Apocalypto Look

[James T Mather]

Hi all,

I went to see Apocalypto last night and came out reeling. Tough, Hard, Great cinema. Whatever about Mel Gibson said or his religious politics - this man is a born director IMHO. The film is visceral, bloody and utterly compelling. :eek: Hats off Mr. G.

That's the pros - now for the cons. Having watched Superman Returns and found the look pretty indistinguishable from clean Vision 2 stock on the whole - the opposite is true of Apocalypto. This is not geek nit picking - the look frequently kept dragging me out of the drama. :( Only the fact that Gibson's direction was so strong that forced me back in.

A lot of the film had a very "video" like texture (occasionally this would disappear in favour of a film-like look but there seemed to be no rhyme or reason for this). Some running shots looked videoish, others not. Some night exteriors looked film like, others like 18db digibeta. The motion characteristics, throughout, often exhibited a video-news quality (and not just on high speed stuff).:confused:

I can only guess that Mr. Semler - pushed for light on occasion - opted to open the shutter to maximize his shooting time under a dense canopy of foliage where light would be at a premium - and thus the motion characteristics change (the opposite of skinny shutter, if you will) - or on the occasional night shot - to overcrank the Genesis chip and thus some video noise. But I was surprised at the almost random way it came and went. Maybe it's just a characteristic of the Genesis look.

Anyone else notice this?

[Alex Boothby]

Two presumed culprits.

1.) the use of a 360 degree shutter or 'open shutter' (video smear / double motion blur.)

2.) the (possible) use of a lighter camera for some of the intense POV running footage. Possibly a HDV or HVX. This is just theory but a few shots convinced me of this.

[James T Mather]

Yep I thought of the shutter thing whilst watching - also some of the shots of the tapir running/ jaguar paw running looked like "lipstick" cam footage. (as in "attached" so something - meaning not a huge genesis camera).

At times too the depth of field seemed artificially large - like a smaller chip cam.

[baro]

[ On cinematography.net in the thread [cml-2k-444] Apocalypto noise reduction? Steven Poster writes: ]

At the ICG Local 600 Apocalypto screening last Saturday night Dean Semler said that most of the running shots were done on 16mm.

[ And Tim Sassoon replies: ]

With the A-Cam they rented, no doubt, which has a fixed 160 degree shutter.

[Alex Boothby]

Also I think they used film for much of the slow-mo (or Mel-cam as it is now called.)

[Roberto B]

Two presumed culprits.

1.) the use of a 360 degree shutter or 'open shutter' (video smear / double motion blur.)

this one is right..


2.) the (possible) use of a lighter camera for some of the intense POV running footage. Possibly a HDV or HVX. This is just theory but a few shots convinced me of this.

steadi mate.. it was a genesis over a steadi..

[Alex Boothby]

Gotta say it - i did love this film.

[James T Mather]

160 degree shutter which would imply an eyemo (obviously for size and mobility on running shots).

I can appreciate the theoretical value in using the 160deg shutter but unfortunately it begins to exhibit video like movement. (But hey, I guess if video had never been invented we would, no doubt, all be marveling at this "new" look)

[Roberto B]

eheheh..

[Salem Kapic]

Two presumed culprits.

1.) the use of a 360 degree shutter or 'open shutter' (video smear / double motion blur.)

yes this is reason for "videolike" filling... for no reason!!!:confused:

[Brook Willard]

There is an "Off Topic" forum now, guys. :)

[Alex Fostvedt]

To me it seemed that as soon as they moved the camera to much, it screamed video. When the camera had very little movement, such as the village scene, and the altar scence it looked great. It was hard to not notice the great scenes intercut by the video characteristics. Yes it did seem like there was some lipstick cam footy in there as well. Keeping the image consistent in feel, is such an easy rule to follow, and thus you are able to better hold the audience, even if it is subconciously.

[Tom Lowe]

The current issue of AC has a lengthy article about Apocalypto. Once I read it I will comment.

But yes, some have speculated that a "prosumer" HD camera like the HVX might have been used for some of the running scenes. And I do know that Semler used a wide open shutter angle for just the reason described in the OP -- to allow shooting in the dark jungle when the light began to go down.

[Thomas Mathai]

Having watched Superman Returns and found the look pretty indistinguishable from clean Vision 2 stock on the whole - the opposite is true of Apocalypto.


I had the opposite feeling for Superman Returns. I thought the look was very artifical, but it seemed to work with that film since it is a comic book.

I only saw a film print, but some shots looked very video, ala Dr. Who.

[Justin Anderson]

I had the opposite feeling for Superman Returns. I thought the look was very artifical, but it seemed to work with that film since it is a comic book.

I only saw a film print, but some shots looked very video, ala Dr. Who.

In what way?

[Thomas Mathai]

In what way?

A lot of the vfx shots with live action and CG elements did not seem to blend together as well, so it reminded me of the old game cinematics where they shot live action video with simple 3d backgrounds.

There was also a digital greyness to some of the shots that I have seen before with digital shot features. It just made me think of the older Dr Who episodes, where you were seeing film shot outside and video inside.

[James T Mather]

I'm not sure of your definition of the video look Thomas, but I characterise it as temporal motion cadence (as in excessive motion blur due generally to field sampling), chip artifacts (as in pixel visibility on hi-contrast low-angle edges (stepping), occasional chroma crawl on high colour edges such as Reds etc, pixel strobing on hi contrast surfaces such as herringbone or window blinds, luminance/chroma noise due to (generally unusual) use of the gain function) and finally compressed contrast curve due to inherent characteristics of electronic sensors - none of which I saw in Superman Returns - but many of which I saw in Apocalypto.

Film neg also exhibits a greyness generally as there is no absolutely solid D-max available in a cinema as leakage through the neg from projection light is inevitable.

What video aspects of Superman Returns bothered you? Or by artificial are you simply referring to a heavily CG posted and theatrically art directed film?

[Thomas Mathai]

You're analyzing video look in technical terms.

I meant video look like, certain shots just screamed wow this reminds me of Dr Who, or some of those other video sci fi stuff shows I grew up with.

I wouldn't say it bothered me, just that's what came to mind when I was watching the movie.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

i thought superman looked incredible.. didnt look like video to me at all. and i was looking for it

[James T Mather]

my point exactly. Agreed.

[Lucas Wilson]

Professional cinematographers, who are used to critically analyzing images, can't decide about whether a film looked "video-y" or not. They can't decide and argue on forums online and in person about whether the look of this digital film "worked" or "didn't work."

Just the fact that professionals are even arguing about that - are even considering digital images in the same context as 35mm - is an impressive statement of how far digital acquisition has come... and how far there is to go!

Lucas

[Tom Lowe]

Well Apocalypto was nominated by the ASC for best cinematography, so that is a huge landmark victory for HD in and of itself.

BTW, the running handheld stuff was shot with a super 16mm Ikonoskop A-cam (http://www.ikonoskop.se/cases/index.asp)

Can we assume that this camera has video-like depth of field?

[Lucas Wilson]

Well Apocalypto was nominated by the ASC for best cinematography, so that is a huge landmark victory for HD...

A few years ago, a film called Quattro Noza (now called Streets of Legend) was the first non film-based feature to win Best Cinematography at Sundance.

I remember thinking to myself that was the beginning of the "serious" cinematographic community recognizing that non-film acquisition could be beautiful and valid at the high-end of imagery and creativity.

Lucas

[Thomas Mathai]

Well Apocalypto was nominated by the ASC for best cinematography, so that is a huge landmark victory for HD in and of itself.

BTW, the running handheld stuff was shot with a super 16mm Ikonoskop A-cam (http://www.ikonoskop.se/cases/index.asp)

Can we assume that this camera has video-like depth of field?

Smaller gauge film formats always had greater depth of field.

Super 8 would have greather depth of field than anything else, and IMAX would have shallower depth of field than anything else.

[Tom Lowe]

Smaller gauge film formats always had greater depth of field.

Super 8 would have greather depth of field than anything else, and IMAX would have shallower depth of field than anything else.

do you think these super 16 running shots could have been mistaken for a "video-y" look?

[Alex Fostvedt]

The shots could look video-y if the film was sped up in post. The frame rate could have been overcranked, as soon as you start messing around with frame transfer rates, film will have a more video look. Example- If the original footage was shot at 24fps, and transfered normally, you will have the great film look, but if the footage was shot at 24fps but transfered at a higher rate to speed up the film, it will look like video.

[Tom Lowe]

Good point, Alex.

[Corrado Silveri]

Film often looks better because film people have more experience and understand their medium better. Film shooters understand their tools and how to bring out the subtleties.

Videographers must be prepared to learn the language that film shooters have built over the last 100 years.

