Christopher Nolan

[andy lee]

that's the digital grading gone mad that gives modern films that look -
all Hollywood Blockbusters are digitally scanned at Telecine - graded digitally then output back onto 35mm film or hard drive for digital projection .
So since digital grading came along ('color timing' as the US call it) it gives you all those mad 'Teal and Amber' films
where every scene is cool blue!

[jonjak2]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342906771' post='14285']
I think the way film is processed and projected in this day and age makes it look more like digital anyway. I don't think it even has much of a classic look to it any more on most film shot big budget features I've seen, it is not much in evidence. Nolan is a good director, but a little over hyped. Better is Paul Thomas Anderson. Never seen someone better at getting the most out of talent that he manages to do. His characters light up the screen... No, they set it alight completely. Burn baby burn.
[/quote]

Sorry to harp on, but not seen anything digital as good as the digital projection of The Tree Of Life. And what a shame it is to lose 35mm projectors. Anyway, much of Paul Thomas Anderson's new film is shot on 65mm, looking forward to it. The first trailer is amazing, and yes, not digital looking at all!
Why compare Nolan and PTA? Couldn't be further apart. What's the point? Nolan has the incredible opportunity of shooting massive projects, and thankfully he's a great director. PTA meanwhile produces wonderful films of a completely different, arthouse type. Thankfully though, they're both shooting film!

[Andrew Reid]

I really think you are attributing far too much to the look of film.

I can put life into a $700 digicam. The right light and the right lenses, the right grading and the right sensitivity of handling in post is all you need.

Film has a nice grain and latitude. The mythology of a cinematic image is not just in film like grain and latitude, it is in so many other aspects of the camera, lens, light, location, actors, costumes and most importantly cinematographer.

[jonjak2]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342914781' post='14288']
I really think you are attributing far too much to the look of film.

I can put life into a $700 digicam. The right light and the right lenses, the right grading and the right sensitivity of handling in post is all you need.

Film has a nice grain and latitude. The mythology of a cinematic image is not just in film like grain and latitude, it is in so many other aspects of the camera, lens, light, location, actors, costumes and most importantly cinematographer.
[/quote]

The GH2 can not look like The Tree Of Life no matter what. It's ok though, but personally i don't like it at all as displayed in the Zacuto shootout where it was my second worst behind the Iphone before i'd seen any results. Just nasty looking, those were my notes! Different people have different aesthetic tastes, i'm just particularly sensitive to the digital look.

There are plenty of amazing Cinematographers working with digital, i haven't seen anything that looks like the best of film yet. As a working DoP i'm fully aware of what adds up to a great image. The filmic look is far more than grain and latitude. It's the appearance of motion, the colour, the softness, the texture, the range of tonality, and so on. There is nothing shot digitally that matches the best of film, and digital has had plenty of time to do it so let's not suggest it's because Cinematographers, lenses and all that haven't come together yet. Just look at 'Now', Roger Deakins first film with the Alexa as an example. All his films look great until, uh oh, he uses the Alexa for the first time. Not nice. Interested to see what he does with it on Bond. Also, i think Malick is using the Alexa with his latest (God knows when it'll be released though!), if Lubezki is shooting it it'll be interesting to see what he can do with it...

[Axel]

Shooting with film does'nt make Nolan a purist. His films need digital post to a very high percentage. He is like the cook who insists on shooting the deer with bow and arrow and then nuking the roast and adding flavor enhancer.

As a successful director, he has the means and anyway the right to make his films the way he fancies best. This includes ignoring almost all traditional rules of filmmaking, as this clip demonstrates:
[media]http://vimeo.com/28792404#at=0[/media]

If anyone sees Nolan as exemplary, he should consider this aspect. To all those who are attracted by the "chaos theory" above, I recommend the famous Odessa steps scene (youtube keywords) by Eisenstein, which is accepted as one of the first masterpieces of dramatic editing. How many rules are broken there? Answer: Every Rule.

I wrote this before: When cinema was invented, the absence of rules made people inventive and pushed their creativity. Now we have a freedom from technical restrictions as never before, but still we compare the look of the images to that of analog film. It is the [u]care[/u] that is invested in big screen cinematography that makes it different from amateurish stuff, not "film".

[jonjak2]

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1342940113' post='14298'] It is the [u]care[/u] that is invested in big screen cinematography that makes it different from amateurish stuff, not "film".
[/quote]

My point is about the basic aesthetic features of film. 'Care' will never make a GH2 look like film. People compare digital to film because film has a particular aesthetic quality that is currently unmatched by digital, the same way artists may prefer particular paints, and so on. Of course professional film-makers will make digital/film look good. This isn't an arguement about professional/amateur. The fact is, there are no digital films that match the best 35mm films yet from an aesthetic perspective and that is down to the camera. There are some very good digital films, but until i see something matching the filmic look of There Will Be Blood/Jesse James i will continue this point.

[Axel]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342950645' post='14303']
My point is about the basic aesthetic features of film. 'Care' will never make a GH2 look like film. People compare digital to film because film has a particular aesthetic quality that is currently unmatched by digital, the same way artists may prefer particular paints, and so on.[/quote]

I understand this. Perhaps it is too early. We had the same discussion with analog photography. Some fifteen years ago I lost my former job in a photo laboratory where I made enlargements in the darkroom. I went on developing my own photos for a while because the look was better.

I also follow the discussions about 48p. I even kept defending 24p as the more cinematic frame rate. Actually I believe these things will some day be just history.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342950645' post='14303']
My point is about the basic aesthetic features of film. 'Care' will never make a GH2 look like film. People compare digital to film because film has a particular aesthetic quality that is currently unmatched by digital, the same way artists may prefer particular paints, and so on. Of course professional film-makers will make digital/film look good. This isn't an arguement about professional/amateur. The fact is, there are no digital films that match the best 35mm films yet from an aesthetic perspective and that is down to the camera. There are some very good digital films, but until i see something matching the filmic look of There Will Be Blood/Jesse James i will continue this point.
[/quote]

I am glad you like There Will Be Blood.

I do think digital has a harsher look than film - but Axel makes a good point about more care being taken with film. Digital is too forgiving. The differences in aesthetic between a GH2 in its comfort zone and 35mm film are subtle compared to the the differences between handling with care and not.

Using an anamorphic lens on the GH2, exposing for the highlights, catching natural light at the right hour, having the light diffuse through fog or smoke in a real location, handling with care in post, softening the image, reducing contrast with flare, even adding some scanned 35mm film grain - all reduce the electronic digital look and add life.

You really can intercut between digital and film, if done right even you wouldn't notice. The Alexa looks great - I don't mourn film, what I do mourn is the artistic sensibility and care which is being lost in the digital age especially in Hollywood.

It is people who put the digital BAM look into digital not as much the camera itself.

[jonjak2]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342988212' post='14315']
I am glad you like There Will Be Blood.

I do think digital has a harsher look than film - but Axel makes a good point about more care being taken with film. Digital is too forgiving. The differences in aesthetic between a GH2 in its comfort zone and 35mm film are subtle compared to the the differences between handling with care and not.

Using an anamorphic lens on the GH2, exposing for the highlights, catching natural light at the right hour, having the light diffuse through fog or smoke in a real location, handling with care in post, softening the image, reducing contrast with flare, even adding some scanned 35mm film grain - all reduce the electronic digital look and add life.

You really can intercut between digital and film, if done right even you wouldn't notice. The Alexa looks great - I don't mourn film, what I do mourn is the artistic sensibility and care which is being lost in the digital age especially in Hollywood.

It is people who put the digital BAM look into digital not as much the camera itself.
[/quote]

If you look at a well lit shot/scene on film, and then the same shot scene on the GH2 (with adjustments for highlights/shadows), the differences are far from subtle to me. The GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances. Can it look cinematic and fool you into thinking it's 'filmic' with the right lighting/lenses and all that stuff? Yes. But as the Zacuto Shootout showed, it's base image really looked videoey and pretty nasty, at least that's what i felt. Compared to film it isn't remotely in the same ballpark. People who think it is…. i dunno, i wonder what aesthetic taste is coming to these days. Seems it's all about resolution and video looking images.

