Jump to content

Revenant/Mad Max prove digital is better?


Hrishikesh Jha

Recommended Posts

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.

 

No sir I haven't seen that film.. I presume the phoney CM,s were very stylized for some reason .. but the eye strain deluxe would not be due to digital or film.. unless it was a look meant to be so.. and can be achieved by either format.. point is if a film is good it matters not the format.. and it never should.. (bad lighting will eye strain deluxe.. love it.. if the DP shoots film or digital ) if you even are thinking about it something is amiss.. Im all for the young turks manning the barricades and loving film.. and lattes :).. Tyler,s banging his empty film cans on the lectern of the high church of film.. its all good fun.. but at the end of the days its bollocks and we just need "good" films.. and if its good enough for Roger Deakins its good enough for you guys :)

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

 

It's a myth that RAW means that you can make the image look like anything. Even sensors themselves can have a certain look to them and handle colour in a certain way. It this wasn't the case then there would be no need for Red to update their sensors from Mysterium to MX to Dragon.

 

The Alexa look is very distinctive, especially Alexa blue which you can see all over everything (and looks quite nice which makes people emphisize it even more). It's very easy to spot Alexa stuff just from the colours in it. The blue and Red are especially distinctive and Alexa Blue is always there. The Green is less distinctive but looks nice too so what the hey! :)

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a myth that RAW means that you can make the image look like anything. Even sensors themselves can have a certain look to them and handle colour in a certain way. It this wasn't the case then there would be no need for Red to update their sensors from Mysterium to MX to Dragon.

 

The Alexa look is very distinctive, especially Alexa blue which you can see all over everything (and looks quite nice which makes people emphisize it even more). It's very easy to spot Alexa stuff just from the colours in it. The blue and Red are especially distinctive and Alexa Blue is always there. The Green is less distinctive but looks nice too so what the hey! :)

 

Freya

Same with Fuji vs Kodak right? Also Kodak updated negatives,EXR,Vision,Vision2,3..Like M>MX>Dragon> etc. they are always improving something.

Edited by Kemalettin Sert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's a myth that RAW means that you can make the image look like anything. Even sensors themselves can have a certain look to them and handle colour in a certain way. It this wasn't the case then there would be no need for Red to update their sensors from Mysterium to MX to Dragon.

 

The Alexa look is very distinctive, especially Alexa blue which you can see all over everything (and looks quite nice which makes people emphisize it even more). It's very easy to spot Alexa stuff just from the colours in it. The blue and Red are especially distinctive and Alexa Blue is always there. The Green is less distinctive but looks nice too so what the hey! :)

 

Freya

 

 

 

But that film had alot of post work done..... if there is any yellow in any shot its nothing that really inherent to Alexa.. it would have been graded 10 times till Sunday .. every tiny hue of any colour would be have timed to death..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same with Fuji vs Kodak right? Also Kodak updated negatives,EXR,Vision,Vision2,3..Like M>MX>Dragon> etc. they are always improving something.

 

 

EXACTLY. The heavy use of Alexa at this point of time will become associated with this time period just like some film stocks are seen as having a certain look to them.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that film had alot of post work done..... if there is any yellow in any shot its nothing that really inherent to Alexa.. it would have been graded 10 times till Sunday .. every tiny hue of any colour would be have timed to death..

 

It's not really the amount of yellow but the way the yellow looks. The yellow is more noticeable if there is a lot of it of course.

Yes you can time something to death but the more you do that the more time you are spending in the suite. Also if you start pulling the colour balance one way it starts to affect other colours too. Power windows and Roto style tools can help with this but...

 

Some stuff is there in the sensor and hard to shift. CCD vs CMOS, Bayer Patterns all kinds of stuff. They all look quite different even when working in raw.

 

Also there is the issue of if you would want to get rid of the Alexa colours? The camera works well with them and it is a part of the Alexa look that people love so much. Of course that look has now been done to death, but it is a look that people like. It it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red were just trying to make a decent sensor :) Arri have not changed their sensor from the start really..

 

I don't think that is true. The MX was certainly thought of as a good sensor and the dragon takes things further. Even the original mysterium looked nice if you were careful about what you were putting in front of the camera.

