Jump to content


Photo

Movies Ruined By digital


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#41 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 December 2017 - 02:26 AM

Does anyone seriously think that if an image is greenish, its because it was shot digitally instead of on film???

 

 

If you shot Train Spotting 2.. apparently it is thus.. again another inexperienced DP no doubt .. 


  • 0

#42 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 December 2017 - 03:54 PM

 

 

If you shot Train Spotting 2.. apparently it is thus.. again another inexperienced DP no doubt .. 

That Dod Mantle character is a hack.


  • 0

#43 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1052 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:37 PM

That Dod Mantle character is a hack.

Have you seen some of those Dogme 95 films? You could have shot them on a handycam and I'd not be able to tell the difference!


  • 0

#44 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:13 PM

That Dod Mantle character is a hack.

 

 

If only he had access to this forum he might learn something.. I mean what else has he shot.. wasn't he a studio guy for "who wants to be a millionaire ".. cant expect much..


  • 0

#45 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:33 PM

But do any of you know about Larry who used to sit on the box on Broadway and 50th St? He is "Scumbag"! The movie "Born to Win" is about him. His position was just 50 feet down from the Brill Building at 1619 Broadway. They all did HAIR at the Biltmore on 47th St. and that's how come David Scott Milton saw Larry frequently enough to have been inspired to write the movie.


  • 0

#46 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3074 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 December 2017 - 08:19 PM

Have you seen some of those Dogme 95 films? You could have shot them on a handycam and I'd not be able to tell the difference!

It's unbelievable who they let into the ASC these days. And the BSC. And the DDF.


  • 1

#47 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 01 December 2017 - 11:07 PM

Larry was, I believe, a private valet for someone in the industry who fired him when he got married and this set him off. Jerry Leiber's secretary Faith told me this in 1989 when I asked her if she knew anything about him. And don't believe all you see in print, though I wouldn't mind being 27 again. Oh, and there was also a Zum Zum on Broadway.


  • 0

#48 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 01 December 2017 - 11:32 PM

More and more the cinematographers are getting screwed, especially with the massive lab closures.

 


  • 0

#49 Gregg MacPherson

Gregg MacPherson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1883 posts
  • Other
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 December 2017 - 12:47 AM

The Big Debate.....That was quite a nice doc piece.  Though everyone made a fine contribution, my favorite offering was from John de Borman. He seemed very sincere....

 

EDIT: typo.


Edited by Gregg MacPherson, 02 December 2017 - 12:48 AM.

  • 0

#50 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 660 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 02 December 2017 - 02:04 AM

My biggest concern is the closing of labs. By all means, if you love film, don't stand idly by as it dies...shoot film. While you can, because if you just simply stand on that fence and think that "story is all that matters" one day there will be no fence, they will make the choice for you and for all future generations to come.

 


  • 0

#51 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 03 December 2017 - 04:36 PM

One of the best christmas movie ''bad santa 2003'' and digitally shot sequel movie ''Bad santa 2 2016''

I'm not saying second movie is good actually is bad but visually far behind the first one like the other sequels shot digitally nowadays and problem not just colors..

bad santa -min.jpg

 


  • 0

#52 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 03 December 2017 - 04:38 PM

bad santa 2-min.jpg

 


  • 1

#53 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 03 December 2017 - 04:41 PM

bad santa 3-min.jpg


  • 1

#54 Giacomo Girolamo

Giacomo Girolamo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Venezia

Posted 04 December 2017 - 02:17 PM

One of the best christmas movie ''bad santa 2003'' and digitally shot sequel movie ''Bad santa 2 2016''

I'm not saying second movie is good actually is bad but visually far behind the first one like the other sequels shot digitally nowadays and problem not just colors..

attachicon.gifbad santa -min.jpg

 

 

Do you want to know where's the fallacy in your screenshots? (not saying you're doing on purpose, but maybe because ignorance). You think you are comparing two identical shots because the costumes or the location but if you are in a cinematographer forum, you need to look similar cinematography.

I mean, in the first two shots you have in the left and front, up hard light and in the right one you have a much soft 45º light.

In the bar scene you have a rembrandt light and in the right you have an edge light and a lot of soft fill light.

 

That are all estathics choices, like color grading. But when somebody tell you that (or anything you don't want to hear, to be honest) you start to complain about how misunderstood you are. Try to be humble and, if everyone are tell you something, I'm not saying that you need to change your mind. But at least, try to think about it, instead try to refute them just because.

 

Bye


  • 2

#55 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:14 PM

Do you want to know where's the fallacy in your screenshots? (not saying you're doing on purpose, but maybe because ignorance). You think you are comparing two identical shots because the costumes or the location but if you are in a cinematographer forum, you need to look similar cinematography.

I mean, in the first two shots you have in the left and front, up hard light and in the right one you have a much soft 45º light.

In the bar scene you have a rembrandt light and in the right you have an edge light and a lot of soft fill light.

 

That are all estathics choices, like color grading. But when somebody tell you that (or anything you don't want to hear, to be honest) you start to complain about how misunderstood you are. Try to be humble and, if everyone are tell you something, I'm not saying that you need to change your mind. But at least, try to think about it, instead try to refute them just because.

 

For a god's sake i'm complain about misunderstood because so many people here don't understand what i mean even you don't understand. None of the things about lighting or grading here, i know scenes has different lighting but even if they have same lighting problem is not going to be fix. First movie look more cinematic with organic colors,more deep,has more texture,more dimensional with intense looking.