Do you speak from personal experience when you say the differences are subtle between the GH2 and film?

In regards to Digital being more forgiving and more care being taken with film… What? So a top DP will take less 'care' with Digital? Are you kidding me? I can just hear Emmanuel Lubezki now… "no no, it's ok guys, no need to light like we usually do, we're shooting on digital you see, early finish today!" 'Care' has nothing to do with the camera AT ALL. I wonder if Axel is involved in any top end productions where top end DP's are all going home early that qualify him to say this. Is less 'care' taken these days in general? Perhaps, but i really don't think so. There's always been quality and rubbish, and it's the same today. There's plenty of beautifully shot and produced work going on. People always harp on about the past, they romantically remember the good stuff and forget about all the rubbish.

You can intercut digital and film yes, of course, i've done it myself intercutting 35mm and the 5D! On many occasions you don't notice. But when i see a whole scene, or a particular film that doesn't suit digital's sterility, then it's obvious. Cut in a digital scene to There Will Be Blood or Bladerunner, and it'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Take a look at Boardwalk empire, looks absolutely stunning, what Digitally shot tv drama looks as good as that? Please don't say Game Of Thrones...

I completely disagree that it is people putting a digital BAM look into things rather than the camera itself.

Anyway… let's see what Lubezki does with the Alexa on the new Terence Malick film… Even so, i saw Drive and didn't like the digital (Alexa) look at all… that's just me i guess.

[HurtinMinorKey]

I guess I never apreciated the cinematography in There Will be Blood because the rest of the movie was so godamn terrible.

[jonjak2]

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1342996403' post='14321']
I guess I never apreciated the cinematography in There Will be Blood because the rest of the movie was so godamn terrible.
[/quote]

Hehe, different tastes i guess. For me it was one of the best US films in the last ten years. The first 15 minutes just has stunning visual storytelling. If you're going to watch and appreciate any of it, watch that first 15 minutes.

[HurtinMinorKey]

Maybe if the movie was only 15 minutes it would have been great, but it was a bloated 158 minutes.

I'd have to say that I think No Country for Old Men has better cinematography, and is way better movie overall.

There Will be Blood 's inconsistent script, poor soundtack, and Paul Dano's painfully bad acting automatically disqualifies the movie as great.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342994911' post='14319']If you look at a well lit shot/scene on film, and then the same shot scene on the GH2 (with adjustments for highlights/shadows), the differences are far from subtle to me. The GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances....

You can intercut digital and film yes, of course, i've done it myself intercutting 35mm and the 5D! On many occasions you don't notice[/quote]

So are we talking about something so subtle here between 35mm and 5D that on many occasions you don't notice, or are we to take you at your previous statement that the GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances.

Not film-like?

That is a bit of a narrow view. You're talking about subtle differences. To claim the whole damn film (like Blade Runner) looks the way it does because of a tiny subtle difference, is crazy.

You haven't even mentioned lenses yet. Most of the Blade Runner look has nothing to do with 35mm - more the fact it is shot with anamorphic lenses. You don't mention the DP, director, once... Not a single time... So are you saying 35mm has the magic that no director is capable of adding? Or are you claiming it is a small subtle difference and digital is not quite there yet? Which is it?

Is your main bone of contention the Zacuto shootout lighting? What are you judging the GH2 from, exactly? It looks as digital as you let it be, my friend.


HurtinMinorKey - No Country and There Will Be Blood came out at the same time, I watched them at the same time, they were both nominated for Oscars, and I rate them equally as highly. I am amazed you can say one is amazing and one is awful. Amazed.

[HurtinMinorKey]

^ I'm amazed that anyone would consider it close.

And not that it really matters, but No Country actually won the Oscars for best picture, best director, and best adapted screenplay.

I honestly thought There will be blood was sloppy story telling. It needed better editing, and better acting and character development from the secondary characters. Kevn Dano (who i loved in little miss sunshine) was so bad that he almost made his scenes unwatchable (I blame the director for this). That, and the ending was completely retarded.

