Movie/TV recommendations

[Jayel]

Film will also usually have focus on one layer of the frame, while digital is able to have everything in focus.

Not without bending the laws of physics first!

:þ

[Hermie]

Not without bending the laws of physics first!

:þ

"Just about"/"much more" then. xP

Here's the original shot I used for an example, but it evaded hotlinking. You usually can't have that level of detail in such depth with film.

[brkl]

Digital has the power of looking terrible. Not all digital, mind, only the kind Michael Mann uses. Might as well shoot his films on 8mm film.

[Jayel]

"Just about"/"much more" then. xP

Here's the original shot I used for an example, but it evaded hotlinking. You usually can't have that level of detail in such depth with film.

any quality film stock with smaller aperture lens would completely demolish the level of detail attainable with DP (noting here that focus is an optical phenomenon that happens because of the lenses, and has nothing to do with how lights are captured, be it film or CCD)....

But I guess with advancement of CCD technology it will eventually beat film.

edit:

sorry for being nickpicky... I realize that what you said is generally true since CCDs usually have bigger smaller (thanks for the correction brkl) surface area than film. But to say that "digital can be more in focus than film" is almost analogous to saying "laptops are slower than desktops". I know it's generally true, but I can't help pointing out "hey.... not always!"

double edit!

not to mention that CCDs usually are more sensitive to light than film. I shoulda mentioned that.

Edited May 27, 2010 by Jayel

[brkl]

Digital cameras have sensors with smaller surface areas than film (the sensor used for Public enemies has a diagonal of 11.0mm, while 35mm film has a diagonal of 43.3mm). To achieve a similar angle of view, they need to use lenses with smaller focal lengths. A lens with a 12.5mm focal length would achieve the same angle of view as a 50mm lens on 35mm film. Smaller focal lengths have more depth of field, so there you go.

That said, people are starting to use DSLRs for filming, such as Canon's 5D Mark II, which has a sensor the same size as 35mm film. They used that camera for the last episode of the current House season. But they love shallow depth of field in that show.

[Roderick]

I might be alone in this, but I saw Kick-ass yesterday and I didn't like it. The characters were completely unbelievable and the child-murderer scenes I found distasteful. I can see this working as a comic book, but not as a movie.

I understand this is typical Mark Millar fare. I loved the Wanted comic. But Kick-ass the movie just fell completely flat. Bonus points for a really smart final line though. I felt smart when it came up.

[Murdoc]

Digital has the power of looking terrible. Not all digital, mind, only the kind Michael Mann uses. Might as well shoot his films on 8mm film.

Well aside from micheal Mann's cinematography and art direction I heard he doesn't clean up the footage. Most hd digital stuff is grainy is shit and gets a lot of post cleaning, where as something like Miami Vice was the raw footage.

Public Enemies- I honestly have no idea what's going on in this movie in terms of camera... the whole movies became a cinematography play ground and looked like he switched back and forth between different cameras/formats for different scenes throughout the thing.... it was cool in that way, the story became secondary to that in for me.

[brkl]

I looked around and they used at least this camera. 2/3 inch sensor. I just hated the way that movie looked. Like the way they had the white balance completely off on purpose in indoor scenes. Ughh...

[Jayel]

Regarding the look and feel of film... This relates more to home viewing than theatre, but I heard 2:3 pulldown due to mismatch between framerate of the movie and refresh rate of the TV contributes largely to that film feel. Some people avoid watching theatrical movies on one of those newer 120hz tv's with anti-judder (ie no pulldown required;120 is a multiple of 24) because feels like a direct to TV movie or a daytime TV.

Maybe one of you who has 120hz TV can confirm it...

[syntheticgerbil]

Dude came to work every day, did nothing for a few months of production, and then won an Oscar for cinematography for a movie he didn't even touch.

That's pretty bad, for sure, but in a way, it sounds like the life.

[Nachimir]

I have two things to contribute to this right now, both of which made me choke with laughter and are kind of the opposite of recommendations.

First, an alternative ending for Lost (spoilers!)

Second, one of the finest film reviews I've read, of Sex and the City 2.

[James]

I might be alone in this, but I saw Kick-ass yesterday and I didn't like it. The characters were completely unbelievable and the child-murderer scenes I found distasteful. I can see this working as a comic book, but not as a movie.

I understand this is typical Mark Millar fare. I loved the Wanted comic. But Kick-ass the movie just fell completely flat. Bonus points for a really smart final line though. I felt smart when it came up.

Check out my post a few pages back. Basically the film is two things: murderer child shock material and a coming-of-age-type comedy. While neither is categorically objectionable to me, neither is inherently appealing, and in this case they didn't really impress much. If I look past the stuff that specifically bothered me, it was fine, but not exactly remarkable.

[Murdoc]

Check out my post a few pages back. Basically the film is two things: murderer child shock material and a coming-of-age-type comedy. While neither is categorically objectionable to me, neither is inherently appealing, and in this case they didn't really impress much. If I look past the stuff that specifically bothered me, it was fine, but not exactly remarkable.

Honestly none of that bothered me, i didn't get through the film because I was bored to tears. Kick ass and the nerd squad was basically spiderman 1 that wasn't that much more comedic then spiderman.

Nic Cages story seemed kind of neat, but I tuned out half way through.

