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 :)

The Ravenant, shot on Alexa 65

B

Bobby Farokhzad

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2012
Messages
576
Reaction score
0
Points
16
I'm sure by now everyone has seen the trailer. Directed by Alejandro Innaritu and lensed by he mighty Emmanuel Lubezki, this is one of the very first features to be shot on the Alexa 65 camera. The visuals look incredible. Chivo has very quickly become one of my favorite cinematographers.

http://youtu.be/QRfj1VCg16Y
 
Last edited:
It's almost entirely shot on the Alexa and not the 65 from what I've heard from set. Also they apparently have 3 lenses: 14, 16 and 18.
 
Revisiting this thread after a while only because I finally got to see the film and all I can say is wow! We can argue the use of natural light but in this film and for this story it absolutely worked. We can argue the use of wide lenses for close ups... but just like in Birdman, it absolutely works. Chivo is a master who is very comfortable in his own skin, not afraid to take risks, not afraid to try new things. Well done Mr. Lubezki, well done.
 
Acording to American Cinematographer Magazine, only 13 percent of the movie was shot on 65.
 
Boring story, Poor directing, natural light and 45 minutes too long. Major bonus was that no matter when I took a piss break nothing further had developed on screen so I didn't feel I missed anything. The real star was the Alexas.
 
Ben Graham said:
Boring story, Poor directing, natural light and 45 minutes too long. Major bonus was that no matter when I took a piss break nothing further had developed on screen so I didn't feel I missed anything. The real star was the Alexas.
Click to expand...

Oh well, can't please everyone. I was engrossed in the film.
 
Ben Graham said:
Boring story, Poor directing, natural light and 45 minutes too long. Major bonus was that no matter when I took a piss break nothing further had developed on screen so I didn't feel I missed anything. The real star was the Alexas.
Click to expand...
And some RED in there as well.

I'm actually happy when filmmakers let films breath. Yes, the story was predictable but in some ways this was more about the overall experience, like you were along for the journey. I never felt the need for clever plot twists, was almost thrilled just to experience that jaw dropping location.

The natural light didn't bother me at all, and besides from what I understand the final images we are seeing have gone through extensive DI to create that look so it's not like we're watching exactly what the cameras saw.

But I can understand this wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea.
 
I actually quite liked the Revenant - especially because the film seems to operate on multiple levels. Engrossing survival story at the surface, yes...but underneath...Iñárritu seems to be saying so much more...

Is it just me, or isn't it interesting Tom Hardy and Leo Dicaprio look IDENTICAL? Couldn't help but think they represent both the BEST and WORST of the Western world's expansion into the Americas: Tom Hardy is coldblooded and driven only by Money, while Leo is clearly in love with the land and the people, and driven by honor. But at the end of the movie, Tom Hardy makes it clear...they're BOTH murderers. How different are they really? And to that end...what does that say about the colonization of the Americas? It's a complicated movie for sure. Im conflicted about the conditions the crew were put through, but admire the scope of the movie...and the questions I think Iñárritu is challenging us to consider.
 
Bobby Farokhzad said:
Revisiting this thread after a while only because I finally got to see the film and all I can say is wow! We can argue the use of natural light but in this film and for this story it absolutely worked.
Click to expand...
My observation is that there was a ton of color-correction done on this film, including a lot of VFX-style lighting in post. But no question it was the director and the DP's vision that created the images in the first place.
 
Loved the film. Simple story on the surface, complex subtext. Just the way I like it. And definitely an "auteur" film. You can't mistake this film for any other director's work. As for the cinematography, simply breathtaking. Can't wait to see directors like Inarritu or Scott, or Cinematographers like Deakins to put their hands on an Epic Vistavision Weapon.
 
Marc Wielage said:
My observation is that there was a ton of color-correction done on this film, including a lot of VFX-style lighting in post. But no question it was the director and the DP's vision that created the images in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a lot of small refinements done in DI, but it's no Mad Max. 98% of the movies coming out have more agressive DI than The Revenant.
 
jussi rovanpera said:
I'm sure there's a lot of small refinements done in DI, but it's no Mad Max. 98% of the movies coming out have more agressive DI than The Revenant.
Click to expand...
If there was no aggressive DI (and I would swap out aggressive with complex) then it should not have taken the time and money it cost to do the DI. The numbers I have heard are in the millions. I've been trying to find confirmation of that but haven't been able to yet. As per usual, going by how the final film looks without seeing what the original files looked like makes it difficult to accurately assess the degree of difficulty involved in the DI.
 
Some of us have seen the original files and the final result. And can tell you the degree of difficulty was, ahem, significant. And the time was short. And multiple colorists and roto artists were involved.

That's probably enough for now...
 
jussi rovanpera said:
I'm sure there's a lot of small refinements done in DI, but it's no Mad Max. 98% of the movies coming out have more agressive DI than The Revenant.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard, The Revenant has one of the most ambitious grades in recent memory. Just because it looks "natural" doesn't mean it wasn't a tremendous amount of work. For all intensive purposes, it was apparently completely relit in post.
 
M Most said:
Some of us have seen the original files and the final result. And can tell you the degree of difficulty was, ahem, significant. And the time was short. And multiple colorists and roto artists were involved.

That's probably enough for now...
Click to expand...
Thanks Mike, that's all the confirmation I need.
 
Peter Strietmann said:
When did "natural light" become a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Natural light in principle is not a bad thing. I think what Mike, Nick, and myself are referring to is the extent they went to take that natural light footage and turn it into the final look of the movie. It was very involved and very expensive.
 
Full 45min BTS (with before/after shots) as well as diving deeper into the themes of the film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJfTfsXFbLk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top