Jump to content

If a film person goes to digital ...


Jon O'Brien

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

There are differences between the high-end digital cinema cameras but to label them as BAD and GOOD is hyperbole, any more than in the old days when people would trash Agfa over Kodak and Fuji color negative. But then, I feel the same way about people who trash a Zeiss Ultra Prime over a Zeiss Master Prime. There are other things that affect the quality of the image much more dramatically.

 

On the other hand, one of the reasons I like shooting on the Alexa is simply that I don't have to think about shooting on the Alexa, it's reliable and consistent -- I can concentrate on other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

On the other hand, one of the reasons I like shooting on the Alexa is simply that I don't have to think about shooting on the Alexa, it's reliable and consistent -- I can concentrate on other things.

Exactly... which is why the top camera is still and will be the Alexa for many years to come. Arri has figured out a way to capture the dynamic range of film, they've been able to create beautiful skin tones, they've created a camera package that's easy to use AND the look is more cinematic than any other digital cinema camera. You know when you shoot with the Alexa, you're getting a great image no matter what.

 

It still has the same motion blur issues that drive me nuts tho... I hope someone solves that someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly... which is why the top camera is still and will be the Alexa for many years to come. Arri has figured out a way to capture the dynamic range of film, they've been able to create beautiful skin tones, they've created a camera package that's easy to use AND the look is more cinematic than any other digital cinema camera. You know when you shoot with the Alexa, you're getting a great image no matter what.

 

It still has the same motion blur issues that drive me nuts tho... I hope someone solves that someday.

I think the motion blur was solved by using the Alexa Studio, with the optical finder and mechanical shutter :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, I never thought about checking the movies shot with the alexa studio to see if they have the same issues.

I shot one film where we had two Alexas, one digital shutter and the other mechanical shutter. I don't recall seeing a difference that was distracting in any way. We ended up with the Studio Alexa as it was cheap as no one wanted to rent it :)

 

I used to shoot on tape based Varicam that had a true global shutter/CCD sensors. The effect was quite noticeable compared to a film camera with it's rotating shutter, so I don't think you'd like that solution either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I used to shoot on tape based Varicam that had a true global shutter/CCD sensors. The effect was quite noticeable compared to a film camera with it's rotating shutter, so I don't think you'd like that solution either...

Me too! 720p man! hehe :)

 

I shot a feature on the varicam called "sweet potato pie" and it came out pretty bad. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about the digitally ugly smeary motion blur? Because I have rarely seen it on Alexa shot movies. Sometimes it works, when Mann does it on Collateral or Miami Vice or Blackhat for example, but it really takes me out otherwise when it happens. I mean, you know it's digital, but then some shots have it and it's unmistakable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about the digitally ugly smeary motion blur? Because I have rarely seen it on Alexa shot movies. Sometimes it works, when Mann does it on Collateral or Miami Vice or Blackhat for example, but it really takes me out otherwise when it happens. I mean, you know it's digital, but then some shots have it and it's unmistakable.

 

 

Im not sure its there these days.. those are older films,s.. I dont notice it in more recent digital films.. the refresh rates are much higher .. Collateral looked very different from film.. but these days there is very little difference .. certainly not motion blur..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about the digitally ugly smeary motion blur? Because I have rarely seen it on Alexa shot movies. Sometimes it works, when Mann does it on Collateral or Miami Vice or Blackhat for example, but it really takes me out otherwise when it happens. I mean, you know it's digital, but then some shots have it and it's unmistakable.

I think the excessive motion blur in the Michael Mann films was down to them being early digital movies, when cameras were much slower. Shooting in available light at night meant large amounts of gain, but also wide shutter angles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the excessive motion blur in the Michael Mann films was down to them being early digital movies, when cameras were much slower. Shooting in available light at night meant large amounts of gain, but also wide shutter angles.

 

 

Yeah my thoughts too.. sensor technology has been huge since that epic came out.. wasn't terrible though ..Dion Beebe won the BAFTA for cinematography!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you give examples of this? I've haven't seen anyone doing it, except under special circumstances, certainly not as an excuse for poor lighting. Maybe it's something that kids with camcorders do when they don't have enough light, but I've never heard of professional DPs doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we talking about the digitally ugly smeary motion blur? Because I have rarely seen it on Alexa shot movies. Sometimes it works, when Mann does it on Collateral or Miami Vice or Blackhat for example, but it really takes me out otherwise when it happens. I mean, you know it's digital, but then some shots have it and it's unmistakable.

I don't think it's about "smear". It's about the different motion look of the electronic shutter vs the rotating shutter of a film camera. There is also the issue of digital reproduction vs cinema film projection with it's flicker. The flicker hid a bit of the motion "judder", but a digital projector or display does not flicker at all. In digital display the image is always fully illuminated until the next frame, when suddenly everything changes. And we perceive this sudden change as more jarring than a flickering motion picture projector.

 

The reverse is also true. If you get used to watching a digital projection and then quickly change over to a film projector, the film projector will seem very very flickery, until time passes and one's brain eliminates the perception of the flicker. I have actually done this experiment when I've had a film at a multiplex screening both film print and digital projection. Motion in the digital version seems "juddery" and the film version seems very "flickery", but the "judder" is less bothersome. And both "prints" were made from the same file and shot with the same camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Could you give examples of this? I've haven't seen anyone doing it, except under special circumstances, certainly not as an excuse for poor lighting. Maybe it's something that kids with camcorders do when they don't have enough light, but I've never heard of professional DPs doing it.

I just watched a film that was full of it. Now I gotta remember what it was! lol

 

If I see it again, I will post it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's about the different motion look of the electronic shutter vs the rotating shutter of a film camera.

Exactly. Ya never see it with anything shot on film, unless it's been heavily manipulated in post.

 

In digital display the image is always fully illuminated until the next frame, when suddenly everything changes. And we perceive this sudden change as more jarring than a flickering motion picture projector.

Yes with digital there is no flicker at all. However, with film projectors, they break the light more than once per cycle. This helps to balance the light breaks out and prevent the jarring effect.

 

Yet, when you project material shot on film with a digital projector, the motion blur issue does not magically come back. Yes there are some oddities with digital projection, but generally this isn't one of them.

 

I will say for the record, there is a huge problem with digital projection and curved screens. I don't know why anyone else has discussed this or not, but it appears film projector lenses were designed to be used with slightly curved screens as the alignment and focus always seemed spot on. Today however, on the theaters with the slightly curved screens, you will notice the focus is wonky at the edges and the text elements are flat and don't contour to the screen at all. This issue is most disappointing at theaters like the Cinerama Dome, but even at last night's screening of How to Train your Dragon, at a regular cineplex screen, the edges were out of focus and the text wasn't even close to being square with the theater. Mind you, it's a "screen" I see film prints on all the time, they don't have any of those issues. Kinda bizarre!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a lot of DP's resort to slow shutter speeds instead of lighting properly so you see this "video-like" blur effect quite a lot in modern production.

 

 

Really !! I dont think this ever happens on "professional"productions and no way on a feature film. (because they dont have enough lights ??). unless its an effect they want.. its a no light, totally balls to the wall doc situation.. static shot with no to little motion in the frame.. even then you would think twice about it.. if you saw this in a film it would be been an effect they wanted.. sorry but I really think that's totally wrong to say a lot of DP,s resort to slow shutter because they dont light properly.. in modern productions especially with sensors now and monitors all over the place..this would never happen ..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackhat is shot on the Alexa and has the same type of smeary motion blur that Collateral and Miami Vice (and Public Enemies) have. But as Stuart says, it was obviously more of a limitation at the time. Maybe Mann likes it? Although he said he was probably coming back to film for his Enzo Ferrari film before he left the project (James Mangold directed instead).

 

Ben Is Back is another example lately, I've just seen the trailer but the night stuff in the trailer looks horrendous and it's filled with it. Logan also has it when Charles is having his seizures, they used a 358 degree shutter angle for those scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logan also has it when Charles is having his seizures, they used a 358 degree shutter angle for those scenes.

Obviously people are using slow shutter for creative purposes. I just have a hard time believing that it's being commonly used to compensate for poor lighting. Back in the F900 days, when shooting night establishing shots, it was fairly common to switch the shutter off to get an extra stop of exposure. It worked very well, but you had to make sure there was little or no movement in the frame. I haven't needed to do it in years, and I haven't heard of anyone else doing it either for anything other than creative reasons.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As above.. there is just no way in this day and age that anyone is doing 360 degree shutter @.. normal speed .. due to poor lighting.. presumably meaning not enough and having to resort to shutter off.. I mean thats just nuts that a feature film would do this.. unless its an effect they want... even on the lowest budget corp shoot you only do this as a last resort.. and only a shot with no to minimal movement in the frame.. the idea that Ben is Back .. a full blown feature film staring Julia Roberts and shot by Stuart Dryburgh...you know who this is right.. Oscar nom for the Piano..shot the pilot for Broadwalk Empire etc.. would not have budgeted for adequate lighting for night scenes and then the DP turns to the director and says.. oh damn.. I forgot night is dark.. No problem we'll just turn off the shutter.. looks like shite but well too bad everyone is doing it .. really Manu.. you think that conversation happened .. personally I really doubt it.. ..there is some irony that you guys are calling out as incompetent .. the work of some of the best DP,s on the planet ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Really !! I dont think this ever happens on "professional"productions and no way on a feature film. (because they dont have enough lights ??). unless its an effect they want.. its a no light, totally balls to the wall doc situation.. static shot with no to little motion in the frame.. even then you would think twice about it.. if you saw this in a film it would be been an effect they wanted.. sorry but I really think that's totally wrong to say a lot of DP,s resort to slow shutter because they dont light properly.. in modern productions especially with sensors now and monitors all over the place..this would never happen ..

Well, if you haven't seen or don't care about the phenomena I'm discussing then it maybe you've just glossed over it. From my eye, it's clear as day in many low light scenarios on major motion pictures shot with digital cameras of various kinds. Why would it be present only in low-light if it weren't a trick people are using to help with low light situations. If people were looking for a particular motion blur, why not have it like that for the entire production.

