Being Cinematic

When I watched The Dark Knight at the cinema, and on DVD they cropped the IMAX to 2.40:1 to match the anamorphic footage and it seemed pretty seamless. The IMAX's clean footage, sharp vistas of scenary, and the super shallow depth of field stood slightly out to me.

It's only on IMAX screens and on bluray when I was like WHAAAAAT?! when the aspect ratio switched from 2.40:1 and to 1.44. That mixing of the frame size brought me out, I mean... it's weird.
 
Damn Perrone, you snapped with this thread. It's funny that I am currently re-reading The Five Cs of Cinematography in order to prep myself for my upcoming project. Now I'm adding this thread to my must read list. Five Star, dawg. :thumbsup:
 
Lammy said:
When I watched The Dark Knight at the cinema, and on DVD they cropped the IMAX to 2.40:1 to match the anamorphic footage and it seemed pretty seamless. The IMAX's clean footage, sharp vistas of scenary, and the super shallow depth of field stood slightly out to me.

It's only on IMAX screens and on bluray when I was like WHAAAAAT?! when the aspect ratio switched from 2.40:1 and to 1.44. That mixing of the frame size brought me out, I mean... it's weird.
Click to expand...

Haha, I doubt you would notice a difference from 65mm to 35mm when it was shot by one of the best photo-chemical DP's today, and looking at it on a standard definition 480x720 DVD! :)
 
Last edited:
Max Lamare said:
Question: What if you dont have all these lenses and stuff. I own a naked Canon HV30. So then what do i do?
Click to expand...

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE


(Seriously.)
 
Didn't mean to be so oblique. People often wait for newer or what may be perceived as better equipment, thinking it's needed to help them accomplish what they want. However, a camera like the HV30 can be used as a capable tool, contributing to achieving almost every cinematic device Perrone has discussed so far.

Thank you for your generosity, Perrone. Great thread. I'll look forward to following it.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
Haha, I doubt you would notice a difference from 65mm to 35mm when it was shot by one of the best photo-chemical DP's today, and looking at it on a standard definition 480x720 DVD! :)
Click to expand...

Of course you would notice, why else would they shoot in IMAX if no one noticed? :P Wally and Nolan made no attempt to make it seamless in The Dark Knight. Those IMAX scenes scream big, look big, and are just very different but appropriate for the scenes they're in. Saying "You wont notice 35mm with Imax on a DVD" is as clear as day to me as if comparing something shot on 8mm to 35mm and viewing it on the web :P

Put the DVD on, you don't even need to pixel peep. The shifting aspect ratio on the bluray is distractingly too much though, I'm glad they didn't do that in Inception.
 
Lammy said:
Of course you would notice, why else would they shoot in IMAX if no one noticed? :P Wally and Nolan made no attempt to make it seamless in The Dark Knight. Those IMAX scenes scream big, look big, and are just very different but appropriate for the scenes they're in. Saying "You wont notice 35mm with Imax on a DVD" is as clear as day to me as if comparing something shot on 8mm to 35mm and viewing it on the web :P

Put the DVD on, you don't even need to pixel peep. The shifting aspect ratio on the bluray is distractingly too much though, I'm glad they didn't do that in Inception.
Click to expand...

The operative thing here is 'viewing on a 720x480 DVD rendition'.

It would be interesting to shoot 8mm in a 'pro fashion', then shoot the same on 35mm, same 'pro' considerations, then digitize to 720x480... and see which is 'so obivious even the unwashed masses could tell the difference'...

Heck, on the 'Zacuto Shootout' of the DSLRS, on the 'computer' scrreen, I had a hard time keeping which camera, or which of Film vs. Digital was being shown... as viewed from my computer...

Of course perhaps if I had been at the 'real live' screenings, the differences could have been glaring...

What would have been interesting is the Zacuto media be presented by a projectionist who didn't know what type was being presented, and the audience rate the image... then stats on the ratings for the various clips...
 
Lammy said:
Of course you would notice, why else would they shoot in IMAX if no one noticed? :P Wally and Nolan made no attempt to make it seamless in The Dark Knight. Those IMAX scenes scream big, look big, and are just very different but appropriate for the scenes they're in. Saying "You wont notice 35mm with Imax on a DVD" is as clear as day to me as if comparing something shot on 8mm to 35mm and viewing it on the web :P

Put the DVD on, you don't even need to pixel peep. The shifting aspect ratio on the bluray is distractingly too much though, I'm glad they didn't do that in Inception.
Click to expand...

No no no. I'm saying one can not see it on DVD. Trust me, people noticed in the theater and that was the whole point. Many cinematographers strive for the best theatrical presentation and protect for DVD and Bluray. The IMAX segments are purely for the thrill in the theater. Even on blueray, the jump to full screen from 2.40 does not and cannot show the IMAX grandeur. I think this is why they do the jump in aspect ratio... not only to keep the original aspect but to make the common consumer 'feel' like they are getting a bigger and better experience, when in fact, we all know that HD 1080 doesn't even match the resolution of 35mm film... So even on Blu-ray we are seeing the lower resolution film format (35mm) presented back at an even lower resolution (1080)... so where does that leave IMAX a format with 4x more resolution than 35mm?! On blueray, the very trained eye of an audience member may see a few differences, but not enough to justify shooting IMAX. That was done for audience in the theater... the ideal and still champion viewing experience, so long as those around you don't bring it down.