The Cohen bros are in a differnt league than Mr. P.T. Overated.

[Germy1979]

Lmao.

Well this thread evolved nicely! Haha!
This is the digital camera equivalent of "Rome is Burning."

Just watched "127 Hours". The last 15 minutes are visceral and will kill you emotionally.... 99% digital to my knowledge.
As much as I'd love to shoot film, I'd rather have a great story to tell... I think if we're talking digital vs film, the main goal of these digital cameras is to emulate film, and save some money and heartache. Digital's sole purpose is to make life easier and more efficient just like the rest of technology. The argument works to the degree of, for instance, say audio production... It's the same argument with vintage gear emulator plug ins. People pay the premium price for a Universal Audio 1176ln vs the Waves version because of the character the real unit introduced to the signal path vs the digitally modeled one. It's there. But i've mixed many a record with plug ins and not one complaint on the quality.

I think it's more of a grand idea to call action behind a big badass IMAX camera on a big badass set for a big badass sequence. I attribute my taste in the film look to its aging process.. I came up in the 80's. I remember seeing what it did to cloudy unsaturated scenes in New York City where the protagonist walks alone along the battery... Or a large street level scene. I remember the stretch look for the credit role of "Romancing the Stone" as the boat was driven off. The scene in Thelma & Louise where Geena Davis's character tells Susan Sarandon, "I can't go back, I couldn't live.". (chick flicks I know, but good examples.). It's just how I remember them...

I'm feeling both sides of the argument here.

[moebius22]

[i]There Will be Blood[/i] is one of those movies you either love or hate. [i]No Country for Old Men[/i] had a retarded ending in my opinion. The Cohen's are gifted film makers but their output as of late (apart from [i]No Country[/i]) has been lacking in my opinion compared to earlier work.

Personally, I'm getting sick of how hard people sweat Nolen, (mainly cause of Batman). He (like all the Hollywood guys) worship of the format seems in part fueled by romanticization of the medium and its history. Ultimately, economics are not on their side, and besides some ardent DPs, the public can't tell the difference anyways.

[Axel]

Good thread!


[quote name='moebius22' timestamp='1343018220' post='14334']
[i]There Will be Blood[/i] is one of those movies you either love or hate. [i]No Country for Old Men[/i] had a retarded ending in my opinion. The Cohen's are gifted film makers but their output as of late (apart from [i]No Country[/i]) has been lacking in my opinion compared to earlier work.[/quote]

When I left the cinema after [i]There Will Be Blood [/i]I was sure my heartbeat could be heard by the others and my face was hot. Therefore I was mildly shocked that many in the audience disliked the film. A group of intellectuals compared Daniel Day Lewis to James Finlayson, the favorite victim of Laurels & Hardys slapstick brawls.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/JamesFinlaysonPublicityHeadshot.jpg[/img]

What you say about [i]one of those films[/i] hits the mark. [i]Enter The Void[/i] and [i]The Tree Of Life[/i] belong in this category. If everybody likes it, it may be entertaining and solid workmanship, but hardly great art. I found another thing to be true with those films: You [i]must[/i] see them in a cinema. And if you [i]can't[/i] see them there, make your home a cinema. Make the screen / the TV panel as big as possible, move close to the image. Dim the lights. Turn up the volume. Turn off the phones. And psychologically? Be open for a new experience.

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342994911' post='14319']If you look at a well lit shot/scene on film, and then the same shot scene on the GH2 (with adjustments for highlights/shadows), the differences are far from subtle to me. The GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances. Can it look cinematic and fool you into thinking it's 'filmic' with the right lighting/lenses and all that stuff? Yes. But as the Zacuto Shootout showed, it's base image really looked videoey and pretty nasty, at least that's what i felt. Compared to film it isn't remotely in the same ballpark.[/quote]

I would have had to drive roughly 400 km to see a screening of the Zacuto Shootout. But I think I know what you mean. The problem is not resolution. andy lee above knows what he is talking about obviously, he may also be a projectionist (who else keeps frames of different film formats?). Resolution is overrated. Fresh owners of the Red Scarlett complained that the comparison should have been in 4k, and the GH2 (among others) would have lost immediately. I wish them the best luck in producing such a blockbuster, that only the biggest screens are booked for their film, because 98% of all digital cinemas project 2k - and will continue doing so. The problem is not dynamic range. An image of real HDR would look rather flat on a device capable of reproducing all the shades. Hollywood always grades, which means reducing tones to express something. The set up of the Zacuto scene wasn't right for that.

