Superman and other digital stuff

[MovieStuff]

We have a kid and we live in the country so we rarely get to see first run movies right when they are released. Also, the local theater is one of the old "shoebox" theaters like those from the 80's, so the screen doesn't appear much bigger than our Sony HD Grand Vega at home (Just joking, of course. Ours is bigger). Anyway, finally got to see the new Superman, which I knew before hand was shot on the Panavision Genesis camera with the jumbo, 35mm sized chip. I don't know what it looked like on the big screen projected but it sure looked like film to me on our HD set. I waited until about half way through the movie before telling my wife, who's a photographer and a film-addict, and she had a hard time believing me. I was pretty amazed.

Anyway, there is an old article about Superman as well as other projects shot on digital for the theaters here:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/sea ... 1002688109

Nothing extraordinary but it lists other films shot on digital that I had no idea were not film. Mel Gibson's new film "Apocalypto" was also shot on the new Genesis camera and it looks fairly stunning in previews. Very subtle tones and film-like and lacks the high gloss that Superman had, which pretty much validates my previous belief that the look in Superman was intentional. I get the feeling that they can pretty much make digital look however they want it to look, now.

Interesting stuff......

Roger

PS: No "digital vs film" fights. Play nice.

[Patrick]

"...it sure looked like film to me on our HD set."

That's interesting. Ive never seen the movie myself but from watching the ads of Superman on a very sharp analogue tv, it didnt look like conventional film to me and it didnt look like conventional video either. The footage had this very unusual 'look' about it which I find hard to describe. At that stage, I wasnt even aware that the movie was shot on HD.

However, I did see 'Home Prairie Companion' at the cinema this year and I assumed that was shot on film. That's the first time that a HD film has actually 'fooled' me. Though someone else said that at one point in the film, they saw what looked like faint grid pattern on the screen which I didn't notice.

[MovieStuff]

... from watching the ads of Superman on a very sharp analogue tv, it didnt look like conventional film to me and it didnt look like conventional video either. The footage had this very unusual 'look' about it which I find hard to describe.

Yeah, it had a kind of comic book polish to it that I honestly think the previous Superman movies were attempting but could not get with film because they did not have the advantage of a digital finish. The new Gibson film has all the tones and subtle nuances that I would expect from film or, at the very least, it looks much like Kodachrome tribal shots out of National Geographic Magazine. It just seems like digital is picking up speed in the motion picture arena like it did for stills. One minute, digital stills sucked just awful and, the next, they look very viable. One wonders where digital production will be in a few years.

Roger

[Angus]

I saw it at the cinema, projected from a 35mm print...but on a smallish screen.

I admit I was not aware it was shot on digital...but the whole film did have a slightly unreal feel to it. However that is appropriate to the subject matter. I did enjoy Superman Returns a lot. Certainly looked better than Revenge of the Sith...which is so painfully obviously video...

I'd be interested to see more films shot with the same system...on a larger screen...

[Nigel]

I saw some of Superman at a Panavision propaganda gathering.

It was on a full size theater screen and was a 35mm print. It looked good to me. The movie relies on so much CGI work that it seemed fake.

The one thing that I did notice was everything Panavision had on their Genesis reel had a connection to Sony Pictures...There is no pressure I'm sure from the studio to use a camera that they helped develop.

Good Luck

[sophocle]

I saw the superman too--it did look good.

But as a few of the fortunate people to see a Storaro film in the early 90s (it was not great film--about Budda or something) in a 2000 seat auditorium with an immense screen I have to tell you digital aquisition is not there yet.

I still remember the total hush that would descend upon the crowd (even the random coughing stopped) whenever wide scenic shots ran. The pin -sharp images in staggering color would make you hold your breath. I would compare the experience to viewing a museum quality platinum print--you just can't stop looking. It was a 65mm print though (from 35mm neg. if I remeber correctly).

Comared to the crappy prints and small screens that dominate theaters, or in mpeg streams for home HD, I would say digital accuistion has been a viable and excellent option for a long time now.

It isn't that video looks like film--it is that film looks like video (because it is!) in my home theater.

[T-Scan]

I read somewhere on cinematography.com that the non CGI interiors were shot on 35mm film, but whatever it was shot on, it better look good for $250,000,000.

[reflex]

I saw Superman Returns at an Imax theater. I love those places because they pay attention to things like focus and keeping the projection gate clean.

It definitely did not have the sterile "shot on video" look, although the entire film had an other-worldly sheen. The colorists had obviously worked hard to imbue the footage with a comic book feel. I'd love to see some of the raw footage (can one still say that in the digital realm?) to get a feel for how it looks straight out of the camera.

[Angus]

I agree with reflex, the IMAX theatres really make an effort to present a film as well as possible.

[Actor]

I saw Superman Returns at an Imax theater. I love those places because they pay attention to ... keeping the projection gate clean.

