I was just watching Planet Terror (Genesis) on a Panasonic THX Plasma 1080 screen, which is the best looking TV I have seen so far, and I was a little shocked at how much like 35mm this looked overall. They exaggerated the grain and dirt much of the time to give it a well-used, older print look but even under the gimmicks I swore it was 35mm until I'd see a car on fire but otherwise, very impressive most of the time. I also happen to see Real Steel on the same TV and this has to be the closest a digital movie has looked to film that I can think of, at least to me.
Just saw Planet Terror
- Thread starter VinceinLA
- Start date
JMtheDP
Veteran
Real Steel has a phenomenal look to it. That was F35 + Codex.
With digital cameras, by the time you've graded, processed, etc.... all that remains generally to "give away" something being digital is usually the open shutter shots etc...
Those scenes with fire would not have been an issue if the scene had been lit "for film" methinks.
With digital cameras, by the time you've graded, processed, etc.... all that remains generally to "give away" something being digital is usually the open shutter shots etc...
Those scenes with fire would not have been an issue if the scene had been lit "for film" methinks.
JMtheDP
Veteran
Film does hold an advantage in the highlights, but I would say the F35 has an almost equal advantage in the shadows.
I was looking at the specs on some old Fuji stocks and they only rated it for about 3 stops under before it goes to black!
I know in Captain America they used film for a lot of the explosion scenes, but I don't think that film was a great advertisement for digital at all
I was looking at the specs on some old Fuji stocks and they only rated it for about 3 stops under before it goes to black!
I know in Captain America they used film for a lot of the explosion scenes, but I don't think that film was a great advertisement for digital at all
I'm on a movie roll this week. I just finished the Great Gatsby in 1080 on the same THX certified TV and I have to honestly say that it looked bad enough to distract me about 80% of the time. It was an Epic shoot I think. How can someone choose that system over an F35 or Alexa? Seriously? Red's stuff is really all over the map on skin tones. I saw The Social Network last week and thought they were able to make Red's look work pretty well with that one but it seems like one of the few exceptions. Fincher's people must have some developed some laborious magic tricks in post after dealing with all his digital work. They did it with the Dragon Tattoo movie too, somehow. It just seems like the F35 is much closer to acceptable right out of the box.
Sorry I'm a little off-topic here.
Sorry I'm a little off-topic here.
JMtheDP
Veteran
Your topic, do what you like with it 
One of the joys of the F35 etc... is that by delivering a 1080P RGB VIDEO file out the back, all the important processing is handled in camera. That's not in-vogue at the minute for a lot of people, but it delivers a stunning picture when done right.
All of Baz Luhrmann's stuff looks a bit mad, I havent seen Gatsby but I'm sure it is bonkers.
Just think of what Public Enemies looked like - that was F23 for the most part and so has exactly the same internal processing, etc... as the F35 - it is how you use the things as much as anything else.
One of the joys of the F35 etc... is that by delivering a 1080P RGB VIDEO file out the back, all the important processing is handled in camera. That's not in-vogue at the minute for a lot of people, but it delivers a stunning picture when done right.
All of Baz Luhrmann's stuff looks a bit mad, I havent seen Gatsby but I'm sure it is bonkers.
Just think of what Public Enemies looked like - that was F23 for the most part and so has exactly the same internal processing, etc... as the F35 - it is how you use the things as much as anything else.
I think most everyone agrees that Public Enemies was a huge mistake format wise (period setting done on a 2/3" digital camera). The open shutter on that and on parts of Apocalypto look really awful when employed.
Gatsby was being saturated a little but you will see weird skin on much of it. Some close-ups look acceptable then it will jump to a medium and things go purple or wached out, or a mix. Real Steel never did that, that I can recall. I was too busy being impressed by the CG robot work which I normally dont pay attention to.
Gatsby was being saturated a little but you will see weird skin on much of it. Some close-ups look acceptable then it will jump to a medium and things go purple or wached out, or a mix. Real Steel never did that, that I can recall. I was too busy being impressed by the CG robot work which I normally dont pay attention to.
RedBlack999
Active member
Saw the Genesis shot Apocalypto for the first time last week on TV. Wow, amazing and surprising, not what I was expecting !
Regarding that film, digital hater Quentin Tarantino originally said,
"I think it's a masterpiece. It was perhaps the best film of that year. I think it was the best artistic film of that year"
When he later found out it was shot digitally he changed his tone a little ..
"I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me."
A camera is just a tool ...
Regarding that film, digital hater Quentin Tarantino originally said,
"I think it's a masterpiece. It was perhaps the best film of that year. I think it was the best artistic film of that year"
When he later found out it was shot digitally he changed his tone a little ..
"I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me."
A camera is just a tool ...
you guys watching on ISFcalibrated TV's? a properly grey scale calibrated TV is a big difference. I see more a difference with grey temp dialed in than color and tint dialed in. I personally like it all dialed in. using a pioneer 60 inch sig series PRO-141 , these are the best plasmas made. the KURO tech was a head of its time and it still gets down to .001 FTL
http://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-pro-141fd-plasma-hd-monitor-ht-labs-measures
we are waiting for OLED prices to fall and then going for this tech, OLED is the best
http://www.soundandvision.com/conte...-pro-141fd-plasma-hd-monitor-ht-labs-measures
we are waiting for OLED prices to fall and then going for this tech, OLED is the best
I agree with a lot of what QT says overall and film still rules for image quality. (I'd like to see the source of his contradictory statement) And I love and completely endorse his policy of "no cell phones on set".
I posted mainly because I'm surprised at how close a $10K (used) camera can be to film. Also it seems very odd to me how a better looking camera like the F35 gets overlooked for a Red, or even an Alexa given its rental price. Red simply needs a ton of post magic to get F35 colors, and even then it may not be quite there.
I posted mainly because I'm surprised at how close a $10K (used) camera can be to film. Also it seems very odd to me how a better looking camera like the F35 gets overlooked for a Red, or even an Alexa given its rental price. Red simply needs a ton of post magic to get F35 colors, and even then it may not be quite there.
RedBlack999
Active member
Here's the link ...
http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49432
it's an interview he gave a few years ago to 'Sight & Sound' magazine, a monthly publication of the British Film Institute (BFI) - I
think it's genuine.
A longer quote from from the interview ..
BFI: Can you imagine yourself making a film like 'Sin City'?
QT. I would have thought not. I'm not a fan of digital. And I sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth when
it comes to Robert. When Robert does it, it's great. That's where Robert is coming from. He just wants to do everything
himself and digital allows him to do that. Why would you hire a cinematographer? If you're
doing a digital movie it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. All you need to do is look to the
screen to see if you like it. Gaffer do this, do that... you could be your own cinematographer.
No cinematographer should be promoting digital. It makes them as obsolete as a dodo bird.
But in the case of Sin City, and probably 300, you know you could never have made those movies on film.
BFI: I thought it might have intrigued you to make those films.
QT: To me 97 per cent of the use of digital is laziness. They are trying to make it easier on
themselves, and it shows. If you don't care enough about your movie to shoot it yourself,
I don't care enough about it enough to see it. But in those cases where they are creating
a whole new cinematic landscape, I can't be churlish about that. I've got to give it up.
It adds another possibility in which to tell stories, and create pictures. But normally, even with, say,
what David Fincher used in Zodiac, I think what the **** is that about? I found it more interesting
in my brain than I did watching it. I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did
it in digital and it lessened the effort for me. Using this Mount Everest analogy again, the mountain got
smaller and the achievement was a little less.
JMtheDP
Veteran
Vince
You have to remember, the F35 has only become a $10,000 camera or so because it is no longer rented. When it rented, the guide price for an F35 was something like £2,000 a DAY over here - that I think is a large part of the reason, a lot of people didn't like it.
That and, sadly, a huge number of people are massively biased against Sony for no reason other than they used to make BetaSP and other TV cameras that old cameramen hated because they were forced to use them over 16mm.
RED kinda took things over from below - they aimed at the indie market and I think their professional uptake was more surprising. I hated working with the RED every time I used it - I could not believe a professional would ever have used one, but what do I know.
You have to remember, the F35 has only become a $10,000 camera or so because it is no longer rented. When it rented, the guide price for an F35 was something like £2,000 a DAY over here - that I think is a large part of the reason, a lot of people didn't like it.
That and, sadly, a huge number of people are massively biased against Sony for no reason other than they used to make BetaSP and other TV cameras that old cameramen hated because they were forced to use them over 16mm.
RED kinda took things over from below - they aimed at the indie market and I think their professional uptake was more surprising. I hated working with the RED every time I used it - I could not believe a professional would ever have used one, but what do I know.
Viddovation
Veteran
I don't beleive there is a single camera company out there, Sony included, which could actually manufacture a Sony F35 today with a material & labor cost under $10,000... or anywhere near that, even with consideration of lower cost-per-unit when build in bulk. Perhaps if they made 10,000+ units... then they might reach that economy of scale, but I still doubt it because of the huge CCD and the highly advanced filter dyes that give the camera it's incredible color gamut.
I know that's all a bit vague, but the large point here is that this was never designed as a $10k camera. It was built as a quarter-million-dollar camera.
I know that's all a bit vague, but the large point here is that this was never designed as a $10k camera. It was built as a quarter-million-dollar camera.
JMtheDP
Veteran
Viddo
These are some facts I gleamed regarding the Genesis, but they apply more or less to the F35 too.
The actual cost of each sensor was relatively small, but I believe the rejection rate was sky high - in the hundreds.
I don't even think it's an issue of if it could be done, the sad reality is that if Sony right now, started building F35s, brand new, for $10,000, I don't think many people would actually buy them.
They always were and always will be a niche camera. I've thoroughly enjoyed my time with mine - it has helped me create some brilliant stories.
These are some facts I gleamed regarding the Genesis, but they apply more or less to the F35 too.
The actual cost of each sensor was relatively small, but I believe the rejection rate was sky high - in the hundreds.
I don't even think it's an issue of if it could be done, the sad reality is that if Sony right now, started building F35s, brand new, for $10,000, I don't think many people would actually buy them.
They always were and always will be a niche camera. I've thoroughly enjoyed my time with mine - it has helped me create some brilliant stories.
If you want to A/B the two systems, watch Sherlock series 1 (F35) and series 2 (Alexa).
I have to say, neither look like film, but the Alexa episodes look better, smoother and better highlight fall off. That said, the Alexa has rolling shutter artifacts that are easily apparent with camera flashes and skin tones are too bright, which Canon (of all manufacturers) gets right. The dynamic range is poor, but the C300 sure has nice leaves and nice skin. It gets the emotions right.
I have to say, neither look like film, but the Alexa episodes look better, smoother and better highlight fall off. That said, the Alexa has rolling shutter artifacts that are easily apparent with camera flashes and skin tones are too bright, which Canon (of all manufacturers) gets right. The dynamic range is poor, but the C300 sure has nice leaves and nice skin. It gets the emotions right.
Viddovation
Veteran
I was including the rejection rate as a factor... every industry has a percentage fail QC. With CCD imagers, it's particularly high.
I'm fully aware of the F35 cost facts, market issues, etc. My point had to do with costs vs quality as it stands right now. And yes, too bad about Sony's reputation when it comes to cinema cameras but some of it is completely justified.
The "emotions" comment about the C300 was entertaining, thanks for that.
Wow, QT said some odd things in that article, if it's true. Not needing a DP when shooting digital? That's much like saying you don't need a plumber because a torch, a wrench and a pipe only cost $100, and this doesn't start to address the amount of time it takes dealing with camera dept issues which means less time (or no time) for actors, which is what it's all about anyway. I wonder what kind of conversations pop up with R.Richardson, who works with him a lot and who likes the Alexa, and was one of the most hardcore film guys alive next to Kaminski.
The "emotions" comment about the C300 was entertaining, thanks for that.
Wow, QT said some odd things in that article, if it's true. Not needing a DP when shooting digital? That's much like saying you don't need a plumber because a torch, a wrench and a pipe only cost $100, and this doesn't start to address the amount of time it takes dealing with camera dept issues which means less time (or no time) for actors, which is what it's all about anyway. I wonder what kind of conversations pop up with R.Richardson, who works with him a lot and who likes the Alexa, and was one of the most hardcore film guys alive next to Kaminski.