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 :)

I got SOOOOO excited.... only to be fooled...

I dont think so.

Its just that when i saw the 4K logo, i though it must have been the first. I got excited. But still, gravity was excellent filmmaking. Im not really bummed, i just think it would have looked even more amazing in 4K. Simple things like the stars would have been clearer, and the textures of the space debris. I feel it would have added to the immersive experince.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Has any 3D feature been released that was finished in 4K?
Click to expand...

To my knowledge there is no current standard for a 4K, 3D DCP. So even if it were to be mastered that way (doubtful due to cost and time, which are usually one and the same) there is no current standard way to distribute and play it, at least not without using two projectors (that's how Imax does it).
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
There was about as much live action as there was in WALLE. I wouldn't say it was "shot on Alexa" so much as some vfx plates were captured on Alexa. :P
Click to expand...

One could say the same thing of movies like "Total Recall" and TV shows like "Sanctuary" and "Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome." But that didn't stop an awful lot of people here from gleefully referring to those projects as being "shot on Red."
 
M Most said:
One could say the same thing of movies like "Total Recall" and TV shows like "Sanctuary" and "Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome." But that didn't stop an awful lot of people here from gleefully referring to those projects as being "shot on Red."
Click to expand...

*cough* Pacific Rim *cough*
 
Can I be honest, Timur?

The movie wasn't great at all.

Sure - the special effects were great. But that was pretty much it.

The characters were underdeveloped - if not totally cliche.
The dialogue was very bad.
The science was shoddy.
The symbolism was incredibly heavy-handed.
The story itself was very hard to believe at any one point.

Sorry - I like Mr. Cuaron's work - but the movie was deeply, deeply disappointing! Especially after so many "rave" reviews.

My 2 cents, of course.
 
M Most said:
One could say the same thing of movies like "Total Recall" and TV shows like "Sanctuary" and "Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome." But that didn't stop an awful lot of people here from gleefully referring to those projects as being "shot on Red."
Click to expand...

Well you won't count me among them. :P I wouldn't even use Sanctuary or Blood and Chrome as great examples of cinematography if I was trying to prop up RED's credentials but it would speak well to RED's strength as a camera for shooting green screen material and at least in those instances the people were real. Gravity is an animated film with face replacement. ;)

As Isaac mentioned, I would definitely include Pacific Rim in that category as well.

As well as *grumble grumble* best cinematography for Life of Pi *grumble*.
 
This is an interesting topic indeed,

I;ve never been one unable to get sucked into a good story just because the technical side of it could have been better. Cinema is about absorbing stories and Gravity was certainly one of those, one of the best in recent history and probably one of the best ever, among many, many other films whose technical wizardry was nowhere near the level of Gravity's but their stories resonated deeply with audiences. Yes, characters are a bit obvious and dialogue might feel cliche at times, but who wants subtlety and nuance and layer after layer of character development in an adventure film? Gravity is still a space adventure spectacle, one that feels quite realistic given the lack of lasers, light sabers, telekinesis, the force and light speed travel. So in that sense, asking more from it would not really be fair. Is Bullock's character done well enough that you feel for her and root for her? For sure. Is Clooney's character well written enough that you get a sense he is the paternal, mentor figure who will keep the situation under control through logic and calmness? Definitely. So who cares about a few lines down far too often traveled paths?

However, I too felt right away that the movie looked soft, and while I was totally immersed in the story, I yearned for more crisp details. After all, this is a film that sets out to make space look as realistic as it has ever looked, and well, with the lack of atmosphere we should then be getting the kind of sharpness we can only dream of down here on Earth. Many a time I've been up in the mountains after a torrential rain and marveled at the temporary clarity of the air that allowed me to see unexpected and amazing details, such as individual tree leaves far away. And the emotional effect of that sharpness was one of closer connection to nature, something I treasured and yearned for. I really wanted something similar from Gravity, and from a story point of view, it would have definitely helped immerse the viewers even more I think. But there was never anything that looked sharp in this film, I mean, Skyfall looked far crisper than Gravity, even the shots without CG. To my trained eye, the film felt noticeably soft, and to me, that was a shame. But, just like the other people who cannot distinguish between 1920, 2K or 4K, or don't care about it really, I was nonetheless able to let myself be sucked into the film and was taken by the story and amazed at the technology. So glad they are still making movies like this.

But it would have been far more impressive, and immersive, with sharper images. That is, after all, the reason why Kubrick shot 2001 in 70 mm.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
However, I too felt right away that the movie looked soft, and while I was totally immersed in the story, I yearned for more crisp details. ....I treasured and yearned for. I really wanted something similar from Gravity....to me, that was a shame.
Click to expand...

