Get Back - Beatles doc - what did you think?
- Thread starter kevin baggott
- Start date
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
On the whole, enjoyed it and glad I watched. It certainly changed my impression of how things went down in that era for the band.
From a technical level, I was continually distracted by the apparent choice to de-noise until every inch of grain was gone, then uprez/sharpen via AI. The lack of detail on faces in medium shots (and cartoonish appearance of same on wider shots) just felt odd. I presume that the decision was something to do with making it more accessible to contemporary audiences, but I'd rather have seen a compromise. It was fun seeing the lads all weigh in on the options of shooting 16mm vs 35mm vs a blowup for the live concert!
I do applaud the use of machine learning on the audio side, the de-mix process of converting the mono Nagra track to multitrack was pretty astonishing.
From a technical level, I was continually distracted by the apparent choice to de-noise until every inch of grain was gone, then uprez/sharpen via AI. The lack of detail on faces in medium shots (and cartoonish appearance of same on wider shots) just felt odd. I presume that the decision was something to do with making it more accessible to contemporary audiences, but I'd rather have seen a compromise. It was fun seeing the lads all weigh in on the options of shooting 16mm vs 35mm vs a blowup for the live concert!
I do applaud the use of machine learning on the audio side, the de-mix process of converting the mono Nagra track to multitrack was pretty astonishing.
kevin baggott
Well-known member
"It certainly changed my impression of how things went down in that era for the band." It sure did. Yes, agree with the other things you said as well.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Ive only trawled YT for clips. I got an impression of great music. And interesting camera work. Interesting zooms of the time .
In terms fo the scan/denoise.. id prefer more grain.. just an accurate scan .. but then PJ also likes/liked 48p.. so hes not apparently a fan of that real film experience.
After a bit I think I noticed some typical edit tricks.. non synch wides, chop in from second takes and the like. The fact I spot them is a little offputting.
I watched some YT SD video aquisition of a few years later and it is horrid. Film whaps SD video... or even scans of the time?
On the roof they have light - any idea what that was.. both bright and not super warm ??
In terms fo the scan/denoise.. id prefer more grain.. just an accurate scan .. but then PJ also likes/liked 48p.. so hes not apparently a fan of that real film experience.
After a bit I think I noticed some typical edit tricks.. non synch wides, chop in from second takes and the like. The fact I spot them is a little offputting.
I watched some YT SD video aquisition of a few years later and it is horrid. Film whaps SD video... or even scans of the time?
On the roof they have light - any idea what that was.. both bright and not super warm ??
kevin baggott
Well-known member
" non synch wides, chop in from second takes and the like. " I don't think they tried to hide that - it was used plenty of times - they had hundreds of hours of just audio and dropped it in over video as opposed to just still photos. But I hear ya.
kevin baggott
Well-known member
you can see some of the lights used here Morgan. https://www.ebay.com/itm/16351685949...IaAtA3EALw_wcB
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
That is interesting - clusters of 9 globes , say 1k per globe would mean we see at least 27k draw in that shot?? Not a household supply or am I a mile off!
Then 3 cams burning film - a serious business.
S
Then 3 cams burning film - a serious business.
S
kevin baggott
Well-known member
10 cameras in total - five on the roof - the others on the street and other rooftops.