Does the budget of "Avatar" approach Bond-criminal proportions?
Adam H. Kerman
I saw the bloated "Terminator 2", not because I was expecting to be
entertained, but because if every person on the planet didn't see the
movie at least once it would never be profitable. The bad guy turned out to
be surprisingly entertaining, and the quick-silver special effect, not yet
having been overdone, was interesting. The overwrought plot wasn't good.
The low-budget original "The Terminator" was a lot more entertaining and
nerve-wracking, a decent horror flick.
With "Avatar", James Cameron has managed to bloat the budget of a movie
that's essentially a cartoon to epic proportions.
How many James Bond movies could be produced for this? As of a newspaper
story Thursday, production expenditures were $310 million and who knows
what the final budget will be. They intend to spend $150 million on
advertising.
Meanwhile, Walt Disney has released a cartoon for Christmas with hand-drawn
animation. Suddenly the old-fashioned techniques look cost effective.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Cameron is kind of a mixed-bag for me. I think he's made some really
outstanding films: T1, T2 and The Abyss. He's made a very outstanding
film: Aliens. He's made some duds: True Lies. Titanic I find is fun
for what it is: a blow-up movie with Romeo and Juliet grafted onto it,
but it's not bad on that level.
Cameron tends to let story drift in spectacle, something I can also
accuse the Bond pictures of doing lately. The other problem I have
with Cameron is that he has been responsible for promoting weak filming
techniques that have taken hold in Hollywood.
His technique of shooting in "Super 35mm," which is a way of making a
widescreen image blown up from a standard lens, gives mushy images and
weak color saturation on final prints. Cameron's excuse is that no one
sees movies in theaters anymore and you can tell the difference on
video anyway. This is ridiculous, because it only encourages people
not to show up and watch things in the theater.
This practice has become so widespread that it's becoming rare to see a
movie shot in real Panavision anymore. I recently saw Inglourious
Basterds, by Tarantino, and that was really incredibly well-shot. A
great experience, a really outstanding film. I'm not usually a
Tarantino fan... guts for guts' sake, but this was an exception. It's
photography like that that makes you remember why you go see films in a
theater.
I look at Avatar with the same eyes. I'm sure it's shot in some
inferior flavor-of-the-month format and rendered in low-res CGI. It
looks that way. The idea of it is interesting, and may work out
ultimately... it's supposedly the most realistic CGI of man-like people
ever undertaken. The trailers I saw don't look especially
breathtaking, but I'll see...
Cameron is at least not generally guilty of shaky cam and spastic
cutting, so it might be worth seeing. Plus it's got Sigourney Weaver
in it, and she's always worth seeing...
But yeah, you could make 4-5 Bond films with this. Maybe you could
just make 3 and buy the team a round of tripods.
Eric (who really misses the look of Freddie Young and Ted Moore on the
Bond films...)
Adam H. Kerman
>I look at Avatar [directed by James Cameron] with the same eyes. I'm sure
>it's shot in some inferior flavor-of-the-month format and rendered
>in low-res CGI. It looks that way. The idea of it is interesting,
>and may work out ultimately... it's supposedly the most realistic CGI
>of man-like people ever undertaken. The trailers I saw don't look
>especially breathtaking, but I'll see...
So there's no serious technological refinement taking place?
I'd love to know where the budget went, then.
>Cameron is at least not generally guilty of shaky cam and spastic
>cutting, so it might be worth seeing. Plus it's got Sigourney Weaver
>in it, and she's always worth seeing...
She's not in it. A 10 foot tall representation of her in blue is in it,
so who cares.
I despise the modern practice of celebrity voice casting, absolutely murdering
any work for voice actors on feature-length cartoons.
>But yeah, you could make 4-5 Bond films with this. Maybe you could
>just make 3 and buy the team a round of tripods.
Heh.
>Eric (who really misses the look of Freddie Young and Ted Moore on the
>Bond films...)
Well yeah.
Nick Xylas
> I'm giving up on James Cameron entirely.
I think I'll wait and see the film before I decide whether I like it
or not.
Rhino
wrote:
Saw the trailer last week while watching 2012 - let's just say it
didn't exactly raise my kilt (neither did 2012, come to that).
