Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Apocalypto Look

J

James T Mather

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
1,285
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
56
Website
www.jamestmather.com
Hi all,

I went to see Apocalypto last night and came out reeling. Tough, Hard, Great cinema. Whatever about Mel Gibson said or his religious politics - this man is a born director IMHO. The film is visceral, bloody and utterly compelling. :eek: Hats off Mr. G.

That's the pros - now for the cons. Having watched Superman Returns and found the look pretty indistinguishable from clean Vision 2 stock on the whole - the opposite is true of Apocalypto. This is not geek nit picking - the look frequently kept dragging me out of the drama. :( Only the fact that Gibson's direction was so strong that forced me back in.

A lot of the film had a very "video" like texture (occasionally this would disappear in favour of a film-like look but there seemed to be no rhyme or reason for this). Some running shots looked videoish, others not. Some night exteriors looked film like, others like 18db digibeta. The motion characteristics, throughout, often exhibited a video-news quality (and not just on high speed stuff).:confused:

I can only guess that Mr. Semler - pushed for light on occasion - opted to open the shutter to maximize his shooting time under a dense canopy of foliage where light would be at a premium - and thus the motion characteristics change (the opposite of skinny shutter, if you will) - or on the occasional night shot - to overcrank the Genesis chip and thus some video noise. But I was surprised at the almost random way it came and went. Maybe it's just a characteristic of the Genesis look.

Anyone else notice this?
 
Two presumed culprits.

1.) the use of a 360 degree shutter or 'open shutter' (video smear / double motion blur.)

2.) the (possible) use of a lighter camera for some of the intense POV running footage. Possibly a HDV or HVX. This is just theory but a few shots convinced me of this.
 
Yep I thought of the shutter thing whilst watching - also some of the shots of the tapir running/ jaguar paw running looked like "lipstick" cam footage. (as in "attached" so something - meaning not a huge genesis camera).

At times too the depth of field seemed artificially large - like a smaller chip cam.
 
[ On cinematography.net in the thread [cml-2k-444] Apocalypto noise reduction? Steven Poster writes: ]

At the ICG Local 600 Apocalypto screening last Saturday night Dean Semler said that most of the running shots were done on 16mm.

[ And Tim Sassoon replies: ]

With the A-Cam they rented, no doubt, which has a fixed 160 degree shutter.
 
Boothba said:
Two presumed culprits.

1.) the use of a 360 degree shutter or 'open shutter' (video smear / double motion blur.)
Click to expand...

this one is right..

Boothba said:
2.) the (possible) use of a lighter camera for some of the intense POV running footage. Possibly a HDV or HVX. This is just theory but a few shots convinced me of this.
Click to expand...

steadi mate.. it was a genesis over a steadi..
 
160 degree shutter which would imply an eyemo (obviously for size and mobility on running shots).

I can appreciate the theoretical value in using the 160deg shutter but unfortunately it begins to exhibit video like movement. (But hey, I guess if video had never been invented we would, no doubt, all be marveling at this "new" look)
 
eheheh..
 
To me it seemed that as soon as they moved the camera to much, it screamed video. When the camera had very little movement, such as the village scene, and the altar scence it looked great. It was hard to not notice the great scenes intercut by the video characteristics. Yes it did seem like there was some lipstick cam footy in there as well. Keeping the image consistent in feel, is such an easy rule to follow, and thus you are able to better hold the audience, even if it is subconciously.
 
The current issue of AC has a lengthy article about Apocalypto. Once I read it I will comment.

But yes, some have speculated that a "prosumer" HD camera like the HVX might have been used for some of the running scenes. And I do know that Semler used a wide open shutter angle for just the reason described in the OP -- to allow shooting in the dark jungle when the light began to go down.
 
jtm said:
Having watched Superman Returns and found the look pretty indistinguishable from clean Vision 2 stock on the whole - the opposite is true of Apocalypto.
Click to expand...


I had the opposite feeling for Superman Returns. I thought the look was very artifical, but it seemed to work with that film since it is a comic book.

I only saw a film print, but some shots looked very video, ala Dr. Who.
 
Thomas Mathai said:
I had the opposite feeling for Superman Returns. I thought the look was very artifical, but it seemed to work with that film since it is a comic book.

I only saw a film print, but some shots looked very video, ala Dr. Who.
Click to expand...

In what way?
 
Justin Anderson said:
In what way?
Click to expand...

A lot of the vfx shots with live action and CG elements did not seem to blend together as well, so it reminded me of the old game cinematics where they shot live action video with simple 3d backgrounds.

There was also a digital greyness to some of the shots that I have seen before with digital shot features. It just made me think of the older Dr Who episodes, where you were seeing film shot outside and video inside.
 
I'm not sure of your definition of the video look Thomas, but I characterise it as temporal motion cadence (as in excessive motion blur due generally to field sampling), chip artifacts (as in pixel visibility on hi-contrast low-angle edges (stepping), occasional chroma crawl on high colour edges such as Reds etc, pixel strobing on hi contrast surfaces such as herringbone or window blinds, luminance/chroma noise due to (generally unusual) use of the gain function) and finally compressed contrast curve due to inherent characteristics of electronic sensors - none of which I saw in Superman Returns - but many of which I saw in Apocalypto.

Film neg also exhibits a greyness generally as there is no absolutely solid D-max available in a cinema as leakage through the neg from projection light is inevitable.

What video aspects of Superman Returns bothered you? Or by artificial are you simply referring to a heavily CG posted and theatrically art directed film?
 
You're analyzing video look in technical terms.

I meant video look like, certain shots just screamed wow this reminds me of Dr Who, or some of those other video sci fi stuff shows I grew up with.

I wouldn't say it bothered me, just that's what came to mind when I was watching the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top