of this stuff makes more sense at higher resolutions.

That does open a big question tho about how well video downscales to lower resolutions if that is really the case.

I genuinely wonder if there isn't a real issue there tho.

 

These screencaps also have the most terrible .jpeg banding issues which I am sure are NOT in the original movie so in that sense it is unfair but here is the thing...

...the problem for me is not related to the resolution or the horrible amounts of compression it has been through but about the state of the flames and also the alexa yellow issues.

Those will be present even at 1080p.

 

Can you see what I'm talking about?

What is your opinion on these scenes in the movie?

I assume it MUST be different to mine as you say "keep on sinking people".

What about this stuff works for you and is there anything that doesn't work for you about it?

[Stuart Brereton]

For me such debates do serve a purpose, an intellectual one, and I don't consider them flogging a dead horse.

 

Your arguments are very anti-debate in general, since they basically apply to all discussions, not just digital vs film.

 

I'm not anti debate, I just like them to serve a concrete purpose, which this one, Film vs Digital, does not. Anyone who has spent more than five minutes in this industry has heard these arguments over and over. The debate never changes, never progresses. It is purely an academic exercise, often between people who are not particularly well informed. It changes nothing, resolves nothing, so to me, it's useless.

 

You're a student, and if engaging in this circular debate is going to help you get a better grade on an essay, then more power to you. I've just heard it too many times before.

[Freya Black]

Yeah, that is just terrible looking. Digital night footage gives me kind of impoverished, sick feeling.

 

In this case I think some of that is down to the Alexa Yellow effect.

While Alexa blue and Alexa Red look quite nice, Alexa Yellow is a bit nasty looking.

A weird kind of mix of mustard and mercury vapor lighting colours or something.

Works better for urban night time scenes than for a scene with burning flames, sometimes it can look okay if you can keep it from overpowering the frame.

[Tyler Purcell]

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.

Well, it was an amazing experience first time around, but in my comments of that thread, I did mention my displeasure for the use of ANY VFX.

 

The shots with the cattle on the cliff side looked horrible, 2nd rate stuff. The horse and leo falling down the cliff was poorly done, it could have been done a lot better with less movement. That big snow pack slide with Leo at the bottom, lighting was all wrong on his face compared to the dark sky above, thus it was all composited together. I see all that stuff and it bothers me because they made a HUGE stink about using natural light and being "in the environment" yet they were forced to turn the movie into a VFX one due to the lack of snow. The film is so heavy on effects it was even nominated for best effects of the year!

 

The bear does look pretty convincing during the initial screening. However, since my original screening, I have been able to watch the film again and study many of these elements more and honestly, I can see all of the effects, they stand out like a sore thumb. From the shot blends to the added snow to the fixed sky.

 

Yes, there is some amazing in-camera imagery captured on location without the use of any FX. I also understand the problems the crew faced, having recently watched that little documentary that's been going around about the making. So I get they had to resort to visual effects, but to me that's just not right. If you make a mistake, you shouldn't cover up your mistake with effects, you should figure out how to make it right in camera.

[Manu Delpech]

They didn't turn the movie into a "VFX" one because of the lack of snow, of course it's heavy on effects, hell, the AC article says there's plenty of rotoscoping around the faces throughout the movie to lift it up, that kind of thing (natural light is kind of a cheating term I'd say).

 

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about, to me, it's top notch work, I guess I have lower standards :D

 

Anyway, I don't really want to comment on the rest because I just can't understand your stance on that whole thing.

[Tyler Purcell]

Check out those great looking flames and be prepared for much more of this nonsense in the future.

And the worst part is, DLP mirrors only move a few degrees between full black and full white. So there aren't very many steps between blown-out white and less than blown-out white. The imager in the camera is FAR BETTER at capturing the dynamics, but unfortunately our projection technology today is stuck using DLP which is VERY good technology, it just doesn't have the nuance film has. This new laser DLP technology is A LOT BETTER, but there are so few theaters with the system and/or can afford it, I doubt it will make the impact necessary to fix these issues.

 

Honestly, my problem with low-light digital shooting comes down to motion blur. I think the digital motion blur looks like crap, it makes the product look like a soap opera. If you don't have much motion, you can get away with it. However, when lighting with flames, there is constant motion and you can tell right away. I remember seeing "Public Enemies" and wanting to puke. It looked like a syndicated broadcast television show with a bigger budget.