The problem is 8-bit. I saw a lot of my own videos as DCPs on big screens, and I know. No problem on a small screen, no problem at home on an 8-bit display.

How does 8-bit affect the quality of an image? This is not easy to describe, because it deals with aesthetics. Like how you would explain how interlaced video compares to progressive video. But I try. With a motif like a multi-colored sunset you point to the glory of the colors. There is no such glory with 8-bit. 8-bit is almost enough to [i]represent[/i] the natural colors, but they look dead. In a way comparable to SD resolution. When there only was standard resolution, we were not aware of anything missing. There was exactly enough detail to inform us about all that mattered to the scene we watched on our old tv set. HD was an extra. It doesn't tell us anything more, but it [i]is[/i] more.

[quote name='jonjak2' timestamp='1342950645' post='14303']'Care' will never make a GH2 look like film.[/quote]

No. If I only had one or other 35mm camera on the shelf, enough cans of film stock, enough chemicals to develop the film and everything!

Your sentence implies, that film right now can look better than digital. It will be surpassed by digital in the not-so-distant future. And once we realize that we need to overcome film, we can as well embrace new characteristics. The main thing is - everywhere! - if we care.

[jonjak2]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343003076' post='14324']
So are we talking about something so subtle here between 35mm and 5D that on many occasions you don't notice, or are we to take you at your previous statement that the GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances.

Not film-like?

That is a bit of a narrow view. You're talking about subtle differences. To claim the whole damn film (like Blade Runner) looks the way it does because of a tiny subtle difference, is crazy.

You haven't even mentioned lenses yet. Most of the Blade Runner look has nothing to do with 35mm - more the fact it is shot with anamorphic lenses. You don't mention the DP, director, once... Not a single time... So are you saying 35mm has the magic that no director is capable of adding? Or are you claiming it is a small subtle difference and digital is not quite there yet? Which is it?

Is your main bone of contention the Zacuto shootout lighting? What are you judging the GH2 from, exactly? It looks as digital as you let it be, my friend.

[/quote]


No you misunderstand me. In SOME narrow circumstances you can cut between a 5D and 35mm. But if you watch a whole scene or movie or have the wrong type of shot the difference is obvious. Neither look like film. You could NOT shoot a scene from There Will Be Blood on any digital camera, put it in the movie and not notice. Bottom Line. I am not talking about subtle differences. You believe it is subtle, fine, i do not, and i say this from personal experience. If your personal experience is different, no problem, please discuss, i'm interested to hear, but it sounds like wishful thinking rather than something grounded in an unbiased experience based viewpoint.

I haven't mentioned lenses because i'm talking about the difference between film and digital at a basic level when the same lenses are used. The idea that swapping out the Alexa vs 35mm on Bladerunner and it would look the same. NO, you must be joking or willfuly delusional. What is your agenda here? Or perhaps you just don't notice in which case fair enough. Did you see Prometheus? Can you seriously tell me you don't see the effect of the digitally shot image once you take away the effect of the lighting/lenses/DP. I mean it's obvious! It looked so digital.

Can digital look great? Of course. Does it look like film, the very thing it is trying to do? No, it hasn't matched it yet. The Alexa is the closest, but still not there. Did you watch last years Zacuto shootout? Could you not tell the difference? I mean is was plain as day. The image does not look the same, what is the point in arguing that it does unless there is some agenda. It's no big deal. Digital can look good, but it's not the same, bottom line.

Regarding the recent Zacuto shootout and the GH2. All i know is when i watched it i voted B second to last and noted it down as really digital and nasty looking before i knew any results. It was something about the colour, the blacks, the sharpness, and the overall feel of the image. It just looked horrible and electronic to me. I guess we have different aesthetics. It had nothing to do with the lighting. Similarly with the 7D which i put next. The lighting wasn't great but the colour and feel were better, though still not great. It seems like you have an agenda with the GH2 which inhibits an unbiased viewpoint, anyway that's my impression, correct me if i'm wrong.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343022905' post='14344']

Your sentence implies, that film right now can look better than digital. It will be surpassed by digital in the not-so-distant future. And once we realize that we need to overcome film, we can as well embrace new characteristics. The main thing is - everywhere! - if we care.
[/quote]

In my personal experience and from my personal aesthetics i think film has a much nicer look than digital right now, yes, absolutely. Digital cameras will be 'better' in the future, some of them are 'better' now, when you look at a piece of paper. But when i look at the image itself, film is more beautiful. I hope digital cameras keep pushing to look more filmic, its not there yet.

[HurtinMinorKey]

Axel, when you say the problem is 8 bit, i tend to agree with you. People always say the efective resolution of 35mm film is somwhere in the neighborhod of 5k, but arn't they talking about 5K @ 24bit color, like our monitors?

[andy lee]

all this talk about Imax and DIgital resolution - '[b][i]can anyone tell me how many grains of silver there are on a 35mm negative?'[/i][/b].......I thought not!!

So why do we care? Because after 100 years of being comfortable with a relatively stable film based motion picture technology, along comes this new and disruptive digital imaging technology, and we're all clutching for some magic number that we can carry around in our heads, and this will define the process for us. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. It's messy and it's complicated, and lots more so today than it was in the days of film.

[b]4K, IMAX AND FRAME RATES[/b]
The 4K system that most people know is IMAX -- and it doesn't quite make 4K, which is a surprise to people. "How can that possibly be?," you say. "It's an enormous big frame." Well, because of what I was talking about earlier: the physics of optics. When you take the entire system into account - from the lens of the camera, to the the movement of the light through the projector, all slightly reducing resolution -- you wind up with less than the full resolution you started with.
[img]http://library.creativecow.net/articles/galt_john/John_Galt_2K_4K_Truth_About_Pixels/4K_IMAX.jpg[/img]A number of years ago some IMAX engineers - and I don't think IMAX ever let these guys out of their lab again -- did this wonderfully elegant experiment at the Large Film Format Seminar at Universal Studios Imax theatre. They showed this film they made that began with 2 rows of 2 squares: black white, white black, as if you had 4 pixels on the screen.
Then they started to double and double and double the squares. Before they got to 4K the screen was gray. Do you know what the means? There was no longer any difference between black and white, which is what allows you to see sharpness. It's the contrast that we see, not the actual information. Technically, the MTF (Modulation Transfer Function) was zero at 4K!
Let's just pretend for a moment that IMAX truly is 4K. You watch IMAX at between one and one and a half picture heights from the screen. But in order to get to appreciate 4K on a regular movie screen, you would have to sit much closer than normal. In other words, when you go to a movie theater, and most of the modern theaters with stadium seating are designed so that the middle of the theater is 2 ½ to 3 picture heights from the screen, for most of us who watch movies, that's pretty where we want to be sitting. Maybe just a little bit closer from some of us who do this for a living, because we're maybe looking for artifacts or issues. If you sit much closer than 2 ½ picture heights, that's what you're seeing, artifacts, not movies!
So if you had true 4K resolution in your local theater, everybody would have to sitting in the first 6 rows. Otherwise they wouldn't see any extra detail. Their eyes wouldn't LET them see it. You know this intuitively from passing by these beautiful new monitors at trade shows. You find yourself getting absolutely as close as possible to see the detail, and to see if there are any visible artifacts. At normal viewing distances, you can't.
So the whole 2K 4K thing is a little bit of a red herring.

[b] [/b]

[b] [size=4]Quoted from : The Truth About 2K, 4K and The Future of Pixels by John Galt[/size][/b]

[i]John Galt, Panavision Senior Vice President of Advanced Digital Imaging, led the team that created the Genesis camera, was responsible for the Sony F900 Star Wars camera, and continues to play a leading role in guiding future digital cinema technologies. [/i]