Jump to content
Anne Bauchens

Experimenting with 'blowing the image up'

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody, could anyone explain what Walter is talking about at the end of the video, is digital image blowup is a form of texture control? are there examples and information on this technique?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's just saying that the lack of grain in a digital image allows it to be enlarged more than a film frame before the blow-up becomes obvious. On the other hand, I saw "Youth Without Youth" and noticed a lot of the blow-ups so I think a 2X enlargement was pushing things too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

He's just saying that the lack of grain in a digital image allows it to be enlarged more than a film frame before the blow-up becomes obvious. On the other hand, I saw "Youth Without Youth" and noticed a lot of the blow-ups so I think a 2X enlargement was pushing things too much. 

 Ya I got that and "Youth without youth" was not the best use the digital medium to begin with, David you had far batter results with that camera in "Jackpot" years before that film, my question is why did he and George Lucas blew up Close shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 8:37 PM, David Mullen ASC said:

Because they thought they could get away with it!

 I don't agree with what you are saying, Walter Murch is a cinema genius and George Lucus is technical master, they won't just improvise.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say they improvised, I'm saying they did it because they thought they could get away with that degree of enlargement because it wasn't noticeable... but it was.  In terms of WHY they wanted to enlarge the image, it's the oldest reason in the book, they wanted a tighter shot in editing and they didn't have it in the coverage that was shot. Why does an editor ever change the framing of what was shot? Because they think the shot needs to be framed differently to tell the story within the context of the edit.  Of course, as a cinematographer, I object to the editor changing my compositions just as they would if I came into the editing room and made a few changes to the cut.

But yes, Walter Murch is a genius, I agree. And it's not always about the integrity of the cinematography. On the other hand, he is making a judgement call about image quality and the cinematographer should be involved in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think blowing 200% to get a close up is considered recomposing, i would think its intentional "effect", i would have to search more about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's recomposing the image.  If you composed a shot carefully and handed it to someone who then cropped it by 200%, you wouldn't think that a new frame was created?  How could the original composition not be changed?  If you're saying that the 200% crop was planned on set and composed with the cropping in mind, then why didn't they just shoot a tighter shot and not have to crop (with much better technical quality as a result.)

Of course the editor intentionally cropped the shot, it's hard to accidentally do it.

Are you saying that some coverage was shot and framed for a 200% blow-up for the look of a blow-up (reduced resolution, increased noise, and increased depth of field?) If they wanted the look of a blow-up, then why would Murch talk about how much of a blow-up you can get away with, which is the exact opposite of wanting the look of a blow-up?  If you like the look of blow-ups as an intentional effect, then film is even better than digital because you can see the artifacts of the blow-up more clearly. 

What Murch is talking about is how much he can get away with blowing up a shot that was not planned to be tighter because in editing, he now needs a tighter shot.

Sure, some of the shots blown-up don't have a big change in composition because they were a loose single of someone sitting at a table with a wall behind them, so blowing it up just meant that there is less wall -- a different composition but not a dramatic change compared to converting a 2-shot into a single.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Anne Bauchens said:

n't think blowing 200% to get a close up is considered recom

? Just joking around 🙂

Edited by Justin Hayward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Yes, it's recomposing the image.  If you composed a shot carefully and handed it to someone who then cropped it by 200%, you wouldn't think that a new frame was created?  How could the original composition not be changed?  If you're saying that the 200% crop was planned on set and composed with the cropping in mind, then why didn't they just shoot a tighter shot and not have to crop (with much better technical quality as a result.)

Of course the editor intentionally cropped the shot, it's hard to accidentally do it.

Are you saying that some coverage was shot and framed for a 200% blow-up for the look of a blow-up (reduced resolution, increased noise, and increased depth of field?) If they wanted the look of a blow-up, then why would Murch talk about how much of a blow-up you can get away with, which is the exact opposite of wanting the look of a blow-up?  If you like the look of blow-ups as an intentional effect, then film is even better than digital because you can see the artifacts of the blow-up more clearly. 

What Murch is talking about is how much he can get away with blowing up a shot that was not planned to be tighter because in editing, he now needs a tighter shot.

Sure, some of the shots blown-up don't have a big change in composition because they were a loose single of someone sitting at a table with a wall behind them, so blowing it up just meant that there is less wall -- a different composition but not a dramatic change compared to converting a 2-shot into a single.

 Calm down no need to get tensioned I'm concern about your health, you are the most active in all forums, no need for you to have the last word in every subject, art is about exploring and learning new methods even if doesn't technically make sense to you David.

 

7 hours ago, Justin Hayward said:

? Just joking around 🙂

  The only situation where recomposing a shot by 200% is justified (THE DP WAS NOT ON SET)

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 12:59 PM, Anne Bauchens said:

 I don't agree with what you are saying, Walter Murch is a cinema genius and George Lucus is technical master, they won't just improvise.

Sometimes you don't know you've gone too far until you do. Experimentation is part of the give and take artistic process.

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    CineLab



    Ritter Battery



    Tai Audio



    Metropolis Post



    FJS International



    Glidecam



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    The Original Slider



    Paralinx LLC



    G-Force Grips



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Wooden Camera



    Just Cinema Gear



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Abel Cine



    Serious Gear



    Visual Products


    Cinematography Books and Gear
×
×
  • Create New...