|
Author
|
Topic: Curious about the new releases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete Richards
Master Film Handler
Posts: 302
From: Australia
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted May 28, 2014 06:51 PM
Larry, there is no reason for faces to look mis-coloured when shot on digital. None at all. The colourist (that's me!) is responsible for skintones, and the gamut and dynamic range is just as wide on the later digital cameras as it was on film.
There have been some appaling jobs done on skintones on BD releases, both from film and digital masters (The Star Wars trilogy is an example of horrible skintones).
If you didn't mind the faces in CA, then that is the proof in the pudding, the first Captain America was shot completely digitally, I was on-set for two days, and they were using the Panavision Genesis rigs.
As stated in this thread the Arri Alexa was used for the underwater sequences.
So Vidar, wherever it is sourced from, you would be getting a "digital Super 8 film" I'm afraid.
http://www.panavision.com/marvels-latest-superhero-captain-america-first-avenger
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted May 29, 2014 01:23 PM
Thanks Barry, I always assumed, but never knew for a fact. You look at those prints and your still amazed.
This might be slightly off the topic, but did Kempski "edit" his releases for content at times? I have a "Logans Run" print that has the nudity edited out of it, and it wasn't done before the film was printed, I wonder if that was done by Kempski, or by someone who, well, couldn't tolerate the "sex shop" scene and such.
I ask as it sounds like some other people who own that print also don't have the nudity in they're prints of this title.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted May 31, 2014 12:38 PM
I must say that we are becoming the "dinosaurs" of this modern age, as the average person wouldn't know a digital projection or film presentation from a hole in the ground ....
"ooooh, pretty colors, pretty colors ..." (cue moronic clapping)
I almost feel like a traitor, in a way, as, when my current project gets "green-lit" (fingers crossed on that, but at least I'm in talks with the actress for the project!) ...
I will go for digital filming which once all edited together, my hope is to have film prints struck, but I fear that, though the actual film grain will help, I may run into what Larry was talking about (was it larry?), where faces ect., just do not look natural.
It's all about costs for me. Unlike the golden years of Hollywood or big budget Hollywood projects of today, unless you have the budget behind you, you just can't afford to waste countless dollars on some actor or actress constantly flubbing they're lines and wasting precious film.
[ June 02, 2014, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Osi Osgood ]
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vidar Olavesen
Film God
Posts: 2232
From: Sarpsborg, Norway
Registered: Nov 2012
|
posted May 31, 2014 04:21 PM
The deadness of the picture, the sterile feeling and the awful jerkyness. If you see a panning shot on digital, try to see the straight lines (doorways, poles, fences and so on) ... They have a terrible movement. I also saw this in Odeon in London, where close ups of Harrison Fords face in Enders Game, when he turns, there seem to miss a frame or so, stutters and I hate that
Becoming more and more distant to enjoying videos (I did for a long time, until I saw Super 8 films again) ... Now I am analog and I don't think there's any turning back for me. I actually feel a bit sick when watching videos now, so I'll stick with film
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