 

Personally, these are just a few of the reasons I simply don't go to the theater anymore. If I'm going to see substandard projection of media content, I might as well watch it at home where I don't have to fork over $20. When someone finally figures out a better projection system then film, it won't really matter because then you'll have all the issues with the cameras and filmmakers trying to push them into doing something they aren't designed to do, all because it "looks cool". Please!

[Tyler Purcell]

They didn't turn the movie into a "VFX" one because of the lack of snow.

Actually they did. When they couldn't shoot in their first location due to lack of snow, they had to move to Argentina. In order to make that location look like the first location, they were forced to composite in backgrounds from the first shoot into the 2nd shoot. Had there just been snow, they would have been able to shoot in the first location and not needed to add those effect shots.

 

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about, to me, it's top notch work, I guess I have lower standards :D

Well, you liked Mad Max... For me, all I saw was a bunch of people sitting in a computer room. I guess there was something else to watch? I didn't find it. I'm just done with FX movies... I'm sick and tired of them because MOST filmmakers abuse the opportunity. They have zero restraint, so anything that pops into their heads, winds up on screen. Films that ARE ONLY VFX... Avatar for instance... that's OK. I'm going into a film that is specifically made to be about the effects. Films that "claim" to be all realistic and poop, yet are mostly VFX, that's what pisses me off.

 

You will never see top notch work because it will be SO GOOD, you won't even know it exists! That's the genius of Ex Machina.

[John E Clark]

even better here are screen grabs that show clearly how bad the low light stuff looks in The Revenant and lets remember this is an expensive production shot on high end digital cinema cameras:

 

 

 

Check out those great looking flames and be prepared for much more of this nonsense in the future.

 

Yeah... back in the olden days this was the 'realism' look... I mean was the focus puller drunk or the DoP as well when he asked for the 'added grain' processing for that 'gritty look'.

 

 

 

Or....

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by John E Clark

[Aapo Lettinen]

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.

 

cinematography is half practical decisions and half artistic choices, you can't ignore either one of them when choosing tools and shooting style for a project. your opinion seems to be that film is always better than digital for movies in all cases which is absolutely wrong, you have to consider the pros and cons case by case basis to know which one is better for your project. a film project may also benefit from digital cameras in certain scenes. and if it helps making the movie better who cares? one does not have to always follow some kind of dogma and set up artificial boundaries and rules for oneself when making movies

[John E Clark]

I remember seeing "Public Enemies" and wanting to puke. It looked like a syndicated broadcast television show with a bigger budget.

 

 

 

If I were to put on my 'purist' hat... I think there have been no B&W films that don't look like crap relative to True and Faithful Holy Black And White principles.

 

While I'm sure someone is going to point out some film, perhaps on the 'fest' circuit which was actually shot in B&W stock, printed on B&W stock and projected with a reasonably conditioned projector... most major films that I can think of in the last 40 years that have been presented in B&W were shot on Color Stock, and Futzed into B&W.

 

The Futzing being crap for the most part... I had better B&W on my my crappy 60s vintage TV when I watched TV... (Never did have a color TV until I wasn't watching TV anyway...).

 

I even hated the C-41 B&W XP2 film from Ilford... for Still Fake B&W... I even hated poly contrast B&W papers... hate, hate, hate...

 

but... they did allow for printing much easier for printing up 1000-1500 'proofs'... So, one takes a hit on aesthetics to make a economically viable product...

[Manu Delpech]

@ Tye: I know about moving to Argentina, that doesn't make it by itself a VFX movie. I also know about Ex Machina, but I'm done with this. Enough. You're too excessive.

[Peter Bitic]

 

cinematography is half practical decisions and half artistic choices, you can't ignore either one of them when choosing tools and shooting style for a project. your opinion seems to be that film is always better than digital for movies in all cases which is absolutely wrong, you have to consider the pros and cons case by case basis to know which one is better for your project. a film project may also benefit from digital cameras in certain scenes. and if it helps making the movie better who cares? one does not have to always follow some kind of dogma and set up artificial boundaries and rules for oneself when making movies

I think film is always a better choice when it can be a choice. When it can't be a choice (for example, if you need to shoot 60 minutes of continuous footage or if you need to shoot at 100.000 ISO, or if you need to put your camera in a pen), then there is no choice, but a necessity to not shoot film. I can't remember a film that was shot digitally that I wouldn't prefer shot on film if that was possible, but I recognize that you can do some stuff with digital that wasn't possible before on film.

