It looks very crisp. Certain areas that usually get grain when shot on film, like blue skies and such are grain free, so I am thinking it was shot digitally, anybody know? I can't seem to find any info online . . .
Interesting you should say that. Did you watch the 1080p version? To me it looks very much like film (or, to be exact, very much like film-originated HD video).
No, I watched the 720p version. I could be wrong about it being originated on video, it just looked too sharp and grain free for my taste. Maybe what I saw is a combination of super sharp lenses and extra fine grain film stock?
OK, I just watched the first three minutes (clip available on the same page as the trailer) and I guess you guys are right. The low-light street scenes look very digital, complete with video noise and the flat rendering of shadows. What do you think – could this be the Viper?
For some reason, I was fooled by the trailer but definitely not this clip... Maybe I've already seen too much 35mm-originated material butchered by a compressed HD transfer to see the difference anymore.
I think we've all been "butchered", we normally don't see 35mm but 35mm + telecine, 35mm + scanner, 35mm + compression and not so many well treated film-copies or high-quality transfers (scanner + 4k)...
The DoF looks very 2/3" - most likely Viper or F23.
For me, the Highlights in the opening of the trailer scream video more so than any compression/grianlessness. I also tend to see HD/Video in how it creates a rather abrupt "white," if that makes any sense. I also seem to recall Coppola talking about how much he liked digital processes after Youth Without Youth, I think it was covered by Post Magazine, something about him not wanting to go back to film. That was awhile ago, of course, and I could be mis-remembering it horribly.
I also tend to see HD/Video in how it creates a rather abrupt "white," if that makes any sense.
Definitely. But unfortunately I've been seeing that kind of highlights in some 35mm-originated Blu-Ray transfers lately as well, so it's not as sure a sign of digital origination as it used to be anymore...
Regardless of what one thinks of the format it was shot on, you have to love the lighting. Yes, I wish it had that film look to go with the lighting (like Phil Meheux did with the first few minutes of Casino Royale), but I'll still go see this, and hopefully Coppola has a good story to tell. I guess I'm hoping when it comes out we'll be talking about those things, the lighting and the story, rather than yet another film vs digital debate. I'm not sure I've seen one of those yet that didn't end up being really polarizing.
The fact that we can see by a tiny, strong compressed trailer which format was used is even surprising. After all this manipulation and post-work we can still see significant differences, that would be impossible with other comparisons (like piano makers). We are talking about film, about it's DR and specific look, but in most cases we just see the digital interpretation of it, a telecine and the compression propably adds digital artifacts (like highlight-handling) to film - we got used to a certain "digital look".
But somehow I can understand Coppola, as far as I know he tries to stay as far as possible from the studios, so even bringing film to labs, giving it to someone else, propably feels like "Hollywood" to him!?
Deeper focus photography worked better in b&w where you aren't distracted by background color information coming into focus, so I've often thought that if I were going to make a b&w movie on a digital camera, I'd actually prefer using a 2/3" camera where it would be a lot easier to get the look of shooting 35mm at an f/8 or higher, ala some deep-focus movies of the 1940's.
Also, b&w digital photography does eliminate the color (obviously) which is one extra clue about the digital origination, the way that fleshtones look.
Of course, the other aspect of b&w photography tends to be the silver grain that is visible (except in large format photography), the major thing missing in b&w digital.
I have to agree with Tom Lowe.. I wasn't impressed either. Maybe sitting thru the entire Story would change my mind but I have to say... it ain't no Rumble Fish!....(visually)... way to 'Digital' for my taste. Too bad because he is one of my favorites.. his Claret Red Wine is also very nice.. but this B&W Digital production... not so good.