Why are we not talking about The Raid: Redemption

Well, I missed it in theaters, but finally wrapped a bunch of projects and watched the Blu-ray on my new 60"... BLOWN AWAY!

Not my typical type of film, but it was so well done, and the AF shined bright (especially in the dark scenes... ha ha).
Heavy shadows, light and shadow, dark halls- I couldn't believe how clean it was.

The upside to watching the Blu-ray- an incredible commentary.
A literal tutorial/primer on how the director (a Welshman now living in Indonesia) achieved nearly every aspect of the film...

From the four story building exterior composited to 10 floors, to the spots on the hallways walls made of foam and rubber for smashing heads into, to the collection of arc welders to throw lights on the walls of the atrium to mimic muzzle flash. And the stuntman thrown over the railing, landing on and "breaking" his back- stitching together 3 shots (head, torso and legs), but the stuntman getting hurt in a wire rig snafu anyway. The use of the Fig Rig, great stories of casting and more...

This guy (Gareth Evans) just being so generous in sharing information and inspiration, just a very, very informative tutoria... I mean commentary.

Highly recommended.
 
groveChuck said:
Well, I missed it in theaters, but finally wrapped a bunch of projects and watched the Blu-ray on my new 60"... BLOWN AWAY!

Not my typical type of film, but it was so well done, and the AF shined bright (especially in the dark scenes... ha ha).
Heavy shadows, light and shadow, dark halls- I couldn't believe how clean it was.
Click to expand...

You know, every time somebody praises The Raid for it's image quality I'm a little confused. I guess these things can be subjective, but to me, it's one of the worst examples of AF100 footage I have seen. The movie is cool and the stunts are insane. The camera work very ingenious. But the image quality is so not representative of what the AF100 can truly do. I have said it before, but I have seen better AF100 footage right here in the forums. HScully for example, although just frame grabs, has posted examples that look way better than The Raid did. The Raid looked washed out, murky, muddy, soft with magenta skins and like somebody forgot to white balance. Some of the frame grabs you see online don't seem to be footage grabs at all, but production stills made with a stills camera, or at least have a very different grade to them. The stills in the review you linked to for example don't seem to be directly from the movie. The colors don't look like that at all in the movie. At least not the disc I watched. Maybe they have different transfers going around depending on your region? Is the Blu-ray you watched yours? If so, could you post some full rez frame grabs of scenes you think look good?

Because what I have watched looks like this:

The-Raid-Redemption-2012-vs.jpeg




Yet, online you will find publicity shots that look like this:

The-Raid-Redemption-web_t500.jpg




Clearly from the same scene, same fight, but look totally different. The above looks good while the first shot doesn't. I can only think the above is either a stills from a different camera, possibly a stills camera capturing production stills on set, or has a very different grade. Nonetheless, not representative of what the movie looks like at all. The movie I watched looked washed out and murky like the first frame grab I posted.
The version you watched looks like the first or second picture?
 
Publicity photos are typically shot with a still camera, just for that purpose, not taken from production footage. This has been the case for eons, and anyone who has ever seen a frame of celluloid (from even a top-tier, huge budget film) compared to a production still, understands this fact, and why it's so.

Films are optimized for "persistence of vision" viewing while stills are optimized for publication.

Apples and oranges.

The digital landscape has opened some new possibilities, but it's highly-unusual for any properly-funded production to neglect shooting separate production stills.
 
John B. said:
Publicity photos are typically shot with a still camera, just for that purpose, not taken from production footage. This has been the case for eons, and anyone who has ever seen a frame of celluloid (from even a top-tier, huge budget film) compared to a production still, understands this fact, and why it's so.

Films are optimized for "persistence of vision" viewing while stills are optimized for publication.

Apples and oranges.

The digital landscape has opened some new possibilities, but it's highly-unusual for any properly-funded production to neglect shooting separate production stills.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I thought and why I wonder why are there DVD and Blu-Ray reviews posting these production stills on their review of the disc. It's at least misleading because The Raid looks nothing like them. Normally for DVD and specially Blu-Ray reviews the frames posted are actual screen grabs. But the linked review above for example has only these production stills.
 
I think the Raid is by far the best looking Af-100 footage I have seen. I have seen gh2 footage look better, but not Af-100 and I shot on the thing for a year before going with hacked gh2's. The Raid just proves we live in a time where it doesn't matter what camera you use.
 
The Raid is a MONUMENTAL movie! Just the fact that it was shot on an AF101, a camera I own, blows my mind! I think it looks really good , I saw it in a 2K theatre last year when it was out in the cinemas , and although some of the low light scenes, shot in almost ocmplete darkness had a lot of noise, and you could definitely see the banding (on the blu-ray is the same) the little Af101 + nanoflash, really did this movie justice .
 
Well, I watched the clips above and haven't seen the full movie, but what I saw was incredible stage management and direction. i did not once get distracted by such technicalities as what camera it was shot on, or what lenses were used. It could have been shot on an I phone with such storyboarding and would have looked equally amazing.

This confirms the statement that was made to me some forty years ago when I joined a photographic society and desparately wanted a Pentax S1A. The President said to me, " a set of high quality paintbrushes won't make you Rembrandt- learn the skills first". Boy, have these guys learned the skills!!! Astonishing work.

Rod ( at 68 still trying to get the hang of it !)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top