|
Author
|
Topic: Modern Picture Quality
|
|
|
Claus Harding
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1149
From: Washington DC
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted September 09, 2009 01:30 PM
Paul,
As far as I know, film stocks have never been better in terms of grain structure, latitude and color rendition than they are now.
We are witnessing (once again) a format reaching its pinnacle of quality just as video is coming in.
The exception to this is 3-strip Technicolor, which will never be replaced by any technique I can think of.
Any mutedness in color will have to have been a directorial decision, done either in the lab or in the digital internegative. The more 'Technicolor' look is definitely not 'in' right now.
Also, I think one thing is influencing films in this regard: TV. With TV using more film-style shooting techniques and producers increasingly making the films "TV-friendly" because they know it will all end on cable and DVD, there is significant "bleedover" between the two, at least in a good chunk of the market.
The flatter lighting, the moving camera like you see on crime dramas, these things are unfortunately being translated to the big screen; also previously the Steadicam was used for emphasis, not continuously in shot after shot.
(One notable exception is the series "Mad Men." Shot on fine-grain negative and transferred in HiDef, it looks sumptuous, with a great 60es period look.)
Given these elements, HiDef digital production unfortunately wins out, in that because film is looking less and less 'filmic' in a traditional sense, the video doesn't have to struggle that hard to look good by comparison.
If we are lucky, suddenly 'lush' will become a fad, and we will have rich images again. One can hope.
Claus.
--------------------
"Why are there shots of deserts in a scene that's supposed to take place in Belgium during the winter?" (Review of 'Battle of the Bulge'.)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lars Pettersson
Master Film Handler
Posts: 282
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Registered: Jan 2007
|
posted September 10, 2009 02:39 PM
Hi Paul, Claus, Damien,
I agree 100% with what has previously been said, plus have a few extra (slightly depressing) observations to add; Claus is dead right on modern raw stocks being better than ever -they are,
stunning imagery is within reach for whomever so desires. Resolution-wise up to 6K is obtainable in 35mm, colour rendition, fine grain, shadow detail and exposure latitude (16 f-stops, anyone? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) have never been better.
But I suspect -apart from creative descisions- economics also "ruin" the look of many a modern film; production schedules are probably often nowadays pushed to the limit, lighting for a lushious look may not even be possible, because you donīt have the time for it; shots will have to be hand-held or steadicam because you probably didnīt have the time to set the camera up (even for a static shot) any other way...
I found Sylvester Stalloneīs commentary on the Rocky Balboa DVD enlightening in this respect, he was surprisingly frank regarding how pushed for time they had been during the shooting, to the point where he (in one shot) would have liked to block the scene more creatively, but racking the focus from foreground to background was all they had time for(!) Kinda gives you an idea... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
"video doesn't have to struggle that hard to look good by comparison"
I saw (part of) Michael Mannīs Miami Vice (2006) on TV last week, and could hardly believe my eyes what the night scenes looked like! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) To me it looked like a Film School Movie, and Iīm definitely not knocking Film Students, itīs just that having images so blatantly screaming "video" at you ruins the illusion of watching a traditional feature film.
To me it just feels lazy doing it like this, when you know they have the money to shoot on film. However the "look" is achieved, at least some resemblance of "film look" is a requirement for me to take a dramatic feature seriously.
With some movies there obviously was neither time nor money, and it was shoot on video or there wouldnīt have been any movie at all. Fine, I understand, Iīll forget about what it looks like and focus on the story.
It used to be, some fifteen years ago, that people began shooting for TV using DigiBeta video, and then tweaked the hell out of the material to make it look like film, and it looked okay. But there you have a case of people working hard to achieve a look and probably spending more time and care than they would have had to on film, to get this look.
"Is good cinematography now a lost art?" No, but itīs an endangered species ![[Wink]](wink.gif) because it needs some time, money, respect and integrity. Instead of respected artisans and craftsmen (and women, obviously) the makers of todays movie images are sometimes treated (and viewed) as merely suppliers of raw materials to be digitized and "manhandled" in postproduction. Yesteryear, most of what you wanted to wind up on the screen, you had to get right on the day of shooting.
Cheers
Lars
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Osi Osgood
Film God
Posts: 10204
From: Mountian Home, ID.
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted September 12, 2009 05:34 PM
Theatrical is, at most times, shot for video release. It didn't use to be this way. You look at the old early cinemascope films, and when shown on TV, they had to "pan and scan" back and forth to show both people.
Why?
Because it was shot for the cinema, not TV. This changed later on, of course, where even the widest scope films of today are rather easily placed on DVD as a full screen image.
--------------------
"All these moments will be lost in time, just like ... tears, in the rain. "
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Graham Ritchie
Film God
Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted September 12, 2009 10:23 PM
During the 60s in the UK when "Star Trek" came out most people I knew at the time were lucky to have B/W never mind colour, cant remember anyone owning a colour set even up to the early 70s. TVs in those days were regarded as a luxury item, not very reliable and expensive to fix... still remember the old "wack" on the side to get it to go. Out here in NZ it was not till the 80s that we bought our first colour TV.
Home entertainment has never been so good and affordable to the masses, lately we bought a Panasonic Plasma 42inch and even with a standard DVD looks and sounds really good, I think 1.85:1 ratio will become the norm.
So where does that leave the poor old Cinema's before DVD and everything else, going to the movies was special, it was the only place to go to to watch a film that was bigger than the box in the corner, also films in those days were not released for transmission for a quite a while... how things have changed.
As for being a projectionist the two other people I work with do take their job serious and try to make it special, just last Thursday our young part timer showed a birthday group around and gave the kids each a strip of film, everyone including himself really enjoyed it and also gave him a sense of pride in his projection work as well.
I do hope cinema's and film projection will continue for a some time yet and in time we will see an improvement in presentation and general print quality so hopefully that will get more people back to the cinema and enjoy a night out away from their big TV.
Graham.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
oh! I was told recently that a couple of young kids out here on holiday from Glasgow mentioned to the staff after the movie that we made the best Popcorn... EVER 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
