Skyfall. Film or Digital !
Thunderpussy
Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
Only after watching Mark Kermode's review of Skyfall ( He loves it, by the way ) -{
http://youtu.be/cu_SCwh8ers
Did I remember that this was the first Bond film to be shot Digitally.
I thought the Camerwork and Lighting In Skyfall was Brilliant. With
sumptuous Colours.
I didn't notice any Difference, Did anyone else ?
and have any members have any opinions on whether Digital or
Film is Best.
http://youtu.be/cu_SCwh8ers
Did I remember that this was the first Bond film to be shot Digitally.
I thought the Camerwork and Lighting In Skyfall was Brilliant. With
sumptuous Colours.
I didn't notice any Difference, Did anyone else ?
and have any members have any opinions on whether Digital or
Film is Best.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Anyway, The Master was shown in both digital and film format when it came out, and many said the film was richer and more affecting.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I wonder if it being shot Digitally helped the process. I'd say
it's the future. It's taken over Stills Phorography so I suppose
The Film Industry Is Next. I think George Lucas is a Big Fan
of it.
Playing in film vs. digital is different than Shooting in film vs. digital. SkyFall was the first Bond film to be shot using digital cameras. It is not the first Bond film to be projected and presented digitally.
The Master was shot with 70mm film, which is expensive, large film (not the same as even bigger IMAX film) that delivers very rich film picture to theaters with 70mm film projectors. This is the most detail you can get outside of IMAX. It is rare these days because of cost and because of the number of theaters switching to digital projection. It has the characteristic film grain (a trait Casino Royale was praised for, as digital grain is considered less pleasant by many), but more color and detail than standard 35mm or digital before any processing.
SkyFall was shot on digital cameras, but prints delivered to theaters were both available digitally and in film prints. Which projection you saw just depends on the theater, but the source footage was the first to be digital.
Digital projection is largely considered superior to 35mm projection because it removes an unsteadiness and flicker caused by running film. It also is almost always focused to a quality very similar to what theaters can get their film projectors to do.
Where 70mm has its charm is that it does have the grain and film coloring in the source footage and is then projected with film prints that are larger and so they contain more detail that can be focused onto the screen. This format also avoid anamorphic distortions and dimming.
As a rule, just be pleased when a theater has digital theater projection (this is what Sony's recent Sony Digital Cinema 4K is that played in front of many digitally projected SkyFall presentations as well as some non-Sony films presented by theaters that use Sony Digital Cinema 4K Projectors). Most theaters don't manage their focusing and projectors to a point where you will see a benefit from 35mm film over digital. The Master is a rare release, being non-IMAX and 70mm.
Sorry if I'm wrong about any of this, but to answer the question, I do not think there was a noticeable difference in the film due to its digital shooting process. It looked similar to any other well-produced film.
I have noticed in my local Omniplex that they are now all Digital projection
with new Screens ( Silver coated, I've been told ) so every film now looks
Brilliantly crisp and clear,Picture quality is fantastic.
I have also watched The Hobbit in the new 48 frame and Honestly
couldn't see any difference with the Normal version, Although as I've said
I was watching it on all brand new equipment.
Another huge advantage of Digital projection is you don't get print wear. When I saw "Skyfall" at the end of its run in Digital it looked just as pristine as it did on opening day....no fading, no scratches, no jumpy splices.
With regard to "The Master" it's a bit of an odd bird from a technical stand point. It was shot in a combination of 70mm and Academy Flat Standard 1.85 to 1. Actual 70mm showings of the film were pretty rare. The normal aspect ratio for 70mm is 2.2 to 1, however the film for all release formats was cropped to 1.85 to 1 which is how the film was formatted during production.
My guess is that eventually Digital film photography along with Digital projection will be developed to a point that it could yield picture quality on a very large screen equal to the finest 70mm film image. IMO, Digital IMAX, depending on the quality of the source material can get in the ballpark.
Anyone any Idea what's behind the Idea of the 48 fps is compared to the normal 24fps ?
Interesting Reading. Seems we be getting 4K, 48 FPS, 3D movies for
years to come.
Haven't seen anything in 48 fps but oddly enough the biggest critism is that it looks so real, it looks fake
Some of the appeal of the current state of the art professional digital cameras, such as the Red One and ARRI Alexa (Deakins used the Alexa to shoot "Skyfall") is that the end result does a really good job of mimicking real 35mm film and offers the flexibility of shooting in many different formats and ratios including the scope ratio of 2.40 to 1 in both anamorphic (like traditional cinemascope w/ an anamorphic "squeezed" lens) or Deakin's preferred method of taking a 2.40 to 1 extract from the full 16x9 frame (similar to the old "Super 35" film process used on CR and QOS).
I don't like 48fps from what I've seen in demos. It loses a lot of the visual stun that you want from cinematography to my eyes. It has the very digital, less formal, less professional, lower budget look that many behind the scenes features have. It is similar to the looks that AutoMotion Plus or SpeedMotion, etc., settings on HDTVs create to my eyes (though it had better lighting). A bizarre liquidity that looks worse, despite the attempt to let you see less blur (which I don't think is actually a problem in films, even like The Hobbit which Jackson claims should have higher frames).
I think this scene is a great example of what you will lose if your went to 48fps. There is a gorgeous, intentional flicker and blur created by the well-lit, 24fps scene. Watching their hair, the jittering lighting from the trees, the splinters. It is specifically great to me because of the frame flicker and judder: http://youtu.be/8M9258n8rs8?t=26s
It is as if you an almost see the jump between frames and it looks great.
I personally enjoy games more when they don't remove blur and jump up to over 30fps. Those paying attention will notice that tons of games add artificial motion blur because of how displeasing and cheap the scenes look with high frames. (Mass Effect games, famously do so and to gorgeous, spectacular, sci-fi end). Only games like Call of Duty (which don't have a whole lot of cinematic ambition in their graphics, considering the 7+ year old engine they still use) which have a less artistically driven motivation behind their graphical performance would tout the usefulness of their 60fps or similar rates.
I'll still have to check out a theatrical film in 48fps, but I absolutely love the effects of 24fps (which doesn't look particularly dream-like or blurry to me, despite what opponents of keeping the standard say).
and likes them to be solidly supported. Infact I thought the stuff in M's house
looked a little odd to the rest of the film as it was filmed Handheld.
I agree with that. I don't care for handheld. Steady-cam is commonly okay with me if the shot demands some sweeping, following motions through the environment or around the scene, but otherwise, I really like stable camera shots.
That's something I love about the TV series Mad Men. They built their sets with the rule that there must be room for dollies. The designers and cinematographers agreed that stable shots create a more cinematic and pleasing (as well as more high-budget style) for shots. They felt camera movement is frequently a distraction.
It's something I despise about The Walking Dead. I'll admit that shaky camera scenes may be more suited to the apocalyptic action show than other drama, but they really don't seem to know how to use it sparingly and effectively. There was recently an episode that used more stable shots and it was so noticeable because of how much better it looked and because it wasn't the norm on the show.
The frantic editing and shaky camera Work
Back.
Agree with that. That stuff works in certain types of films but not Bond.
It's just with QOS especially. They seemed to ramp it up
almost, to see how far they could go with it. Some cuts were
only 2 seconds, Hardly enough time for your Brain to take in
what it's seeing.
Ah right....now I know why you struggle with it :v
was shot on at a film equipment trade show. It's a beast.
I love the quality of the image it produces. If I could afford one I'd have one tomorrow.
Life of Pi Oscar 'an insult to cinematography
Christopher Doyle is Not a fan.
Well, he has a point. The opening shots of the zoo (and its CGI animals), one of the two main characters, the setup for the adrift scenes, the adrift scenes themselves, and more, all had intense CGI insertions, backgrounds, fillings, and alterations. There are rather few minutes of the movie that don't have obvious post-production effects making the final images worth seeing. The only scenes that are notably untouched are very standard dialogue scenes. The central action and setting was all done in blue and green screen studios.
I really think it is a gorgeous Special Effects work, but totally not worthy of a cinematography award. There were some short, pretty, relatively untouched scenes, but it is really hard to see that as making this film a standout in that category. There were likely dozens of people deciding the camera use to optimize it for inserting all of the CGI backgrounds, lighting, and actions at all times. And most obviously of all, the cinematographer is the on-set visual lead, but this film was practically made in the special effects rooms by a team of other artists and computer operators.
Anna Karenina from visionary Joe Wright and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey was arguably more involving of a cinematographer with so much gorgeous motion through the moving sets, poses and dancing, and more importantly, a cast and setting that were present for the cameras to capture.
SkyFall from Roger Deakins, as we all know, is one of the most visually pleasing Bond films ever, and certainly one of the better looking modern films around.
I'd have picked either of those over Life of Pi in that category.
My mate works in the film industry (special effects) and he says everyone slates Life of Pi. Not for the quality of the special effects but because it is dull and uninteresting. I have not seen it myself but I believe it is mostly special effects. I didn't think this counted as cinematography so Christopher Doyle has a point.