Revenant/Mad Max prove digital is better?

[Peter Bitic]

Nope, I didn't say they are wrong and that I am right (I have couple times said that this is all subjective). I said that 99% of filmmakers make decisions that I don't agree with, which is not implying that I am some objective arbiter.

 

As for being a zealot - I am just a guy with an opinion, like everyone else. I am not forcing anything on anybody, I am elaborating on my views, and I am not implying that my preferences are somehow objectively right or anything.

 

This is the tenth or so times, you have stated that discussions like these are pointless. I am puzzled why do you continue to post in this thread.

[Stuart Brereton]

I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Of course you think you're right and they are wrong. You've accused 99% of film-makers of being insincere in their choices and of resorting to gimmicks. Hardly the language of someone who respects a differing viewpoint.

[Tyler Purcell]

@ 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.

Why? because I expect them to do better? We have all the technology in the world, yet most of the cinema force fed to us at the theaters is of extremely poor quality. It doesn't matter if it's the story, acting, effects or presentation; the cinema use to be a sacred place and in my almost 38 years of life on this planet, I've seen it turn into an amusement ride.

 

Any movie that is NOMINATED FOR BEST VISUAL EFFECTS, is an effects movie. I have friends who worked on the marketing for The Revenant and I've recently been able to see pieces of the rough cut used for cutting the first teasers/trailers. This is where I get my opinion from and it's why I call it a VFX film because frankly, it really is.

 

Someday I hope you can come to Hollywood and start learning about this stuff in person, not thousands of miles away via magazines and the internet.

[Peter Bitic]

I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Of course you think you're right and they are wrong. You've accused 99% of film-makers of being insincere in their choices and of resorting to gimmicks. Hardly the language of someone who respects a differing viewpoint.

I think you are being disingenious. You are rephrasing stuff that I said and also ignoring my statements where I said that these things are subjective. I haven't accused 99% of film-makers of being insincere. I have said: "What I would like the most is that people started using both technologies "sincerely". Maybe this is all the same to you, I don't know.

 

But whatever, I guess you don't accept my statements that I don't think I am objectively right. So be it.

[Stuart Brereton]

Sorry, my mistake. I assumed that the 99% who resorted to gimmickry were also insincere. What would you say the actual percentage of insincerity is?

[David Mullen ASC]

The low-light work in "The Revenant" was gorgeous!

[Satsuki Murashige]

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.

Well said, Stuart. Lots of sizzle, no steak here. And that night exterior shot from 'The Revenant' looks great, regardless of format - it was my favorite shot from the whole movie.

[Robin R Probyn]

Film is dead.. who needs it.. the only people who love film in this forum are students .. and pixel peeping latte drinkers.. .. anyone who,s cinema experience is destroyed by the format.. should be an accountant .. or go and see better films..

 

Runs to shelter with tin hat.. :)..

[Arthur Cravan]

Well I guess this debate is really embarrassing and obnoxious in a forum of this technique stature. The main reasons for this long-standing dispute I believe are now commercial and political order. The digital far from being a graph of perfect devices has now attained a standard way comparable to the film. I read that some feature and some trick in digital are creepy; right, but I can't enumerate how many horrible lighting and awful color timing or unwatchable flat skin tones I saw throughout the cinema years... This is a tapestry of bad faith lingering here and I think it's a shame. I would like to praise to stop with this anachronistic 'querelle' between film and digital cinema.

[Arthur Cravan]

One of the reasons both Mad Max and The Revenant look "good" digitally is that NEITHER FILM uses the color spectrum in a "normal" way. They both are highly manipulated.

 

The Revenant is a completely flat movie, it lacks typical dynamic range due to the almost constant cloud cover during shooting. This means the technology doesn't have to work quite as hard to reproduce the image.

 

Mad Max on the other hand, is a "tinted" movie and it's been heavily modified in post to create again, a flat look, but more at the top of the luminance level. They also added fake grain to the entire show, which kinda washes out most of the issues you'd see.

 

In terms of digitally manipulating motion picture film... I'm absolutely in the camp of the DI process changing the integrity of the format. Personally, I think the profession of cinematography itself has been dragged down through these digital tools. Cinematographers can now be lazy and shoot whatever they want because they know in post, they can fix the problems. Plus, we've over-complicated post production in a huge way. Adding more "Artists" and all sorts of headaches/cost, that doesn't need to be there. Yet, everyone does DI because it makes your film "pop" and that's the look filmmakers assume the audience wants.