Of course the fact that the gate is 80mm wide makes it easier to clean. :lol:

[cubdukat]

We have a kid and we live in the country so we rarely get to see first run movies right when they are released. Also, the local theater is one of the old "shoebox" theaters like those from the 80's, so the screen doesn't appear much bigger than our Sony HD Grand Vega at home (Just joking, of course. Ours is bigger). Anyway, finally got to see the new Superman, which I knew before hand was shot on the Panavision Genesis camera with the jumbo, 35mm sized chip. I don't know what it looked like on the big screen projected but it sure looked like film to me on our HD set. I waited until about half way through the movie before telling my wife, who's a photographer and a film-addict, and she had a hard time believing me. I was pretty amazed.

Anyway, there is an old article about Superman as well as other projects shot on digital for the theaters here:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/sea ... 1002688109

Nothing extraordinary but it lists other films shot on digital that I had no idea were not film. Mel Gibson's new film "Apocalypto" was also shot on the new Genesis camera and it looks fairly stunning in previews. Very subtle tones and film-like and lacks the high gloss that Superman had, which pretty much validates my previous belief that the look in Superman was intentional. I get the feeling that they can pretty much make digital look however they want it to look, now.

Interesting stuff......

Roger

PS: No "digital vs film" fights. Play nice.

I have to say that I am not really a fan of the HD camera revolution. There were some instances in the "Apocalypto" trailer where it was clear that the limitations of the format had been reached--namely fast motion was not as smooth as it would have been on film, and there was some smearing of details that gave it a sort-of "electronic" look.

The other thing was the near-total lack of grain. To me it just doesn't look right. I daresay that Mel Gibson could have shot the movie on film for close to the same price, and it would have looked just as good, if not better.

As good as cams like the Genesis and the Filmstream are (and they are good), I still don't think they're quite there yet. Maybe when the 4K cams hit, but not now. Mind you, if someone gave one to me to shoot something with, I wouldn't turn it down; it just wouldn't be my first choice.

[Actor]

"The father becomes the son, and the son the father."

--Jor-El (Marlon Brando), "Superman Returns" and "Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut"

This is also in "Superman I." I think the actual line is the other way around. "The son becomes the father and the father the son." But I could be wrong.

I liked "Superman Returns" but was a little put off by their re-hashing so many lines from SI. The "son .. father" line was appropriate but ...

• "I certainly home this little incident hasn't put you off flying ... safest way to travel."
• "What was it my father said?" ... "Get out."
• "You really shouldn't smoke Miss Lane."

SPOILER WARNING!!

REALLY BIG PLOT HOLE! At the end of Superman II (both cuts) Lois forgets that Clark Kent is Superman. Thus she also must have forgotten about having sex with Superman. So naturally she thinks the kid is the son of Richard White, albeit the pregnancy was very short. Now she has definite proof the kid is Superman Jr. So now she must be trying desperately to remember when she ever has sex with supes? :?

Did he fly into her room one night and rape her at super speed so she never knew? :twisted:

Is just kissing a Kryptonian enough to procreate? (Little super sperm in the saliva that enter the female blood stream and hunt down an egg to fertilize.) :lol:

Do Kryptonians procreate via thought waves? (After all, sex is essentially just an elaborate way to transmit 26 very large base4 numbers from one individual to another.)

And in the Donner cut Lois does not simply forget. Supes actually files back in time and erases everthing, including the act of having sex with Lois. So "Superman Returns" does not work as a sequal to the Donner cut.

Enough! I need to get back to the real world. You know, the one where film was never invented and movies and TV had to await the invention of the computer. :twisted:

[camera_wizard]

I saw Superman Returns at an Imax theater. I love those places because they pay attention to things like focus and keeping the projection gate clean.

I agree with reflex, the IMAX theatres really make an effort to present a film as well as possible.

I was going to see Superman Returns at a new IMAX theater that opened locally just in time for the release of Superman Returns.

But, the projector broke and the showing was cancelled.

At least they gave us a refund. :?

Dylan

[jpolzfuss]

it would have looked just as good, if not better.

I doubt that - due to the use of "digital intermediates" all advantages of a film camera in terms of resolution, colours, ... are completely removed in post and the film would have looked as bad as with the video camera.

[MovieStuff]

due to the use of "digital intermediates" all advantages of a film camera in terms of resolution, colours, ... are completely removed in post and the film would have looked as bad as with the video camera.

I really don't think this is accurate. In fact, in the old days of optical effects, they always had to go from a wide shot to a cutaway of someone's face and then back to the wide shot that had the effect because the optical created an obvious generation loss on the image. But now you see footage that has been scanned into the digital realm to add effects and the output looks exactly like the original footage with no visible generation loss. Of all the evils that digital may bring, degradation of the original film footage simply isn't one of them, IMHO. It is, for all practical purposes, a transparent event compared optical printing or film intermediates.

Roger