The Ravenant, shot on Alexa 65

[David Battistella]

Ok Guys.

Barbs traded.

Let's play nice.


David

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

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",

Julio...this is the third time you are hanging on to your projections. After the effort invested to remove them.

I am sorry if you are currently unable to make a distinction between what was said and what you perceive, and continue to be pissed due to the latter. I tried to help with that so the emotions settle down and the discussion moves on, but you don't seem to want to hear.

I ignored your last provocation due to the obvious emotional note my post has struck, although unintended, but the tolerance of the attack attempts is reaching the limit.

For the last time: nothing I wrote was directed to this cinematographer, it would be completely idiotic if it was. It was just a figure to stress the industry categorization issue. If it was too far out and left much room for misinterpretation I apologize for that formulation. I clarified what the point was.

 

[Julio Quintana]

Julio...this is the third time you are hanging on to your projections. After the effort invested to remove them.

I am sorry if you are currently unable to make a distinction between what was said and what you perceive, and continue to be pissed due to the latter. I tried to help with that so the emotions settle down and the discussion moves on, but you don't seem to want to hear.

I ignored your last provocation but the tolerance of the parade and attack attempts is reaching the limit.

Look, Hrvoje. I don't really see where there is a misunderstanding. If your rant was meant to say that post-production is playing an ever-increasing role in cinematography and should be given credit, that is totally valid and Chivo would be the first one to acknowledge what a talented team he works with and how much they enhance his imagery. I've been with him in the DI and he has tremendous respect for colorists.
But they have tremendous respect for him as well, and nobody who works with him ever feels like he's cutting corners on set and leaning on them to fix his work.
I think your point might be that the next generation of filmmakers will think they can shoot crap and fix it in post. That's a valid concern but has nothing to do with the way Chivo (or Iñarritu) works. I just want to make that distinction since this thread began about The Revenant and Chivo specifically, so your posts seemed more like an attack on them rather than a defense of colorists. I apologize if I misread it.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

On a union set, the DP is basically not allowed touch the lights, let alone set a lamps for a shot. That work falls to the gaffer and his/her electricians.

Does that mean a DP shouldn't get credit for the lighting of the actual scene because they didn't do it themselves? Of course not.

Assuming that the DP is actually involved with all the post work, I don't see the difference?

The title is director of photography, not on set lighting technician.

As long as they are directing the photography, I don't understand why it matters if it's during Pre-Vis, production, or post?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

If anyone watching "The Revenant" can't tell that a lot of hard work and creative talent went into the photography at the time of shooting, then they really don't understand what making a movie is like.

 

[Jeffery Anderson]

Folks, remember, Chivo is one hell of a talented DP, the snow is a giant bounce, and the sun travels favorably when a location is selected carefully and the weather cooperates.

The snow was added in post.

If you look at the last 3 movies, Revenant, Birdman and Gravity, they were all very VFX situated

 

[Patrick Tresch]

I was questioning the concept of "the use of natural light" as they claim in the final result.

 

[Julio Quintana]

The snow was added in post.

If you look at the last 3 movies, Revenant, Birdman and Gravity, they were all very VFX situated

The snow was not all added in post. They started shooting in Canada, but they didn't get enough snow, so they moved the entire production to Argentina at the other end of the world in order to have real snow.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

I'm sure they did add extra snow in post, but they almost certainly built that VFX snow on top of the practical snow.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

They wouldn't have dragged the entire production to South America in search of winter landscapes if they were going to create all of that in post.

"McCabe and Mrs. Miller" added optically-printed snow falling for the climax, even though they were shooting in the dead of winter in Canada. This is nothing new.

Some of you guys talk as if "The Revenant" was shot in a parking lot against green screens rather than up in the mountains in grueling winter conditions just because you heard that there was some post work done on the movie.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-leonardo-dicaprios-revenant-shoot-810290

The crew member who called this shoot "a living hell" wasn't the colorist...

 

[Ben Scott]

If anyone watching "The Revenant" can't tell that a lot of hard work and creative talent went into the photography at the time of shooting, then they really don't understand what making a movie is like.

A thousand times this. I've no idea what the motivation could be for trying to belittle the absurd amount of top quality work that went into the film. Even if it is not to your taste surely as a group of people who working with moving images everyone can understand and appreciate the efforts and talents involved.

 

[M Most]

The crew member who called this shoot "a living hell" wasn't the colorist...

Maybe not, but the colorist(s) who were responsible for the dailies in Calgary would refer to it the same way...