 

I suspect Arri are reluctant to change their sensor as they know they are onto a good thing. It might not be perfect but it's giving really great results and it's a lot of work (hence expensive) to engineer something new that has a chance of being better.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

crosstalk in color channels. it's the same with Kodak vs. Fuji: Fuji has more crosstalk and therefore can usually handle colour temperature changes better but does not have as accurate colours. for example, Fuji shadows of a daylight scene are usually bit more towards cyan than blue, Kodak renders them more towards pale blue.

 

Earlier Red sensors had quite a lot of crosstalk intentionally added probably to fight colour channel noise (Art Adams tests). They haven't been towards colour imaging from the start, they concentrated more on resolution and frame rates and maybe a bit on dynamic range. With the Dragon they have started to notice that most of the stuff shot on their cameras is in colour and therefore one might need better colour response too :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No sir I haven't seen that film.. I presume the phoney CM,s were very stylized for some reason .. but the eye strain deluxe would not be due to digital or film.. unless it was a look meant to be so.. and can be achieved by either format.. point is if a film is good it matters not the format.. and it never should.. (bad lighting will eye strain deluxe.. love it.. if the DP shoots film or digital ) if you even are thinking about it something is amiss.. Im all for the young turks manning the barricades and loving film.. and lattes :).. Tyler,s banging his empty film cans on the lectern of the high church of film.. its all good fun.. but at the end of the days its bollocks and we just need "good" films.. and if its good enough for Roger Deakins its good enough for you guys :)

The eyestrain WAS due to how it was shot, miniDV if I recall correctly. And I think it was an interesting notion for a film, one that was largely undone by the tech choices.

 

I love nearly all of Deakins' work, but SKYFALL does not have the Bond look. That might be as much or more Mendes' fault as his, given how messed up SPECTRE looks (which shows how easy it is to wreck an originated-on-film pic as well.)

 

To me this is very much a continuation or extension of the issue with doing everything in post through CG instead of best-tool-for-the-job. Embracing digital is fine on a project by project basis, but having it crammed down throats is just like how we got innundated with mostly bad CG (70/30 if I"m generous) in the last two decades.Tons of great invisible work, some occasional great creature and ship stuff, but mostly not, and not because we couldn't have gotten better and THEREFORE BETTER SERVED THE STORY. When I see a CG spaceship that doesn't have that key/nofill thing done right, it distracts me from the story, and rightfully so, because it isn't doing the job. Same for when digital delivers artifacting and distratctions that don't seem organic (and yeah, analog imperfections DO feel more organic when I see them, except for when Abrams is doing his lens flare meltdowns, which is more offensive to my eey than most digital miscues.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Ok, I'll use your words. Please enlighten me as to what percentage of people are using the medium 'sincerely', in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Which one? Tell me more!

What do you like about it?

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

 

Here were my thoughts on the film: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=69667&page=3

 

The shot is the one linked upthread, the forest night exterior lit with torches. To me, it's a deceptively simple and understated shot, beautifully conceived and executed. Mr. Lubezki understood that the atmosphere in the air, whether natural or created, would do most of the heavy lifting in the scene. I guess it could also just be the smoke from the torches.

 

Another part of what makes the shot great is that the editor allows it to play out without cuts - it develops according to its own internal rhythm and is graphically bold without being overcooked. Done with a deft delicate touch, unlike most of the rest of the film which repeatedly smacks you upside the head with its technical brilliance.

 

I feel like Mr. Lubezki has developed a style that is the apotheosis of the ubiquitous modern aesthetic; cool low-con low-sat faux log, mobile and often stabilized in-your-face operating, hyper-clean shallow depth lensing, soft natural light realism. It's very impressive, just not to my taste. Maybe that's because I see everyone and their mother imitating it on lifestyle commercials every day for the last several years. I think in ten years it will look very dated, just like how we think now of the 1950's studio style or 1970's New York street style. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. But I think it's always better to find your own personal style and do your own thing rather than jump onto the Lubezki bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here were my thoughts on the film: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=69667&page=3

 

The shot is the one linked upthread, the forest night exterior lit with torches. To me, it's a deceptively simple and understated shot, beautifully conceived and executed. Mr. Lubezki understood that the atmosphere in the air, whether natural or created, would do most of the heavy lifting in the scene. I guess it could also just be the smoke from the torches.

 

Another part of what makes the shot great is that the editor allows it to play out without cuts - it develops according to its own internal rhythm and is graphically bold without being overcooked. Done with a deft delicate touch, unlike most of the rest of the film which repeatedly smacks you upside the head with its technical brilliance.