I try to put similar identical shots because maybe people can understand that way the differences i see, i can easily pick up different shots from different scenes or movies but in that case you're going to say these are different movies different lighting,lenses,grading different dp's different stylistic choices That's why i pick up sequel movies or same the dp's work for to block that kind of answers.....

 

''you need to look similar cinematography.'' For example how can i find similar cinematography? can you give some advise? 

even that a sequel movie with same cast similar location doesn't have the similar cinematography and also before that i give other examples from scream,american pie,hostel movies and many of movies has same dp's....

 

I think small pictures doesn't exactly showing that's why people only focusing lighting and grading after that i'm going to put only one big picture. I know second picture has different ligthing...

harold and-min.jpg


  • 1

#56 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:17 PM

skyfall tomorrow-min.jpg


  • 0

#57 David Hessel

David Hessel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 December 2017 - 05:44 PM

 

For a god's sake i'm complain about misunderstood because so many people here don't understand what i mean even you don't understand. None of the things about lighting or grading here, i know scenes has different lighting but even if they have same lighting problem is not going to be fix. First movie look more cinematic with organic colors,more deep,has more texture,more dimensional with intense looking.

I try to put similar identical shots because maybe people can understand that way the differences i see, i can easily pick up different shots from different scenes or movies but in that case you're going to say these are different movies different lighting,lenses,grading different dp's different stylistic choices That's why i pick up sequel movies or same the dp's work for to block that kind of answers.....

 

The point is that thest are not similar identical shots they are different shots from different movies with different grading with different lighting with different lenses with different focal lengths. The fact that it is a sequel doesn't change the fact that they are not shot the same way regardless of whether it is film or digital. There are so many differences between these shots that have nothing to do with it being film that makes it pretty much impossible to identify what differences come from it being digital or film.

 

 

''you need to look similar cinematography.'' For example how can i find similar cinematography? can you give some advise? 

even that a sequel movie with same cast similar location doesn't have the similar cinematography and also before that i give other examples from scream,american pie,hostel movies and many of movies has same dp's....

 

Ideally you actually find tests where someone has already done the comparison between digital and film using the same lenses, lighting, etc... Beyond that learn what cinematography actually means and you will have your answer. The same actors are less important, they actually have nothing to do with cinematography, more important are lighting and grading style. If you have a close up of an actors face shot on film you want to try and find a digital shot that has as simlar a lighting set up as possible. Same number of sources striking at the same angle. If is a daytime shot having the sun in the same relative orientation with the same weather clear sky v cloudy. It would get you closer but the only real way to do it is with a proper test.

 

 

 

I think small pictures doesn't exactly showing that's why people only focusing lighting and grading after that i'm going to put only one big picture. I know second picture has different ligthing...

attachicon.gifharold and-min.jpg

 

Different pictures but more of the same and no the size doesn't make a difference.


  • 0

#58 Giacomo Girolamo

Giacomo Girolamo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Venezia

Posted 04 December 2017 - 06:32 PM

 

 That's why i pick up sequel movies or same the dp's work for to block that kind of answers.....

 

 

 

Here's your answer. You're not trying to learn something or debate about an idea. You think you figure it out a revelation, and even when some of the greats DP with years and years the experience say is not like that, you get mad because nobody can see how a truly genius you are.

That's bad in life in general (because you can learn anything with that actitud), but is really bad in a collaborative art like cinema, when you have TONS of information to learn, and the best way is just working with people that know more than you.

 

I'm not saying you have to say "I'm wrong because he's, whom have more experience, say it", but you need to stop and say "maybe there's something I don't know or I just miss" and try it to figure it out.

 

Just a friendly advice, and a necessary one in this kind of work.


  • 1

#59 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 05 December 2017 - 04:04 PM

 

Here's your answer. You're not trying to learn something or debate about an idea. You think you figure it out a revelation, and even when some of the greats DP with years and years the experience say is not like that, you get mad because nobody can see how a truly genius you are.

That's bad in life in general (because you can learn anything with that actitud), but is really bad in a collaborative art like cinema, when you have TONS of information to learn, and the best way is just working with people that know more than you.

 

I'm not saying you have to say "I'm wrong because he's, whom have more experience, say it", but you need to stop and say "maybe there's something I don't know or I just miss" and try it to figure it out.

 

Just a friendly advice, and a necessary one in this kind of work.

 

Under this topic i'm not debate an idea,i'm sharing my own thoughts...

Btw I don't think i figure out a revelation . I'm not mad i'm just sad because you can't see the things what i see i'm just sorry for you. I don't have to prove myself or i don't need that somebody to tell me ''how truly genius you're'',  ı'm just regular audience...

 

After this before you making psychological judgments about someone else, don't do it to just about someone you know from the internet....

 

and how the topics come to here, i'm just saying digital grading and digital cameras making movies visually much worse and i'm giving the examples for my claim, showing the visually but you just writing stuff that about my personality and psychology. I'm just graduated and i'm bet you're much more knowledgeable and experienced than me about cinematography no doubt that.In the world tons of information needs to be learn i agree with you...

Next day i will write a long answer and i hope you're going to understand my claim...


Edited by fatih yıkar, 05 December 2017 - 04:07 PM.

  • 1

#60 Giacomo Girolamo

Giacomo Girolamo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Venezia

Posted 05 December 2017 - 04:13 PM

It's ok man, sorry if I sound harsh. Maybe you have a point too and we can't get it. I'm still thinking that in some level is rosy retrospection and an estethic change of this times that you really don't like. Maybe someday you will find another example that can show us, or get some knowledge that let you identify the exact reason of what you feel.

 

Best wishes Fatih


Edited by Giacomo Girolamo, 05 December 2017 - 04:18 PM.

  • 0


Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Opal

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera