Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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 :)

Ummm...Pirates 4....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mark Collins

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
431
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Toronto, On
Ok, so after much discussion with a lot of other people in the circle of people I know in the industry, I feel I have heard enough opinions on the look of Pirates 4 to openly discuss it on here and hear more opinions about it.

Note, any of you who have seen my previous posts, this is again not a Red friendly post....(film fan right here)

Anyway, I've seen Pirates 4 in both 2D and 3D at this point, on digital projectors, and after a lot of discussion I am very disappointed with the look of the film. The aspects I am most disappointed with are the 3D and the texture/feel. Resolution and colour rendition are fine.

3D
This is the film that convinced me that 3D is pointless. The only 2 films I have seen that have had passable 3D are Avatar and Drive Angry 3D strangely enough. My Bloody Valentine, though not in 3D, had a 3D look to it on the 2D version that convinced me the 3D would be pretty decent on that film as well. But I digress, I'm not sure if the issue is stereographers not shooting with a wide enough I/O, or if they're setting their parallaxes wrong, but Pirates had very little depth to it. Anything that did stand out looked like a cardboard cutout. No matter what went wrong, in the end the 3D did not work at all. It did nothing for the film and kind of took me out of the story (what little there was). As cheesy as it may be to throw stuff at the camera, it works. If gives you that feeling of depth that is needed with 3D. It worked amazingly for Drive Angry (as cheesy and entertaining as that film was). Avater didn't throw anything at the camera, but the parallax was set on just the right plane to provide an even balance between positive and negative parallax, which really helped the illusion along.

Texture/Feel
And this is the reason why I strongly dislike digital. Dariusz is a very, very talented DP, so don't take this as me saying he isn't. He is very accomplished and in terms of composition and lighting for his films. That being said, when I watched this film the screen seemed to scream RED at me like a drunk man shouting in the streets. It's in your face that this was shot digital, and no matter how you colour correct it, digital will never replicate the look of film properly. My personal opinion is that it was a massive mistake to shoot digital. The first three films had this amazing, rich texture to them that made the art come alive. The grain of the wood on the ships, the feel of the sea, and the rough texture of the stones and rocks. All of it was smoothed out way to much with digital, wiped from existence. This is not something you can throw a number at and say that "format x is better at it than format y and here are the stats to prove it." This is the look that you get when you shoot film. That natural grain that comes with a film stock adds so much more life to the image. From a directing side, it makes the story feel more engaging. It gives it a depth that I feel digital will never capture. So in closing with this, digital felt, to me, like the wrong format for this film. It's a film that takes place in the past, and as such that texture and feel would have added so much more to this film.

(Note: I'm not 100% against digital, but if I have to shoot it my camera of choice is the Alexa)

Let the angry words begin....
 
sorry you didn't like it mark.

i for one will be interested what you say when you've actually shot something on alexa... or red... or film. sorry man, lots of opinions there without much basis. no one's going to make you change those, but you owe it to yourself to form those based on experience, not what we've all seen in the theatres.
 
Mark, i am 100 percent sure, that 99% of the audience did think that the biggest grossing movie of the year was shot on film.
 
Mark, i am 100 percent sure, that 99% of the audience did thing that the biggest grossing movie of the year was shot on film.

I'm even more sure that about 90% of those didn't really care one way or the other.
 
Mark, I'm confused by your comment. From what I've seen on Alexa which you like, it's a very soft image lacking in texture, but you talk of the rich texture of film you like. To me, Pirates didn't look very red at all, it had a nice warm texture to it and I'd have said "rich". I don't see how you can say it screams red when it looks so unlike Social Network or District 9 or Che or...

Albert
 
So... If your medium of choice is film and your digital camera of choice is Alexa, why does your profile pic show you with a handicam? Just askin'...
 
Oh snap.
 
Mark, since you saw it with digital projection both times so far, I recommend you try to screen it on a film print now to compare. I saw it projected from a 35mm print.
Give the MX sensor some light and it really shines. I few of the really dark shots in POTC4 showed some digital noise traits, but even film would have had excessive grain under the same conditions. A few people like to point out blown highlights, but I think they really where seeing more of a digital projector clipping than RED. I'm very happy with REDs performance in this film.
 
I wonder if you would have had the same view if you didn't know it was shot on Red before seeing it. Since you knew it was not shot on film before you saw it, you were already predisposed to not like the feel and texture. Maybe your opinion will change once Spiderman 4 comes out. Maybe it won't.
 
This is the most ignorant post I have ever read on this forum.

But I do like you Mark otherwise. :)

-michael zaletel
 
If it wasn't for reading reduser and knowing what all these films are shot on, i'd love to be able to blind "taste test" them and see how I feel without knowing what they're shot on.

Albert
 
as others have pointed out elsewhere, another variable is the projector and its setup. I'm not clear on all the details but suffice it so say, it is possible to get a digital projector setup to make a basically good image look bad- and it definitely happens.
 
This is the most ignorant post I have ever read on this forum.

But I do like you Mark otherwise. :)

-michael zaletel


I doubt that. I've read some really dumb posts here. Hell I've made quite a few.

I don't think his post is ignorant at all. It's just a very unpopular opinion (especially here), but it's a very valid one. This is an opinion that is shared by many people in the industry all over the world. If not film, then Alexa. Red still has huge uphill battle to gain legitimacy in the eyes of all professionals. Some people still think it over heats, isn't really 4K etc.
 
Mark,

Thank you for share your opinion,

I agree with you 100% on “Dariusz Wolski is a very, very talented DP” and this is "not a Red friendly post”.

Although you post is based on a personal feelings more than cinematography, I respect what you said on it, a very valid opinion. But I will suggest when you post a comment against digital cinematography, in a forum where digital cinematography and a digital cinema camera company are the main subject and host, respectively, do it in a less confrontational tone. I am sure you will have more positive reactions if you do not use sentences like “Note, any of you who have seen my previous posts, this is again not a Red friendly post....(film fan right here)” or “Let the angry words begin....”
I am sure you will have the same negative reaction if you post a comment like that on Phantom, Alexa or any similar forums.
 
If it wasn't for reading reduser and knowing what all these films are shot on, i'd love to be able to blind "taste test" them and see how I feel without knowing what they're shot on.

Albert
Have a look at the tests shot by John Brawley (Australian DOP) which someone posted a link to in another thread... http://vimeo.com/24488998
Then you can play that game... :-) Make sure you read John's comments though, and understand where he was going with this...
 
Funny, I felt the complete opposite. This was one of the best looking 3D Hollywood films (shot digitally) I've seen so far. I saw it in a real D cinema, don't know if it was film or digital projection (I'm inclined to say it was film). Didn't felt the image looked dark- SMALL SPOILER -the dark mermaids attack scene was well lit and looked good, IMO. Texture felt good, nice detail (maybe too much in some cases concerning actors faces).

All in all, an impressive display of RED picture and much better than Resident Evil 3D. The fact Pirates was a better film with better script, actors, etc. probably had an effect on this comparison, though. Didn't feel the 3D distracting at all, and it worked in those amazing Wide shots.
 
I think somebody is mistaking RedUSer for his blog. What is the point of this thread ? Its like walking into a bar full of Red Sox fans and declaring how terrible the Red Sox are... nothing good could come from it.

If you desire respectful discussion, you should start by being respectful. Everyone here has already heard the same film vs. digital argument over and over. Frankly, I think most people are tired of it. Its been settled already. If you think film is better, than you are right. If you think digital is better, you are also right. If you think they are so close that 99% of the people can't tell the difference, then you actually are right :) No need to go back and forth with the advantages and disadvantages. No need to start threads designed to piss people off. Certainly no need to imply that Dariusz Wolski doesn't know which format will be best for his films.
 
sorry you didn't like it mark.

i for one will be interested what you say when you've actually shot something on alexa... or red... or film. sorry man, lots of opinions there without much basis. no one's going to make you change those, but you owe it to yourself to form those based on experience, not what we've all seen in the theatres.

I have shot on film. SUper 8mm, 16mm, and Super35...

I've also shot Red, F900 and F35, as well as prosumer digital cameras.

I somewhat disagree with you on that I need to form this opinion on experience rather than what we've all seen in theatres. At the end of the day, the audience hasn't shot the film or been through the hellish post process. They've only got the theatre to rely on. That's why, when I go to see movies outside of premieres and test screenings, I go more as a consumer than a filmmaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top