Sony cameras and the "video look".

WTF LOL and these Arri's Alexsa's and RED'S, F65, don't look like film to me because they are not film, weather something is shot on film then digitally transfered, it still maintains the unique look, but as your eyes see different so do mine. Luv the sarcasm by the way=)
Steve R said:
Yes, these ARRI Alexas, REDs, Sony F35s and F65s etc. will NEVER look nor feel like "film".

Not in the way that movies actually shot on film - then transferred to a DI - and posted, distributed and shown digitally...look like film.

No sir.

[/SARCASM]
Click to expand...
 
Ruben/Sheri said:
WTF LOL and these Arri's Alexsa's and RED'S, F65, don't look like film to me because they are not film, weather something is shot on film then digitally transfered, it still maintains the unique look, but as your eyes see different so do mine. Luv the sarcasm by the way=)
Click to expand...

Define the look of film?

As someone who has worked in vfx for many years I can assure there's no such thing as film look. The image presented on screen has very little to do with film.

If people had any idea about how much work goes into each scene from sky replacements, to scene extensions and to hero cgi integration they'd soon lose the romanticism for film. Even the most simple scene are significantly altered, I suppose it's no wonder people think film has unbelievable DR when every blown out sky has been replaced with a perfectly exposed sky - which is the reality of cinema!

What I'm interested in is the final image and any of the top end digital format give the director all the creative freedom to deliver the experience s/he envisaged and no loss of experience to the audience.

Always a good watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebv53RZBdDw
 
Last edited:
the look of film is anything that reaches a mass market.

More realistically, it is what happens when a great colorist is done optimizing gradable footage so that it has mass market appeal.

With all respect to Frank for his wonderful tests, we have not yet seen what the FS700 footage will look like with great grading. Even the studio tests were done with heavily colored gels.
 
Last edited:
Nirv said:
Define the look of film?

As someone who has worked in vfx for many years I can assure there's no such thing as film look. The image presented on screen has very little to do with film.

If people had any idea about how much work goes into each scene from sky replacements, to scene extensions and to hero cgi integration they'd soon lose the romanticism for film. Even the most simple scene are significantly altered, I suppose it's no wonder people think film has unbelievable DR when every blown out sky has been replaced with a perfectly exposed sky - which is the reality of cinema!

What I'm interested in is the final image and any of the top end digital format give the director all the creative freedom to deliver the experience s/he envisaged and no loss of experience to the audience.

Always a good watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebv53RZBdDw
Click to expand...


Thank you sir !
 
LiamR said:
The look you get when you shoot on film.







*hehe, were still doing this sarcasm thing right?
Click to expand...

Nope, just trying to move the discussion on and challenge what people perceive as film look. The particular look of cinema is not the preserve of film stocks any longer.

If you want to add something constructive other than being trite go ahead otherwise leave the thread for those that are interested. This is one of the more interesting threads and raises many questions about how people perceive the moving image.

Getting back to the discussion, I cannot remember at anytime changing how I composited to match the motion of the plate from one format to another. If there was a difference in motion from one format to another.

Having thought about the motion rendering issue, if not related to viewing system, I can only think that very subtle changes to motion blur may be the cause. I'm not talking about shutter speed but the actual gradient of the motion blur i.e. is it linear or is there a slight falloff to it? Clutching at straws no doubt!

Perhaps Kholi could test his GH2 against FS100 with a simple bouncing ball against a neutral background and post the raw files?
 
Last edited:
Just my opinion,It's like assholes everyone has one... To me there is such a thing as film look, but i'm not going to waste my time in a futile argument, you believe what you want and I can believe what I want. Just because you do the work you do dosent make you right, but your free to believe what you want as am I=)
Nirv said:
Define the look of film?

As someone who has worked in vfx for many years I can assure there's no such thing as film look. The image presented on screen has very little to do with film.

If people had any idea about how much work goes into each scene from sky replacements, to scene extensions and to hero cgi integration they'd soon lose the romanticism for film. Even the most simple scene are significantly altered, I suppose it's no wonder people think film has unbelievable DR when every blown out sky has been replaced with a perfectly exposed sky - which is the reality of cinema!

What I'm interested in is the final image and any of the top end digital format give the director all the creative freedom to deliver the experience s/he envisaged and no loss of experience to the audience.

Always a good watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebv53RZBdDw
Click to expand...
 
