The Ravenant, shot on Alexa 65

[Hrvoje Simic]

This post is ridiculous. I worked with Chivo on Tree of Life and To The Wonder, and I can tell you 100% that he is absolutely OBSESSED with capturing the most perfect light on set. Never ever ever does he cut corners on set and plan to "fix it in post". Read any article on the making of The Revenant and you will see how much planning, scouting, and rehearsal went into capturing the most perfect light possible.

But Chivo is also a perfectionist in post, so it makes perfect sense that he would use all the tools available to pull the most out of his images. I think it's an amazing testament to his skill that the images don't LOOK like they had a heavy DI.

If you think 1000 hours of rotoscoping will make average footage look like Chivo's, you're out of your mind.

1) Instead of guessing mental activities behind the words and attacking own projections, it is much more fruitful investing focus in understanding the context around them.

2) Defensive action is unnecessary. The post you quoted is not referring to any specific cinematographer, but the promoted perception and re-definition of the term cinematography, which affects the whole domain. The post does not suggest this cinematographer "fixing it in post" nor is it supposed to belittle creative approaches in storytelling, but adresses the effect on the craft if this creative approach continuous to be percevied through same categorization.

This case being used as an example because it is the most recent one.

3) In photography there is a distinction between photo manipulation and actual photography. Where image compositing and other non image development-related Photoshop type of manipulations are not perceived the same way as actual photography.

Motion imaging domain lags behind.

4) If the images don't look like they had a heavy DI after heavy DI that's because the colorist made them look that way . In this particular case plural.

Unless you are suggesting that your colleague had actually shot the way it wouldn't look like DI after heavy DI.

 

[Ben Scott]

The darkroom has always been an important part of the photographic process.

 

[Julio Quintana]

Defensive action is unnecessary. The post you quoted is not referring to any specific cinematographer, but the promoted perception and re-definition of the term cinematography, which affects the whole domain. The post does not suggest this cinematographer "fixing it in post" nor is it supposed to belittle creative approaches in storytelling...

How is this supposed to be interpreted?:

This is getting out of control. Re-framing, re-lighting, stitching, re-whatever...(edited by Julio)

Using tech to compensate...(edited by Julio)

Might as well shoot all green screen with puppets and buy a license to actors face scan and hire other folks to bend over backwards in post while taking the statue instead of them. I also have a "vision" which includes a whole team painting for me while I'm being creative without the limitations of actual set, real time, real space and real light, no "undo", crew's stamina, actor's emotional capacity & focus-span, and with seven figures for post...

This thread is about The Revenant, shot by Emmanuel Lubezki. You say that because of the amount of work done in the DI, it is not "mainly cinematography" anymore but animation/CGI. You imply that Chivo "hired other folks to bend over backwards" so that he can receive the Oscar statue instead of them.

I doubt you would say these things to Chivo directly, because you know it would be offensive and ridiculous. Show respect for the work of others, especially when you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[David Battistella]

I just saw this film today and it looked amazing.

Cinematography was a (mostly) in camera deal before digital DI. But I think it is amazing how much a DOP can extend their creativity buy including the DI in the overall look and feel of the "picture". Every DOP at the top of their game understands how a DI, completes the process of the image they create.

Its not a "one or the other thing" it's a piece of art that is lit exactly as it's supposed to be lit so that it ends up looking the way it looks. Obviously with a feature that Stars Leonardo DI Caprio how far you can take this (because of budget) changes.

But this film is immersive viewing and the cinematographer has a role in that as do the other artists who contribute to the directors vision.

In the end it's a pretty stunning monochromatic look that adds to the overall impact of a compelling, multi layered survival story.

This shit can't just be "fixed in post" it's all planned that way, in as much as you can really plan a painting, or song, or poem or piece of writing.

David

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

How is this supposed to be interpreted?:

The way it is watered down in 4 sections in the previous post for people unable to get past the initial type of packaging.

You say that because of the amount of work done in the DI, it is not "mainly cinematography" anymore but animation/CGI.

Yes, if the post team paints, stiches and re-times, that part is not "cinematography". Light and motion are not captured, they are re-created. And people involved in that process are profficient artists and it is their work as well. They are not just working force.

That doesn't undermine the work of the artist in charge of main visual aesthetic. It suggests the importance of distinction in defining it. The distinction existing in photography and currently lacking in cinematography.

You imply that Chivo "hired other folks to bend over backwards" so that he can receive the Oscar statue instead of them.

No, the formulation was just a sarcastic wrapper to point to the mindset this current "one term for all" is leading to, and you are a) focusing on the wrapper and taking it literally and b) using literal interpretation for assuming idiocy.

Not sure why should new kids feel the need to learn full craft of cinematography if the awards go to re-lighted, re-timed, stiched etc. Computer is cheaper and you can work in an armchair. Can't wait for auto-tune.

