independent Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 On February 29, 2016 at 1:35 AM, squig said: I'm missing the point? Firstly, "cinematic' has to be the dumbest word I've encountered on the filmmaking forums. The dictionary definition is: relating to the cinema, and: having qualities characteristic of films. In the 21st century an increasing number of films are shot digitally; not all those films look like they've been shot on film, some have been shot digitally and attempt to emulate the look of film, others have been shot digitally to deliberately look like video. Some films are shot on film with deep DOF, realistic color, and grain removed in post, and look like they've been shot digitally. So "Cinematic" doesn't have any real specific meaning, it's a misnomer. "Filmic" on the other hand does have meaning because "filmic" means something that looks like/emulates actual film stock. You can choose a camera that produces a "filmic" look to suit your story, or you can choose a camera that produces a "video" look, but if you're a director asking a cinematographer for a "cinematic" look, expect the cinematographer to shake his head and/or laugh. Cinematic isn't a misnomer at all. In all my posts, I make this distinction myself, between the terms cinematic and filmic, because cinematic today has moved beyond what film can achieve. And I don't believe "cinematic" it's a dumb word at all. In fact, it's an exciting, dynamic concept that is changing and evolving with technology and creative vision. Cinematic won't look the same 10 years from now. But it is useful as an idea and a term. Filmic, on the other hand, is a specific term within the broad idea of cinematic, and I believe the OP was referring to "filmic" when he said "cinematic," which for the most part, might have been fairly interchangeable from a visual standpoint until recently. But I think it was worth making that distinction in this thread, to distinguish those terms, because we're seeing further separation moving forward. As an aside, there is another part of this conversation that involves a different point, on color science. I don't believe the "Sony color" is necessarily less "cinematic" than other camera's out-of-the-box colors, because on a technical level, those are decisions to be made in the production and post-production, and decisions regarding the aesthetic of the direction, story, genre. The point being, Sony's out-of-the-box colors can be appropriate for certain genres and story, which can be fairly "cinematic," a look that would be reasonably be consistent with theater-release features. It could also be manipulated for other genres, which could also look cinematic. The point being, Sony color isn't necessarily not "cinematic." On February 29, 2016 at 1:35 AM, squig said: You wouldn't shoot The Walking Dead on a Red Epic because it would take a lot more time and cost a lot more money to get the deliberate lo-fi S16mm look right in post. If I was asked to shoot The Walking Dead digitally I'd shoot it with the Digital Bolex. You choose the camera that best tells the story you want to tell (within your budget), it's as simple as that. First of all, you're missing the point again. I said it's unlikely TWD chose16mm because it looked cinematic. Some poster had said the TWD wouldn't shoot on the Red Epic. Which may or may not be true, for whatever their reasons, but I doubt that their decision was made because they believe the Red Epic looks less cinematic than 16mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squig Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Andrew, where's the banging head on wall emoji? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
independent Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 On February 29, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Axel said: Tarantino used film for The H8ful 8. I saw it on 70mm here in NYC and was disappointed. Not because it was 70mm, but because the film was essentially a stage play. Like Reservoir dogs; most of the movie was in one location: the cabin. 70mm for a single interior location? Was it cinematic? Sure, in a specific retrospective way, or nostalgic, which is his general style anyways. But what did it accomplish? Would it have been less cinematic had it been shot on 35mm or Alexa, Red? No, it still would have looked like a great cinema movie... and perhaps the smaller format would have been even more effective for the (small) story. ROOM was shot by Danny Cohen on the Red, and it looked great, cinematic but also right for the story. I think the digital sensor allowed for a very clean capture with mostly natural light, practicals. The clean capture and dynamic range made the movie transparent and immersive. It also brought you into the room, to feel the space, or the lack of, and empathize with the characters. Cinematic, in the best way, and moving beyond what filmic can give us. The point being: cinematic is a real term, which encompasses filmic, in fact successfully mimicked it, but is now capturing visuals that exceeds it. And that's exciting - to have a larger palatte, instead of being overly nostalgic about a great (but limited) medium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercer Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 This conversation occurs once every 6 months and it usually ends with disagreement. Digital has not surpassed film. Cinematic and filmic are different and independent of one another. A movie can be cinematic but not filmic. A movie can be filmic but not cinematic. Or it can be both or neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 Doesn't have to be filmic, it just has to look like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 2, 2016 Share Posted March 2, 2016 In german language, this distiction doesn't exist. Kinematisch, though probably the right translation, sounds like a word from physics. Filmisch is used to identify a story that has the potential for a visual drama, mostly in direct reference to unfilmisch by which are meant films with a lot of dialog scenes, "talkies". Also, there is no distinction between film and movie. An audiovisual narration shot on video would still be a Film, just shot on video. A bunch of recordings of your cat, not edited in any meaningful way, is a Video. A typical Hollywood movie is a Genrefilm (> Scary Movie). On 28. Februar 2016 at 1:35 PM, Ed David said: Cameras do matter. Deakins fought for the alexa on hail ceasar and the cohens insisted kodak film. Have you seen hail caesar? It looks amazing. I saw it yesterday. I thought the studio lighting and the artificial skies did the job, did still look clean in most 'realistic' scenes. All in all, I think it was a not-so-great Coen film, not as good as, say, Barton Fink. In P.T. Andersons Inherent Vice, i found the use of film stock better motivated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiago Rosa-Rosso Posted March 8, 2016 Share Posted March 8, 2016 more footage. enjoy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 The terms "Cinematic" & "Filmic" get thrown around (on filmmaking forums) without anyone really knowing why or how they should be used. They are theoretical terms that have some how been picked up on & misappropriated - language can be a tricky thing & you are all using these terms incorrectly, perhaps this might help: "As adjectives the difference between cinematic and filmic is that cinematic is of or relating to the cinema while filmic is (nonstandard) of or relating to movies; cinematic." http://the-difference-between.com/filmic/cinematic This next one might make things clearer: Christian Metz (one of the great French writers on cinema) in his book "Language and Cinema" put it this way - see the 2nd paragraph: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wAVYK2nnRysC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=cinematic+vs+filmic&source=bl&ots=OHjFplEwrj&sig=S6P5J_Hr1VrGQQjReZqr4J9MJHw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwievpC3srLLAhXld5oKHe6rBEgQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=cinematic%20vs%20filmic&f=false Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Yeah, we've been over that before, but still something can LOOK or FEEL cinematic/filmic to someone. That hasn't got much to do with cinematic of filmic being a technically appropriate term for something. It's like saying 'no, it's BOH-KEE, not BO-KEH', "No it isn't!". How do you say '.gif'? 'You've got it all wrong!' Does it really matter what is technically right? Doesn't it just matter that everyone knows what we're all trying to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 1 minute ago, Cinegain said: Yeah, we've been over that before, but still something can LOOK or FEEL cinematic/filmic to someone. That hasn't got much to do with cinematic of filmic being a technically appropriate term for something. It's like saying 'no, it's BOH-KEE, not BO-KEH', "No it isn't!". How do you say '.gif'? 'You've got it all wrong!' Does it really matter what is technically right? Doesn't it just matter that everyone knows what we're all trying to say? I know its kinda nit picking, but just look at the way people react when you don't use these terms properly! And pronunciation is a completely different thing. So yes it really does matter, because people obviously don't know what's trying to be said. Why not just be clear and say that the digital image is very close to replicating the look of celluloid/film - simple & easy. Anyhow, the small BM cams really do replicate that celluloid look quite well, but not as good as the Digital Bolex, which really is the king here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 It's only a problem when people don't read between the lines and in context. Then there's nothing wrong. But of course, you're right. But I wouldn't worry about it too much. And to be honest, I think I might be the only one that really doesn't like the Digital Bolex look at all. Do love me them Blackmagics though. Bioskop.Inc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 28 minutes ago, Cinegain said: It's only a problem when people don't read between the lines and in context. Then there's nothing wrong. But of course, you're right. But I wouldn't worry about it too much. And too be honest, I think I might be the only one that really doesn't like the Digital Bolex look at all. Do love me them Blackmagics though. To be honest, I got a little confused by the Cinematic/Filmic conversation that went on - I knew what they were trying to say, but they just weren't saying it! It's like people who go to Wikipedia, read the page & then think thats that - i know everything now. Or when students (yeah, I used to teach this stuff) would ask me whether they really had to read this or that book and then they'd go to Wikipedia, copy the half-arsed explanation down (not realising that I have a computer too) word for word & then get surprised that you fail them or mark them down! Language is there for a purpose, to enable people to express themselves properly, in order to be understood. The Language of Cinema is/can be difficult, but if you're going to use it, use it properly! (Sorry, bit a rant - not aimed at you Cinegain). I know what you mean about the DB & there are some nasty examples out there - especially when they've been coloured badly! Perhaps these examples of the DB might change your mind? In the right hands it can look awesome! Spike Lee: Someone else: Ed_David 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_David Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 16 hours ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said: more footage. enjoy Man that is gorgeous!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Ed David said: Man that is gorgeous!!! I agree. And have you seen the filmlike noise in the shadows? I am curious if it was shot in raw. BTW: Can you say filmlike? Or is this an exclusively german anglicism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenEricson Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 4 hours ago, Ed David said: Man that is gorgeous!!! The original pocket is great as well. This guy's work is really nice. https://vimeo.com/101441424 Cinegain 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_David Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 6 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said: To be honest, I got a little confused by the Cinematic/Filmic conversation that went on - I knew what they were trying to say, but they just weren't saying it! It's like people who go to Wikipedia, read the page & then think thats that - i know everything now. Or when students (yeah, I used to teach this stuff) would ask me whether they really had to read this or that book and then they'd go to Wikipedia, copy the half-arsed explanation down (not realising that I have a computer too) word for word & then get surprised that you fail them or mark them down! Language is there for a purpose, to enable people to express themselves properly, in order to be understood. The Language of Cinema is/can be difficult, but if you're going to use it, use it properly! (Sorry, bit a rant - not aimed at you Cinegain). I know what you mean about the DB & there are some nasty examples out there - especially when they've been coloured badly! Perhaps these examples of the DB might change your mind? In the right hands it can look awesome! Spike Lee: Someone else: Wow that stuff looks amazing! I for one, couldn't get over the form factor of the Digital Bolex. But those images are incredible! 39 minutes ago, BenEricson said: The original pocket is great as well. This guy's work is really nice. https://vimeo.com/101441424 the other BMPCCCCCC stuff - the original looks beautiful too! Of course, there's also a lot of stuff shot on both cameras that doesn't look as good. Put a camera in the right hands.... but it's good to see its full potential. I still think the Digital Bolex had a really bizarre form factor and the monitor was horrible on it. And the original pocket camera - same thing - bad monitor and bad battery life, but seemed to be better in low light. The new pocket is going to be a pretty amazing, small, sneaky camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted March 9, 2016 Super Members Share Posted March 9, 2016 This thread make me miss my Bolex so much I will be stalking ebay from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinegain Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 7 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said: To be honest, I got a little confused by the Cinematic/Filmic conversation that went on - I knew what they were trying to say, but they just weren't saying it! It's like people who go to Wikipedia, read the page & then think thats that - i know everything now. Or when students (yeah, I used to teach this stuff) would ask me whether they really had to read this or that book and then they'd go to Wikipedia, copy the half-arsed explanation down (not realising that I have a computer too) word for word & then get surprised that you fail them or mark them down! Language is there for a purpose, to enable people to express themselves properly, in order to be understood. The Language of Cinema is/can be difficult, but if you're going to use it, use it properly! (Sorry, bit a rant - not aimed at you Cinegain). I know what you mean about the DB & there are some nasty examples out there - especially when they've been coloured badly! Perhaps these examples of the DB might change your mind? In the right hands it can look awesome! Spike Lee: Someone else: Yeah, dunno. I appreciate the effort. Surely it's one of the better stuff of the DB I've seen of it, but still the Digital Bolex just doesn't jingle my bells somehow. I must be messed up like that. But dang, that The Universe of that mentioned fella on Vimeo... a pocket, a speedbooster and one lens (and a glidecam) and such awesome results. I don't know, maybe because it's gentler or something, but that's my kinda cookie. Nomnomnom, I do love me some Blackmagic with my milk. mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted March 9, 2016 Super Members Share Posted March 9, 2016 Ok I can't stop now: These are D16 Gold! (imo) Love the universe he has created. Liam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_David Posted March 9, 2016 Author Share Posted March 9, 2016 that stuff all looks great, but I still think they could get that with the BMPCC. We are seeing beautiful grade and the lenses. I don't know how much of a difference - has someone shot test charts with both to see. Doesn't the form factor of the camera scare everyone - I guess if you just put it on rails then it's okay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.