Chivo is acutely aware of what can be done in post, and designed the shooting plan for this picture based on using both production and post techniques together to achieve the ultimate result (much as he did on "Gravity"). He knew that with minimal or no supplemental lighting, there would be shots that would move from near darkness to bright light, and thus require dynamic rebalancing in post. To that end, a full Lustre grading system was used for dailies, installed in a trailer in Calgary (a Resolve setup was used in Argentina, but that was only about 2 weeks of shooting, as I recall), and "full" color grading was done on each and every shot, with dynamic changes, area isolations, and numerous other techniques used so that Chivo could confirm that what he was doing was going to work all the way through the process. None of it was random, and none of it was "fixing mistakes." The work done in the DI was expected and planned, and part of the overall design right from the start. It might have become a bit more extensive because of Chivo's (and Steve Scott's) attention to detail and striving for perfection, but it was not some out of control fix-it session. It was a required step in finishing a picture shot primarily in natural, uncontrolled lighting conditions, and was planned for right from the beginning.

I would guess that the vast majority of those making comments here were not involved in either production or post on this picture, and are simply guessing as to what was and and was not done, and why. That's part of the curse of the Internet, where everyone gets to speak as if they know what they're talking about and everyone else has to figure out who actually does. Unfortunately, this leads to an atmosphere in which serious, informative discussion is derailed in favor of wild speculation that is intended to somehow "prove" that what was done, and how it was done, wasn't as complex or difficult as it might actually have been. Or that post techniques had somehow diluted the end result. Except that in this case, it actually WAS difficult and complex, and the post approach was both enhancing to the final product and planned from the beginning.

 

[paulherrin]

certainly excited to see this one - well said dave, mike

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

Well put Mr. Mullen and Mr. Most. Thank you for bringing your experienced perspectives into this conversation.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Look, Hrvoje. I don't really see where there is a misunderstanding. If your rant was meant to say that post-production is playing an ever-increasing role in cinematography and should be given credit, that is totally valid and Chivo would be the first one to acknowledge what a talented team he works with and how much they enhance his imagery. I've been with him in the DI and he has tremendous respect for colorists.

It has nothing to do with him. Of course he will explore what can be done and if profficient in both set and post tools think through available means. Creative mindsets explore creative routes. That is not a problem.
It has to do with categorization, which in an expanding creative realm puts everything in one drawer defining the preception within the domain.

With stitching, re-timing, image dissecting, parallax re-setting, VFX plates, team of colorists re-doing separately every detail in the image, etc. - and all of this seen the same as a work of a cinematographer with real lights, untouched shots and motion, gaffer and a colorist just accentuating what he crafted on set - the latter one doesn't stand a chance for receiving appreciation or being a role model to new kids, and this principle leads to more and more digitalization of the craft and destroying the valorization of painting with real light.

Photographic domain has a distinction, where each great work is appreciated but within its context and photo manipulation does not compete with real photography. Let alone allowed to outshine it.
Motion imaging domain still puts everything in one drawer. It may be a magnificient piece of artwork and great achievement but is not the same work. Period.

This has nothing to do with how much work was done, or how creative or talented someone is or how great the outcome turns out to be. It has everything to do with what kind of work was done, which term defines it and how is what valorized based on categorization.

Technology evolves, crafts evolve, creative routes expand, categorization should as well. Creative works like these, along with Avatar, Life of Pi, Gravity etc. are all undoubtedly great works but works which exemplify the need to draw the line somewhere. And make distinctions between "Cinematographer" and "Director of Photography" and "Art Director" or even "Director of Visual Aesthetics" or any other term which might be applied to the creative work. And valorize adequately instead of putting it all in one basket. And re-consider whether any kind of pixel creation in post can be seen as "photography" at all.

This is an obvious example where the interdiciplinary and evolving nature of this visual craft has outgrown the terminology previously used to present it.

This may seem as a subjective and single rant but rest assured this generalization is an issue for many. On set and in post.

I recall a Christopher Doyle rant around Life of Pi which at the time seemed funny and tragical in the same time, but the funny part has evaporated by now. It is not funny any more.

Rest assured the Life of Pi thing followed by Rhythm & Hue issue felt like kick in the nuts and tragical to many, whether behind the camera or in front of the computer screen, and what seems to have become a trend in valorization is getting more and more people pissed.

This is not helping the Creatives. Neither the ones venturing further in exploration, nor the ones cherishing and preserving the natural approach for generations to come, nor the ones spending days and nights in post merging technical skill with creative aesthetic only to be perceived and valorized as working force.

