Zodiac

[Jeff Carpenter]

Went to see ZODIAC Friday night. I enjoyed it, but one of the reasons I went to see it, was to see if it had any tell-tale "video" look in the scenes.

It was shot on a Thomson VIPER FilmStream Camera with Zeiss Digiprime Lenses.

Technical specs:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443706/technical

Anyway, from my limited experience, it looked very film-like. No "video" artifacts that I could see.

I would assume most people in the audience would assume it was shot on film, as it had no obvious differences from film.

Any other thoughts from other people who've seen Zodiac, and their thoughts on the images captured.

Makes me more excited to see what is possible with RED.

- Jeff

[Brook Willard]

Just saw it tonight... it was fantastic. There were a few "non-film" moments, but it looked damn good. The lighting was peculiar - very "found" and devoid of much fill - but still effective. There were some places that looked very scaffoldy/power-windowsy/etc, but it was impressive nonetheless.

The most remarkable part of the movie's look was in the scenes with overexposure. There were scenes where the camera was facing directly into a very hot window or a completely blown-out storefront. The thing is... it didn't look bad. I was expecting some horrible clipped look, but it was pleasing. I wonder if any diffusion filters were used - it just looked much better than the overexposure I've seen in the past out of the Viper.

Anyhoo. It's late. Thumbs-up. See it for the movie and for the camera.

[P Andersson]

some red related issues in this article:


Photographed by Harris Savides, ASC, using the Viper, it boasts of being the first major Hollywood production that will exist as pure data from beginning to end. Having developed the Viper to his own specifications, Fincher bypassed tape for an S.two hard drive, and in the process captured the movie completely as 4:4:4 uncompressed HD, an impossibility with tape.

http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/winter2007/line_items/there_yet.php

[Brook Willard]

I noted that a "loader" was credited. Ironic.

[Finner]

I noted that a "loader" was credited. Ironic.

Well the DP needs someone to wipe his feet on.

[Blaine Golden]

I going to a screening on Wednesday with a Q&A with the screenwriter afterward. I guess I didn't realize it was not film. I'll pay more attention to the look than I normally do.

[Thomas Mathai]

I noted that a "loader" was credited. Ironic.

Someone's got to offload the data right?

[Thomas Mathai]

Zodiac was 144 TB of data, or 18 million frames that was "printed" Apparently Fincher just deleted takes he didn't like.

All data was archived to LTO3, and completely restored to QC data integrity.

Editing in FCP in DVCPro HD, they used a MySQL database to conform the edit to the DPX frames.

[Stephen Gentle]

Editing in FCP in DVCPro HD, they used a MySQL database to conform the edit to the DPX frames.

That's an interesting way of doing an online... I think it would be fun to play around with. It would be very easy if all the footage was stored in frames.

-Stephen

[Thomas Mathai]

That's an interesting way of doing an online... I think it would be fun to play around with. It would be very easy if all the footage was stored in frames.

-Stephen

Everything shot out of the Viper was 10bit DPX frames, that was converted to DVCPro HD. The DPX frames were backed up to LTO 3

[Evin Grant]

I went to the Cinerama Dome to see the digital projection and it didn't work so we watched a juttery, poorly timed print. No blacks at all! I'm beginning to get very fed up with film projections.

[Clayton Harper]

I liked the movie and found it to be very good looking. Keep in mind Savides has been printing up his blacks in the past few films. He really goes for this milky, low-contrast thing which suits HD very well.

The only thing that really, really bothered me were some weird skin tones in warm, low light. The skin either gets this weird yellowish-green cast to it or gets a redish-orange look. This look really bothered me in Superman Returns as well.

Did anybody else notice this?

[Sean]

Yup, I noticed weird colors in low light scenes. I didn't know this film was shot on a Viper. Just saw it last night, and I said twice during the film "I don't like the way this movie looks." I just assumed it was film. It didn't look "digital" to me, but the low light interiors had a really warm orange cast to them that didn't appeal to me. I just thought it was an aesthetic choice to recreate the 70s (did everyone look orange in the 70s?), but now I hear it was shot on a Viper and I wonder if the orange glow had something to do with being digital. That said, other parts of the film looked amazing so... I'm not sure.

[Chris Kenny]

Uncorrected footage from the Viper has a green cast, and I suspect the orange look is a result of whatever was done to get rid of that. If daylight exteriors looked fine, perhaps magenta filters were used to get rid of the extra green there, but they didn't want to give up the light in low-light shots, so they just shot with the green and got rid of in in post, turning things a little orange in the process.

I haven't seen the movie and I don't have any inside information, though.

[Thom Steinhoff]

I love David Fincher. I'll go out on a limb and against a few that I've heard chime in here and say that I think he is a brilliant filmmaker and one of the best. Very few filmmakers build mood and have the power to score nerves the way he can. Some here have bagged on the look of fight club or seven and I couldn't disagree with them more--it's not about the look--it's about the feeling and what he achieved in those films is amazing...