 

Thanks Satsuki!

 

I think it would be interesting to see it play out as a long take for sure. That does sound appealing.

For me the light does not look the right colour and the flames don't have that feeling of fire burning but more like the kind of light output you might get from a warm white flo tube. I'm guessing that this didn't bother you whatsoever? I have a liking for the way burning flames look tho! ;)

 

Perhaps this scene is very atmospheric in the context of the movie. I've only seen a snippet in the trailer and context can be a part of things.

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Freya, there's probably a misunderstanding.


Reading this thread I was irritated a lot. This querelle between digital and film has slithered to a political and commercial side in my opinion: and it's something I hate because here we should speak of cinema tout court.


Personally I think the last digital cinema camera generation is a 'dream' that comes true, then someone can safely argue otherwise, but I challenge anyone to recognize a digital movie by a film movie, even those who support nostalgically and even with a hint of little 'naïveté that the film is' emotion'.


I prefer definitely the ARRI to RED; for the record.


About that ARRI yellowish hue, well, I think it is a choice in grading, since the ARRIRAW certainly has a lot of softness etc. That distinctive Alexa yellow is a ARRI prerogative but in this occurrence I guess it’s the result of a light mixing… I don’t know… maybe the open gate of the Alexa got to do something with that special lighting… In my opinion that Yellow is not certainly exciting, you're right about it; but in the rest of the film, there are glimpses of amazing colors.


In all likelihood that still was made for 'expressionist' and 'threatening' look in the economy of the narrative plot. The Alexa for sure can behave very well 'within the context of open flames'.


All in all I would not be so analytical. That look will be a zeitgeist for sure, as you pointed up!


We cannot know exactly how they shot some scenes, so to rely on individual frames in my opinion is quite misleading.


The Revenant works very well: rumours claim it was shot almost entirely with natural light and that in my unpretentious way of seeing is an extraordinary achievement for the digital (but I will not lapse back into that controversy).


Some pretext have branded the film to be 'flat' only because it is almost completely cloudy or overcast but I cannot really understand how one can argue this way.



I just meant 'drowned in the shadows': the lost of shadowy details may be a stylistic choice and personally I really love the dark and low key images. As indeed it seems to me that you too agree. I think many DOP do not appreciate this way of understanding the shadow, but it's their problem. Greetings.

Edited by Arthur Cravan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

For me the light does not look the right colour and the flames don't have that feeling of fire burning but more like the kind of light output you might get from a warm white flo tube. I'm guessing that this didn't bother you whatsoever?

 

Keep in mind that you're looking at a highly compressed, low-res image on a computer screen. Until you've seen the film projected in a movie theater the way it was intended to be seen, I really don't think you can comment on the color or other aspects of the image quality with any authority. Just saying ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No sir I haven't seen that film.. I presume the phoney CM,s were very stylized for some reason .. but the eye strain deluxe would not be due to digital or film.. unless it was a look meant to be so.. and can be achieved by either format.. point is if a film is good it matters not the format.. and it never should.. (bad lighting will eye strain deluxe.. love it.. if the DP shoots film or digital ) if you even are thinking about it something is amiss.. Im all for the young turks manning the barricades and loving film.. and lattes :).. Tyler,s banging his empty film cans on the lectern of the high church of film.. its all good fun.. but at the end of the days its bollocks and we just need "good" films.. and if its good enough for Roger Deakins its good enough for you guys :)

 

Spike Lee used Sony VX 1000's for "Bamboozeled"(2000). That would be DV format. Don't know if he used the PAL (slightly more lines of resolution, and 25 fps...) or the NTSC version. My guess would be the the PAL version, and slowed to 24 fps for the film out.

 

In any case, some of the BTS shots showed a large number of cameras running to capture multiple views, allowing for the cutting in interesting ways.

 

The film is a classic 'parody' film, depicting a number of black stereotypes lampooning of certain 'black' tropes.

 

It may be 'hard' for some people to watch, especially if they have been conditioned to have a visceral response to certain politically incorrect phrases and situations...

Edited by John E Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Personally I think the last digital cinema camera generation is a 'dream' that comes true, then someone can safely argue otherwise, but I challenge anyone to recognize a digital movie by a film movie, even those who support nostalgically and even with a hint of little 'naïveté that the film is' emotion'.

I prefer definitely the ARRI to RED; for the record.

About that ARRI yellowish hue, well, I think it is a choice in grading, since the ARRIRAW certainly has a lot of softness etc. That distinctive Alexa yellow is a ARRI prerogative but in this occurrence I guess it’s the result of a light mixing… I don’t know… maybe the open gate of the Alexa got to do something with that special lighting… In my opinion that Yellow is not certainly exciting, you're right about it; but in the rest of the film, there are glimpses of amazing colors.

In all likelihood that still was made for 'expressionist' and 'threatening' look in the economy of the narrative plot. The Alexa for sure can behave very well 'within the context of open flames'.

All in all I would not be so analytical. That look will be a zeitgeist for sure, as you pointed up!

 

 

Hiya Arthur, I don't have time to reply to all the things you bought up sadly but I'm going to upset you by suggesting that I can definitely tell apart film from video and often even Alexa from other digital video cameras, as it is so distinctive. To be fair it's easier to spot the Alexa stuff if there are exteriors or a lot of low light footage or night scenes. Alexa blue is easiest to spot. It's rarer to have much Alexa Red and the yellow is usually not something people are flaunting so much harder to spot. In a controlled situation where the Alexa is being used on a set or something it's a lot easier to hide the distinctive look if you want to and then I probably couldn't spot it so easily but usually people go wild with it somewhere in the movie. ;)

 

I like to be analytical and to understand the way I see things and other people see things. This is VERY interesting to me.

 

 

I really hope that low light look isn't going to become the zeitgeist of these times (who knows) but I think that the more general Alexa look is already in that position. It's quite distinctive and looks great and it is everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that you're looking at a highly compressed, low-res image on a computer screen. Until you've seen the film projected in a movie theater the way it was intended to be seen, I really don't think you can comment on the color or other aspects of the image quality with any authority. Just saying ;)

 

I would really hope they have tried to get the colour space as close as possible in the trailer to the theatrical version although there could be some difference but it's worth noting that anyone seeing the movie on blu-ray or DVD are going to see the movie in Rec709 just like the trailer.

 

Also I feel I can comment on the colour as it's the standard Alexa Yellow that you see in Alexa movies.

I'm quite familiar with that yellow and as I say it works well in some contexts, I just don't feel it works so well in this one.

 

You have seen a DCP of it I assume? Did you think it looked similar to the trailer or can you not really remember now?

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay it's not so common but this movie decided to go with Alexa yellow in a big way:

 

predestination.jpg

 

Check out the top left corner of this pic where you can see some Alexa yellow right next to some Alexa blue:

 

predestination-02.jpg

 

14236.jpg

 

predestination-05.jpg

 

e5d00fec0d8681b74be7caff2caafe1a.png

 

Much respect to them. They went with it and made something that looks quite different to a lot of other Alexa stuff.

I think they took Alexa yellow and really made it work. :)

 

Freya

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very small, I would say 1-5%.

 

So, in your opinion, 99% of filmmakers resort to gimmicky, and 95-99% of them are not using the medium 'sincerely'. That's quite a sweeping statement. May I ask what experience you have that informs this opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, in your opinion, 99% of filmmakers resort to gimmicky, and 95-99% of them are not using the medium 'sincerely'. That's quite a sweeping statement. May I ask what experience you have that informs this opinion?

It's the same number for both groups (which are really the same), but I can't really put the precise number on it, that's why I said 1-5%. The experience that informs this opinion is watching movies.

Edited by Peter Bitic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Personally I think the last digital cinema camera generation is a 'dream' that comes true,

A dream come true for WHO? Certainly not the people who OWN digital cinema cameras. Rental houses and camera owners are loosing their shirts on digital technology because it's changing so fast, people who invested heavily in last years technology can find it hard to get jobs using it next year. Worst part is, the "advancement" in technology is only getting faster and the pricing for these more advanced cameras, even more then the previous models.

 

Also, democratizing cinema through digital technology has it's benefits and detractors. Now everyone with money can buy a decent digital cinema camera and put themselves on the market as a 'DP'. Most low-budget shows, the stuff the vast majority of US cinematographers are bidding on, have been taken over by a bunch of people who have the money to own the right equipment. It's not about talent as much as it's about what you have in your equipment locker. Since digital cinema has taken over, I've seen day rates go from $500 to $100 here in Hollywood. People just EXPECT you will work for $100/day or even free. This was not the case 10 years ago and it's only getting worse.

