Jump to content


Photo

Jarhead


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 January 2006 - 05:34 AM

I caught this one last night. I was not too impressed by the film itself, it felt a bit pointless to me (which was the point, I know). But maybe there was a bit too much stuff happening for a film that was about waiting.

As far as the cinematography goes, I thought the night scenes with the burning fires looked stunning! What really made it was that the characters were covered in petrol, so although it was at night, everything had this shine too it, which added great texture.

Also I thought the DI was very well done, it looked sharp and showed none of the smearing and softening issues that most DIs exhibit. In an interview Deaking says that they double-scanned at 2K, then downresed to 2K and upresed again, which does not qualify as a true 4K DI, but still gives a better result than just 2K.

In the AC article about the film, they said that they did a bleach-bypass. I presume this is on the negative itself (if it had been on the positif, they would have called it ACE or CCE, since it was done by Deluxe), but to be honest I saw little evidence of that. The film wasn't very grainy (it was shot on 5218), especially the highlights were very clean.
  • 0

#2 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 08 January 2006 - 08:43 AM

As far as the cinematography goes, I thought the night scenes with the burning fires looked stunning! What really made it was that the characters were covered in petrol, so although it was at night, everything had this shine too it, which added great texture.


I also think that stuff was the best of the film together with some telephoto shots a la Lawrence of Arabia.

I liked the nights, but the overall overexposure of the day scenes (70-80% of the footage) was too much for my taste and ends up with very flat and desaturated images (though it was Deakins' goal). Nothing to complain technically, but I think that a more conventional look would have helped without being so distracting. That's why I still enjoy Doug Milsome's cinematography for Full Metal Jacket much more.
  • 0

#3 Rolfe Klement

Rolfe Klement
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Director
  • London | LA

Posted 08 January 2006 - 08:48 AM

I saw it at Farmer's Market and it had a nice look considering how few lights they used for exterior shots

thanks

Rolfe
  • 0

#4 Jonathan Spear

Jonathan Spear
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 January 2006 - 09:09 AM

""In an interview Deaking says that they double-scanned at 2K, then downresed to 2K and upresed again, which does not qualify as a true 4K DI, but still gives a better result than just 2K.""

Hi,

Informative post audiris, but I'm really having trouble understanding DI lingo. If anyone can explain it to me or post a link or two for referance that would be much appreciated..

WARNING - potentialy stupid questions ahead:

1. Double scanned at 2K = why not just scan at 4k?

2. Downresed to 2K and up upresed again = :huh:

Did they opt for the above because of budget restraints? Why not just go straight for a 4K DI in the first place?

Thanks,
Jonathan
  • 0

#5 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 January 2006 - 10:02 AM

Scanning at 4K resolution and then downsampling the image to 2K gives better quality (less aliasing for instance) then just scanning at 2K resolution.

However I am not aware of the benefits of uprezing from 2K to 4K when outputting to film. Maybe someone else can chime in here?

The way double scanning works is that since the scanner does not have a 4K sensor, one scans twice on a 2K sensor that is offset slightly the second time (shifted in subpixel units) so as to gather additional information. The Arriscan works that way and I believe the 4K Spirit as well.
  • 0

#6 Jonathan Spear

Jonathan Spear
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts
  • Other

Posted 08 January 2006 - 02:10 PM

Audiris,

Right on. Thanks for clearing that up!

Jonathan
  • 0

#7 Jaan Shenberger

Jaan Shenberger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Director
  • San Francisco

Posted 08 January 2006 - 02:40 PM

However I am not aware of the benefits of uprezing from 2K to 4K when outputting to film. Maybe someone else can chime in here?


there are numerous software-based methods for uprezzing digital images using various algorithms, and doing it this way would undoubtedly yield better results than just outputting a 2K image to film.

though these methods won't bring in texture or detail that was faintly captured from the 2K scan, it would generally make the final output look perceptually sharper compared to the standard "all 2K" method.

though these aren't what i would consider to be the best examples of advanced software uprezzing, these examples illustrate the difference that the method can make...
http://www.benvista....=photozoompro_2

hope this helps,
jaan
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Opal

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Opal

Glidecam

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Technodolly

CineLab

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products