Show respect for the work of others,

I just did.

To cinematographers, colorists and VFX artists.
Past, current and future ones.

especially when you have no idea what you are talking about.

My ignorance is vast, though constantly decreasing.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_bias

 

[Julio Quintana]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_bias

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/armchair-quarterback?s=t

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Julio....

Have a great weekend.

 

[Eric M Hurt]

Beautiful film. He knows where to point and how to move the camera, when to do so and with what lens. He adds to (and crafts) the story. It's on the screen, it's his vision. Rodin is credited for many sculptures he never touched during their physical creation. That doesn't lessen his claim to their creation since they were his vision, directed by him as to how they were to be sculpted.

 

[Marc Wielage]

In post there is desaturation, contrast, vignetting and probably few more tricks. It looks great, but it does not look like they "relit" and fixed the light.

And that is a testament to the post crew on the show who worked for months to create a very natural look for the project. Everything in film is illusion, both in front of and behind the camera.

What I often tell neophyte DPs is that we're better off taking away from light in post rather than trying to add it. We can pretty easily add a digital flag to a shot and eliminate glare, add a shadow to a face, or pull the audience's attention to the actor. What's almost impossible is taking an underexposed actor in darkness and lighting them as if somebody turned on a 2K. It doesn't work like that.

Chivo did the hard work of finding the best place to put the camera, choosing the lenses, setting the exposure, and waiting for the right time of day. And I'm positive that nothing happened in post without his supervision. Whether you choose to light the project during production or in post, it's still the province of the cinematographer.

This shit can't just be "fixed in post" it's all planned that way, in as much as you can really plan a painting, or song, or poem or piece of writing.

Exactly. Very well said.

Way too often -- here and elsewhere on the net -- I run into people who post a frame grab from a famous Hollywood studio picture and say, "hey, I want to know how I can color-correct my film to look like this." And they get frustrated when we answer, "well, that depends on the art direction, the costuming, the makeup, but most importantly the lighting and the exposure." They have a hard time grasping that you can't take something shot on little or no money and make it look like Lord of the Rings or The Revenant or Hateful 8 or films at that level. It's far more about the work of the cinematographer than it is the skill of the colorist.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

We can pretty easily add a digital flag to a shot and eliminate glare, add a shadow to a face, or pull the audience's attention to the actor.

The difference being that the real flag manipulates light volumetrically with interdependent relations of shot element's surface properties and the digital procedure which attempts to mimic it in post works on a 2D plane, affecting the image in a uniform, local and isolated way, like a 2D blob.

What's almost impossible is taking an underexposed actor in darkness and lighting them as if somebody turned on a 2K. It doesn't work like that.

Yes, that is true but every new and better camera allows digging out data from the shadows due to high bit depth, log and great sensitivity. And based on this ability some tend to count on the colorist to add light retroactively where the light should have been in the first place.

Experienced know what is possible, what isn't and what the price is for smartassery, but nowadays everyone feels like an expert by seeing once inaccessible and now affordable tools at hand, creating the illusion of self-achievement, which leads to expectations based on overly-optimistic assumptions. Based on overly-inflated sense of expertise.

Throughout the years I've seen this or similar principle affect producers, directors, DoP's, musicians, creative directors, marketing execs. etc. and unless someone puts their foot down the outcome is always the same, when unrealistic viewpoints meet reality, unavoidable at some point. It manifests somewhere down the chain on someone's back and/or the end result.

And where do many ideas origin from ? From the role models of course, put on the pedestal under glass bell and bathed with spotlights.

Technology allows greater comfort zones and it is in human nature to often to go with the easier way out, disregarding the price. I can recall numerous examples on this forum of underexposure and blaming the camera when the poorly lit image tonalities fall apart in post. It does not neccessitate having great foresight in determining where the current trend is leading to, logic and will above the big screen awe should be sufficient.

Without acting consciously and willfully, thinking ahead, making a distinction between what is what, the "what" is left destined by the law of inertia.

Creative realm is expanding into various forms of creative approaches, it is logical the terminology and categorization should adapt.

 

[David Battistella]

Way too often -- here and elsewhere on the net -- I run into people who post a frame grab from a famous Hollywood studio picture and say, "hey, I want to know how I can color-correct my film to look like this." And they get frustrated when we answer, "well, that depends on the art direction, the costuming, the makeup, but most importantly the lighting and the exposure." They have a hard time grasping that you can't take something shot on little or no money and make it look like Lord of the Rings or The Revenant or Hateful 8 or films at that level. It's far more about the work of the cinematographer than it is the skill of the colorist.

