It looks like "video"

[Axel]

The so-called "organic feel" is nothing more than distortion. My eyes "are organic", and the images I see with them are free from this grain and other artifacts. 

Yes, but your eyes do not sharpen outlines. For me, the term 'organic' means a soft image, no matter if I can see 'film grain' (analog films' smallest 'pixels') or not (better resolution).

I watched the trailer for Revenant... That's the new movie that was shot on the Alexa 65. It looked wide, it looked impressive. But you what? It didn't look like film? And do you know what else? I really didn't care that it didn't.  

I saw this trailer too. And I didn't like the look at all. Because extreme wide angle distortion looks like video (although it has actually nothing to do with  analog or digital). It looks like GoPro, it looks cheap, unpleasant. 

The truth is, if you are attempting to make your video look more "filmic", what you are really trying to do is make your video look more vintage... You are living in the past... clinging on the a memory of how movies looked when you were a kid. It's not bad to look like video, this is what the Alexa 65 has shown us. 

I agree with you. But I suggest we nail down what is really meant when people distinguish video and film by the overall look. Video stands for an image that transports no emotions, for what reason ever. Be it, like in most cases, that the maker didn't invest any care, not for the actors, their clothes, their make up, the productions design, the lighting, the framing, what have you. Be it that the maker chose the wrong frame rate, like in The Hobbit. Be it that, like in many amateurish shorts, he tries the vintage look you describe. You recognize a transvestite by his over-the-top appearance, and very few will mistake him for a woman.

On the Arri 65, Arri CEO Franz Kraus made some interesting statements on this years' NAB. He said DoPs chose the Arri 65 for the aesthetic of the larger sensor which suited epic themes. Epic films demand a broader scope and really big images, therefore 4k (greater resolution allows a softer, more organic look, this has little to do with 'detail' and nothing at all with 'sharpness'). I find this an intelligent remark. Because in the reverse conclusion this means that there are narrative films where it doesn't fit. More or less the same reason why filmmakers decide for widescreen or scope.

[Andrew Reid]

I don't see anything wrong with wide angle. Kubrick used a lot of extreme wides in 2001 a Space Odyssey as well.

Maybe it is because we're so used to watching fisheye GoPro stuff on YouTube.

I am sure if you saw Revenant on a proper screen in a cinema it would be fantastic. Trailer looked great to me.

[KarimNassar]

Suddenly clipped highlights, over sharpened, moire and aliasing, 60i and high compression.

That is the video look

100% on point. And why 4k does not matter if it comes with those flaws.

 

High dynamic range is the number 1 feature of a film image to me.

And this is the number 1 feature that has separated film from digital video since the beginning, only recently are digital cameras catching up dr wise.

Grain does not matter at all. It will not make an image filmic, slap film grain on video footage and it still looks like video. 

 

On a side note, I believe the current high detail level that the 4k+ cameras record can be conflicting to some with the 2k cinema film look that we are used to.

This high level of detail looks closer to the over-sharpened tv video images, rather than to what we were used to see in theaters.

I believe the negative reaction of some to the revenant trailer may be influenced by that.

 

What Axel said about it looking like go pro footage is an intelligent remark. We must keep in mind that our visual references are always changing. So if we have been flooded with wide angle go pro footage for some time now, it is to be expected that we associate similar looking shots of the revenant to that visual reference.

 

To me the revenant images are beautiful and look like film, only very high detail film, something I need to get used to.

 

All of this is changing fast, all the cinemas in my town are already equipped with 4k digital projectors, most new movies are shot in 4k+. And consumers cameras dynamic range is getting better, even cell phones have hdr now. So this technical line is already getting blurred and it will become irrelevant with time.

 

All that will be left is your job as a cinematographer, location choice, clothing style and color choice, lighting choice and grading decisions to support your story. 

Gear wise though, if I want to shoot a movie with a film look image, I will choose the highest DR camera.

[maxotics]

Psychologically, we can tolerate a lot of noise, almost no distortion.  This is easily proven by listening to a scratched analog record then listening to it on a stereo where the volume is turned up past the point where the electronics can handle it smoothly, it becomes distorted, or "highlights clipped" in Andrew's post.  Which one would you rather listen to?

Early video was inherently distorted because it had limited dynamic range and focus--to get good images, you often had to turn up levels that distorted parts of the image.

