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 :)

Ron Perelman's company is going to be done in a few years.

David, do you happen to be friends with Dean Semler? Did he give any reason why he or Mel wanted that particular look? I remember Gibson saying somewhere that he thought the movie was like a real event happening, and they just happen to capture it on camera. In that way, it definitely has that National Geographic look to it. Maybe that's what they wanted.

To be honest though, the longer shutter causing the non-film look really took me out of the story and distracted me a bit more than anything. The movie still looks good a number of times, but the motion rendition just reminded me too much of home-made video tapes.
 
The main problem with that 24P at 1/24th of a second look is that it reminds one of interlaced-scan photography, which is often 60i (or 50i) at 1/60th of a second (or 1/50th) -- i.e. no shutter.

No, I don't know Dean Semler but he's a great DP and obviously was exercising some personal visual taste in terms of creating a new digital look for shooting action rather than a traditional film look. It probably came down to doing some shutter tests and Mel and Dean saying "cool" when they saw the effect. Plus it did gain them a stop more exposure in the jungle, which I'm sure they didn't object to. Michael Mann has done similar things with the shutter in his digital movies. So did Dante Spinotti in "Deception" recently. These guys are artists, not to mention smart folk... but one doesn't always agree with everything an artist does.

It's a little like a big anamorphic lens flare or the halation from a diffusion filter like a net -- for every person who says "wow" there's someone else who finds it distracting.
 
I will say this about the Genesis (I guess digital cinema cameras in general), it gave the filmmakers lots of wiggle room, especially when they shoot it at that shutter setting. Some of the shots were not lit by anything but campfire.

Mel Gibson's a great director, though. He's so visual. I love the work he did with John Toll and Caleb Deschanel in Braveheart and Passion, respectively.

As far as people doing eccentric things to either experiment, or express themselves in more unique ways, it can definitely receive attention, positive and negative. I remember people in my film class saying Tony Scott's lost his mind, when he released Domino. Personally, I thought it looked awesome, that movie and Man on Fire before it. Some people just said it was annoying. Well, whatever...
 
I thought Apocalypto looked great! - though i remember thinking the opening shot (whre the otapi´er runs by - looked a little "digital" - then read somewhere (maybe asc magazine), that the opening shot was one of the only ones shot on film...

i knew before hand ofcourse it was shot on the genesis, what can i say ? i thought it looked great and I am certain not a single person in that cinema thought : "hmm that looks like video, bcause of that high shutter angle". Mind you - i live in PAL country, maybe that does a different? - dvd looks good too.

ofcourse this is jut my humble opinion and i am NOT a DP...:)

best,
 
toolizcool said:
I would assume that if Red's cameras advance even more, like the Red Epic, to the point where they're considerably "better" in image quality, such as color rendition, resolution, ergonomics, and keep that beautiful DoF and motion rendition, then I can imagine the shift towards digital accelerating. Once enough studios and producers/directors/cinematographers believe that the Red can match and surpass the performance of high-end 35mm cameras, the Red might become a well-known staple of professional "film"-making. I don't want to have the "it's all subjective as to what is better, it's all a matter of taste" again, but I will say that if Red's cameras surpass them, they'll probably take over as the new standard. I mean...would anyone still want to drive a Honda if Mercedes-Benz cars were better in both quality and price?
Click to expand...

Hi TC
Interesting you should mention EPIC here as Jim has let slip in another
thread that the new camera will have a full height Sensor and be
capable of Full Sensor Digital Anamorphic Cinematrography.
Don't know about you but I hope companies like Panavision stay involved here as they rent the best Anamorphic Glass on the Planet.
Cheers Mezmo
 
I recently did an interview with Dean for American Cinematographer on Get Smart, which was shot on the Genesis. Couple of sequences in there shot at a 1/24 shutter with gain that we go over. The upshot is he gets 2000 ASA! Take a look. Should be on stands any moment. Dark Knight is on the cover.:innocent:

-Noah
 
My assumption is that the Epic will probably be embraced as a fine choice amongst large Hollywood features that want to shoot digital, while the Red One will be a favorite among the smaller budgeted Indy people. The big studios can afford to use the Epics, easily.
 
toolizcool said:
The big studios can afford to use the Epics, easily.
Click to expand...

Indies will be able to afford to use Epics too.

MANY indies shot on Varicam and F900. Those cameras cost more than Epic.

Jim's gonna have to have a plan to make Epics faster than Red Ones.

Not exactly sure what the heck he's gonna do with all the Red One's people trade in.

Not sure of ANY advantage you would have to shoot Red One vs. Epic - unless you already own a Red One and you are happy enough with the images - and you just don't want to invest in upgrading to Epic - but I think that's just NUTS - the cost is actually very negligible if you run the math.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top