I think the key word here is "I." No matter what you might or might not have "wanted," Alfonso Cuaron and Chivo were apparently both very happy with the picture. And they are the ones creating and presenting the art to the audience, not the other way around. That doesn't mean that one can't criticize, everyone of course has that right. But it gets a bit presumptuous and rather silly to do so when the creators themselves are happy and proud - and justifiably so - of what they have created. And particularly when the vast bulk of the moviegoing public seems to agree. I would say just sit back and enjoy the ride, which you apparently did.
 
At time when Gravity project started several years ago Epic was not a stabile platform, Chivo tried out once on one Malick's project Tree of Life and the final result didn't please him.

Then Chivo went to shoot exclusively with Alexa on digital. So right now Dragon has a big chance with its pretty good DR and excellent skin tones to take over Alexa after OPLF - Firmware tweaking is finished soon...

Read more about Gravity VFX >>>http://www.fxguide.com/featured/gravity/

Also >>>>http://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/Gravity-3D-Conversion/1
 
We had a live news room feed on the TV the other night, the graphics behind him looked sharp but he looked smudged and like a colored black and white film in the face. I immediately thought of old Red footage, and thought, they didn't... I've only seen a few stills of dragon, but it looks great compared to what used to be (even just before the camera was upgraded). The color science took years. But seeing the latest Pentax (I think) k3 stills passing by at a glance, they start to remind me of the Dragon stills.
 
Even today I pick commercials shot on old Red, they stick out, but the pocket bm samples don't.
 
M Most said:
I think the key word here is "I." No matter what you might or might not have "wanted," Alfonso Cuaron and Chivo were apparently both very happy with the picture. And they are the ones creating and presenting the art to the audience, not the other way around. That doesn't mean that one can't criticize, everyone of course has that right. But it gets a bit presumptuous and rather silly to do so when the creators themselves are happy and proud - and justifiably so - of what they have created. And particularly when the vast bulk of the moviegoing public seems to agree. I would say just sit back and enjoy the ride, which you apparently did.
Click to expand...

Mike,

I'm not sure but I think you just called me silly and presumptuous :-)? Well then, sorry you feel that way, especially when you always go to great lengths to make your points loud and clear while remaining above the name calling and bickering many a poster here directs at you on a rather frequent basis. But I think wise and knowledgeable as you are, and I certainly consider you to be both in spades, you missed my point by reverting to a simplistic overview of things. Cuaron and Lubezki should be proud of their work yes, but just because they feel they accomplished everything they set out to do, does not mean someone like myself, clearly nowhere near their level of craftsmanship and accomplishment, cannot find a genuine point of critique for their finished work. Proclaiming that you could have done better or are unhappy in any way with the final product would be a sure recipe to never, ever again get hired in Hollywood, so even that I take with a grain of salt. Subscribing to the "They know better than you" thesis is short sighted but also misses the point that, as a viewer, I am in fact the very person they made this piece for. I am the consumer, the end of the line, and as such, who better than me who voice displeasure with the very thing that was created to take my hard earned cash out of my pockets. Artists make art for mass consumption, plain and simple, despite all the underlying rarefied connotations.

Geoge Lucas thought the world of the F-900 for cinema use, even though his Star Wars prequels looked terribly soft on regular screens and downright unwatchable on IMAX. He is one of the best minds in the business but his acceptance, or complacency rather, of a truly flawed workflow/product did nothing for digital cinema, even when lesser directors like Robert Rodriguez managed to make that same camera look much better. The cinematography on Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull was incredibly amateurish at points, with light stands projecting visible shadows onto the scenes even, and yet, it is the work of exulted two-time Oscar winner Kaminski, and I could go on and on. Point being, nobody is infallible and everyone, absolutely everyone, will have a bad day at the office. This is not, however, the case in Gravity, where both director and DP (and FX crew foremost) were firing on all cylinders. But I think in terms of technical details, they underperformed by failing to achieve a level of sharpness/clarity/crispness/resolution that would have served their story MUCH better, especially given their expressed intentions to achieve that very look as a means to remove that final barrier, that "last veil", that separates the audience from the story. It is not a deal breaker and does not take (substantially at least) away from the amazing tour de force this film is. These were, in "my" opinion, the best, most realistic VFX I have ever seen, cohesively meshed with photography in the most natural way, but alas, where most other FX work suffers at increased sharpness/resolution, the opposite happened here, and the overall softness took away from the grandeur of this masterpiece. So yes, as far as "I" am concerned, it is one tiny area where this film failed, lest we not forget no single film is perfect. And sorry, but how else but through the filter of the self can anyone experience anything? So the "I" is the only thing I can stand by, not the perception of others, be them general audiences with not technical background or cinematic geniuses whose failures will tower over my accomplishments.

It has nothing to do with whether they should/could/would have used RED instead of Alexa, the film looks soft and that is disappointing. Lots and lots of other Alexa films with plenty of FXs have looked far sharper than Gravity, so I was certainly expecting at least that level of clarity. Having said that, I watched Gravity twice in two days, and will watch it a third time next week. Probably a fourth one too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top