The Witcher (Netflix Original) - Shot on Panavision Millennium DXL2

[Neil Abeynayake]

The Witcher (Netflix Original)
TV-MA | 1h | Action, Adventure, Drama | TV Series (2019– )

Geralt of Rivia, a solitary monster hunter, struggles to find his place in a world where people often prove more wicked than beasts.

Creator: Lauren Schmidt Hissrich
Stars: Henry Cavill, Freya Allan, Anya Chalotra, Mimi Ndiweni

Storyline

The Witcher is an American fantasy drama web television series created by Lauren Schmidt Hissrich for Netflix. It is based on the book series of the same name by Polish writer Andrzej Sapkowski. The Witcher follows the story of Geralt of Rivia, a solitary monster hunter, who struggles to find his place in a world where people often prove more wicked than monsters and beasts. But when destiny hurtles him toward a powerful sorceress, and a young princess with a special gift, the three must learn to navigate independently the increasingly volatile Continent.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5180504/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Technical Specifications
Showing all 8 technical specifications
Runtime 1 hr (60 min)
Sound Mix Stereo | Dolby Atmos
Color Color
Aspect Ratio 2.00 : 1
Camera Panavision Millennium DXL2, Panavision Primo 70 Lenses
Negative Format DXL RAW (8K)
Cinematographic Process DXL RAW (8K) (source format)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Printed Film Format Video (Ultra HD)



.

 

[Joe Cage]

I did not like the cinematography on the show(not even talking about the vfx/directing/story). But I am wondering why though, is it because they used really deep focus(for vfx reasons), the lighting at times is flat and unnatural looking or is it the 8K,the grade, is it all of the above?

Also confused why so many people like this show, at times I feel like I am watching a Hercules or Xena episode. And thats not a good thing in 2019 or 2020, where you are automatically will compare this to other fantasy series or shows like GOT or Lord of the rings.

 

[Brad Grimm]

I did not like the cinematography on the show(not even talking about the vfx/directing/story). But I am wondering why though, is it because they used really deep focus(for vfx reasons), the lighting at times is flat and unnatural looking or is it the 8K,the grade, is it all of the above?

Also confused why so many people like this show, at times I feel like I am watching a Hercules or Xena episode. And thats not a good thing in 2019 or 2020, where you are automatically will compare this to other fantasy series or shows like GOT or Lord of the rings.

The show is so bad that I guess its good for some people. But yeah. for 15 million an episode (what I've read) I have no idea where that money went.

 

[James Sielaff]

...or is it the 8K?

If you didn’t watch it in 8K, then i doubt it is because of the 8K.

 

[Phil Holland]

Heh. One of the biggest hits of the year. I suspect if you're not into it, the books or the game didn't appeal to you for sure. But much like GOT, this one has legs. Several seasons for sure.

 

[Joe Cage]

Heh. One of the biggest hits of the year. I suspect if you're not into it, the books or the game didn't appeal to you for sure. But much like GOT, this one has legs. Several seasons for sure.

Have not read the books, the game is somewhat fun. Yeah I fear also that this show gets multiple seasons, maybe they will get it right with the second season(cinematography and storytelling wise). The storytelling is basicly nothing more then, new monster pops up, Geralt defeats it. But maybe its just a personal preference. (I watched the rise of skywalker yesterday and while the movie sucked, I found the cinematography really impressive, and then I was reading some comments afterwards online and people were complaining they did not like the look (too much flashing, I LOVED THAT) and they preferred the look of "The Witcher". And I was like, can I even take these people seriously or is my taste so off..

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Coming in with much hype and at a budget as large as the last season of the biggest show in history (reads GOT) I was a bit disappointed jumping in the first few episodes, but that changed and by the viewing of the last episode I am now looking forward to future Seasons and see how the stories unfold.

 

[Kevin Marshall]

Have not read the books, the game is somewhat fun. Yeah I fear also that this show gets multiple seasons, maybe they will get it right with the second season(cinematography and storytelling wise). The storytelling is basicly nothing more then, new monster pops up, Geralt defeats it. But maybe its just a personal preference. (I watched the rise of skywalker yesterday and while the movie sucked, I found the cinematography really impressive, and then I was reading some comments afterwards online and people were complaining they did not like the look (too much flashing, I LOVED THAT) and they preferred the look of "The Witcher". And I was like, can I even take these people seriously or is my taste so off..

