F55: 5K too much.

mmm, yes, a BPM will fix all this.

On one hand, I'm in awe that Jackson is so into his job of directing that he's blind to what the technology does to how people perceive the work.

On the other hand, I can't believe he's gotten this far without realizing people might equate >24fps imagery with the same content that has traditionally been shot at >24fps rates. Soap operas. News. Etc.

Too bad. Lucas got disconnected too, along with countless others. It happens.
 
3D is much more comfortable to watch at the higher frame rates. Personally I am not a slave to 24p as the only way to shoot movies, especially digitally. No it does not look like a soap opera, or like reality. It does not look like film either. Digital cinema is a new medium that will evolve its own aesthetics. Jackson, Cameron, Soderbergh, and others have embraced it and are not looking back.
 
Last edited:
+1 3D is much better in 48 fps. Fantasy genres may not be the best thing for super detailed 5K, but Jackson knows what he's doing.
 
Nah, Jackson really doesn't know what he's doing anymore. Yeah yeah, he makes money but so does M.Bay and so do network TV shows. Hopefully he will stop making movies and that money can be put into more unique films and things like more IMAX material and directors projects who know how to edit themselves. Look at Interstellar if you want to see how to spend $100mil (its 65mm).

Huh? 48fps does indeed look like news footage, so what are you talking about? No one but you thinks that. Also no one said anything about moving forward or backward or what digital has or has not done for viewers. Most directors do not agree that 48fps works at all and they are all smarter than you. And what does Soderberg have to do with anything? He is the most boring of them all and no longer makes films anyway. I actually had to stop his last one half way through that had something to do with drugs or whatever it was... WTF was that film suppose to be? Not entertainment, that's for sure. Plus he did everything in 24p so what was your point? He used a red camera? So what, it was all 1080 in the end. Also I believe that Cameron is shooting just certain shots in 48fps for the next Avatars just for action pieces that screw your eyes up in 3D otherwise.

I guess your theater has some unique form of 48fps. lol ...get real, it sucks for everything but some overly fast moving action scenes in 3D, that's it.
 
Your thread title is '5k too much' that seems to be different from 48p (which I think is putrid but might work for 3d, which, doesn't, IMO, work)

I got my first 5k camera in 2005 Hassy HD22

Simply you get the clean file and add noise/grain if you want to - what is the problem with having a good start point for your post chain? - anyone who cant make a 5k file look nice just needs to go back to school

S
 
What's the bet that you have yet to even see this movie in HFR, yet rehash other people's views to try and prove a point to yourself.

They are just creative choices...
 
I would probably put myself in the camp of RED-detractor, but I will still say that you can get some very, very nice pictures from the camera. Ones that could even be described as "filmic". I have only seen the Hobbit P1, and that only in 24fps 3d. However, to me the film did look very oddly "video". To quantify that, I think it looked like a lot of highlights clipped a bit nastily and it looked generally over-sharp. I cannot think for a moment that either of these things would get past such an experienced cinematographer as they had (Andrew Lesnie I believe) but they look perhaps like a few poor choices in post. One thing I do know with RED footage is that your choice of post processing is really quite critical to the quality of your finished picture.

Of course, there is always the simplest answer of "they like that look. Others don't". An argument not unique to 3d, HFR or even digital. After all, some people HATE anamorphic 35mm.
 
Shoots56 said:
...so what was your point?
Click to expand...

I understood his point to be that digital moving images represent a new aesthetic and that some directors and producers are embracing it, working with it, testing it's boundries. I think it's a good point. I find that I like some of the crisp character of the new high end digital cameras including F55 and Red. Why not embrace it, use it's specific characteristics?
 
Last edited:
I've shot beautiful stuff w/ EPIC. I think a lot of DP's are scared a bit to really learn the camera, and educate themselves about raw and the many approaches to exposing and post. I mean, c'mon guys, as a working professional DP, I expect to learn complex systems, figure them out, and make them work for me. Same with any cam. I recently did shoots w/ F55 and Alexa, so I'm not some red fanboy. The red hating is getting very old and, to me, is now just a sign of lack of knowledge and/or bullheadedness. It might not be your favorite cam, but to say its crap is juvenile. Anyway....
 
txdp said:
I've shot beautiful stuff w/ EPIC. I think a lot of DP's are scared a bit to really learn the camera, and educate themselves about raw and the many approaches to exposing and post. I mean, c'mon guys, as a working professional DP, I expect to learn complex systems, figure them out, and make them work for me. Same with any cam. I recently did shoots w/ F55 and Alexa, so I'm not some red fanboy. The red hating is getting very old and, to me, is now just a sign of lack of knowledge and/or bullheadedness. It might not be your favorite cam, but to say its crap is juvenile. Anyway....
Click to expand...

+1 preach it.
 
This whole Red does bad skin tones meme is just false. I've seen lots of lovely work out of Reds with beautiful nicely modulated skin tones. No camera that shows up as much as Reds do in high fashion advertising would be accepted in that hyper critical market if it produced poor skin tones.
Someone awhile back posted a side by side comparison test of most of the major digital cinema cameras, Epic, Alexa, F65, BMCC and a couple of others. Test shots were all graded to look as exactly alike as possible and any differences between them not related to resolution were vanishingly small for a properly exposed image under controlled lighting conditions.
 
Many years ago, when the RED ONE was brand spanking new, I saw a demonstration at Panavision. It was an independent, third-party demo, played off a (then) top-end HDCAM SR deck onto a (then) top-end 42 inch monitor they had just bought in. They compared several cameras, including 35mm, Genesis, RED ONE, ARRI D-20. All were graded for the director's preferred look and included a very intensive test. Honestly, I couldn't tell the difference. At least, not in any meaningful way.

I personally find the drive for DR and such things interesting, when the majority of sets that employ EPICs, ALEXAs, F65s etc... can certainly afford lighting. If ever a camera needed more DR, it was the Z1s my film school had bought!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top