Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Anderson and Tarantino look

B

Bryce W.

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I've been watching such films as There Will be Blood, Inglorious Basterds, Shutter Island, etc. and have been comparing it to footage and movies shot on Red. For all but perhaps a couple cases, the Red footage falls short in achieving the feel in such films.

Has anyone out there achieved the look in the former films listed with Red?
 
Well Tarantino's stuff (as of late) has been lensed by Robert Richardson, who also was DP of Shutter Island. Rob Elswit did TWBB.

You're honing in on the artistic merit of individuals, and those are some of the best, but I think you need to watch more films shot on RED. The EPIC is completely indiscernible from even the greatest 35mm cameras.
I mean if it can win over Vilmos Zsigmond, that's about all the proof you need. Go watch some RED films though!

If Kubrick were around, he'd be shooting Epic.
 
What would you say about the MX?
 
Bryce W. said:
What would you say about the MX?
Click to expand...

In general terms, its a great camera, but not as good as Epic.

IIRC, R1MX is 12 bit RAW & Epic is 16bit RAW

Epic apparently also has a better image processing system.

Now, I held that for a lot of shooting, R1MX was about as good as 35mm. Not quite, but more than good enough. You had to be mindful of limitations.

Epic has been compared to 65mm film, and I have no reservations about using it that way under almost any circumstances.
 
Do you recommend any clips or movies shot with Red that exemplify 35mm?
 
Chad Lancaster said:
What do you mean by "the red footage falls short in achieving the feel of such films"?
Click to expand...

I've notice a discrepancy in 'feel' when watching Red Footage and certain films shot in 35mm, this may be partially attributed to post-production though.
 
I have noticed a difference, if watching a 1080p copy, where there is no print back to film. to me Its like, the parts of the image that have no real motion, look like a still image, too perfectly motionless.. plus there is a slightly different kind of sharpness to the image. But i love having a RAW picture like this, because you can add grain / grades and subtle techniques to make it a bit more organic and season to taste.

I think you can make RED footage look pretty indistinguishable from film, but i imagine a many get used to the beauty of its native image qualities, the smooth pristine look, and don't feel the need to emulate film stock so closely.
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
to me Its like, the parts of the image that have no real motion, look like a still image, too perfectly motionless..
Click to expand...

You are suggesting then that there is inter-frame compression going on... Graeme, care to comment?
 
hmmm... look and feel ...

The set + dressing (= colors, textures)
+ light + filters + lens + sensor + electronics = (hopefully raw) recorded information
-> workflow + post (skills, tricks, feeling) + mastering -> experience @ viewing device = look and feel ...

right?
i may have missed something in the formula, though ... :-)


Edit:
P.S ... extend / substitute "sensor + electronics" at will ... with digital camera / analog film stock + lab process + scanner (DI) ... etc. ....


Point being, its not one element of the chain, but the process as a whole that creates look + feel.
 
Detlev Eller said:
hmmm... look and feel ...

The set + dressing (= colors, textures)
+ light + filters + lens + sensor + electronics = (hopefully raw) recorded information
-> workflow + post (skills, tricks, feeling) + mastering -> experience @ viewing device = look and feel ...

right?
i may have missed something in the formula, though ... :-)


Edit:
P.S ... extend / substitute "sensor + electronics" at will ... with digital camera / analog film stock + lab process + scanner (DI) ... etc. ....


Point being, its not one element of the chain, but the process as a whole that creates look + feel.
Click to expand...

Post of the year Detlev!!
 
Scott Crawley said:
You are suggesting then that there is inter-frame compression going on... Graeme, care to comment?
Click to expand...

Maybe, because blu ray encodes are compressed, obviously, but thats not what i meant...
even when im watching back RED rushes, the lack of noise, grain and organic "life" creates stillness thats not reminiscent of 35mm film. to me at least. its not organic, and it will look different, that doesn't mean that you cant make it look like celluloid.
i think its just about perception, like, people who dont find the look of a 360 shutter jarring.. others will avoid it like the plague.

I do agree sets, art direction, lighting and CINEMATOGRAPHY is most of what you perceive in those films as expensive and filmic.
 
When I saw the Social Network projected on film I was really impressed with the tone and texture. I forgot about what it was shot on and was immersed in the film.

When I've seen my own tests on 4k then 35mm I found the movement was in the grain and the projector gate registration. I could not prefer one over the other. Just that they are different.

Digital projection originated on film is another aesthetic altogether. Where you see grain but don't feel the movement if a film projector. You don't hear pops or clicks it see punch holes in the reels either.

I like a bit of grain but I like adding as much as I want even more.

RED gives you a lot of creative choices. I've always wanted to shhot something in 2k with S16 glass and create a print. That could give you a black swan kind of look.

It's all achievable.
 
As to the original post.

Those guys are at the top of their game with a lit of experience with their tools and knowledge if stocks and processes.

You don't just pop a camera on a tripod to do that. You create that through experience and know how.

You can try to make anything look like anyone else did it, but it's better to develope your own looks and styles.
 
Tobias Ashenheim said:
...
i think its just about perception, like, people who dont find the look of a 360 shutter jarring.. others will avoid it like the plague.

I do agree sets, art direction, lighting and CINEMATOGRAPHY is most of what you perceive in those films as expensive and filmic.
Click to expand...

... guess its worthy to mention, that "focus" + expectation + circumstance defines our individual perception ... perception by definition is never real and never the same for any two members of any given number of members in a group ....


then, we (probably ?) agree,
its not about making it look like ... (whatever) ... it is about making it look RIGHT ... as intended by the auteur / director (in his sole discretion, ideally) in collaboration with / without a cinematographer of choice ....

"looking right" .... was the kingdom of film .... not anymore. its the reign of RED (in my view & opinion)


Now, we are moving into individual visual expression and really need to let go of "film vs. digital" .... that conversation / argument is over and won by our host.

... again,
if there is a worthy captain, with a worthy vision, it will usually look gorgeous or "right" or outright amazing ....
else ...

... :-)
 
David Battistella said:
When I saw the Social Network projected on film I was really impressed with the tone and texture. I forgot about what it was shot on and was immersed in the film. ...
Click to expand...

... me too, David ... again and again ...

I made it a point to see "the social network" (TSN) in different theaters, 5 on total count, from the most modern multiplex to the oldest theater with humble sound and technology, experiencing it in theaters using modern (and sometimes, not so well calibrated) digital projection as well as film ....

The experience was always great.

My companies (never) even noticed anything "special" or "awkward" .... it just looked normal to them and they even liked the story - or not.

Which, i think, is an outstanding complement to the R1 .... the transition from film to fully digital is (can be) seamless for the audiences - who would have thought THAT! ... lol
 
Do you think Final Cut Pro is a strong enough program to help achieve any look you like?
 
If FCP x had a tracker. I'd put it up against anything. 64 bit and unlimited power windows.

If I told you there was a new program out the to do that you'd be excited. If I said itwas built into an NLE you would not believe me. I've achieved really unique looks within FCP X and with 64 bit 4k output, it will surprise people. You can even send out an image sequence.

The problem is the current culture. We all believe we have to go to a different app to do color. With FCP X I have to say that I am really not that sure about that anymore. If a third party develops a tracker. It's going to get interesting after they add Briadcast monitoring paths early next year.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top