 

So no, I don't see ANY real benefit to digital technology in the long run. Piracy has skyrocketed. Theaters charge more then ever thanks to them being forced to buy digital cinema projectors. Job rates have decreased tremendously. There is more competition then ever in the job and content markets. MANY phenomenal movies have been overlooked because there are just too many films out there for sale since everyone can make one in their back yard and make it look great today for little to no money. Camera owners constantly have to update or not get work. Technology buzz forces equipment owners to constantly buy new tech. Digital media is extremely volatile and very easy to delete/destroy with the flick of a finger. Did I mention the complete lack of long term storage without data loss? The vast majority of digital cinema projectors/theaters look like crap due to low-resolution, out of calibration, old and dusty projectors which haven't been replaced since theaters can't afford to.

 

AND!!! Has content really gotten better? Has digital cinema IMPROVED the stories we tell to the point of it being worth the $20 ticket price? Personally, I don't think so because currently, there are really no movies worth watching at the cinema. I can't think of a time in my past with so few "interesting" films to watch. There are the technology driven films which in 5 years will look completely outdated and there are the story films, most of which feel they need to use technology in some way to tell their story. So yet again, even they will look outdated in a few years.

 

What humors me the most about this whole thing is the fact those filmmakers who choose to stay away from artificial manipulation, tend to make the best content today. Yet, most of it isn't available in the theaters, it's only available on streaming/web or broadcast. With the studio's only willing to fund tentpole films, many top filmmakers have given up cinema and moved to other markets. The only reason those tent pole films exist is due to digital technology. Please show me a single tent pole film that isn't based on technology.

 

I challenge anyone to recognize a digital movie by a film movie, even those who support nostalgically and even with a hint of little 'naïveté that the film is' emotion'.

Umm, most of us can tell between digital and film, that's super easy. Heck, I can usually tell exactly what digital camera was used as well because each of them have a unique visual signature.

 

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.

It's sad you think that's the future because all I see is another year where cinema attendance was down.

 

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.

Flat means no dynamic range. It's a technical term referring to the camera, format and projector system not having to work quite as hard to deliver the image, which is one of the reasons it looks acceptable.

 

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 wasn't referring to the content of the movie. I was referring to the quality of the 70mm cinematography and projection which wasn't touched by a single computer. If you didn't see the film in 70mm, you have zero place to comment on what I was talking about. Quentin used Ultra Panavision 70 for Hateful Eight in order to help keep Kodak in business AND built a fleet of 70mm projectors to be used for future presentations. It had very little to do with the actual movie, it had more to do with a vision to keep film around. Without people like him and Christopher Nolan, film would surely die and to loose film, is probably the worst thing that would happen to cinema.

 

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.

I live in Hollywood, which is the home of cinema in this continent. I work in the industry and what I've seen over the last 10 years since digital has taken hold, is the massive reduction in work. I've seen true craftsmen and artists be let go and hundreds more retire. In this country alone, 150,000 people lost their jobs due to the shift from film to digital over 10 years. Over 500 theaters closed their doors, most of them small-town. We've seen the quality of cinema decrease to the point where we honor movies without any dialog! (Mad Max/Revenant) To the point where individual (non-repeat) attendance as at an ALL-TIME LOW!

 

All of this in the name of "experimentation and innovation"

 

Cinema is a powerful form of story telling and today, filmmakers are more interested in messing with technology then telling a story, fueled by studio's who manipulate the content so it will work for the masses. Cinema is also an art form and no matter what you or other film haters think, FILM is the ONLY true artist representation. You don't go to an art gallery and stare at digital monitors of art do you? No... you look at the actual object made by the artist. It's exactly the same way with film done photochemically. What you see in the theaters is an exact replication of what the cinematographer captured on set. There is no manipulation of the image.

 

Yes, I'm pessimistic but I'm also a realist. I personally don't see very many benefits to digital technology outside of selfish ones like MY ability to own a digital camera and shoot things for no money. That is truly the ONLY BENEFIT to this precipitous technology leap for the average joe. On the flip side, digital technology has been the first nail in the coffin for cinemas and studios. The smart ones are moving very quickly to other mediums and when that happens, the cinemas will slowly start to close (or turn into amusement rides) since the vast majority of good content people are talking about, won't be shown there. Sure, the big chains will always stick around, but who will bother going to the theaters when you can watch UHD streaming content at home?

  • Upvote 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...