ISO is irrelevant

[EduPortas]

Slow weekend. Watched "Anatomy of a Fall" and "The Zone of Interest" on streaming back-to-back.

Both were nominated for a ton of different awards, including this year's Oscars. Now I understand why.

They are truly fantastic narratives produced in creative poles other than Hollywood.

And yet, I couldn't help but notice that BOTH films feature scenes full of mosquito-noise in the last third of the narrative. You cannot not see it.  High contrast scenes in both of them. From extreme shadows to extreme brightness in the same frame. A good amount of time of on-screen mosquito noise, not a second or two.

The director just said to the editor "fuck it, lift the shadows as much as you can and we'll show it that way, with all this digital noise. Who the hell cares".

Just saying guys. Maybe we're just too close to the trees.

[Davide DB]

2 hours ago, EduPortas said:

The director just said to the editor "fuck it, lift the shadows as much as you can and we'll show it that way, with all this digital noise. Who the hell cares".

Just saying guys. Maybe we're just too close to the trees.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/the-zone-of-interest-review-jonathan-glazer-1235496467/

 

Quote

Working with Polish cinematographer Łukasz Żal, who shot Pawel Pawlikowski’s beautiful black-and-white companion pieces Ida and Cold War, Glazer embedded remotely operated cameras in production designer Chris Oddy’s reconstruction of the Höss residence. They shot simultaneously on up to 10 cameras in different rooms using no film lights and allowing the actors to move unobstructed.

 

[Emanuel]

Well, if so, no dreams would happen to be nor real... ; ) but loved the title for what it is not ;- )

- EAG

[ac6000cw]

3 hours ago, EduPortas said:

And yet, I couldn't help but notice that BOTH films feature scenes full of mosquito-noise in the last third of the narrative. You cannot not see it.  High contrast scenes in both of them. From extreme shadows to extreme brightness in the same frame. A good amount of time of on-screen mosquito noise, not a second or two.

Isn't the 'mosquito-noise' more likely to be the result of the high levels of compression used for the streaming?

(Mosquito noise as defined here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact#Mosquito_noise )

[EduPortas]

10 hours ago, Davide DB said:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/the-zone-of-interest-review-jonathan-glazer-1235496467/

That's interesting, thanks.

[EduPortas]

9 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

Isn't the 'mosquito-noise' more likely to be the result of the high levels of compression used for the streaming?

(Mosquito noise as defined here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_artifact#Mosquito_noise )

No bro, it's the digital noise that creeps up when you lift the shadows in a violent fashion and all kinds of artifacts show up. Blue dots, green lines, random pixels everywhere, you've seen it.

[zlfan]

Basically, they used Sony Venice 2 and Venice OG with AXS R7 for 6k raw or XOCN, Leitz M ff cine lenses.

The look is extremely sharp, very much like looking through the window.

Why did they choose the leitz lenses, not the zeiss lenses? Probably the latter is more suitable for this style?

Also they used the aspect ratio of 1.78:1, not the typical cinema 2.40:1.  why?

 

Technical specifications

The Zone of Interest

Edit

Runtime

1h 45m(105 min)

Sound mix

Dolby Digital

Color

Color

Aspect ratio

1.78 : 1

Camera

FLIR X8500(American Cinematographer December 2023)

Sony CineAlta Venice Rialto, Leitz M 0.8 Lenses

Sony CineAlta Venice, Leitz M 0.8 Lenses

Negative Format

AXS-R7

Cinematographic Process

Digital Intermediate(4K, master format)

Spherical(source format)

X-OCN ST(6K, source format)

Printed Film Format

35 mm(Kodak Vision 2383)

D-Cinema

DCP Digital Cinema Package

[zlfan]

10 minutes ago, EduPortas said:

No bro, it's the digital noise that creeps up when you lift the shadows in a violent fashion and all kinds of artifacts show up. Blue dots, green lines, random pixels everywhere, you've seen it.

They shot on raw. Typically shooting raw uses ettr to suppress shadow noise. Why did they elevate the shadow? Also if final look was intentionally high contrast, the shadow should be crashed further? 

[eatstoomuchjam]

41 minutes ago, zlfan said:

Why did they choose the leitz lenses, not the zeiss lenses?

I've never personally used a Leitz cine lens, but I have a number of their rangefinder lenses.  If the cine lenses look as good as the rangefinder lenses, I'd never ask why somebody chose them.  😉

[zlfan]

3 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

I've never personally used a Leitz cine lens, but I have a number of their rangefinder lenses.  If the cine lenses look as good as the rangefinder lenses, I'd never ask why somebody chose them.  😉

leitz lenses are great, no doubt about it. just style is kind of different from the movie itself. not sure why. 

