Jump to content

It looks like "video"


DBounce
 Share

Recommended Posts

A good post and interesting topic. But I don't agree that achieving the filmic look trying to make your video look vintage and old past movies? Moving away from clean video and applying the necessary filters, and shooting settings prevent your finished film looking like the people are in your front room. The beauty of film is that it is removed from from looking like it is there in front of you (boring) and immerses you and draws you into the film. It has to be detached this way, I think it is necessary for different look of film. Apart from this, images too clean can look like amateur home video look.

Looking at The Revenant, yes it does look like film, and it's been colour graded etc. I'm not sure what vintage movies you are referring to when you say The Revenant does not look like film but The Revenant sure as heck does not look like clean video. 

 

I think achieving a film look is not about vintage past techniques, it's about properly grading footage so it's not like it's in your front room.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At my screening it didn't look like film and it didn't look like video...

Actually, it looked like a film transferred to a DVD then digitally up scaled and projected.  So...both?

In other words, it looked kinda like a mess. 

Looked a bit fuzzy here in parts, definitely not video though. Regular screen not IMAX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looked a bit fuzzy here in parts, definitely not video though. Regular screen not IMAX.

Yeah, the "IMAX" treatment I feel was definitely a bit of a scam.  Shot on Kodak film, finished in digital post at 2k, and then upscaled for IMAX projection?  That's not cool.  

For small-ish multiplex screens it sort of makes sense, but at my screening I truly felt I was being unfairly exploited by the IMAX branding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the "IMAX" treatment I feel was definitely a bit of a scam.  Shot on Kodak film, finished in digital post at 2k, and then upscaled for IMAX projection?  That's not cool.  

For small-ish multiplex screens it sort of makes sense, but at my screening I truly felt I was being unfairly exploited by the IMAX branding.

Yeah, your projection sounds like a disaster. My screening of Rogue Nation looked excellent. A little soft in some of the close-ups from slight misfocusing, but that's common with film. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, your projection sounds like a disaster. My screening of Rogue Nation looked excellent. A little soft in some of the close-ups from slight misfocusing, but that's common with film. 

Did you see it in IMAX?  I'm thinking the larger format really exposed the flaws.  Then again, it was so bad I'm not ruling out projectionist mistake.  Maybe a condition of all issues, who knows?  

All I do know is that I got screwed paying extra for this sub-part screening.  Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you see it in IMAX?  I'm thinking the larger format really exposed the flaws.  Then again, it was so bad I'm not ruling out projectionist mistake.  Maybe a condition of all issues, who knows?  

All I do know is that I got screwed paying extra for this sub-part screening.  Oh well.

Nope, just a large screen and a 4K projector. Looked great. A bad IMAX screening could've been any number of things. Sucks that you had to pay extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the master format (see imdb) for MI5 is 2k, what would you expect? 2k on a 4k projector is still 2k. In an IMAX theatre, where the seats are closer to the screen, you'd see the limits of resolution. A cinema floor plan is a compromise always, and the only suitable format for an IMAX theatre is IMAX - in 4:3 aspect ratio. 

4k and above is best appreciated on an UHD TV, and with a documentary. You can position yourself as close to the display as you like (at some point, a curved display is an advantage). The images of such a film should move slowly, if at all, because otherwise motion blur (like in an action movie) blurs away the detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things suit Sony style ultra sharp ultra colourful cool tone reality, and some suit 16mm Kodak with moody tones and a ton of noise. Samsara suits the hyper-real 70mm film as its a visual anthropological document of sorts as well as social comment.

the fact that we can choose formats is great. Truth is it's nice to have access to wonderful formats, but if you're doing narrative it's the least of you worries, because you're relying on performance and script to sell your story and story world. If those are good enough, format is usually a background element. It can enhance a story but it can't break it unless you REALLY screw up.

if you aren't doing narrative then other practical considerations will take over, though most modern formats will do you fine.

i recently re-watched some of my older 550D music videos, and the softness combines with the grain added makes them look quite nice and 16mm like, which suits the gritty feel. I prefer them to some work I've done on other cameras (Epic etc). The format suits the content and helps sell the piece. F65 would have been impractical (huge size extra crew) and would have needed to be degraded a lot to suit. 

So don't get *too* tied up in technology. Only other film-makers are looking for that, if they make up the majority of your audience and the technology is the point, I'd motion that you needn't worry about posterity, as your work will likely become obsolete naturally as technology changes.

I agree on "narrative detachment". That's why Lord Of The Rings shot on film whips The Hobbit shot on crystal clear high-frame rate digital.

layers of subtle non-linear organic distortion create the detachment, which helps you feel you're looking at another world.

The Hobbit often looks like you're on a set, and that's no fun,

i still maintain though, that if the story in The Hobbit was more bearably paced and the whole a little better written I wouldn't have cared so much about the sharpness of the makeup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the master format (see imdb) for MI5 is 2k, what would you expect?

Well, in retrospect, I guess I should have done my due diligence and researched the production chain of the film I was going to see.  "Buyer Beware" and all that.  Still, there's something disagreeable with going to see a IMAX branded projection of a film, (and paying a premium price for it) and then getting an highly inferior image.

Not smart on the IMAX biz-ness front, IMHO.  It diminishes the brand.

Yes, the master digital format is 2k.  Odd in of itself, and then to bump it up for an IMAX projection?  Bad idea.  I mean, there were shots that I could see every single sharpening decision they attempted in Resolve.  Focus was soft on that shot?  Sharpen the eyes!  All of those post production tricks were right in your face.

In a way, it was ultimately kind of fascinating.  Like watching a DVD six inches from the monitor. 

It's also ironic that while film is often considered the holy grail of image acquisition by older industry folks, this particular example illustrates how that legacy can be tarnished.

Anyway, I wouldn't have expected a major distribution film like this to have this sort of flaw, but that's how the industry is doing things and I guess they felt they could get away with it.  I just wouldn't have ever expected that a film, actually shot on film, and projected in a theatre would be woefully inferior to "video."  But, based on what they decided to do, there's my testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

looking at it i noticed it has a "video game" look, what strikes as odd in the cinematography of this movie,

is that everything shot is very clear and wide and that does not resemble the way we actually see things, our eyesight is not that good. 

so since there is no faraway blur in the backround objects it seems artificial to us.

and this is why old dated westerns like 1971s "The Hired Hand" will still kick this movie to the ground in terms of cinematography.

031205_17.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree that some part of the emotion of cinematography comes from degrading the image down to a 2D flat version of how our eyes work.

our hunter's vision is relatively limited in field of view, resolution and ability to focus on more than one thing or distance at a time... 

That can work for some shots but eventually it feels detached, like documentation rather than involvement.

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...