 

I know, I gotta come up with some examples and I will soon. Just been busy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes it could be Im going blind .. but there are many night shots Ive seen on films and Netflix etc shot on Digital and Ive not noticed it.. Ive shot a lot at night with my own camera and f55,s.. and honestly I just cant believe that on drama shoots ... they don't have the budget for sufficient lighting and have to resort to shutter off ..on a regular basis.. sure we can boost the gain.. not ideal, but sensors these days can handle a bit safely .. and noise reduction in post is now also very good.. yes I would love to know some examples or interviews you have read with DP.s saying they do this ..under any circumstances except a look..

 

 

Edit.. Shutter off is 360 degree shutter.. every camera person knows what that will look like .. there is just no way they would do it for whole scenes with action.. or directors that would allow it.. even my lowly work.. if I did this I would sacked straight away..

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

As above.. there is just no way in this day and age that anyone is doing 360 degree shutter @.. normal speed .. due to poor lighting.. presumably meaning not enough and having to resort to shutter off.. I mean thats just nuts that a feature film would do this.. unless its an effect they want... even on the lowest budget corp shoot you only do this as a last resort.. and only a shot with no to minimal movement in the frame.. the idea that Ben is Back .. a full blown feature film staring Julia Roberts and shot by Stuart Dryburgh...you know who this is right.. Oscar nom for the Piano..shot the pilot for Broadwalk Empire etc.. would not have budgeted for adequate lighting for night scenes and then the DP turns to the director and says.. oh damn.. I forgot night is dark.. No problem we'll just turn off the shutter.. looks like shite but well too bad everyone is doing it .. really Manu.. you think that conversation happened .. personally I really doubt it.. ..there is some irony that you guys are calling out as incompetent .. the work of some of the best DP,s on the planet ..

 

 

Not necessarily poor lighting, Ben Is Back has a 13 million budget, maybe they couldn't afford as much equipment as they needed for some of the night stuff, I don't know?! Or it's a weird stylistic choice. There are quite a few times on modern movies (happens more on TV though, whether it's Red or Alexa) where that ugliness is present and I wonder why "were they lazy?", "stylistic choice?", "they didn't have time to light it?".

 

Who knows. I NEVER called anyone incompetent. Also, yeah, Dryburgh is a great DP, doesn't mean everything he does is going to be great either.

 

 

I'm thinking of examples and there are probably reasons for all of it: Life Of Pi exhibits that motion blur several times in daytime and night time situations, probably requirements because of 3D or certain technical aspects of the film. Mr Robot on TV has a handful of moments in the first episode if I remember correctly, daytime interior. (Red Dragon on that one), Birdman has it (night time exterior on the roof, Ed Norton and Emma Stone chatting), X-Men: Days Of Future Past has quite a bit of it, in daytime situations especially, Captain America: The First Avenger has it from time to time (but most of it is shot on the Genesis, so that makes sense), there are more examples everywhere but I'm too lazy to keep looking :D

Edited by Manu Delpech
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not necessarily poor lighting, Ben Is Back has a 13 million budget, maybe they couldn't afford as much equipment as they needed for some of the night stuff, I don't know?! Or it's a weird stylistic choice. There are quite a few times on modern movies (happens more on TV though, whether it's Red or Alexa) where that ugliness is present and I wonder why "were they lazy?", "stylistic choice?", "they didn't have time to light it?".

 

Who knows. I NEVER called anyone incompetent. Also, yeah, Dryburgh is a great DP, doesn't mean everything he does is going to be great either.

 

 

I'm thinking of examples and there are probably reasons for all of it: Life Of Pi exhibits that motion blur several times in daytime and night time situations, probably requirements because of 3D or certain technical aspects of the film. Mr Robot on TV has a handful of moments in the first episode if I remember correctly, daytime interior. (Red Dragon on that one), Birdman has it (night time exterior on the roof, Ed Norton and Emma Stone chatting), X-Men: Days Of Future Past has quite a bit of it, in daytime situations especially, Captain America: The First Avenger has it from time to time (but most of it is shot on the Genesis, so that makes sense), there are more examples everywhere but I'm too lazy to keep looking :D

 

 

Sure ok fair enough.. but "Instead of lighting properly " was how Tyler put it..and I would doubt the DP,s are ever lazy on these large budget productions ...Im not sure why you would ever even think that..it does show some lack of respect I think.. maybe its just the way you are viewing the trailer ,,? or they did some crazy 48p trailer clip.. I think its hard to pass judgement without seeing the film viewed properly .. but then how do you explain all the night footage shot on Digital that looks great.. I mean there must be hundreds of hours of it.. even without lights I can shoot in most cities without having to turn the shutter off.. I mean really it just doesn't add up, that massive budget films are caught out without lights.and have to go 360 shutter.. it beggars belief . its never been cheaper to shoot at night...add gain maybe.and take it out in post..but just switch off the shutter.. no way... its far more likely to be the situation that you are viewing the footage ..

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...