As far as the DVD I was talking about... because it's 480x720 ALSO letterboxed at 2.40... so it's realistically more like 300x720 resolution... lol. My point is... all that extra resolution and 'apparent' dynamic range is lost... I'd like someone to show the DVD to a film buff who does not know which scenes are IMAX and see if he can tell the ones shot on IMAX. Chances are there will not be one found. But if one were to find someone, they would probably have better luck guessing the scenes from each other based on content versus actually being able to tell. I think I can tell, but in reality I know where to look and what to look for, and sometimes I wonder if I just am seeing what I want to see...

My point is, at 300 pixels in vertical resolution on the DVD, you're going to be hard pressed to see a difference of resolution in any format. That's less than youtube resolution (but probably better compression?) . I'm make the same argument to a lesser degree for Blu-ray.... 35mm to HD and 70mm to HD will have differences, but each are reduced to less than it's original resolution.. meaning both are now less that the original least common denominator. This is where you start to really shed the advantages of a big original format.


NOT TO TOTALLY HIJACK THIS THREAD. sorry Perrone! I get sucked into these conversations like a boozer to the bottle.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
As far as the DVD I was talking about... because it's 480x720 ALSO letterboxed at 2.40... so it's realistically more like 300x720 resolution... lol. My point is... all that extra resolution and 'apparent' dynamic range is lost... I'd like someone to show the DVD to a film buff who does not know which scenes are IMAX and see if he can tell the ones shot on IMAX
Click to expand...


But as far as distinguishing the imax scenes out on DVD, to me, it's little to do with the resolution or dynamic range. The resolution is pretty much maxed out at on DVD, and the dynamic range has been crushed and matched to the overall 'look' the feature. Infact, looking at the bluray the imax scenes actually look softer (there's none of that illusion of grained sharpness and jaggy lines)

However what mainly separates the imax footage out is the clean little grain, richer colours and the lens characteristics. Things don't squish like the rest of the films anamorphic glass, and also the lenses show more and cover the bigger frame of the 65mm - so FOV, lens compression, lens bokeh, has a different class of look.

To me, it's as obvious as comparing a Canon 5D video footage to a 2/3 chip camera. Or or a magazine photoshoot compared to a tabloid photoshoot (You don't need to see a 30megapixel image to tell the difference that they're on medium format, even a 250x200 google image of say a Photographer like Rankin you can see the quality difference). You're arguing on the output side of things, but the acquisition is very different.

You can't really use the Zacuto' shoot out analogy because it's clear the film was the winner in terms of dynamic range and detail. With all things like sensor and lens being similar. But dynamic range and detail is already good with film and, as I argued above, isn't the main indicator for why the footage stands out to my eyes. Lens, light response, grain, colour. Damn.

But meh, maybe I've been tainted by already seeing The Dark Knight at its highest quality so many times that I unconciously know whats imax and whats not.

Anyway yeah sorry for hijacking the thread.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this thread, Perrone. good stuff here that's often overlooked.

Zak Forsman said:
Another aspect of composition and blocking that is often overlooked is the role of EYE-TRACE: meaning, the point within the frame where the audience's attention is fixed. proper planning for eye-trace to match across edits results in a more seamless, fluid, invisible cut.
Click to expand...

thank you for teaching me this. of all the research/reading i've done, i think i've overlooked this (and i'm sure there are others).
 
These threads are important and really should be turned into a blog at some point. Hudson's shot-by-shot examinations are excellent too.

There are hard and fast rules throughout the cinematographic craft that should be understood (if not observed) by budding filmmakers. As important as these are to telling a story without unnecessarily distracting the audience, there are also exciting changes afoot within the modern aesthetic that help communicate stories in exciting new ways.

The predominance of shaky, handheld styles and the apparent abandonment of the rule of thirds in much narrative work are examples of how rules are broken to better or worse effect.

This is going to be an exciting thread and will hopefully inspire everyone to improve themselves within their own work.
 
The Environment as a Character

The Environment as a Character

I love working on projects where the environments have a significant character feel themself which the actors can play off and react. David Lean did this with Lawrence of Arabia and it had a definite influence on me. So when I get a chance to work with someone who's telling a story where the enviroment plays a significant part I like to try and immerse the audience into that experience. This project chosen ratio is 2.40:1.

The next three images are taken from the same pan through 105 degrees to introduce a barn as character.

01_field_sky.jpg


01_xfield_rain_virga.jpg


03_full_barn.jpg


Think of the composition and framing as 1. Pan Start 2. Mid point 3. Pan End


In the next image a character is introduced...

02_bobby_field_virga_rain.jpg


with matching coverage as an external reverse. Taking into account what part of the barn is predominant in the reverse its likely that of the three cutways shot during coverage ...

07_barn_over_shoulder.jpg


This one is a strong candidate.

04_barn_top.jpg


Examine these in relation to the framing issues etc. that Perrone has discussed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top