The new Matrix trailer

[MrSMW]

The biggest question is will Neo still know Kung Fu…??

[fuzzynormal]

Eh.  Just cheap looking.  

Interesting.  My feeling is that film, because it puts an organic sheen on the visuals, helps fiction narrative.   Whereas super clean digital often pushes stuff into uncanny valley.  With digital, the conceit of film-making is too often revealed.  You quickly see the fakeness of things.

Some films use this to an advantage, others make a mistake and embrace the tech only to be betrayed by it.

It's certainly debatable how the director of this film wanted it to be.

Personally it didn't jibe with me.  Also, the story?  Whatever.  Yawn.  Gave up on the flick about half way through and watched The Great British Baking Show instead.  Which also wasn't as good as the originals.

[HockeyFan12]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Eh.  Just cheap looking.  

Interesting.  My feeling is that film, because it puts an organic sheen on the visuals, helps fiction narrative.   Whereas super clean digital often pushes stuff into uncanny valley.  With digital, the conceit of film-making is too often revealed.  You quickly see the fakeness of things.

Some films use this to an advantage, others make a mistake and embrace the tech only to be betrayed by it.

I'm inclined to agree. But I have a vested interest both in "vintage" gear and lower res, softer footage. 

Vintage lenses I suspect are now so popular in part because of how sharp digital feels compared with film. Maybe sharp digital projection is a factor here too. I suspect for art design and vfx lower res helps too because the softer image and grain help cover up the artifice. Curious if gaffers light differently for film and for digital. I suspect they do.

I also notice that the Alexa has a softer, grainier image than most other digital cameras do. I prefer the grainy Red Dragon image to newer Red cameras (to some extent), I like the Alexa image enough to wonder if I'll prefer it to the next generation Alexa, and I preferred the C300's image to the C300 Mk 2's and F3 to F5 – at least from what I have seen online.

On the other hand, the Wachowskis did such a fun job embracing the digital/fake look with Speed Racer (in terms of cinematography, vfx, and set design alike) that I want to give Resurrections the benefit of the doubt (Still haven't seen it but really looking forward to it.) But whether the look is intentional or not (I'm fairly sure it is), that doesn't mean it looks good.... Lord of the Rings (and Gemini Man) did not have great receptions for HFR. I suspect the new Avatar movies, if they are HFR, will buck this trend, and am look forward to seeing those, too.

[aaa123jc]

I have watched the movie a few days ago with my girlfriend in the cinema. And what a disappointment. Didn't really have a high expectation but still the movie managed to disappoint me. The acting is quite good. The cinematography... just meh. The story though, is REALLY REALLY REALLY bad.

But for me, the hyper realistic,  video game like look in the matrix world kinda works. It looks funny and ugly and uncinematic, but probably this is what the directors want the image to be? The cinematography in the real world is fine, maybe a bit boring. 

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I have a vested interest both in "vintage" gear and lower res, softer footage. 

As do I.  

The newer people on the planet probably don't care.  I definitely came of age going to "grind-house" cinemas. My visual biases are falling by the way-side as probably no one under 20 has ever seen a battle-worn print in a shitty theater.  

Heck, my favorite movie theater was a small converted cotton gin warehouse; never screened a print of a movie that hadn't been on the road for half a year...

Still, I stick to the notion that the analog quality of 24p film smooths out the hard edge sheen of a production.  For instance, I bet you could watch Wizard of OZ with 60p interpolation --and just that change would remove a lot of the "magic" we internalize without even realizing it.

I want that magic.  I often push my digital stuff into that emulation mode to grab some it.  For instance (and I've said this many times) but I typically shoot 24 frame rate with a 25 shutter.  I just love the motion blur and the "non-digital" look of it.  

Visual butta'.

I'm just finishing a film that's in B&W and is a direct homage to 1940's code era films.  As such, I've been shooting things "wrong" to make the IQ feel authentic to that era and NOT look like it was shot on a cheap digital camera.  The slow shutter thing is a bit of a secret sauce many tend to overlook or ignore.

[HockeyFan12]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

...no one under 20 has ever seen a battle-worn print in a shitty theater.  

Interesting point. I think the 30-something directors getting into the industry today are still into the vintage/film look.

But younger directors might not be. 

You're not the first person I've talked with who goes with a longer shutter angle to get a smoother cadence. However 1/24th is too smooth for my taste. I've seen around 1/40th or 1/36th? Although beware flicker then from 60hz sources (street lights, some fluorescents).

Also, I'm surprised that Alexa looks sharp on the big screen but kind of soft on my laptop? Sometimes I think there's more need for 4K on YouTube than there is in theaters. As we move even more to streaming (already with Netflix), will that push cameras to more and more Ks?

[TomTheDP]

2 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Interesting point. I think the 30-something directors getting into the industry today are still into the vintage/film look.

But younger directors might not be. 

You're not the first person I've talked with who goes with a longer shutter angle to get a smoother cadence. However 1/24th is too smooth for my taste. I've seen around 1/40th or 1/36th? Although beware flicker then from 60hz sources (street lights, some fluorescents).

Also, I'm surprised that Alexa looks sharp on the big screen but kind of soft on my laptop? Sometimes I think there's more need for 4K on YouTube than there is in theaters. As we move even more to streaming (already with Netflix), will that push cameras to more and more Ks?

You are referring to the Classic I assume? I'd really like to see the difference between the Classic and the LF in person side by side on my PC. Sharpening does wonders getting it closer to that newer 6k look though.

Back to the topic of the Matrix, despite the rotten reviews, I am going to see it Monday. I am going in expecting it to be very different than the rest of the films and I hope to maybe not hate it.

[HockeyFan12]

10 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

You are referring to the Classic I assume? I'd really like to see the difference between the Classic and the LF in person side by side on my PC. Sharpening does wonders getting it closer to that newer 6k look though.

Back to the topic of the Matrix, despite the rotten reviews, I am going to see it Monday. I am going in expecting it to be very different than the rest of the films and I hope to maybe not hate it.

I don't mean soft in a bad way, I actually like the look. Fwiw Arri has sample footage from the LF on their website.

[TomTheDP]

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I don't mean soft in a bad way, I actually like the look. Fwiw Arri has sample footage from the LF on their website.

It's hard to compare unless you are shooting same situation same lenses etc... Higher end cameras seem to have a softer look from what I have worked with. Lack of sharpening I'd assume when pitted against more consumer cameras.

I actually find it to exposure similar to my Panasonic S1. Expose normally and you get a bit of grain in darker situations. If you over expose a stop or 2 it looks super clean. The Alexa noise is much nicer than the S1's though IMO.

[HockeyFan12]

40 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

It's hard to compare unless you are shooting same situation same lenses etc... Higher end cameras seem to have a softer look from what I have worked with. Lack of sharpening I'd assume when pitted against more consumer cameras.

I actually find it to exposure similar to my Panasonic S1. Expose normally and you get a bit of grain in darker situations. If you over expose a stop or 2 it looks super clean. The Alexa noise is much nicer than the S1's though IMO.

I agree. I like a little more grain but clients might not.

[TomTheDP]

21 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I agree. I like a little more grain but clients might not.

Yeah its definitely a bit easier to get a clean image on the S1 with the dual native ISO, at least in situations with little control of lighting, which is increasingly common.

[leslie]

On 12/26/2021 at 1:56 AM, MrSMW said:

The biggest question is will Neo still know Kung Fu…??

mrsmw, its like riding a bike...😉