 

What I would like the most is that people started using both technologies "sincerely". I have no problem with people who prefer digital - it is a completely legitimate artistic choice, although not the one I would consider optimal - as long as they don't try to make it look like film. I watched Winter Sleep and it is an example of film where digital is used exactly right - no tacky color grading, no adding fake grain, just a razor sharp digital image. That's a honest approach that I respect. Such films can give you something visually that is worth watching.

 

Now, when I said that film is always a better choice when it can be a choice - that holds true for each individual film, but as a whole I actually like if there are also digital movies, because it makes for a broader and more interesting environment.

 

I guess I wish more people would share the same "visual philosophy" that I have, no matter whether they shoot on film or digital. As it is, 99% of filmmakers just resort to processes and gimmicks that I consider very poor choices.

[John E Clark]

 

I guess I wish more people would share the same "visual philosophy" that I have, no matter whether they shoot on film or digital. As it is, 99% of filmmakers just resort to processes and gimmicks that I consider very poor choices.

 

Artists have used 'processing gimmicks' since 'art' began... you can not tell me the only way to get a nice wash of 'yellow' is to use cow's piss... excuse me... "Indian Yellow"...(Ok, maybe it wasn't ever made from urine... maybe that is an example of an artistic urban legend...)

 

But the point is, there are many 'gimmicks' that artists use to create an aura of exceptionality to otherwise banal processes...

[Freya Black]

 

Yeah... back in the olden days this was the 'realism' look... I mean was the focus puller drunk or the DoP as well when he asked for the 'added grain' processing for that 'gritty look'.

 

 

Thanks for posting those shots John. The frames I was posting were in relation to whether the low light digital stuff looked better than film in that situation.

It wasn't so much about anything to do with realism. I guess quite a few people equate the two however and that could in itself be one of the issues I'm running into.

As you seem to be suggesting however "realism" isn't even a look that can be agreed on.

For myself I'm usually trying to get away from realism and do not consider that the goal.

 

The first of the two frames you posted is very odd. What movie are those stills from?

Interesting stuff!

[John E Clark]

 

 

Thanks for posting those shots John. The frames I was posting were in relation to whether the low light digital stuff looked better than film in that situation.

It wasn't so much about anything to do with realism. I guess quite a few people equate the two however and that could in itself be one of the issues I'm running into.

As you seem to be suggesting however "realism" isn't even a look that can be agreed on.

For myself I'm usually trying to get away from realism and do not consider that the goal.

 

The first of the two frames you posted is very odd. What movie are those stills from?

Interesting stuff!

 

The two frames are from Scorsese's 'Mean Streets'(1973) and are part of what may be considered the New Wave Hollywood. The then 'young' up and coming filmmakers who have created the 'classics' of today for the era, used techniques and had images that would have caused the Studio cinematographers apoplexy (and the movie moguls who bankrolled them...) until the style found a large market... then in the late 70's and 80s everyone was 'adding haze', shooting with 'push processing' to get that gritty 'real' look.

 

The New Wave Hollywood was characterized by getting cameras and attendant 'portable' sound equipment out into the 'streets' pushing the process to the max to work with less production equipment.

 

The French New Wave was itself a reaction to 'studio' productions in France... and a looking to US Film Noir for 'gritty reality' stories and styles.

 

The other 'new wave' prong would be zee Chermans in the form of Fassbinder and Herzog... who were recovering german filmmaking from the 3rd Reich...

[Peter Bitic]

 

Artists have used 'processing gimmicks' since 'art' began... you can not tell me the only way to get a nice wash of 'yellow' is to use cow's piss... excuse me... "Indian Yellow"...(Ok, maybe it wasn't ever made from urine... maybe that is an example of an artistic urban legend...)

 

But the point is, there are many 'gimmicks' that artists use to create an aura of exceptionality to otherwise banal processes...

Well, there are gimmicks that I consider gimmicks and there are gimmicks that I am OK with, if that makes sense, haha. For example, lots of the stuff you do the film chemically, I am fine with, but I detest computer color grading (even to stuff that originated from digital sources, I just don't like messing with pixels left and right.). This is all very subjective, that's why I said I wish more people shared my visual philosophy.

 

***

 

Another thing I thought of - and I hope that I am not too offtopic - why is nobody using optical titles anymore? Is there not a single filmmaker in power who prefers doing titles optically? Personally, I find that digital titles stand out too much, whereas optical titles kind of blend with the imperfect nature of film. And why is nobody doing animation with real cels, real painted backgrounds and real cameras anymore? The answer is convenience of course, not an actual artistic decision, which is sad.