I didn't know this was written by the wanted guy, but it sort of fits now as wanteds premise was so boring to me I didn't even give it a chance.

***

On season 7(6? the last one) of The Shield... it's pretty much running it's course in this season so glad it's ending. I really enjoyed the series and have burnt through it in a couple weeks.

It's pretty much the anti-wire where the first season I was just making fun of the non police work and one liners, but it's the best anti-wire there is opposed to a crappy example like CSI Miami.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'd very much like to be able to see the various techniques of directors and be able to spot them, like one would be able to hear a composer's signature in a piece of music, or the artist's stroke in a painting, only without sounding like so much of a ponce. I try to be aware of stuff like tight shots and open shots (if that's what they're called, I never went to film school), use of panning and focus, but I sort of lose track and I still wouldn't be able to tell a Woody Allen film from a Uwe Boll.

If you find one, let me know. I'm an insane film fan, especially at the moment. Maybe we could have our own little thread going. A GREAT podcast for film lovers is: The Hollywood Saloon. They are extremely thorough, and dissect movies to their fundamentals, whilst remaining very balanced. They're not all arty-farty (not that there's anything wrong with loving arty-farty movies) but they certainly appreciate good film -- and best of all, they have a great knack of making you love film even more, too.

I'd suggest picking a topic from one of their older casts, rather than the more recent "Saloon Shots" episodes. They guys are at their best when they take their time and really get under the skin of subject. The shorter episodes are great, too, but more about them blowing off some steam on a particular subject.

If you manage to find a non-pretentious movie forum, filled with love for film, then really do let me know.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Since I'm a turtle or something, Nevsky explained this mostly. Basically, the visuals of a film will be a collaboration between the director and the Director of Photography (DP). In some cases, the director wants to decide precisely how to light, frame and shoot every single shot, while others give more freedoms to their DP. And yeah, directors famous for their look usually have a favourite DP that they refuse to work without.

--snip--

Dude, there's so many mistakes in your post it made me cry ;___;

For anyone interested in something more accurate, this is a great place to start:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html

[JonCole]

On the topic of good film podcasts, I'd be daft not to mention Filmspotting. I also heard that their forums are pretty solid, though I haven't spent any time there just because I don't have time to.

[brkl]

Here's a little thing I've wondered about before. When they shot movies with really wide aspect ratios, did they actually shoot frames with less height, or did each frame have black bars like a 4:3 TV showing a widescreen image?

Oh, this line in that previous link makes my skin crawl:

"There can be no doubt that widescreen films convey much more dynamic imagery, with the wider aspect ratio working to enhance the dramatic impact of the film upon the viewer."

Perhaps not the content, but the presentation. Sure, I generally prefer aspect ratios wide than 4:3, but when I'm watching The Shining, I'm not thinking it should have a wider aspect ratio.

Edited May 27, 2010 by brkl

[ThunderPeel2001]

On the topic of good film podcasts, I'd be daft not to mention Filmspotting. I also heard that their forums are pretty solid, though I haven't spent any time there just because I don't have time to.

Cool. I was looking for another film podcast, I'll check it out.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Here's a little thing I've wondered about before. When they shot movies with really wide aspect ratios, did they actually shoot frames with less height, or did each frame have black bars like a 4:3 TV showing a widescreen image?

It's all in that guide I linked to. (The answer is: Sometimes, sometimes not. Super 35, for example, is a 4:3 frame that is usually cropped to 1.85. I'm not 100% sure about "really wide" (i.e. 2.35), but I think the frame matched what you saw with that film.)

Edited May 28, 2010 by ThunderPeel2001

[Jayel]

Sometimes you can spot which method they used with mere visual inspection! If you ever saw unusually stretched bokeh shapes in out-of-focus highlights, or objects seem to squash and stretch as the focus shifts, they're using anamorphic lenses. Wall-E, as far as I know, is the first fully CG movie to simulate this artifact. attention to detail the pixar crew gave to that movie is insane.

[brkl]

I've noticed that. Does that mean the lens stretches the widescreen image to fit a 4:3 frame?

[Jayel]

Yeah. Looks like the wiki has a nice diagram of it plus brief explanation of the effects I was describing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

[Kolzig]

I've always liked this article regarding different aspect ratios:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

It's really weird always when I think the difference between widescreen format vs. full frame format.

Like the example of Air Force One from 1997, the VHS full frame version shows MORE than the theater widescreen version.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I've always liked this article regarding different aspect ratios:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama2.html

The one I linked to on the last page? It's very good, isn't it? (Although Page 1 is the best to start, I think.)

It's really weird always when I think the difference between widescreen format vs. full frame format.

Like the example of Air Force One from 1997, the VHS full frame version shows MORE than the theater widescreen version.

Just depends on what it was shot on (ie. Super 35). Just because you can "see more" doesn't mean it looks better, obviously. How an image is cropped is a large part of its aesthetic. (Which is why anyone who complained about BioShock's widescreen was an uninformed so-and-so, *sigh*, I digress.)

Edited May 28, 2010 by ThunderPeel2001

[Hermie]

Dude, there's so many mistakes in your post it made me cry ;___;

For anyone interested in something more accurate, this is a great place to start:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/aspectratios/widescreenorama.html

Haha, well, feel free to correct me. <.< I'm certainly no encyclopedia on aspect ratios, I tried to give a basic overview, but I guess I glossed over too many details.