It's a language made up of camera movements, filtering techniques, subtleties of focus, and depth of field. And it's a language coming into the video world through the gateway of high-definition television.

-HD pioneer Pierre de Lespinois

[Corrado Silveri]

FYI:

http://www.internetcampus.com/filmtap.htm

[Laco Zamba]

I saw this film yesterday

1. too much bloody and drastic scenes :-(
2. running scenes were too much smooth - it looked like interlaced video

[Tom Lowe]

2. running scenes were too much smooth - it looked like interlaced video

It did look interlaced in places...

[Laco Zamba]

I mean interlaced = smooth
I didn't see odd and even lines of course, but motion was very smooth. Maybe it was really overcranked and then speed up.
It was like TV shots integrated into film. Very strange and disrupting.

[Laco Zamba]

My digest from cinematography.net:

The most obvious non-film artifact was the deliberate use of the longer
shutter speeds, even in the first scene, causing a lot of smearing in
fast motion. Sometimes this had a poetic, abstract effect during the
action scenes, other times it gave the motion a somewhat
"interlaced-scan" quality, in the sense that 60i at 1/60th has some of
that laggy but smooth quality. When combined with shots with gain
boosting at night, one shot with a lot of lagging / blurring / noise
almost felt like a compression artifact.

But overall, I was really impressed by the quality of the image.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles



I thought the smearing/long shutter effect, in the chase sequences, was (aestethically motivated or not) one of the few things that stood out as "HD", as well.

My eyes must be acclimating to this stuff.

Chris Fernando
1AC
Los Angeles, CA



Film was shot 95% on HD with the Genesis. My footage was all 35mm but while on the set, I spoke a lot with Mr. Semler and all was being shot with the Genesis. They had 6 or 8 on the set.

The secuences shot in Costa Rica were practically all the vast extention shots such as: vistas of forests, mountains, sunrises, sunsets, waterfalls, clouds, volcanoes, etc. All of these shots were done with an Arri 435 with Panavision prime lenses.

Mario Cardona
Producer, DP
ZEN entertainment

[goal]

I just saw this movie last night with a friend of mine. We both agreed that it was a very good movie in most respects. However after about an hour my friend (who is not into the whole film industry whatsoever) said to me: 'It's great, but sometimes the film just doesn't cut it. It doesn't feel like I'm a few centuries back in time...but more as if this was happening right now somewhere in the jungle...it feels as if I'm watching a good homevideo every now and then. Really strange.'

[James T Mather]

subconciously or not the "video" look stood out it seems.

[azadfilm-jami]

JTM its so true i also felt it and asked my wife during the film that some panning and running shots looked videoish. i had no idea it was shot on Genesis. Superman was perfect.

[kidrobot]

Someone said already on page 1 that the running shots were done with a 16mm A-Cam. This was confirmed in a very recent interview with Ikonoskop from IBC (for some mac video site).

[David Mullen ASC]

There were a LOT of running shots in that movie! The movie is practically 80% shots of people running...

The 16mm A-cam shots were those odd wide-angle POV shots where the camera was held right in front of the face of the runner, or the reverse, some shaky crashing through leaves POV shots. There were not a lot of those shots in the movie.

The smeary video-ish running shots that most people here are talking about were the ones shot on the Genesis with the long shutter speeds. There are a LOT of those shots in the movie, starting from the very beginning with the pig chase.

[Charles Angus]

I'm not sure of your definition of the video look Thomas, but I characterise it as temporal motion cadence (as in excessive motion blur due generally to field sampling), chip artifacts (as in pixel visibility on hi-contrast low-angle edges (stepping), occasional chroma crawl on high colour edges such as Reds etc, pixel strobing on hi contrast surfaces such as herringbone or window blinds, luminance/chroma noise due to (generally unusual) use of the gain function) and finally compressed contrast curve due to inherent characteristics of electronic sensors - none of which I saw in Superman Returns - but many of which I saw in Apocalypto.

Film neg also exhibits a greyness generally as there is no absolutely solid D-max available in a cinema as leakage through the neg from projection light is inevitable.

What video aspects of Superman Returns bothered you? Or by artificial are you simply referring to a heavily CG posted and theatrically art directed film?

You missed the (in my opinion) most important feature of the video look:
too much detail/sharpening (Hardly any is too much for my taste).

DI's go through a sharpening step, unless you specifically ask them not to, which I believe almost no-one does.