Today's video is so sharp there is a different type of "distortion" we must deal with--psychological, an overload of details.  Film is an imaginative, dream like median.  Too much detail and you wake up from your dream--unless that dream is a nightmare of details (like science fiction)!  The problem is, it's difficult to dumb down an image you know is technically better than the guy who doesn't read EOSHD

Right now, cameras shoot better than most viewing equipment can handle.  Things are turned on their head.  

 

 

 

[Axel]

I don't see anything wrong with wide angle. Kubrick used a lot of extreme wides in 2001 a Space Odyssey as well.

You are right. But Kubricks approach was deconstructivistic. He used the fisheye and ultra wide lenses in 2001 to make us perfectly aware that he distorted our view at things intentionally. He stretched the preconditions for total immersion radically away from any naturalistic style and forced the audience to believe everything nonetheless, be it weightlessness, absence of orientation in space, relativity of time (and therefore to some extend logic) and finally with an "answer" (the ending) to that we (as humans) were just the question. With the fight scenes in the Revenant trailer, I am unfortunately reminded of reality soaps. Perhaps this was Inarritus intention, we'll see.

Everything is possible as long as it is appropriate to carry the emotions of the scene. I think Cameron will prove HFR to work in Avatar II. If your TV has one of these smooth motion modes, see Avatar on BD on it. You'll be astonished. It looks better.

[fuzzynormal]

If your TV has one of these smooth motion modes, see Avatar on BD on it. You'll be astonished. It looks better.

As an tangent...why are these modes activated in default by the manufacturers?  As for Avatar; could care less about the frame rates on that one, the story was a joke and therefore so was the movie.

[kaylee]

theres a lot of great points in this thread

for me in 2015 the defining characteristic of the subjective feeling "it looks like video" is frame rate

high frame rate slog2 makes me feel a little ill when i pop open clips on my mac from the finder... but when that exact same footage is conformed to 24p it becomes magical

although i am not a high frame rate enthusiast as many are, i appreciate its use for certain applications, including those outside of what we would consider cinema, but within the world of narrative filmmaking id put it in the toolbox along with higher shutter angles – a useful creative technique, but only when used on the right occasions

 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

As an tangent...why are these modes activated in default by the manufacturers?  

Because they're touted as a feature, so manufacturers want them activated on store displays by default. It's the same reason most TVs' default color balance is insanely blue to make it look brighter, and why plasma never took off. It doesn't do well on a shop floor. Hell, that's the only reason 4K is selling; people stand way closer in the store than they do at home, so the set looks way more detailed than what they'll actually see in their living room.

 

[AaronChicago]

I still haven't figured out if Smooth Motion is a case of people being told what to like, or not knowing what they like, or both.

[Don Kotlos]

I still haven't figured out if Smooth Motion is a case of people being told what to like, or not knowing what they like, or both.

I could argue the same thing for 24p that was chosen for practical reasons and not based on its aesthetic qualities. 

But don't mistake my point as advocating smooth motion... 

[mercer]

I could argue the same thing for 24p that was chosen for practical reasons and not based on its aesthetic qualities. 

But don't mistake my point as advocating smooth motion... 

24p wasn't solely chosen for practical reasons... It was a combination of the least amount of frames that still had an aesthetically pleasing motion cadence. 

But I get your point. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

I still haven't figured out if Smooth Motion is a case of people being told what to like, or not knowing what they like, or both.

It's an attempt to mitigate the fact that unlike DLP and Plasma, LCD and OLED suck at handling motion. The pixels can't change fast enough to keep up with even 24p, so they're constantly in a state of transition, also known as motion blur (not to be confused with the normal motion blur from camera movement--this blur comes purely from the display). Watch a plasma and an LCD side by side and you'll see what I'm talking about. The only way they've found to mitigate the issue is BFI, black frame insertion, which "resets" your eyes to each frame by inserting a moment of black between each. It helps, but still doesn't look as good as plasma/DLP. BFI also takes a huge toll on image brightness, making my Sony W800B so dim it's nearly unwatchable. 

Sorry...you're opening the floodgates. I have a lot of opinions on display technology. 

[mercer]

Speaking of displays, I have an off topic question... I have a 36" JVC, and the sound is either blaring loud or whisper quiet at the same volume. For instance, action scenes or screaming is off the charts loud and then dialogue is really quiet. I have messed with the settings and I just can't figure out how to balance it. Someone told me it was actually due to the broadcaster... Be it streaming Netflix or Amazon or specific channels like HBO or showtime. Any ideas?

[Zak Forsman]

most broadcast content is mixed that way. having neighbors, you're forced to ride the volume on a lot of shows. does your tv have a "late night" function? sometimes they use other names for it. it basically compresses the dynamic range of the audio, boosting the quiet moments and attenuating the louder parts.

[fuzzynormal]

I am sure if you saw Revenant on a proper screen in a cinema it would be fantastic.

Just watched the Revenant trailer at an IMAX theater today.  The motion cadence looked lousy.  Curious if the projection was messed up or if that's just the way it looks digitally projected.  

Was, sadly, not impressed.

Also, MI: Rogue Nation looked like (poorly) upscaled 720, so I'm suspicious if the theatre messed up the projection?  It really looked quite mediocre.  I mean, the damn advertisements they project before the screening were higher resolution, easily.   Anyone else see this film and notice any peculiarities or is the culprit a poorly managed movie house?

[Liam]

Just watched the Revenant trailer at an IMAX theater today.  The motion cadence looked lousy.  Curious if the projection was messed up or if that's just the way it looks digitally projected.  

Was, sadly, not impressed.

Also, MI: Rogue Nation looked like (poorly) upscaled 720, so I'm suspicious if the theatre messed up the projection?  It really looked quite mediocre.  I mean, the damn advertisements they project before the screening were higher resolution, easily.   Anyone else see this film and notice any peculiarities or is the culprit a poorly managed movie house?

saw Rogue, thought it was soft, for sure - and sometimes shaky. maybe looked a little "vintage", but yeah didn't seem like film's natural charm, as I often can't tell the difference. (side note: this wasn't the film I saw recently that was clearly shot in anamorphic but shown in 16:9, was it? whatever film it was, that was annoying..)

EDIT: sorry it wasn't Rogue.. might have been Trainwreck? anyway..

[fuzzynormal]

saw Rogue, thought it was soft, for sure - and sometimes shaky. maybe looked a little "vintage", but yeah didn't seem like film's natural charm, as I often can't tell the difference.

I just can't believe I went into an IMAX screening and watched a projection that looked so mundane.  The trailers, the advertisements, the "turn you cell phone off" segments all looked fine and then... the actual movie started and it felt like I was watching Vimeo with the HD button turned off. 

Damn annoying considering it was a $16 ticket.

I've been going to IMAX films since I was a kid.  My fondest cinema memories are of watching dry nature films shot in massive IMAX.  It was so cool. 

This MI movie, however, truly looked like a digital projection that should have been shown on one of those small multiplex room screens, just blown up to fit the larger IMAX space.

Even aside from the lack of resolution, the shooting in the film was sloppy as hell.  A few scenes were crafted quite well, but so much stuff just looked ... lazy.  I dunno.  Maybe the larger format betrayed a lot of that usually gets overlooked.

----------

EDIT:  http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=68152

BTW, The production credits caught me off-guard too.  The film is underwritten by some interesting players.  That might have something to do with their distribution choices and how they decided to finish the prints.  Beats me.  But ultimately the IQ was sub-par. 

This was truly a real-shot-on-honest-to-goodness "film" that ended up looking quite a lot like low quality video.  Not because of the actual production value, but because of the post processing and how they decided to distribute it.

[mercer]

most broadcast content is mixed that way. having neighbors, you're forced to ride the volume on a lot of shows. does your tv have a "late night" function? sometimes they use other names for it. it basically compresses the dynamic range of the audio, boosting the quiet moments and attenuating the louder parts.

Not sure, but I'll definitely check. Thanks. I'm a big horror, thriller fan and obviously sound mixes are so important, but I find myself lowering the volume because I think someone is gonna call the cops on me, thinking I'm murdering my gf.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Man I do love Guardians of The Galaxy and the look they got from the Arri was beautiful. The guys picked the camera out because it fitted that Sci Fi look in the future with bounty hunters and a Rocket Raccoon. What was great too was watching it in theaters with my friend and that beginning, just amazing of how it was pulled off with the music it had.

They picked the Alexa because every Marvel film uses the Alexa to keep the universe's look consistent.

[dafreaking]

MI5 looked like video?