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.