[Davide DB]

Weeks ago we wrote about this:

 

[ac6000cw]

14 hours ago, EduPortas said:

No bro, it's the digital noise that creeps up when you lift the shadows in a violent fashion and all kinds of artifacts show up. Blue dots, green lines, random pixels everywhere, you've seen it.

That's basically an amplified version of the sensor background noise (its 'noise floor') - it's not 'mosquito' noise.

(And what's 'violent' about lifting the shadows in video? - 'dramatic' or 'drastic' might be a better term to use)

[kye]

This is the trailer for the film - are the sections you're talking about in here?

There are a few shots in here with lots of noise, but they're either a heavy film emulation or a video camera emulation, so are artistically relevant.

and the other trailer doesn't have any noise I could see at all.

Film Emulation is super hot right now, and heavy grain is a part of that.

Both of these trailers look like they have considerable subtractive saturation, so that seems to align with film emulation.

[EduPortas]

21 hours ago, zlfan said:

They shot on raw. Typically shooting raw uses ettr to suppress shadow noise. Why did they elevate the shadow? Also if final look was intentionally high contrast, the shadow should be crashed further? 

I don't know, I'm just looking at the final product on screen.

Clearly someone in the final edit made a choice and decided to keep all that digital noise after lifting the shadows.

 

[EduPortas]

6 hours ago, ac6000cw said:

That's basically an amplified version of the sensor background noise (its 'noise floor') - it's not 'mosquito' noise.

(And what's 'violent' about lifting the shadows in video? - 'dramatic' or 'drastic' might be a better term to use)

No, watch both films. It's jarring and, as I said, you just can't ignore it.

"Noise floor", "mosquito noise", "photon entropy". Poteito, potato. Called it how you prefer, it's there.

[EduPortas]

6 hours ago, kye said:

Film Emulation is super hot right now, and heavy grain is a part of that.

Both of these trailers look like they have considerable subtractive saturation, so that seems to align with film emulation.

Nope, not there. I'm referring to high-contrast scenes in the last third of both films. Dialogue heavy, so the camera lingers on the subjects and the noise really becomes apparent.

Just watch the films and you'll know what I mean. It's impossible to miss.

Great pictures both of them.

[eatstoomuchjam]

21 hours ago, zlfan said:

Typically shooting raw uses ettr to suppress shadow noise

Missed this before.  This recommendation varies across manufacturers.  With Z-Cam, failing to ETTR makes for crazy noisy shadows.  Red, on the other hand, strongly recommend against ETTR. People who are accustomed to Red used to show up in the Z Cam group all the time complaining about noisy shadows.  Probably the only reason that they don't these days is that just about any Red shooter who was likely to buy an E2-F6 or E2-S6 probably already did.  Can't fault Z Cam for the longevity of their cameras, though it would be nice to see some new models ship.

Anyway, it's one of the biggest challenges/learning curves for me with the K-X after a bunch of others - figuring out how much to darken my exposure vs Canon/Sony/Z-Cam/Fuji.

[zlfan]

37 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Missed this before.  This recommendation varies across manufacturers.  With Z-Cam, failing to ETTR makes for crazy noisy shadows.  Red, on the other hand, strongly recommend against ETTR. People who are accustomed to Red used to show up in the Z Cam group all the time complaining about noisy shadows.  Probably the only reason that they don't these days is that just about any Red shooter who was likely to buy an E2-F6 or E2-S6 probably already did.  Can't fault Z Cam for the longevity of their cameras, though it would be nice to see some new models ship.

Anyway, it's one of the biggest challenges/learning curves for me with the K-X after a bunch of others - figuring out how much to darken my exposure vs Canon/Sony/Z-Cam/Fuji.

yes, ettr is really depending on different sensors. interestingly, i have no issue on r1mx and epic-x mx for ettr up to 3 stops, but they can not do ettl. underexposure more than 1 stops, then pull up in post, will cause much noise, and render the footage useless. magic lantern raw cameras can do ettr (but with the increase of the iso, less dr), no ettl. similar to red ones. 

[kye]

5 hours ago, EduPortas said:

Nope, not there. I'm referring to high-contrast scenes in the last third of both films. Dialogue heavy, so the camera lingers on the subjects and the noise really becomes apparent.

Just watch the films and you'll know what I mean. It's impossible to miss.

Great pictures both of them.

Ha..  Both of these are only available in the streaming platform we disabled literally a few days ago.