...but...

I saw Zodiac this weekend as well and in my case I will give Fincher the benefit of the doubt (the man is a genius so it can't be him) and say that everyone who sat between his hard drives and my local multiplex should be shot.

What I saw was flat, mushy blacks, funky colors /noise in the low light shots--it was so bad to my eyes that it was distracting. Like a "before" sequence in a color corrector's reel--something begging to be fixed.

"Gritty and Raw" are words I would use to describe fight club and 7 but with this screening of Zodiac i use words like "Muddy and Mush".

100 terabytes of dynamic range?--if it was truely there--I certainly didn't see it--I saw the dynamic range of DV. It could certainly be my theater trying to save bulb life on a Saturday afternoon combined with a bad print and a bad projectionist.

Again, when all else fails--shoot the projectionist but what I saw would be an argument to "stick to film" not a commercial to "see what you can do with Digital Cinema"?

If what I saw has any basis on the dynamic range they achieved, I would say it is Time to put the Vipers on E-bay with a $1 starting price and get what you can for them--I was at the Hollywood screening--Red is going to change everything.

[Omar Saad]

I saw it this weekend with a group of about 6 friends and family members, none of whom are filmmakers or anything other than the casual/average film fan. After the movie I mentioned to them that I thought it looked great for something shot on HD and they were all stunned. Every single one of them thought it was shot on film. It is interesting to note that 3 of the people I saw Zodiac with had also seen Collateral with me several years ago and they had mentioned after that movie that it had a distinctly video look. The point is that this probably looked good enough for the average viewer to believe it was shot on film.

I've got to say that I really loved Zodiac. I did not see it digitally projected and I thought that it looked great. I think the desaturated or slightly washed out look was clearly an aesthetic choice reminisent of other films covering the same time period that were shot on film.

The only scene that clearly jumped out at me as being "videoish" was when Ruffalo and Edwards charecters were at the Washington and Cherry crime scene where the cabbie was shot. There is one shot in particular where Ruffalo walks towards the camera from a distance and stops right in front of the lens as he is looking down the street. This is the only shot or scene that I felt reminded me in any way of the "videoish" looks in many of the scenes in Collateral. After this I am so excited to see what can be done on a RED.

thanks,
Omar

[Lucas Wilson]

Everything shot out of the Viper was 10bit DPX frames, that was converted to DVCPro HD. The DPX frames were backed up to LTO 3

Not exactly...

Everything that comes out of the Viper is dual-link HD RGB - SMPTE 292M. The S.Two DFR takes a dual-link signal and records it as DPX frames. But the Viper does not natively output data frames. It outputs a video stream as dual-link HD-RGB.

It's an important distinction...

Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
Los Angeles

[Illya Friedman]

Not exactly...

Everything that comes out of the Viper is dual-link HD RGB - SMPTE 292M. The S.Two DFR takes a dual-link signal and records it as DPX frames. But the Viper does not natively output data frames. It outputs a video stream as dual-link HD-RGB.

It's an important distinction...

Lucas Wilson
------------
ASSIMILATE, Inc.
Los Angeles

Another important distinction you might want to add to that... The Viper actually has 3x output modes, not one.

FilmStream (Dual link) HD-Stream (Single link) and RGB (Single).

Zodiac used FilmStream & S.Two, Miami Vice used RGB & SRW1.

I.

Illya Friedman
Dalsa
(also known for being the first place in LA to mate Vipers with Codex)

[Vincent S]

Here is a great breakdown on the workflow for Zodiac, plus a podcast.

http://www.fxguide.com/article376.html

[Jance Allen]

I just saw Zodiac in a dlp theater. I thought it looked good overall but there were definitely some hilites that clipped in a video way, to me. The nighttime exteriors, for example, with the glints on the cars. I don't know how much of that video look was the Viper or the dlp. 300 looked great on dlp, btw.

[Brainstorm]

Some here have bagged on the look of fight club or seven and I couldn't disagree with them more--it's not about the look--it's about the feeling and what he achieved in those films is amazing...

Anyone who can't appreciate the "masterful mood management" in both these films (even if they don't actually "like" the films) should go and make corporate films for a living.

Fincher knows how to thread his audience through the eye of a needle!

[Erik Bianchi]

Though I was caught up watching the film most of the time I did try and notice areas that werent filmic, and the only big thing i noticed was near the end of the film and there was a point where there was a lot of white and it was artifacting a bit. But i still enjoyed the overall feel of the film, it didnt feel sterile or videoesque.

[Thom Steinhoff]

Anyone who can't appreciate the "masterful mood management" in both these films (even if they don't actually "like" the films) should go and make corporate films for a living.

Fincher knows how to thread his audience through the eye of a needle!

Great visual! I couldn't agree with you more!