I think someone needs to tell Hollywood that fantastic CGI is no
longer sufficient to guarantee a blockbuster success.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >I look at Avatar [directed by James Cameron] with the same eyes. I'm sure
> >it's shot in some inferior flavor-of-the-month format and rendered
> >in low-res CGI. It looks that way. The idea of it is interesting,
> >and may work out ultimately... it's supposedly the most realistic CGI
> >of man-like people ever undertaken. The trailers I saw don't look
> >especially breathtaking, but I'll see...
>
> So there's no serious technological refinement taking place?
>
> I'd love to know where the budget went, then.
The art of making realistic human renderings that move in a convincing
way is something that has eluded us for years. It's hard. Cameron has
always been on the cutting edge of this and this is the result of it.
Pixar can get by with cartoonish rendering, but we still don't have
realistic work.
So, yeah, there's technological refinement, but my argument, from
seeing the trailer, is that it's still not "there." It's better but
not solved yet.
> >Cameron is at least not generally guilty of shaky cam and spastic
> >cutting, so it might be worth seeing. Plus it's got Sigourney Weaver
> >in it, and she's always worth seeing...
>
> She's not in it. A 10 foot tall representation of her in blue is in it,
> so who cares.
She's in the trailer.
> I despise the modern practice of celebrity voice casting, absolutely murdering
> any work for voice actors on feature-length cartoons.
Hey, Teri Garr still gets voiceover work, bless her heart. Would like
to see her back in movies. Teri and Mark Hamill have made careers of
doing this, alas, even though they should be able to do better.
>
> >But yeah, you could make 4-5 Bond films with this. Maybe you could
> >just make 3 and buy the team a round of tripods.
>
> Heh.
Could be worse. Could have been Public Enemies. <shudder>
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
Well, you didn't actually comment on anything I wrote nor the reason why
I wrote that. This trend toward ever more expensive blockbusters isn't
good for movie goers. You do understand that it results in fewer choices
for us, right?
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Nick Xylas <nxy...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> >On 28 Nov, 18:45, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm giving up on James Cameron entirely.
>
> >I think I'll wait and see the film before I decide whether I like it
> >or not.
>
> Well, you didn't actually comment on anything I wrote nor the reason why
> I wrote that. This trend toward ever more expensive blockbusters isn't
> good for movie goers. You do understand that it results in fewer choices
> for us, right?
The movie industry is facing a number of problems. Most blockbusters
these days are aimed at 15-year-olds because they are the only reliable
audience for theatrical screenings.
The market for DVD/Blu-Ray is much more profitable than the theatrical
run now, but do you know what the single greatest predictor of success
in DVD release is? Theatrical success.
There are a lot of profitable movies that are released to theaters on a
limited basis but do better on DVD. But they don't make as much money
as the blockbusters. As the market grows, so shrinks the profitability
of each individual title.
The result is that we'll likely be able to see more and more stuff made
on a budget of less and less.
Blockbusters will continue to be made, but they'll be more and more
generic, aimed at a larger and large audience, with bigger budgets.
So expect to see more George Clooney (female appeal) movies with lots
of explosions (male appeal) and with people like Anne Hathaway or Lady
Gaga (teen appeal).
This is what Cameron just did: Avatar has a lot of CGI (teen),
Sigourney Weaver (Eric appeal), explosions (male), fantasy flying
things (female appeal), and a huge budget. It may make lots of money
but it will likely just be as predictable and obvious as Titanic.
This is why you'll never see a Sopranos feature (no female appeal), and
why all those tearjerkers only appear on Hallmark Channel (no male
appeal).
Eric (who thinks he could go into business writing generic George
Clooney movies)
Nick Xylas
> The market for DVD/Blu-Ray is much more profitable than the theatrical
> run now, but do you know what the single greatest predictor of success
> in DVD release is? Theatrical success.
>
Yeah "direct to DVD" still carries a stigma in the public mind,
despite the best efforts of the industry to convince audiences that it
doesn't always mean "not good enough for theatrical release".
Paul Clarke
>> cutting, so it might be worth seeing. Plus it's got Sigourney Weaver
>> in it, and she's always worth seeing...
>
> She's not in it. A 10 foot tall representation of her in blue is in it,
> so who cares.
>
> I despise the modern practice of celebrity voice casting, absolutely murdering
> any work for voice actors on feature-length cartoons.
No, she's actually in the film as a flesh-and-blood character.
--
For another such kiss, I would invent an entire continent.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Cameron is at least not generally guilty of shaky cam and spastic
>>>cutting, so it might be worth seeing. Plus it's got Sigourney Weaver
>>>in it, and she's always worth seeing...