I just want to make that distinction since this thread began about The Revenant and Chivo specifically, so your posts seemed more like an attack on them rather than a defense of colorists. I apologize if I misread it.

It's not just for the colorists.

I accept the responsibility for your reaction due to the wording I chose.
Thank you for your consideration and apology. You have my apology in my previous post.

 

[Peter Moretti]

... To that end, a full Lustre grading system was used for dailies, installed in a trailer in Calgary (a Resolve setup was used in Argentina, but that was only about 2 weeks of shooting, as I recall), and "full" color grading was done on each and every shot, with dynamic changes, area isolations, and numerous other techniques used so that Chivo could confirm that what he was doing was going to work all the way through the process. None of it was random, and none of it was "fixing mistakes."...

Mike, it might be a bit of an aside, but do you know why Lustre was used? While an obviously powerful program, I thought it's been EOL'd for a while now. And it's not like other tools like Resolve and Baselight haven't been steadily improving.

 

[Hugh Scully]

I finally got to see it. I think it's a tremedous accomplishment. What I loved most was the blocking and movement of the camera given those deep well composed frames. I just love where they land. Each shot has an arch. I read in ASC magazine how they managed to groom the light in post. It adds to the complexity and requires imagination and experience to consider what is possible to improve the expression of the photography as they did. Just the execution alone is admirable. I'm inspired by it

 

[PatrickFaith]

I finally got to see it. I think it's a tremedous accomplishment. What I loved most was the blocking and movement of the camera given those deep well composed frames. I just love where they land. Each shot has an arch. I read in ASC magazine how they managed to groom the light in post. It adds to the complexity and requires imagination and experience to consider what is possible to improve the expression of the photography as they did. Just the execution alone is admirable. I'm inspired by it

I saw it last night too, there's so much I need to learn from this movie. I btw think it should get best motion picture, especially if they had a catagory for team work - the colaborative execution involved with all the deptarments is amazing.

 

[M Most]

Mike, it might be a bit of an aside, but do you know Lustre was used?

Yes, at least in Calgary. Resolve was used in Argentina, which was a much, much shorter shoot.

While an obviously powerful program, I thought it's been EOL'd for a while now. And it's not like other tools like Resolve and Baselight haven't been steadily improving.

It is not EOL, although you can no longer buy a standalone Lustre license. It is included as part of Flame Premium. We used Lustre because the DI was going to be done using Lustre (that's what Steve Scott and his team use) and it was Chivo's request to have a workflow that would allow the work done for dailies to be used directly in the DI if desired. It never actually was used in the DI, but the request was honored.

 

[Corey_O]

Maybe not, but the colorist(s) who were responsible for the dailies in Calgary would refer to it the same way...

Chivo is acutely aware of what can be done in post, and designed the shooting plan for this picture based on using both production and post techniques together to achieve the ultimate result (much as he did on "Gravity"). He knew that with minimal or no supplemental lighting, there would be shots that would move from near darkness to bright light, and thus require dynamic rebalancing in post. To that end, a full Lustre grading system was used for dailies, installed in a trailer in Calgary (a Resolve setup was used in Argentina, but that was only about 2 weeks of shooting, as I recall), and "full" color grading was done on each and every shot, with dynamic changes, area isolations, and numerous other techniques used so that Chivo could confirm that what he was doing was going to work all the way through the process. None of it was random, and none of it was "fixing mistakes." The work done in the DI was expected and planned, and part of the overall design right from the start. It might have become a bit more extensive because of Chivo's (and Steve Scott's) attention to detail and striving for perfection, but it was not some out of control fix-it session. It was a required step in finishing a picture shot primarily in natural, uncontrolled lighting conditions, and was planned for right from the beginning.

I would guess that the vast majority of those making comments here were not involved in either production or post on this picture, and are simply guessing as to what was and and was not done, and why. That's part of the curse of the Internet, where everyone gets to speak as if they know what they're talking about and everyone else has to figure out who actually does. Unfortunately, this leads to an atmosphere in which serious, informative discussion is derailed in favor of wild speculation that is intended to somehow "prove" that what was done, and how it was done, wasn't as complex or difficult as it might actually have been. Or that post techniques had somehow diluted the end result. Except that in this case, it actually WAS difficult and complex, and the post approach was both enhancing to the final product and planned from the beginning.

Interesting.

Others tried or lesson learned?

The final grade for theatrical release……Chivo or Studio?