 

When you watch movies like "The Hateful Eight" on 70mm, you start to realize these digital tools are unnecessary. That film was done completely photochemically and looked perfect. Even if your not a fan of the lighting or even movie, it very much validates photochemical finish in a way that even Nolan couldn't achieve. We need more filmmakers making products using the old school method and possibly developing new technologies to integrate more digital technology into the photochemical world. For instance, I have a white paper for a photochemical film printer which can generate mattes and color film at high speeds. Thus, making it much easier to use digital tools for color correcting film.

This is absolutely wrong to me. Mad Max for example was a great collaboration between DP e colorist, To program a look as early as profilmic, from lighting, exposure, knowing the prerogatives of the LUT dynamics, the possibilities for stops and their manipulation in grading and post-production, well I think it's a good example of working for the cinema of the future.

Concerning The Revenant, I really cannot understand what do you mean about 'flat': that's a mood of the film... so you're criticizing a poetics and honestly this is out of topic to me.

The Hateful Eight for example to me is a bad, wrong, unacceptable film in a 'weltanschauung' point of view and this is not affected by the use of photochemical process (beyond the fact that I think Tarantino used the Panavision format for marketing reasons and for his citationist postmodern slant and not for real aesthetic needs).

I guess this 'angst' - 'cause it's just about that we're talkin' here -, this dreadful fear about the digital is really stupid, especially for those who should have the historical task of experiment and look for 'other', innovative ways.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Arthur Cravan

[Freya Black]

The low-light work in "The Revenant" was gorgeous!

 

Yay! Finally someone bites!

 

So I've said a lot about what I don't like about it already here. What is it that you like about it?

 

Also what do you think about the issues with the flames I have bought up here? What's your opinion on that?

Do you think that is a minor issue? Do you even quite like that look?

Tell me more! :)

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

And that night exterior shot from 'The Revenant' looks great, regardless of format - it was my favorite shot from the whole movie.

 

Which one? Tell me more!

What do you like about it?

Do you like the visual look of the movie overall too?

[Freya Black]

I read that some feature and some trick in digital are creepy; right, but I can't enumerate how many horrible lighting and awful color timing or unwatchable flat skin tones I saw throughout the cinema years... This is a tapestry of bad faith lingering here and I think it's a shame. I would like to praise to stop with this anachronistic 'querelle' between film and digital cinema.

 

Curious at to what you mean by creepy? Or is that something you just read somewhere and aren't sure what they are going on about? Sounds interesting.

 

What is interesting here, isn't that some lighting is horrible, or has awful colour timing, or nasty looking skin tones but that some people are saying that they don't like the look of the movie and others are saying they love it to bits! There is no consensus that the footage looks horrible, in fact quite the opposite. This is what interests me. If there is no consensus on this I don't think we can agree that it is horrible lighting or awful colour timing or whatever, it then becomes a subjective opinion.

 

In particular I posted some examples of low light footage, and I have stated why I don't like that footage as clearly as I can. Until now I have had angry comments for suggesting there is something wrong with that footage but no-one has come forward to say "I like that footage". This has made me sad as I really want to discuss this, or at least try and understand what it is about.

 

Now both David and Satsuki have come forward to say they like it! This is great and I'm really hoping they will elaborate further so I can at least try and get my head around what is going on here.

 

Freya

Edited March 2, 2016 by Freya Black

[Arthur Cravan]

 

Curious at to what you mean by creepy? Or is that something you just read somewhere and aren't sure what they are going on about? Sounds interesting.

 

What is interesting here, isn't that some lighting is horrible, or has awful colour timing, or nasty looking skin tones but that some people are saying that they don't like the look of the movie and others are saying they love it to bits! There is no consensus that the footage looks horrible, in fact quite the opposite. This is what interests me. If there is no consensus on this I don't think we can agree that it is horrible lighting or awful colour timing or whatever, it then becomes a subjective opinion.

 

In particular I posted some examples of low light footage, and I have stated why I don't like that footage as clearly as I can. Until now I have had angry comments for suggesting there is something wrong with that footage but no-one has come forward to say "I like that footage". This has made me sad as I really want to discuss this, or at least try and understand what it is about.