That is generally how the first two books, which this first season mostly adapts, are written. They are a collection of short stories following Geralt's adventures and are for the most part unrelated and unconnected. But yeah, much of the nuance and depth is lost when an 80ish-page story is condensed to ~20min of screen time. The following five books are a saga of novels, so a bit more straightforward for adaptation. Geralt also does significantly less monster hunting as we're drawn into Ciri's future, the machinations of the Sorcerers and the Northern Kingdoms, their conflict with Nilfgaard, a non-human insurgency against human hegemony, and how they all intertwine with some good old prophecy and other high-fantasy bits.

Cinematography was definitely uneven. A few too many dutch angles for my taste, and the letterboxed defocusing that feels more like a post effect than an actual lens coverage issue was distracting. There was some stuff that I liked a lot, like the striga fight in 103, and the fight sequence in 101. But most felt pretty replacement-level. Not necessarily bad, just nothing super-interesting.

 

[Christopher A. Bell]

I finished it a few days ago and overall I’d give it maybe a B/B-. It definitely got better a few episodes in. Some of the jumping back and forth in time can be a little confusing as is keeping track of some of the characters/names. I agree, some of it did feel very “Xena:Warrior Princess” , “Hercules” or the CW series “The Outpost” with some scenes having the look of low-budget soundstage with very flat lighting. Even watching the last few episodes on my new 120” projector, it still felt kind of small. Definitely does not have the grandeur and scope of GoT, where you feel like you’re in a big, expansive world.

I’ll watch the next season, if there is one, but for $15 mill/episode(if true) I hope they step it up.

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

It did not look good, unfortunately. Some of the reason was poor lighting choices.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

So I am late to the party here. I noticed oval bokeh in later episodes of Season 1, especially in the forest. "Panavision Primo Lenses" could describe both spherical and anamorphic lenses. Does anybody know which lenses are generally used where, and have thoughts on how the mixing of types works in this series?

 

[josephharbuck]

Have not read the books, the game is somewhat fun. Yeah I fear also that this show gets multiple seasons, maybe they will get it right with the second season(cinematography and storytelling wise). The storytelling is basicly nothing more then, new monster pops up, Geralt defeats it. But maybe its just a personal preference. (I watched the rise of skywalker yesterday and while the movie sucked, I found the cinematography really impressive, and then I was reading some comments afterwards online and people were complaining they did not like the look (too much flashing, I LOVED THAT) and they preferred the look of "The Witcher". And I was like, can I even take these people seriously or is my taste so off..I'm an essay writer and our essay helper on https://essayhub.com/ writing service is most of the time gotten in touch with to offer essays to students in college or university.

Well I've tried playing other games and didn't really enjoy them. I'm not a big fan of the pixel style, they tend to have more upsides but also more downsides. I did a side by side of the sun breaking through the clouds in The Witcher 3 versus the sun cresting over the horizon in Oblivion, and the quality/graininess difference in one was extreme. Also Oblivion and Skyrim both had beautiful landscapes, and The Witcher was usually excellent but some areas were marred by dull textures and garbage coloration. But book and writing are the best things that can ever be.

 

[RussellAnderson]

When I found out that Netflix was going to shoot a series based on my favorite book, I immediately realized that nothing good could be expected.

Firstly, I don't understand at all, why shoot adaptations? If you don't keep anything from the original story except names, isn't it easier to come up with your own? Why take all familiar characters and change characters, destinies. This is just fanfiction.

Secondly, I don't understand how with so much money you can make such a cheap picture.

"The Witcher" is a children's fairy tale. I wanted to see something like IP: adult, real, tough. In a series of games, they recreated a more realistic world: they also tell their own story, but it looks like a part of Sapkowski's WORLD.

The series is hard to believe: cartoon emotions and battles (straight "Cinderella"), fairies, balls and songs in the best traditions of Disney. And this whole kindergarten is stuffed with nudity. What audience was it filmed for? Caricature boring dialogues that are difficult to listen to. The word "destiny" is added to each pathetic.

Henry Cavill is not suitable for the main role: I would prefer to see someone more charismatic, without the voice of the terminator and the mop on the head.

Elves differ from humans only by their ears.

All stories are told stupidly, SENSE is completely lost. By the way, no one will explain to you what kind of "Pairing Spheres" and so on - google)) This was filmed for fans of a series of games and books ... (spoiler: the fans did not like it).

And it seems that there is something good in the series, for example, music (which is VERY similar to music from games?), There are interesting shots ... but the narrative is so unrealistic, boring, peculiar that it is difficult to watch.

The heroes have no charisma at all, many cool characters have been cut out, and boring left ones have been added. Strange actions that jump with a spread of 50 years without identification marks, events, emotions - all this smells like some kind of cheap kinets.

 

[Neil Abeynayake]

When I found out that Netflix was going to shoot a series based on my favorite book, I immediately realized that nothing good could be expected.

Firstly, I don't understand at all, why shoot adaptations? If you don't keep anything from the original story except names, isn't it easier to come up with your own? Why take all familiar characters and change characters, destinies. This is just fanfiction.

Secondly, I don't understand how with so much money you can make such a cheap picture.

"The Witcher" is a children's fairy tale. I wanted to see something like IP: adult, real, tough. In a series of games, they recreated a more realistic world: they also tell their own story, but it looks like a part of Sapkowski's WORLD.

The series is hard to believe: cartoon emotions and battles (straight "Cinderella"), fairies, balls and songs in the best traditions of Disney. And this whole kindergarten is stuffed with nudity. What audience was it filmed for? Caricature boring dialogues that are difficult to listen to. The word "destiny" is added to each pathetic.

Henry Cavill is not suitable for the main role: I would prefer to see someone more charismatic, without the voice of the terminator and the mop on the head.

Elves differ from humans only by their ears.

All stories are told stupidly, SENSE is completely lost. By the way, no one will explain to you what kind of "Pairing Spheres" and so on - google)) This was filmed for fans of a series of games and books ... (spoiler: the fans did not like it).

And it seems that there is something good in the series, for example, music (which is VERY similar to music from games?), There are interesting shots ... but the narrative is so unrealistic, boring, peculiar that it is difficult to watch.

The heroes have no charisma at all, many cool characters have been cut out, and boring left ones have been added. Strange actions that jump with a spread of 50 years without identification marks, events, emotions - all this smells like some kind of cheap kinets.

While your assertions have some merit, we here are discussing of cinematics and it's processes making the movie. We leave movie critics to vent their grievances on relevant forums. REDUser forum may not be one of them IMHO.

 

[David Hamlin]

Witcher

Witcher

Oh, I've always loved reading fiction more than watching films. But I can't say that the Witcher movie didn't impress me.

 

[Neil Abeynayake]

So I am late to the party here. I noticed oval bokeh in later episodes of Season 1, especially in the forest. "Panavision Primo Lenses" could describe both spherical and anamorphic lenses. Does anybody know which lenses are generally used where, and have thoughts on how the mixing of types works in this series?

Sorry Mike, it took some time to respond. Here's what you were asking about and more.

Camera selection:

Panavision Millennium DXL2, Panavision C-, D- and E-Series Lenses (season 1)
Red Monstro, Panavision C-, D- and E-Series Lenses (season 1)

Arri Alexa LF, Arri DNA LF Lenses (season 2)
Arri Alexa Mini LF, Arri DNA LF Lenses (season 2)



Cinematography process:

Panavision (anamorphic) (source format) (season 1)
Redcode RAW (8K) (source format) (season 1)

ARRIRAW (4.5K) (source format) (season 2)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)

Season 1, best viewd on a OLED TV. Season 2, Any 4k TV.

 

[Neil Abeynayake]

The quality and Low-Light capture resolution went down way too low once the production and DP's changed it to NONE-RED cameras and mentally challenged lighting arrangements to fit their camera of choice. I have been in MANY ARRI sponsored lighting sessions conducted by ARRI fan loving DPs. I really wanted to walk out during their demonstrations or show and tell events. Almost all of hose DoP's NEVER use a "Light Meter" during their setups. The unionized grip members were asking for numbers to input to lighting control devices or panels, and them DPs didn't have a clue how to give them that info. Almost all of them DPs were telling the lighting guys "Add a bit more here, take down a little here on this side." Grip folks must have been more qualified to do DP's jobs than them ARRI user DP's.