 

I like Tarantino for his passion for film, but I wonder why was he OK with digitally-made animation for Kill Bill. I wonder why doesn't he use optical titles as they would work great for his movies. Has he (or anybody else) considered recording sound on tapes instead of digitally? Maybe this stuff is not really important to him, but I think it all adds together, everything needs to be considered in relation to each other, and just shooting on film and doing everything else digitally won't give your film the integrity it could have.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Freya Black]

And the worst part is, DLP mirrors only move a few degrees between full black and full white. So there aren't very many steps between blown-out white and less than blown-out white. The imager in the camera is FAR BETTER at capturing the dynamics, but unfortunately our projection technology today is stuck using DLP which is VERY good technology, it just doesn't have the nuance film has. This new laser DLP technology is A LOT BETTER, but there are so few theaters with the system and/or can afford it, I doubt it will make the impact necessary to fix these issues.

 

 

I'm glad you can see where I am coming from Tyler. I suspect a lot of people can't see what I'm talking about.

 

I don't want to diss the Alexa too much because it is a great camera and really does manage to produce something that looks a bit cinematic on a regular basis.

It's no surprise it is so widely used. However I do think low light film tends to look better than low light video.

I would much rather have nice looking flames and deep blacks than be able to see into the shadows.

This is not a view that other people seem to share however.

[Freya Black]

 

The two frames are from Scorsese's 'Mean Streets'(1973) and are part of what may be considered the New Wave Hollywood. The then 'young' up and coming filmmakers who have created the 'classics' of today for the era, used techniques and had images that would have caused the Studio cinematographers apoplexy (and the movie moguls who bankrolled them...) until the style found a large market... then in the late 70's and 80s everyone was 'adding haze', shooting with 'push processing' to get that gritty 'real' look.

 

The New Wave Hollywood was characterized by getting cameras and attendant 'portable' sound equipment out into the 'streets' pushing the process to the max to work with less production equipment.

 

The French New Wave was itself a reaction to 'studio' productions in France... and a looking to US Film Noir for 'gritty reality' stories and styles.

 

The other 'new wave' prong would be zee Chermans in the form of Fassbinder and Herzog... who were recovering german filmmaking from the 3rd Reich...

 

 

Ah! I'm definitely starting to see where you are coming from.

A few people have mentioned the Revenant in relation to a naturalistic approach.

Interesting.

 

Funny you should mention Fassbinder. That guy in the hat and wide tie really made me think of Fassbinder movies even tho they are so different.

I guess it's the clothing from a similar period in time!

Edited March 1, 2016 by Freya Black

[Peter Bitic]

Here is a very interesting video of a guy who made his own optical printer and is doing all kinds of interesting stuff with it (check his channel). Man, there is just such visual power and richness in film. It's not "just a tool to make stories". It's not just about looking good. It has a hypnotic effect, you can see a world imprinted in it in a peculiar way, and those characteristics really speak to some people.

 

Edited March 2, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Stuart Brereton]

I think film is always a better choice when it can be a choice. When it can't be a choice (for example, if you need to shoot 60 minutes of continuous footage or if you need to shoot at 100.000 ISO, or if you need to put your camera in a pen), then there is no choice, but a necessity to not shoot film. I can't remember a film that was shot digitally that I wouldn't prefer shot on film if that was possible, but I recognize that you can do some stuff with digital that wasn't possible before on film.

 

What I would like the most is that people started using both technologies "sincerely". I have no problem with people who prefer digital - it is a completely legitimate artistic choice, although not the one I would consider optimal - as long as they don't try to make it look like film. I watched Winter Sleep and it is an example of film where digital is used exactly right - no tacky color grading, no adding fake grain, just a razor sharp digital image. That's a honest approach that I respect. Such films can give you something visually that is worth watching.

 

Now, when I said that film is always a better choice when it can be a choice - that holds true for each individual film, but as a whole I actually like if there are also digital movies, because it makes for a broader and more interesting environment.

 

I guess I wish more people would share the same "visual philosophy" that I have, no matter whether they shoot on film or digital. As it is, 99% of filmmakers just resort to processes and gimmicks that I consider very poor choices.

 

You've just said that 99% of filmmakers are wrong, and you're right, that film is always better than digital, and every movie would be better if it was on film rather than digital. Peter, you're a zealot, and it's exactly that kind of philosophy that makes discussions like these pointless.