 

Now both David and Satsuki have come forward to say they like it! This is great and I'm really hoping they will elaborate further so I can at least try and get my head around what is going on here.

 

Freya

 

The stills you posted about The Revenant and its supposed creepy low lighting are the results of an aesthetic vision, probably based on the excessive glow of the fire. I believe that what you call cinematographic look is just a layering of mental habitus, openly standardized on the basis of a reception overall film years. Neither you explain why they should be considered 'ugly'. It is merely an aesthetic vision. For me, some cases of Technicolor are massively lower than the digital results and here we are again to digital vs. film debate, as it turned.

[Peter Bitic]

Sorry, my mistake. I assumed that the 99% who resorted to gimmickry were also insincere. What would you say the actual percentage of insincerity is?

You don't understand the single sentence I wrote. I have said everything that needs to be said regarding my opinion of sincere use of the medium, and if you don't understand my position until now, I think you never will. You are conflating "not using medium "sincerely"" with being insincere which is a much broader category, and you are constantly rephrasing what I wrote. If you want to keep discussing with me, please use the same language that I use, because I am tired of correcting you in every post.

 

If you are interested what is the percentage of people who are using the medium "sincerely" in my opinion, ask me that. But don't ask me about the percentage of insincere people, because those are not the words I ever used. And it's not the same thing, and you know it. So please start using my words.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Peter Bitic

[Aapo Lettinen]

I don't understand what is wrong with shooting both the formats and to decide based on project and not only on personal opinions. You don't need to light all your movies with only 4k hmi:s either, you can use whatever fixture suits your needs :blink:

 

Anyway, I myself choose the shooting format scene by scene basis, for example in the current short we are mixing 4k xavc shot with Sony FS7 and 35mm 4perf 5207 shot with Cameflex Standard, both cropped to 2:1 aspect ratio.

(oh that 2:1 ratio is also unconventional, sorry about choosing it project by project basis and not based on public opinions :lol: we don't use instagram filters either B) )

[Peter Bitic]

There is nothing wrong with shooting both formats if that suits your needs. There is also nothing wrong with shooting with just one format if that suits your needs. Your shooting needs are the product of your taste, of budgetary considerations, your philosophy etc. There is no reason to be "flexible" if that goes against your artistic tastes.

[Arthur Cravan]

 

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.

 

Here we are: "to see into the shadows"... it's an artistic challenge, you will agree. Maybe for some reason you ignore there's someone who would like to hide what's drowned by the shade. I like the way low key match with digital and I guess I'm in good company about that taste... be aware i don't refuse film (it looks great) but this 'querelle': it's too factious and I'm really sick of that

[Freya Black]

 

The stills you posted about The Revenant and its supposed creepy low lighting are the results of an aesthetic vision, probably based on the excessive glow of the fire. I believe that what you call cinematographic look is just a layering of mental habitus, openly standardized on the basis of a reception overall film years. Neither you explain why they should be considered 'ugly'. It is merely an aesthetic vision. For me, some cases of Technicolor are massively lower than the digital results and here we are again to digital vs. film debate, as it turned.

 

I didn't say anything about creepy low lighting, you must be mistaking me for someone else.

You just mentioned the creepy look and I thought it sounded interesting but it's not anything I was talking about before that.

 

I also wasn't really talking about the cinematographic look either. The nearest I came to saying anything like that was when I said the Alexa has quite a nice cinematic look. You can dismiss that as just being a layering of mental habitus but I was just saying what I liked about the Alexa look. Perhaps it doesn't matter if the overall look of a video camera is closer to this tradition of cinema but I prefer the look of the Alexa to some other video cameras and I think it's okay to have that preference on that basis even if it seems like just a tradition to you.

 

As to why they should be considered "ugly", again I didn't use that word even though you have put it in quotes. I didn't say that and actually I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm not sure I would go as far as to say "ugly" and I didn't.

 

I did say I thought the Alexa yellow was "a bit nasty" and Alexa yellow is very evident in one of those low-light stills. On the other hand I also suggested that Alexa yellow could work quite well for more urban scenes with mercury vapor lamps or even other kinds of "artificial" lighting.