Nirv said:
Perhaps Kholi could test his GH2 against FS100 with a simple bouncing ball against a neutral background and post the raw files?
Click to expand...

I could do that when I get a chance, kind of behind on a rewrite and some other stuff (gear obsession really takes a lot out of the day), but I'd be willing to test it out. There's probably a more constant way to do it, though, because a bouncing ball that's not electronically controlled won't be very consistent, and I know someone will bring that up.

Most of the time I notice it when people are in frame. That's when it becomes very apparent to my eyes. It's much harder to tell with inanimate objects and I do NOT know why but when people are in frame that's when it clicks. For me, anyway.
 
Kholi said:
Most of the time I notice it when people are in frame. That's when it becomes very apparent to my eyes. It's much harder to tell with inanimate objects and I do NOT know why but when people are in frame that's when it clicks. For me, anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel the same.

Just noticed, that Tarantino looks so much like the young Jack Lemon.

JackLemmon1.jpg
 
@ Ruben

Got any more videos from the last decade you want to bring to the discussion about the contemporary state of art of cinema? My computer clock says it's 2012 here how about you?

He was fetishising back then but by current standards it's a delusional position to take.

Hollywood budgets can afford any camera they want for productions so why the shift towards digital acquisition? This trend hasn't resulted in the loss of the film look has it?
 
Kholi said:
There's probably a more constant way to do it, though, because a bouncing ball that's not electronically controlled won't be very consistent, and I know someone will bring that up.

Most of the time I notice it when people are in frame. That's when it becomes very apparent to my eyes. It's much harder to tell with inanimate objects and I do NOT know why but when people are in frame that's when it clicks. For me, anyway.
Click to expand...

I have found gravity to be quite constant. Drop the same ball from the same height against a neutral background should be enough to compare motion blur.

Now, your comment about people in the frame makes me wonder if it's all in the mind?
 
I think people are affected by rollig shutter (and everything else) not just whip panning across a picket fence

I call it the dog jowl effect someone walking in frame (say a tight on their face) the face kind of goes jello-ee

Its not just sony - its part of the nature of rolling shutter - in fact the F65 may be one of the few single chip cameras not to have it..

S
 
LOL ur sexy!
Nirv said:
@ Ruben

Got any more videos from the last decade you want to bring to the discussion about the contemporary state of art of cinema? My computer clock says it's 2012 here how about you?

He was fetishising back then but by current standards it's a delusional position to take.

Hollywood budgets can afford any camera they want for productions so why the shift towards digital acquisition? This trend hasn't resulted in the loss of the film look has it?
Click to expand...
 
:beer:
Nirv said:
I have found gravity to be quite constant. ...
Click to expand...


You ain't a drinkin' man I take it. I have found that after a few shot of Tequila... Gravity gotz some surprises up its sleeve!

... Just sayin'! :beer:


... I was just browsing the Washington Post and came across this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/digital-blues-critic-ann-hornaday-confronts-a-future-without-celluloid/2012/05/17/gIQA7y6cYU_print.html

You might really like the quote from director Nicolas Winding Refn ("Drive", "Valhalla Rising" and the "Pusher" trilogy) talking about color grading, "...“The grader is the new gaffer,” Refn quipped...".
 
Nirv said:
I have found gravity to be quite constant. Drop the same ball from the same height against a neutral background should be enough to compare motion blur.

Now, your comment about people in the frame makes me wonder if it's all in the mind?
Click to expand...

Apparently that means a lot of us are just crazy in the same exact way. I dunno, I guess whatever makes people feel better about it.
 
I agree with Nirv that 'film vs digital' rarely matters these days the way most films are finished/composited. Having said that I am yet to see a movie that looks as good to my eye as the best of the movies shot on film. Recently I watched Meek's Cutoff and it almost made me want to renounce digital.

But Avengers? I'd love to see the exact same film shot digitally and with film and see how much difference there would be in the end product.
 
Nirv said:
@ Ruben

Got any more videos from the last decade you want to bring to the discussion about the contemporary state of art of cinema? My computer clock says it's 2012 here how about you?

He was fetishising back then but by current standards it's a delusional position to take.

Hollywood budgets can afford any camera they want for productions so why the shift towards digital acquisition? This trend hasn't resulted in the loss of the film look has it?
Click to expand...

Just to be fair, Tarantino is still to this day, of the same mindset. Says he'll quit shooting/directing when theaters quit projecting in 35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top