Yup. See this all the time. So many eyes go into a frame before it hits post production. Every person on set is there to produce the shots that will make a film, each with a specific role in the whole. How many bearskins did they go through before they got the "right one"? look at the makeup on Di Caprio, it's totally overdone in the raw footage but fits perfectly with the tone of the whole film. I agree that taking away is much easier than adding, the key is understanding the light and bending it to the mood of your film, not bending the mood of the film after thinking the film will light itself in post.

You cite some great examples and hateful 8 compared To Revanant is an interesting study to different approaches to what amount to epic films. I think I'd add Macbeth as one of the great cinematographic achievements I have seen this year.

David

 

[Neil Abeynayake]

I don't know about you guys but IMHO, the director of this movie Iñárritu spent someone else's money unnecessarily while making this movie. Most of these scenes could have been done more efficiently in California (Big Bear, Shasta, Sierra mountain ranges) and stayed within the original budget. And the choice of lenses is not the most conducive to augment the story line.

Also, on a different note, why are most old school DPs elect to shoot using Arri brand when they have superior camera platforms than Alexas?

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I don't know about you guys but IMHO, the director of this movie Iñárritu spent someone else's money unnecessarily while making this movie. Most of these scenes could have been done more efficiently in California (Big Bear, Shasta, Sierra mountain ranges) and stayed within the original budget. And the choice of lenses is not the most conducive to augment the story line.

Also, on a different note, why are most old school DPs elect to shoot using Arri brand when they have superior camera platforms than Alexas?

Everybody's a critic...

 

[Julio Quintana]

I don't know about you guys but IMHO, the director of this movie Iñárritu spent someone else's money unnecessarily while making this movie. Most of these scenes could have been done more efficiently in California (Big Bear, Shasta, Sierra mountain ranges) and stayed within the original budget. And the choice of lenses is not the most conducive to augment the story line.

Also, on a different note, why are most old school DPs elect to shoot using Arri brand when they have superior camera platforms than Alexas?

Hi, Neil. I found all of your statements very insightful and well thought out, so I tried to find some of your work to better understand what you would consider good lens choices and better camera formats, but surprisingly I couldn't find much. Is this you?

https://vimeo.com/101033323

Welcome to Reduser.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Julio,

By the same token, where can I see some of your work? You have strong opinions. I'd like to see your work.

Here's some of mine.

https://vimeo.com/120108230

https://vimeo.com/139033948


Nick

 

[Eric M Hurt]

I don't know about you guys but IMHO, the director of this movie Iñárritu spent someone else's money unnecessarily while making this movie. Most of these scenes could have been done more efficiently in California (Big Bear, Shasta, Sierra mountain ranges) and stayed within the original budget. And the choice of lenses is not the most conducive to augment the story line.

Also, on a different note, why are most old school DPs elect to shoot using Arri brand when they have superior camera platforms than Alexas?

Try and remember that is the Cinematography board. On that note perhaps you could enlighten us as to the lens package you might have chosen while shooting in Big Bear?

 

[Sabyasachi Patra]

My God! You guys are an unforgiving lot. Very hard critics.

I saw the documentary. Loved his philosophy. The doc looks similar in tones. If he changed a few backgrounds, then it may be due to necessity. The documentary says that due to climate change there was no snow in april in Canada and they were forced to stop shooting and then later go to Argentina and shoot. If at all they changed backgrounds, then I guess they would have done so for the Argentina part of the shoot. I am completely guessing here.

I am sure someone else will ask why not shoot completely in green screen and then change the backgrounds and do it cheaper. :smiley: I am sure Leonardo DiCaprio will love not getting dunk in that cold water. The performances look really authentic - raw and gritty. Reaching this kind of excellence someday is what I dream and most of us here dream. After all, poor indeed is a man without a dream. :smiley:

 

[Ben Scott]

This is just about the silliest thread I have read on here and people seem desperate to knock or detract from some incredibly ambitious filmmakers trying to make an incredibly ambitious big budget movie that isn't non stop explosions.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Most of these scenes could have been done more efficiently in California (Big Bear, Shasta, Sierra mountain ranges) and stayed within the original budget.

:cursing:

California has been in an unprecedented four year drought. As recently as September 2015, Sierra Nevada snow pack was at its lowest level in possibly 500 years.

 

[Julio Quintana]

Julio,

By the same token, where can I see some of your work? You have strong opinions. I'd like to see your work.

Here's some of mine.

https://vimeo.com/120108230

https://vimeo.com/139033948


Nick

Beautiful work, Nick. Seriously. Your point is well taken, so here is a feature I just wrote and directed, shot by the incredibly talented Santiago Benet Mari: http://youtu.be/6gx-1ArMFwA

And yes, I have strong opinions, but it's mostly that making a movie is incredibly difficult, so I have very little patience when people who have never done it say "I could do that if I had a six-figure post budget", or "I could have done that with a long lens in California".