Jump to content


Photo

Deception


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 23 April 2008 - 03:29 PM

Dante Spinotti talks about splitting the two formats here.

It's interesting, he talks about choosing the Genesis for how well it sees into the shadows compared to film, yet the shadows in the trailer are completely black (looks great though). Can't trust too much from an online trailer I guess, or maybe they changed their mind duting color correction.

Trailer: http://www.apple.com.../fox/deception/

Now how can I try one of those new "Prima" lenses? ;)
  • 0

#2 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 April 2008 - 05:56 PM

I saw the trailer for this in the theater in front of "Street Kings" and I was curious what it was shot on. If I hadn't been aware of the budget level (high enough to get Ewan McGregor, Hugh Jackman, etc.) I would have guessed F900. I know that trailers are not the best representation of final image quality, but I was not impressed with what I saw on a technical level.

On the other hand, I thought it might be an interesting "intentionally video" look for a film about this tawdry world of underground sex. It's basically the same feeling I had about Miami Vice which was 1) "this is the best Mini-DV movie ever", and 2) "this looks terrible, which is great because now we're pretty much free to embrace the artifacts of HD and not try to make it look like film." And I liked Miami Vice, so maybe this will be a fun film.
  • 0

#3 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 April 2008 - 01:47 AM

My favorite part of the article:

"Spinotti and Langenegger used traditional Ziess lenses with the Genesis camera. When shooting with film, they used newly-developed Prima lenses. "
  • 0

#4 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 24 April 2008 - 05:23 AM

Can't trust too much from an online trailer I guess



I'd say that's more correct just as you can't look at a DVD of a film and say how it looks as a projection in atheater. It's often apples and oranges.
  • 0

#5 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 24 April 2008 - 06:08 AM

[. . .] 2) "this looks terrible, which is great because now we're pretty much free to embrace the artifacts of HD and not try to make it look like film."


So before some Hollywood Big Wig did it we weren't free to embrace these artifacts?

I don't think artifacts should ever really be embraced unless someone is making a movie about something that is unreal or fake on the surface or wants to draw some sort of visual parallel to the unreality of something, which would probably just confuse your average theatre-goer anyway.

Most movies and TV shows, afterall, are made to appear to be as naturalistic as possible. For instance, look at the criticism that Kubrick got for "Eyes Wide Shut". THey even digitally removed the grain in the DVD!

So there is a very strong movement AGAINST artifacts of any kind, not a movement to embrace them.

Film companies, chip companies all try to make their products as artifact-free as possible; why embrace something that the manufacturers are trying to minimize?
  • 0

#6 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:16 AM

As a person who never uses Panavision Lenses what is a Prima ? Know about Primos , but .?
  • 0

#7 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 April 2008 - 12:37 PM

It's just a typo John, but Prima sounds rather like a German sausage brand, does it not?

Considering that the Primos came out in 87, they are hardly newly developed either.
  • 0

#8 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 24 April 2008 - 12:48 PM

What just a typo ? did think that but then thought must have missed out on something ,thanks Max .
  • 0

#9 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 April 2008 - 04:00 PM

So before some Hollywood Big Wig did it we weren't free to embrace these artifacts?

...

Film companies, chip companies all try to make their products as artifact-free as possible; why embrace something that the manufacturers are trying to minimize?


As willing as any DP may be to embrace craziness on an individual level, you have to have the support of the director and often the producer to be able to actually shoot unconventionally and not get fired. That's why I feel it's important to see a major production that willingly incorporates "mistakes" or "artifacts", as it makes it easier to shoot in this style and have it accepted by the rest of the creative team. My experience has been that especially producers, but also directors, are often much more conservative than they initially let on, and there's a very real tendency to want to play it safe and make decisions in post.

As far as embracing "artifacts", they're part of the set of tools that we have available to tell a story. If it works to tell the story then I'm willing to use it. Let's take a look at things that have been considered artifacts and opposed by manufacturers throughout the history of film:
- over or underexposure
- grain
- lens flare
- camera shake
- pastel colors
- shadows

And, so that I'm on record as saying it, naturalism is also a style. It has its place, but it's not a goal for every movie nor should it be.
  • 0

#10 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 24 April 2008 - 04:06 PM

So before some Hollywood Big Wig did it we weren't free to embrace these artifacts?

I don't think artifacts should ever really be embraced unless someone is making a movie about something that is unreal or fake on the surface or wants to draw some sort of visual parallel to the unreality of something, which would probably just confuse your average theatre-goer anyway.

Most movies and TV shows, afterall, are made to appear to be as naturalistic as possible. For instance, look at the criticism that Kubrick got for "Eyes Wide Shut". THey even digitally removed the grain in the DVD!

So there is a very strong movement AGAINST artifacts of any kind, not a movement to embrace them.


Everything about film is an "artifact"! It's two dimensional, 24fps, has limited contrast range, grain structure, it's own color gamut; then there's the optics, the lighting, production design, acting...

The difference here is that certain artifacts inherent to the medium have become accepted by audiences, and even become conventions that the audience expects to see. Stylized looks like bleach-bypass and that cross-processed "Tony Scott look" have been popular for years, so you can't say that movies have to be naturalistic or that audiences don't want artifacts.

The important difference is being able to choose which image artifacts to include, and not be stuck with the ones you don't want. If you can use it's an asset; if you can't avoid it it's a problem.

When is a plant a weed? When you don't want it. But it's still a plant.
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 26 April 2008 - 01:51 PM

The Panavision Genesis has been, by far, the most successful digital camera system to invade mainstream Hollywood cinema -- compared to all the indie films that have used the F900.


Right now, there are four or five Genesis shot movies in theaters.

I saw "Forbidden Kingdom" (the Jet Li / Jackie Chan movie) digitally projected and I thought it looked great, really fine-grained, etc. I saw a D.I. credit listing FotoKem and I assumed it was just a really good D.I. and the new 5219 stock was used or something slow-speed -- because the movie looked so clean I assumed it was shot on the Genesis. Turned out, most of it was (except for some high-speed stuff.)

So far, the best presentation of Genesis movies that I've seen have all been projected in 2K (Superman Returns, Walk Hard, Forbidden Kingdom). Make me wonder why the filmed-out versions show more problems.
  • 0

#12 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 26 April 2008 - 02:35 PM

That new gambling picture 21 was shot on the Genesis. Anyone seen it?
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

CineLab

CineTape

Opal

The Slider

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam