Thread: Gemini Man

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    Gemini Man
    #1
    Default
    Saw Gemini Man last night in the 3D version with high frame rate. They're calling this 3D+. Of the 12 or so theaters in my area, only 2 were playing the high frame rate, and those were only offering it at night (no matinee), and only for two showings each.
    The look was different, maybe a bit off putting. I kept thinking I was watching a Telenovella, shot on video. It was incredibly crisp however, with sharp textures, sharp leaves, pitting in stones, small bubbles in water, sparks from gun hits, etc. The color grade was rich and saturated, especially in the Colombian settings.
    The 3D sometimes worked really well, as with the dolly scene pushing into the library, which showed lots of depth. Other scenes, most notably closeups, not so much. The character's faces had some depth, but out of focus backgrounds looked like flat, painted drops. Framing that cropped the tops of heads looked a little odd. One close shot of Clive Owen worked really well, and almost looked like his face was pushing out from the screen.
    Overall I would say the high frame rate did Not enhance the film. Again, I got that overly staccato, stop motion vibe from most of the scenes. Maybe that's the digital acquisition (Arri Alexa and Phantom Flex), but I don't think so. It looked like a movie shot on video. Even high frame rate acquisition on film, with a physical, rotary shutter, might not have improved the staccato flow of motion.
    Buy a Tripod, Use the Tripod.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member Liam Hall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    3,406
    Default
    Yeah, same here. Apparently that makes us celluloid snobs.
    "There is nothing permanent except change."
    Heraclitus

    www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @WordsbyLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Central NC, USA
    Posts
    1,528
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Liam Hall View Post
    Yeah, same here. Apparently that makes us celluloid snobs.
    I don't think so. I think it makes the people making the HFR films early adopters. They are in about the same space as CDs were when they first came out. Early on, CDs got a bad reputation for sounding harsh. Because they did, even if the early math showed that they shouldn't. But it was early days and people were still figuring out how to make good A2D and D2A conversions (both the algorithms and the hardware) that were leaving small but audible artifacts in both the digital recordings and the analog playback.

    Ten years later and CDs sounded pretty good. Today's CDs sound really quite good, because the entire chain, from recorders to players, has improved. A lot.

    I'm just saying that just because today's HFR films don't look like what you want doesn't mean that the concept of HFR is doomed. It just means that it's early days. The longer people work at it, the better it will get. If they choose to keep working at it.

    There's also the fact that this is a change from what we are used to. We are very used to "what a movie should look like" and with any change the first thing we'll see are the differences. And if we don't like it it will grate on us. Such is life. No surprise there.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,357
    Default
    Coming from a broadcast background, I appreciate "high frame rate" and I think a lot of people dump on it unnecessarily. High frame rate has its place. Just not in "narrative" type content.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,357
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
    I
    I'm just saying that just because today's HFR films don't look like what you want doesn't mean that the concept of HFR is doomed. It just means that it's early days. The longer people work at it, the better it will get. If they choose to keep working at it.

    There's also the fact that this is a change from what we are used to. We are very used to "what a movie should look like" and with any change the first thing we'll see are the differences. And if we don't like it it will grate on us. Such is life. No surprise there.
    The problem with HFR for narrative is the motion cadence/motion blur. It doesn't matter how long they work at it, it's not gonna change that aspect of it.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Default
    I’ve worked with high frame rate film projection as well. The complaints are the same. The idea of “organic” or “rounded shutter” or anything else disappears into all that information blasting at you at 60fps or 120fps. Doug Trumbull’s system is better and more comfortable to watch, but high frame rate projection is hfrp and there’s no getting around what is in fact the point of it. Love it or don’t.
    Mitch Gross
    Prolycht Lighting
    NYC


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member Eric Coughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,539
    Default
    A better test audience would be showing HFR and 24p to say a third world country of adults who have never watched film or video before. Then let them decide what looks better without having been influenced by growing up watching 24p films.

    If they decide they like HFR better, then clearly the only way to eliminate the bias and start producing HFR content without complaint would be to purge the audience of film-goers who have previously witnessed 24p. Fortunately, and I say this publicly here and now, I have never watched 24p video in my life and have only witnessed HFR video, and it looks great!
    And again I say unto you, it is easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle, than for a camel to enter into the kingdom of God.

    Vimeo Page: https://Vimeo.com/TwoSenseFilms
    Website: http://TwoSenseFilms.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Default
    Ok, but I assume you’ve seen a movie sometime in your life, which means you’ve seen 24p.

    There’s no such thing as “better” in this case, only different. High frame rate capture and projection is more technically accurate to what we see as humans in the natural world, but technical accuracy is not the only measure of quality. Color isn’t “better” than black & white.
    Mitch Gross
    Prolycht Lighting
    NYC


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Default
    That was Eric's ode to a hyper realistic put-on.

    In 8K and 120 FPS.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member Eric Coughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,539
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch Gross View Post
    Ok, but I assume you’ve seen a movie sometime in your life, which means you’ve seen 24p.
    No, goodness, no. Please don't spread such rumors. You don't seem to realize what's at stake.
    And again I say unto you, it is easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle, than for a camel to enter into the kingdom of God.

    Vimeo Page: https://Vimeo.com/TwoSenseFilms
    Website: http://TwoSenseFilms.com


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •