Jump to content


Photo

Bad looking HD movies


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Allen Parks

Allen Parks

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Gaffer
  • NYC and New Orleans

Posted 24 November 2006 - 04:50 PM

Looking for some movies that may be used as examples of "bad HD." I am not against HD. I work with both film and video, and know the pros and cons. Not looking to open a discussion on the topic. Just need some reference material.
  • 0

#2 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 November 2006 - 05:32 PM

Now, if I were mean I'd say...

But no need to open that whole can of worms. Some examples of HD done bad are 'Miami Vice'. Although some of the night scenes are interesting, most scenes have tons of compression artifacts and horrible skintones, as well as that awful 3-chip bokeh (out-of-focus highlights have magenta and green fringes). Also have a look at 'Collateral' which uses a 270 degree shutter and all the smearing it creates.
  • 0

#3 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 24 November 2006 - 06:40 PM

I actually like some of the HD-CAM artifacts. On another note, I saw the trailer for Zodiac and it looked beautiful.

Yes there are many poorly shot HD films. But there are also loads of poorly shot films; shot in anamorphic and s35.
  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 November 2006 - 06:53 PM

Hi,

I can only agree in that I thought Miami Vice did look like a complete bunch of arse.

The tinted bokeh doesn't bother me too much, though.

Phil
  • 0

#5 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 26 November 2006 - 12:52 AM

Now, if I were mean I'd say...


No problem Max I'll say it for you.

All of them! :D

R,
  • 0

#6 freddie bonfanti

freddie bonfanti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Gaffer
  • LONDON

Posted 26 November 2006 - 04:18 AM

i have to agree with the skintone problems, in some HD films it looks horrible...dont mind the bokeh, though, i think its part of that look. I have seen recently "Session 9" and although i didnt like the story i thought that it looked great for being shot in HD. Zodiac does look beautiful, and thats because Claudio Miranda has an innate talent handling the Thomson Viper. i have seen the Heineken commercial he shot and i was very impressed already. however i reserve my final judgement until the proper cinema screening.
what i find uneasy using HD is the whole lot of postproduction and compression issues you get, sometimes it gets very complicated, especially if you cant afford all the proper tools
  • 0

#7 Aaron Farrugia

Aaron Farrugia
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2006 - 04:46 AM

i dunno
i quite like the fact that they shot digital and completly went with it, rather than shooting digital to try and look like film, they just took digital for what it is and didnt try to hide any of what comes with shooting digital.

to me what makes a bad looking hd film is a hd film trying to look like flim, cos it will never happen
  • 0

#8 freddie bonfanti

freddie bonfanti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Gaffer
  • LONDON

Posted 26 November 2006 - 07:59 AM

i agree with you on the approach of Miami Vice, however we discussed a lot about it (very passionately) on the miami vice reactions post...in the end its purely a matter of taste, there is no right or wrong
  • 0

#9 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3056 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 November 2006 - 09:02 AM

Zodiac does look beautiful, and thats because Claudio Miranda has an innate talent handling the Thomson Viper.


Zodiac was shot by Harris Savides.
  • 0

#10 Gavin Greenwalt

Gavin Greenwalt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 November 2006 - 01:32 PM

Now, if I were mean I'd say...

But no need to open that whole can of worms. Some examples of HD done bad are 'Miami Vice'. Although some of the night scenes are interesting, most scenes have tons of compression artifacts and horrible skintones, as well as that awful 3-chip bokeh (out-of-focus highlights have magenta and green fringes). Also have a look at 'Collateral' which uses a 270 degree shutter and all the smearing it creates.


I loved the look of Collateral. Personally I think they used the HD cameras to their advantage. If I have to put up with a mild bit of CA and some very subtle motion blur issues for the rest of the 'pretty' so be it. Definitely not an example of "ugly" in my book.

I always ask myself the question when working on films or VFX, "Yes I notice it, but will my audience?" Will it distract them? If it's so insignificant the answer is no, and if it enables me to do something else, I never think twice. Yes HD has some technical flaws, but I would distinguish between "ugly" and mildly artifacted.

I can usually tell whether something was rendered on Mental Ray vs Renderman just by looking at it, but I don't expect the audience to tell, so I don't really care and let the TDs decide which is best for the project.

- Gavin
  • 0

#11 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 November 2006 - 02:31 PM

"Collateral" really highlighted the differences in skin tone pickup between HD and film. Skin took on a very sickly-looking green hue during the HD portions, well beyond what was correctable even in a 4:4:4 color space. Seeing the same actors with noticeably more natural skin tones during the 35mm segments made for a stark comparison. Although HD offers certain performance advantages in very low light situations, it's limitations really show up in brighter lighting, which requires the kind of bandwidth that's still well beyond the current level of technology. Blown-out highlights are one of the more obvious examples of this limitation.
  • 0

#12 freddie bonfanti

freddie bonfanti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Gaffer
  • LONDON

Posted 26 November 2006 - 03:42 PM

Zodiac was shot by Harris Savides.



no way...i thought Claudio shot it, maybe i assumed that because he is great shooting HD and because hes been shooting a lot of stuff for Fincher, including the new feature, Benjamin Button...
  • 0

#13 Francesco Bonomo

Francesco Bonomo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • currently in Rome, Italy

Posted 26 November 2006 - 06:16 PM

no way...i thought Claudio shot it


He in fact did some additional photography in Zodiac
  • 0

#14 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 27 November 2006 - 12:06 AM

Hello all,

Please endure my question: If film or HD is such a small portion of the production budget, why not shoot in a (relatively) artifact free medium like film? While I understand that asthetics make beauty a matter for the beholder, isn't film still a technically superior taking medium?

Paul
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 November 2006 - 12:36 AM

Hello all,

Please endure my question: If film or HD is such a small portion of the production budget, why not shoot in a (relatively) artifact free medium like film? While I understand that asthetics make beauty a matter for the beholder, isn't film still a technically superior taking medium?

Paul


Well, you just answered your own question as to why most studio movies are shot in film, as are most dramatic TV series: "film aint broke". It works just dandy if you can afford it.

Other than to save money (and there is generally a real savings with HD over 35mm IF you never need to go out to film, all else being equal... I don't want to hear how you already own this Russian 35mm camera and therefore it would cost you money to rent an HD camera...), the reasons someone might use HD instead of 35mm are: (1) the aesthetics of a digital image are what they want for that project; (2) they feel that digital imagery will incorporate better with digital effects work, especially CGI; (3) workflow -- they feel that they shooting and post workflow will be smoother with an all-digital approach; (4) low-light cinematography without grain; (5) greater depth of field with 2/3" CCD cameras when shooting in low-light at wide apertures compared to 35mm; (6) desire to shoot a very high volume of footage; (7) ego -- they want to be known as working with cutting-edge technology

All this is also assuming that an HD master is part of what you need to deliver as a finished project, even if you shoot on film.

And film isn't really "artifact-free" -- it's just that we don't consider many of the artifacts to be negative ones, compared to digital artifacts.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

CineTape

Tai Audio

The Slider

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Opal

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Metropolis Post