>>She's not in it. A 10 foot tall representation of her in blue is in it,
>>so who cares.
>>I despise the modern practice of celebrity voice casting, absolutely
>>murdering any work for voice actors on feature-length cartoons.
>No, she's actually in the film as a flesh-and-blood character.
My error. Who is in the voice cast as the love interest in the Romeo and
Juliet story?
Paul Clarke
I think it's Zoe Saldana.
--
"Enter an age of unknown terrors, pagan worship and virgin sacrifice!"
(When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth)
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Paul Clarke <jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>Cameron is at least not generally guilty of shaky cam and spastic
>>>>>cutting, so it might be worth seeing. Plus it's got Sigourney Weaver
>>>>>in it, and she's always worth seeing...
>>>>She's not in it. A 10 foot tall representation of her in blue is in it,
>>>>so who cares.
>>>>I despise the modern practice of celebrity voice casting, absolutely
>>>>murdering any work for voice actors on feature-length cartoons.
>>>No, she's actually in the film as a flesh-and-blood character.
>>My error. Who is in the voice cast as the love interest in the Romeo and
>>Juliet story?
>I think it's Zoe Saldana.
Thanks.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Paul Clarke <jim_ca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Eric Grayson <filmspam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>Cameron is at least not generally guilty of shaky cam and spastic
>>>>>cutting, so it might be worth seeing. Plus it's got Sigourney Weaver
>>>>>in it, and she's always worth seeing...
>>>>She's not in it. A 10 foot tall representation of her in blue is in it,
>>>>so who cares.
>>>>I despise the modern practice of celebrity voice casting, absolutely
>>>>murdering any work for voice actors on feature-length cartoons.
>>>No, she's actually in the film as a flesh-and-blood character.
>>My error. Who is in the voice cast as the love interest in the Romeo and
>>Juliet story?
>I think it's Zoe Saldana.
"Star Trek (XI)" was unmemorable to me, so I'd forgotten that she's the
recast Uhura. Good grief, is she skinny. I should have recalled that the new
Uhura is half the woman as the old.
Her animated representation in "Avatar" is proportionate to what little
figure she has, stretched to 10 feet.
I saw her on "Letterman". She walked out wearing high heels and wore a tiny
black dress... to make herself look even thinner. She said she was a classical
dancer for 10 years but her thin legs no longer look like dancer's legs.
No, she's not just a voice. It's motion-capture animation. She said she
trained for six months to use the system. Then she said she's got a camera
on her head shooting her face.
That's incredibly awkward. How do you act under those circumstances?
Now I see how this new animation technology blew up the budget of this movie.
It's so pointless. Traditional animation techniques are cost effective, and
the result can be a lot more pleasing.
You don't revolutionize movies by introducing a less flexible and less
effectie technique that's a hell of a lot costlier than what it's replacing.
Simon
The sensible approach. I can't believe how many stick in the muds there
are here. A lot of you sound like you must be 90 odd years old
endlessly muttering on about how *everything* was so much better in the
old days.
You can't have a film like Avatar with traditional animation. The whole
point of the animation in Avatar was to make the impossible possible
while still looking totally realistic. I saw the film last night, and
while the crux of the story itself is nothing original, and there are
some cheesy moments, the CGI was absolutely stunning. This is the first
time I have seen CGI characters that looked real, with all the sublties
of facial expression as a real person. Cameron has pushed one step
further to being able to reincarnate actors of the past in new films.
Something else he managed was to shoot a film in 3D that uses the
effect in subtle ways. In fact the use of 3D is simply just part of the
film. You forget while watching it that it is in 3D.
Without people like Cameron pushing the boundaries we'd all still be
watching black & white films with a man playing a piano next to the
screen. Lighten up people.
Simon
Eric Grayson
<na...@noname.com> wrote:
> On 2009-12-02 15:11:44 +0000, Nick Xylas <nxy...@sc.rr.com> said:
>
> > On 28 Nov, 18:45, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >> I'm giving up on James Cameron entirely.
> >
> > I think I'll wait and see the film before I decide whether I like it
> > or not.
>
> The sensible approach. I can't believe how many stick in the muds there
> are here. A lot of you sound like you must be 90 odd years old
> endlessly muttering on about how *everything* was so much better in the
> old days.
> Without people like Cameron pushing the boundaries we'd all still be
> watching black & white films with a man playing a piano next to the
> screen. Lighten up people.
There's nothing wrong with watching black and white films with a man
playing a piano next to the screen. I make sure I do this several
times a year. Many times I supply the films. These films were made
before I was born. I love to watch them anyway.
It's not true that everything was better in the old days. There is a
law, it's called Sturgeon's Law (for the writer Ted Sturgeon). It says
"90% of everything is crap. Of the remaining 10%, half of that is only
OK, and the rest is really the good stuff."
I think this has always been true. I can be nostalgic for the genius
of WC Fields, but for every WC Fields there are two Pinky Lees and Joe
E. Browns. ACK. FWIW, I love a lot of Steve Martin but can't stand
Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler. The best show on network TV now is a great
tight comedy by Tina Fey. But I hate The Office and really hate Parks
and Recreation.
One of the advantages of the past is that the crappy stuff gets
filtered out and we only see the good stuff in popular media unless we
dig a bit. This is why we still see Seinfeld and Everybody Loves
Raymond in reruns, but Will and Grace seems to have had its day.
Cameron I still say is a mixed bag:
On the good side--
Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, and The Abyss are great, innovative
films. (Although Harlan Ellison has rightly complained that Terminator
is unduly based on some of his works... which is why he gets paid for
it every time a Terminator film is released)
One the bad side--
Titanic is a variation of Romeo and Juliet on an exploding boat. True
Lies is a weak, silly Roger Moore Bond film done badly. Cameron's use
of Super35 is compromised cinematography that isn't as sharp as it
should be, making his films have a soft, dull look.
I haven't seen Avatar yet.
IMHO someone with 4 films as good as the ones I listed isn't a complete
loss as a director. For a complete loss as a director, see Michael
Bay.
When I complain about shaky-cam and spastic editing, it isn't so much
pining for the old days as it is complaining about a trendy film
technique that sucks. I think that the Charles K. Feldman approach of
goofy, overproduced filmmaking from the 60s was a waste, too. It was
ultimately a cinematic dead-end, although there were other crappy
things (see Magical Mystery Tour) that were made this way, too.
You'll note I praised Inglourious Basterds quite a lot here. It uses
great storytelling techniques, is photographed beautifully, with great
acting and effective editing.
Crap is crap regardless of when it was made. Hopefully great films
rise to the top eventually...
Eric (watching a 1939 Lupino Lane film today)
Adam H. Kerman
>You can't have a film like Avatar with traditional animation. The whole
>point of the animation in Avatar was to make the impossible possible
>while still looking totally realistic. I saw the film last night, and
>while the crux of the story itself is nothing original, and there are
>some cheesy moments, the CGI was absolutely stunning. This is the first
>time I have seen CGI characters that looked real, with all the sublties
>of facial expression as a real person. . . .
Why on earth couldn't we have all of that in animation? Any number of
animated features had all that, and more.
Adam H. Kerman
>Eric (watching a 1939 Lupino Lane film today)
Me and My Gal or Rake's Progress?
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
The Lambeth Walk is the correct title of the filming of the stage play
Me and My Girl.
Lupino Lane is always in good stuff...
Duggy
I think the previous poster's point was, I their opinion, the CGI
didn't look animated, it looked real... whereas animation looks like
animation.
There were points, I think where it looked real, but there were still
times it looked like CGI, certainly not as many as previous films have
had, but it wasn't 100%.
===
= DUG.
===
Simon
> playing a piano next to the screen. I make sure I do this several
I never said that there was anything wrong with it. One of my favourite
films is The General with Buster Keaton. But are you seriously saying
that this should be the future of filmmaking?!
> It's not true that everything was better in the old days.
Yes, and we can reverse your statement to say exactly the same of
modern films. There's no difference. But people in this group seem to
think that anything that uses new technology is rubbish.
> Cameron I still say is a mixed bag:
Name me a director who isn't? All have had ups and downs. Doesn't make
them bad directors. Clint Eastwood seems to be the only one who appears
to effortlessly make great films one after the other. But even he has
had duds.
> Titanic is a variation of Romeo and Juliet on an exploding boat. True
> Lies is a weak, silly Roger Moore Bond film done badly.
In your opinion. I think True Lies is great entertainment. I'm less
keen on Titanic because I don't see the point of it.
> Cameron's use
> of Super35 is compromised cinematography that isn't as sharp as it
> should be, making his films have a soft, dull look.
The idea that S35 is soft doesn't really hold water IMHO. Most films
these days go through a DI process, quite often at 2k resolution. All
35 film stock, both 35 and S35 contain far, far more effective
resolution from the original negs than you ever get to see in the final
ciema versions.
So even if you see a film shot anamorphically these days, it has quite
often gone through a 2k DI process which is displayed at the cinema as
such after being put back to film, or displayed digitally. So either
way the result has far less 'resolution' than either 35mm or S35mm are
capable of. In fact by the time any film has been reached the
distribution print stage, when it is finally displayed and also
accounting for projector weave etc, the final equivilent resolution you
are seeing on a cinema screen isn't much more than 800-1000 lines
anyway.
Besides, this is all irrelevant because Avatars live action sequences
were recorded on HDCAM SR via a Pace 3D camera.
> Crap is crap regardless of when it was made. Hopefully great films
> rise to the top eventually...
I agree. I'm not going to defend Avatars total lack of original
scripting or general plot, but the effects of it will be felt in the
same way that The Abyss and T2 revolutionised the way CGI was used in
films.
Simon
Adam H. Kerman
>On Jan 1, 6:34 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Simon <n...@noname.com> wrote:
>>>You can't have a film like Avatar with traditional animation. The whole
>>>point of the animation in Avatar was to make the impossible possible
>>>while still looking totally realistic. I saw the film last night, and
>>>while the crux of the story itself is nothing original, and there are
>>>some cheesy moments, the CGI was absolutely stunning. This is the first
>>>time I have seen CGI characters that looked real, with all the sublties
>>>of facial expression as a real person. . . .
>>Why on earth couldn't we have all of that in animation? Any number of
>>animated features had all that, and more.
>I think the previous poster's point was, I their opinion, the CGI
>didn't look animated, it looked real... whereas animation looks like
>animation.
I got that bit, but was ignoring it. It was pointless to question his
opinion that CGI didn't look like CGI.
>There were points, I think where it looked real, but there were still
>times it looked like CGI, certainly not as many as previous films have
>had, but it wasn't 100%.
So, it looked real, to the extent that one might accept the alien
landscape and aliens themselves for the purpose of enjoying the movie.
But what's gained versus animation? It's a hell of a lot costlier for a
result that's not necessarily as visually pleasing as animation.
Adam H. Kerman
>Yes, and we can reverse your statement to say exactly the same of
>modern films. There's no difference. But people in this group seem to
>think that anything that uses new technology is rubbish. . . .
You know, Simon, everyone is entitled to his opinion.
I'm also entitled to my opinion that the proper response to a straw man
as ignorant as that one is "blow it out your ass".
Eric Grayson
<na...@noname.com> wrote:
> > There's nothing wrong with watching black and white films with a man
> > playing a piano next to the screen. I make sure I do this several
>
>
> I never said that there was anything wrong with it. One of my favourite
> films is The General with Buster Keaton. But are you seriously saying
> that this should be the future of filmmaking?!
>
No, I didn't say that and I don't even see how what I said can be
construed that way.
> > It's not true that everything was better in the old days.
>
>
> Yes, and we can reverse your statement to say exactly the same of
> modern films. There's no difference. But people in this group seem to
> think that anything that uses new technology is rubbish.
>
I'm not one of them. But the flip pop argument that "new technology =
100% genius filmmaking" is equally flawed. And you didn't say that,
but many others have.
> > Cameron I still say is a mixed bag:
>
>
> Name me a director who isn't? All have had ups and downs. Doesn't make
> them bad directors. Clint Eastwood seems to be the only one who appears
> to effortlessly make great films one after the other. But even he has
> had duds.
>
>
> > Titanic is a variation of Romeo and Juliet on an exploding boat. True
> > Lies is a weak, silly Roger Moore Bond film done badly.
>
>
> In your opinion. I think True Lies is great entertainment. I'm less
> keen on Titanic because I don't see the point of it.
>
I'm glad you enjoy True Lies.
> > Cameron's use
> > of Super35 is compromised cinematography that isn't as sharp as it
> > should be, making his films have a soft, dull look.
>
>
> The idea that S35 is soft doesn't really hold water IMHO. Most films
> these days go through a DI process, quite often at 2k resolution. All
> 35 film stock, both 35 and S35 contain far, far more effective
> resolution from the original negs than you ever get to see in the final
> ciema versions.
>
> So even if you see a film shot anamorphically these days, it has quite
> often gone through a 2k DI process which is displayed at the cinema as
> such after being put back to film, or displayed digitally. So either
> way the result has far less 'resolution' than either 35mm or S35mm are
> capable of. In fact by the time any film has been reached the
> distribution print stage, when it is finally displayed and also
> accounting for projector weave etc, the final equivilent resolution you
> are seeing on a cinema screen isn't much more than 800-1000 lines
> anyway.
>
> Besides, this is all irrelevant because Avatars live action sequences
> were recorded on HDCAM SR via a Pace 3D camera.
I could really argue this passionately but won't given it's SOOO off
topic here. Remember, I'm one of the few you'll speak to with access
to a real 35mm projector who has run these. To sum up:
a) Cameron started Super 35 back before there were DIs and they looked
soft then.
b) I've heard others argue that the equivalent resolution is lower than
this, but it is not true and I can argue this based on engineering
math. It is only true if you're dealing with a really crappy local
projector with misaligned optics, etc, and I have to concede that that
does exist.
c) 2K DIs are too soft and I don't like them, never have. If you want
to see sharp photography, all you have to do is look at the old Bond
films and those are killer sharp.
d) Ya wanna see new, real anamorphic photography that looks incredibly
sharp and is done right? See Inglourious Basterds. That is the
sharpest film I've seen in ages. On the other hand, I recently ran a
brand new Fox picture in an EK print (straight from studio material),
and I kept jogging the focus knob because it would never quite get in
focus.
I was arguing not that this affects Avatar, but that Super 35 was a
technology that Cameron advocated that I don't think is an advance and
still don't.
I have not yet seen Avatar so I can't say what it looks like.
> > Crap is crap regardless of when it was made. Hopefully great films
> > rise to the top eventually...
>
>
> I agree. I'm not going to defend Avatars total lack of original
> scripting or general plot, but the effects of it will be felt in the
> same way that The Abyss and T2 revolutionised the way CGI was used in
> films.
>
Yeah, but The Abyss and T2 are really interesting films with good
dialogue. The Abyss has some really excellent stuff in it and it's
still not quite like anything else you've ever seen.
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
>Simon <na...@noname.com> wrote:
>>Besides, this is all irrelevant because Avatars live action sequences
>>were recorded on HDCAM SR via a Pace 3D camera.
>I could really argue this passionately but won't given it's SOOO off
>topic here. Remember, I'm one of the few you'll speak to with access
>to a real 35mm projector who has run these. To sum up:
Eric! Please finish your thought. I'll read it, and so will everyone else.
It's not as if there's a new Bond flick to discuss.
Nick Xylas
>You don't revolutionize movies by introducing a less flexible and less
>effective technique that's a hell of a lot costlier than what it's replacing.
to:
>anything that uses new technology is rubbish.
?
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
Super35mm is a process that uses the soundtrack area of the film to get
some extra picture area. It started being popularly used in about 1988
or 89. The Abyss was an early adopter.
The idea is that a 2.35:1 image can be extracted from the whole area of
the film exposed, and that the extra area helps make the image less
grainy.
The disadvantage of using anamorphic lenses is that they take more
light to expose an image and offer less of a depth of field (focus
distance). Some people don't like them. There are current directors
(McTiernan, Spielberg, Wes Anderson, Tarantino) who use anamorphic
lenses very effectively, but it's more work to get it right, and some
shots are impossible (really close focus, etc...)
The advantage of using anamorphic lenses is that the resultant image is
sharper than Super35mm. The reason is that when using anamorphics, you
are exposing the entire frame of film, so you get more area.
Additionally, the film can be printed straight from the negative,
making an intermediate unnecessary, saving a generation. (More on this
in a bit).
Cameron advocated using Super35mm for two reasons:
a) If the resultant image on screen is grainier and softer, then who
cares? Most people will see it on video anyway.
b) Using anamorphics necessitates going pan-and-scan for "full screen"
1.33:1 transfers (de facto standard on TVs of the time). Super35mm has
a bigger picture area that can be "opened up" to show both the image
that we saw on screen AND extra area that was cropped for the
theatrical run. So you can have a decent TV transfer and an acceptable
theatrical screening.
My feeling is this:
a) If the theatrical image is compromised, then you're giving the
filmgoer less of a reason to see it in a good theatrical environment,
which is unfortunate, because there are lots of good reasons to see
movies in a theater.
b) If the director frames the film so it can be shown at 1.33 or
2.35:1, the framing is compromised and generic, so you're encouraging
less creative framing than you had before, which makes the film less
visually stimulating (and I would say Cameron is guilty of this).
Now, we can argue ad infinitum about how many lines of information
actually reach the screen in a regular screen.
If we go back to digital theory, there's a concept called Nyquist's
sampling theory (I warned you I'm an EE). Nyquist said that you have
to sample an signal at a minimum of twice the frequency of the highest
frequency in the signal. Now we see that Turner/Warner is scanning
Gone with the Wind at 6K and 8K now for preservation purposes now.
Call me crazy, but that says they have some faith that there's at least
4K of information in the original signal.
We can also argue that the prints we see today don't match the quality
of the original negative (that was said in an earlier post).
That can be true for a number of reasons:
a) The high speed duping process used since 1968 uses a special
interpositive developed by Kodak that gives a somewhat grainier print
than usual. This process has been greatly improved in recent years by
the t-grain technology that Kodak introduced in the late 90s and has
continued to improve. A good print, from a good interpositive, made on
good Kodak stock looks damned good these days.
b) Many films today use a digital intermediate that is used to
digitally grade the color and allow for digital effects. It's not
mandatory, but a lot of filmmakers use it. The majority of these are
done at 2K (2000 lines) but some are done at 4K. The argument in this
case goes this way: "You might as well use Super35, which limits the
resolution, because the 2K intermediate limits the resolution even
more, and by then you won't be able to tell the difference."
I find this argument to be pretty flawed. To me, it's the same as
saying, "My car needs oil, but since the filter is already dirty, I'm
going to put dirty oil in it because it won't matter."
To bring this back to Bond, I find it fascinating that EON just paid
skatey-eight million dollars to digitally restore the negatives of the
old Bond films at 4K resolution but they released Casino Royale in
Blur-o-vision Super35 from a 2K interpositive. That says something
about what they feel about their product.
Now, the argument that you can't see the difference between 2K and 4K
is also flawed.
If I'm only getting 800 lines of resolution in a standard theatrical
issue, then why could I tell the difference between anamorphic and
Super35mm at a screening of Inglourious Basterds in the worst
auditorium at the cheapest theater in Indianpolis? That screen is
going to be as compromised with zitmarked teen projectionists and
boogery, popcorn oiled lenses as any place I can find.
Yet within 5 minutes of the first reel I could tell.
Why also, when I saw Galaxy Quest, which was shot with 2K effects,
could I turn to my girlfriend and say, "digital effect" 3 seconds
before each effect started? I could see the loss in quality when it
went to 2K and knew an effect was coming up. (By the way, I can't see
this change on 500 line video.)
Now, for best quality on this kind of thing, you would hope to get
either an IB Technicolor print or what's called an EK print. An EK
print is a print made directly from the Eastman color negative. These
are called show prints. It's impossible to have an EK print from
Super35, because you MUST print from an intermediate, which makes it
one generation removed from the source.
This is one case where "the old days" really were better. A couple of
years ago I was screening a bunch of Technicolor cartoons that were
lent to me from another collector. These were all from the 1950s.
Then I had to screen a 1980 print of a soft-core film for a completely
different reason.
I kept goosing the focus on the 1980 print and it never did come in as
sharp as the older cartoons were. I realized that the older stuff was
just that much sharper because it hadn't been printed from an
intermediate.
Bottom line, in my opinon:
Anamorphic is manly
There is nothing like IB Technicolor
Digital is only cool at 4K or greater
Your mileage may vary.
Eric
Adam H. Kerman
>Super35mm is a process that uses the soundtrack area of the film to get
>some extra picture area. It started being popularly used in about 1988
>or 89. The Abyss was an early adopter. . . .
Fascinating information as always. Thank you.
Simon
> this, but it is not true and I can argue this based on engineering
> math. It is only true if you're dealing with a really crappy local
> projector with misaligned optics, etc, and I have to concede that that
> does exist.
No, it was research done by the ITU, which is about as respected an
organisation as you can get. They use a lot of math too :-)
http://www.cst.fr/IMG/pdf/35mm_resolution_english.pdf
They found that the best performing theatre that they tested in at the
sharpest point on the screen could still only resolve 875 LPH, while
the average resolution at the sharpest point in the theatres they
tested was around 750 LPH. Across all parts of the screen the average
resolution of all the theatres was only 685 LPH! The HD cameras I use
in my job can resolve and display 1000 LPH on a good quality HD
monitor. You can see very clearly that 685 is a lot less than the 1556
LPH maximum offered with 2k.
Far more effect on sharpness will be seen by the type and quality of
the lenses used, as well as the post workflow if a DI is used. Does a
CGI animated movie such as The Incredibles or Ice Age when projected
through a 2k digital cinema projector look soft? Of course not. The
quality of the actual focus is also a big part of things, as well as
whether any softening filters were used during shooting etc. There are
too many variables before we get to the subject of film stock
'resolution'. And even then there are different stock types to
consider, how grainy they are etc.
Even when they measured the MTF on the actual negative film it was
still only 2100 LPH, which isn't that much higher than the maximum
offered by 1080 HD.
The crux of it is that sharpness has less to do with resolution than it
does to do with what happens before the light hits the film stock.
Simon
Simon
> But what's gained versus animation? It's a hell of a lot costlier for a
> result that's not necessarily as visually pleasing as animation.
Errr, the fact that it means the aliens can interact with the live
action actors such as Sigourney Weaver! Somehow I can't see the
audience seriously accepting a 2D Roger Rabbit style anmation mixed
with live action for a film like Avatar!
Realism is what is gained. That's the entire point of what Cameron was
doing. If he wanted it to be a cartoon then he would have used
traditional animation.
Simon
Adam H. Kerman
>>But what's gained versus animation? It's a hell of a lot costlier for a
>>result that's not necessarily as visually pleasing as animation.
>Errr, the fact that it means the aliens can interact with the live
>action actors such as Sigourney Weaver! Somehow I can't see the
>audience seriously accepting a 2D Roger Rabbit style anmation mixed
>with live action for a film like Avatar!
I have a lot of problems with the animation in "Roger Rabbit", which used
that newly introduced shading technique for a slight 3D effect that looks
awful on all animation that uses it. I don't know what it's called.
The reason live action and animation don't line up is due to where the
actors look. Animation appears to be at the frame's foreground. The actors
rarely look far enough forward.
>Realism is what is gained. That's the entire point of what Cameron was
>doing. If he wanted it to be a cartoon then he would have used
>traditional animation.
How did the actors know where to look, or were their eyes altered in editing?
Nick Xylas
> How did the actors know where to look, or were their eyes altered in editing?
They usually put some sort of marker in, even if it's just a tennis
ball on a piece of string.
Simon
Not necceserily. Look at the way they made Gollum in The Lord Of The
Rings for example.
Simon
Simon
> that newly introduced shading technique for a slight 3D effect that looks
> awful on all animation that uses it. I don't know what it's called.
I'm getting rather fed up with this. You know full well the point that
I was making. If you are just going to be a pedantic idiot I won't
waste my time any further.
Simon
Adam H. Kerman
>I'm getting rather fed up with this. You know full well the point that
>I was making. If you are just going to be a pedantic idiot I won't
>waste my time any further.
You're free to take your marbles with you when you go home, any time you like.
Eric Grayson
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Simon <na...@noname.com> wrote:
> How did the actors know where to look, or were their eyes altered in editing?
It's harder than hell to alter this in editing. The human eye is
something that we are all VERY sensitive to, and if it's not exactly
right, you'll see it. You can put four boobs on a fake picture of
Sarah Palin that looks credible, but change the direction of her gaze a
few inches and you'll see what I mean. If you don't get it right, your
character is crosseyed or autistic and it looks dumb.
In movies there's often a tennis ball or something for the actors to
look at, but some actors are just pretty good at this while others
aren't.
Kerwin Matthews was hired a lot by Ray Harryhausen because he was good
at this, and Matthews got jobs in other animated films.
We've got a current actor who's good at this too, and he's used all the
time in these kinds of films, probably to the detriment of his career
(because he's often cast in effects extravaganzas):
Brendan Fraser, who's been in 3 Mummy films, Looney Tunes: Back in
Action, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Monkeybone, Dudley
Do-Right, and George of the Jungle.
You all thought he got these jobs because he's popular. He got them
because he'd successfully done this kind of thing before.
Eric