just saw Zodiac

[dalemccready]

Just got back from the movies. I thought Zodiac was great, though tiring. I thought Harris Savides did an amazing job and the film looked way better than I thought it would. The first few shots at night look really tapey but then it gets going and all the interiors are amazing and the colour is very good. you can see where he's battled the shoulder, but I think overall he won.

A different look than any other film I've seen I think.

Thoughts?

[Álex Montoya]

A very good flic.

[Jason Murphy]

Agree - it looks great; definitely the best looking HD originated film I've seen.

Also...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2434

[M Taylor]

[QUOTE=JasonMurphy;45236]Agree - it looks great; definitely the best looking HD originated film I've seen.

I also agree. Just got back from seeing the film myself. Definitely a different feel to Se7en and Fight Club, but I did enjoy the slow burn of the story.

I thought it looked very clean, though the noise reduction mentioned in other post would guarantee that I guess. Excellent lighting too, and I have to say, there's something about seeing anamorphic done well on the big screen that makes you feel like it was worth paying your money rather than wait for the DVD.

Of the many things I've gleaned from this forum over months, one thing right up the top is, yes shooting digital can save a lot of money in stock and processing costs and in RED's case is also a step up in image quality, but the lighting budget and schedule has to remain untouched if you want a quality look, ZODIAK is a good example of this.

If all this was achieved with a 2/3" chip then that all bodes very well for RED.

[Tom Lowe]

I'm looking forward to seeing this one on HD-DVD.

[Brandon Fraley]

Of the many things I've gleaned from this forum over months, one thing right up the top is, yes shooting digital can save a lot of money in stock and processing costs and in RED's case is also a step up in image quality, but the lighting budget and schedule has to remain untouched if you want a quality look, ZODIAK is a good example of this.

actully you can bet that digital features these days actually cost MORE than the would if they shot film. Hopefully RED will change all that.

[PaulClements]

actully you can bet that digital features these days actually cost MORE than the would if they shot film. Hopefully RED will change all that.

I'd second that for one distinct reason. The amount of Red's in the market will mean there will be a far greater wealth of people with the knowledge to shoot digitally with this camera. I'm sure more so than the Viper or others in time. With that spread of knowledge the methods of shooting with that system and understanding how to setup for it will be better documented, quicker and more efficient than other digital cinema cameras that not all can afford access too or simply cannot get enough time using it to become properly aqcuainted. The availabilty of it to low budget productions and Indie movies means that shooters lower down the ladder will learn how to (Or perhaps how not too) shoot with it. It'll be interesting to see some real duff's shot with RedOne, if only to learn how they did it and then avoid it like the plague :)

[M Taylor]

actully you can bet that digital features these days actually cost MORE than the would if they shot film. Hopefully RED will change all that.

I'm curious to exactly what part of process costs more, where are they going wrong? Do you save some money on film stock but then spend all that and more on noise reduction, reshoots and careful grading to conceal inadequacies of the HD format, or DOPs are taking longer to get lighting right?

[PaulClements]

I guess the savings made with digital won't be that big in the studio world. It'll be more noticable on the lower/indie budgets.

[Nik Manning]

I will have to check out Zodiac because I thought Superman was the best HD shot movie I have seen so far.

[Tom Lowe]

Superman did indeed look pretty good. Miami Vice wasn't too shabby, either, although it looked more video-y than Superman.

[James T Mather]

I though Miami Vice looked horrible and cheap. Like it was shot on Hi8 . Just IMHO.

[Blaine Golden]

I really enjoyed Zodiac and thought it looked great.

[dalemccready]

I will have to check out Zodiac because I thought Superman was the best HD shot movie I have seen so far.

Actually true, it's amazing how quickly I'd forgotten that Superman Returns was Genesis and just put it in the movie bin in my head.

Superman Returns did look very good. I'll be interested to see what you think, they are very different looks.

[Robert Sanders]

I thought Superman looked great. However, I'm really growing a distaste for what Mann is doing with HD cinemarography. He's really not helping the cause. I understand what he's trying to achieve, but it just looks terrible IMO.

Not to mention that Miami Vice was a childhood favorite of mine and the movie sucked balls let alone the cinematography.

[Tom Lowe]

I though Miami Vice looked horrible and cheap. Like it was shot on Hi8 . Just IMHO.

well it was very stylized and had a lot of DOF, that's true.

what HD movies do you think were well shot?

there aren't that many!

apocalypto was good cinematography, but it did have its "video" moments.

[Jason Murphy]

It's not necessarily stunning or flashy cinematography, but the brilliant French thriller Caché (directed by Michael Haneke) was shot on HD, and it worked extraordinarily well for the film, which involved an unknown person surveilling/stalking a French family.

[Fergus Meiklejohn]

Ah.. I thought Cache was film:blink: It seems that loads of films have been captured digitally but their not shouting about it.. It's a shame.
I finally saw Zodiac last night and thought the 1080p resolution was not a big problem, but that sometimes the highlights did that ugly, clipped but brought back in post thing, especially on people's faces, and that a few shots were very flat and colourless; a reverse on Jake Gyllenhaal stood out as very flat..

I don't know if that is a camera thing..

My biggest aesthetic gripe wth digital (including DSLR's) is how they react to bright highlights. The scene in the boat with Robert Downey Jr had that look. Maybe it just reminds me too much of Digibeta and TV. I know nothing eh, but I suspect Dynamic range is the key:greedy:

[James T Mather]

Re: Miami Vice


well it was very stylized and had a lot of DOF, that's true.

It also looked like the gain function had been used to excess and the lighting was being carried by the bottom of the exposure curve (ie: looked like natural lighting at night) - which produced colour shifts and huge amounts of dirty noise - a general lack of resolution throughout the film and motion artifacts that I would generally associate with a sony 900. generally pretty yuck all around.


what HD movies do you think were well shot?

I thought superman and zodiac were great looking films.



there aren't that many!

agreed.



apocalypto was good cinematography, but it did have its "video" moments.

I thought apocalypto was stunning - but didn't like the look at all - really screamed video IMHO and kept pulling me out of the narrative - Mr gibson's relentless direction however kept forcing me back into the story.

[dalemccready]

Cache was excellent. The use of the camera in the film was great. After the POV is established, any wide shot held static for any period of time started to be questionable...was it a POV of the stalker or was it just another shot? Really clever. Not particularly satisfying when the lights come up, but hugely satisfying afterward over coffee or wine.