 

I also used the word "bad" which is clearly a value judgement on my part as I've said the stuff looks "bad" and other people have expressed how much they like the footage. In fact I said "look how bad this is" which is inviting comment on whether it is bad or not. It's just my opinion that it looks bad. I'm interested in other peoples opinions on how they see it and how bad they think it is. (In this case some people have come forth to express the opposite opinion. I'm very interested in that.)

 

I have pointed out two things I don't like about the low light stills. I don't like the Alexa yellow in the context of open flames. I feel the colour isn't working in that context. I also pointed to the actual flames. I havn't elaborated too much on what I think is wrong with the flames because I'm interested if other people see them the way I do. I'm very much getting the impression that they do not which again is interesting to me.

 

I've been fairly clear on this stuff and I very much invite opinions to the contrary and let me be clear about that. I mean actual opinions on those scenes from the movie (that are in the trailer and so are thus easy for us to refer to and talk about). I don't mean I'm inviting opinions such as "you are an idiot for having the views you do" or "This discussion is obnoxious or embarrassing" or "This discussion has sunk to new levels". I'm inviting peoples opinions on the low light footage I'm talking about and I'm interested and open to hearing what other people have to say about it good or bad.

 

Arthur, thanks for getting back to me on the subject! :) Your argument would appear to be that the way I am viewing the footage is just based on tradition or established standards on the way footage should look. I'm open to this idea. I'm interested if you like the footage I have posted stills from and what it is that makes you like it. Do you think it looks bad? Do you think it looks great?

Why do you think the way you do about it.

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

 

Here we are: "to see into the shadows"... it's an artistic challenge, you will agree. Maybe for some reason you ignore there's someone who would like to hide what's drowned by the shade. I like the way low key match with digital and I guess I'm in good company about that taste... be aware i don't refuse film (it looks great) but this 'querelle': it's too factious and I'm really sick of that

 

I think you must mean "someone who would like to see what's drowned by the shade" as that makes more sense?

 

I don't ignore these people, in fact I acknowledge these people in the section you quoted from me where I say: "This is not a view that other people seem to share however." While I don't ignore these people I don't understand where they are coming from.

 

In the context of night scenes I don't see why you would feel you need to see into the shadows. I'm quite happy with the idea that it might be too dark to see into the shadows. Again I'm interested in why some people might think it's important to be able to see into the shadows in a night scene, this doesn't seem important to me whereas other aspects of the image are important to me.

 

I'm not ignoring people I'm actually seeking out their opinions on the subject and trying to understand where they are coming from.

 

Freya

Edited March 2, 2016 by Freya Black

[Freya Black]

I don't understand what is wrong with shooting both the formats and to decide based on project and not only on personal opinions. You don't need to light all your movies with only 4k hmi:s either, you can use whatever fixture suits your needs :blink:

 

I agree with you Aapo. I love both formats and see them as being quite different and approach each differently.

Video and film are both awesome and I am very happy to be able to use both!

 

Freya

[Freya Black]

I like the way low key match with digital and I guess I'm in good company about that taste...

 

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

Freya

[KH Martin]

Film is dead.. who needs it.. the only people who love film in this forum are students .. and pixel peeping latte drinkers.. .. anyone who,s cinema experience is destroyed by the format.. should be an accountant .. or go and see better films..

 

Runs to shelter with tin hat.. :)..

You clearly never had to see BAMBOOZLED in a cinema ... the phony commercials (the parts shots on film) were the only moments that weren't eyestrain deluxe and distracting as hell from the movie itself.

 

And no, not an accountant, student or ppld. And it is because of 'better films' that I am here in the first place, and what I'd like to see more of, and what I'd be willing to go out and see in a cinema.

[Robin R Probyn]

Alexa Yellow... ? they shot RAW with alot of post.. surely that would in the grade.. rather than inherent of the Alexa..? or did i miss something there..

[KH Martin]

 

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.

Am thinking if I had a quote that appeared beneath all my posts, that would be it.

 

Maybe if you could amend it to also say sunny daylight scenes looking like the snow stuff in LADYHAWKE are immensely preferable to the 'shot through sunglasses' look of DIE HARD 88 along with tons of overly DI'd shows this century, that would flesh it out to be a major declaration for me.