Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Best Videography Oscar

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Best Videography Oscar (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Author

Topic: Best Videography Oscar

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-25-2009 08:50 AM

quote: Julio Roberto
Slumdog did NOT have bad photograhpy AT ALL. Proof is that it was the Oscar to best photography, voted by noted cinematographers, and also best picture.

Bullshit. That only underscores the politics of a lot of people in Hollywood "drinking the kool-aid" from that video instead of opening their eyes and judging the picture objectively.

The real proof is on the screen as well as every TV show featuring clips from Slumdog Millionarie. All of it has looked like ass.

I've seen The Dark Knight in IMAX, 2K digital cinema and Blu-ray. It's a far better artistic statement of cinematography -true cinematography at that.

I liked Ben Stiller's joke about how Slumdog Millionaire was shot on someone's cellphone. It was a good precursor to just how loony this fanboy-ism has become about shooting movies in "digital." If the finished result looks like shit it just looks like shit regardless of whether the image was exposed on celluloid or encoded on a disc in binary ones and zeroes.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-25-2009 09:40 AM

Well for what it's worth, I saw "The Dark Knight" and it didn't transport me all that much. (I didn't see it large-format, but I'm not a huge fan of large-format anyway.) It was good, but I'd never want to watch it again. It was just an average movie to me. But then I'm not big into superhero movies, especially Batman movies - I just don't like the genre all that much. I do think Ledger was the highlight of the movie but his character didn't "touch" me like it did so many others....because that's not my kind of movie.

| IP: Logged

Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 02-25-2009 11:25 AM

Slumdog was well shot, and it is a good film, but it didn't deserve eight Oscars. Everyone knows the awards are a load of crap, but at least they get people excited about film and get people through the door.

The Dark Knight sequences shot in IMAX are truly amazing. I have never heard an entire audience gasp when they first encounter the image, even at other IMAX shows. Also, that film has introduced the format to the masses, at least in London. The BFI IMAX are doing shows at 4:30am to keep up with the demand for Wathcmen.

| IP: Logged

Brian Guckian
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 594
From: Dublin, Ireland
Registered: Apr 2003

posted 02-25-2009 11:55 AM

The December 2008 edition of American Cinematographer carried an interesting article on Slumdog Millionaire .

At the top of the piece Director Danny Boyle is quoted as saying that he and Anthony Dod Mantle, BSC, DFF "focus on emerging technology".

Then Dod Mantle says that Boyle "wanted energy and speed". After initial tests in one of the slum locations Boyle says that film "felt really wrong" for the material, and later on states: "I guess I think the feel of the digital approach is more appropriate to this place...for the 7-year-old age it feels a bit tougher, less precious, more urgent".

The article also reveals how about 60 per cent of the film was shot digitally, with the remainder on 35mm. 35mm appears to have been used in certain situations because the Indian crew was more familiar with it, going by comments by Anthony Dod Mantle.

So it looks like the decision to shoot digital was an aesthetic one. That said, has anyone seen what can be done with 8mm today? Amazing! One could argue they could have achieved the "tougher" look they wanted by using e.g. Super-8, etc.

The camera they used was a very small 2K digital camera, the SI-2K Mini from Silicon Imaging, with a universal lens mount.

| IP: Logged

Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002

posted 02-25-2009 12:20 PM

I think it was stupid of the Oscars not to play clips of nominees because most viewers haven't watched a lot of the nominated performances. I am a big movie hound and even I was a little indifferent to some of the nominees announcements as I had no clue what they were nominated for or what kind of role. The Indie Spirit Awards was a better awards show. With the singalong and clips, it makes you want to check out those performances. And the Joaquin Phoenix -Christian Bale parody was done much better than Stiller's disappointing take at the Oscars.

Slumdog Millionaire. I thought it looked decent. But other than Boyle getting best director, I disagree with most of its wins. I love Boyle's work in movies and in the absence of a clearcut superior choice, I am fine with him being honored. I personally feel Trainspotting was one of the best movies of the 90s.

I do have to weigh in Sawaariya as brought up here earlier. I thought it looked like a second rate Moulin Rouge even visually. Too tacky looking and too much use of the blue color. One of the worst movies I have ever tried to watch.

I thought the Bruce song in the Wrestler was better than the average songs in Slumdog and Rahman getting for best score was a joke. One thing Bollywood people don't do well is scores. They are better at songs.

Also I agree on the death montage. Very annoying. And while Latifah sang well, the singing along with the shifting frames was needless. As Bale would say , IT WAS FUCKING DISTRACTING.
The death montage is the ONLY montage that viewers care about. They could double the time of the montage spending more time on each person at a relaxed pace and easily remove one of the needless random montages during the show. And low key music plays better than a song. And let the viewers at home have a full screen image of each dead person. Use the creativity in editing together different facets of the actor's life.

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 02-25-2009 12:22 PM

Just to clarify my position: Slumdog was a very good movie, well shot, with notable cinematography, certainly one of the top *I* have seen this year, and a lot of people (ASC, AMPAS, BAFTA) think it's about the best.

I have not seen many of the nominated (presumably the "top") films, so I can not properly compare. But I also have the feeling Slumdog didn't deserve that many Oscars, as it was good, acomplished for their resources, and innovative in some aspects, but it's weird it was the very best of the year in so many cathegories.

I have also seen Dark Knight in a reasonably proper presentation, but not large-format. Still, it shouldn't quite make a difference in the sense that if a movie has good cinematography it is still good in 35mm or 70mm or Imax.

I wasn't overly impressed, although certainly good and technically above-average. But as others here, I had no desire to watch it again and I DO like superhero movies and thought it was the best Batman so far. I nonetheless watched it in DVD once more later in English as my theatrical seating was with my significant other in spanish dubbed. (BTW: I found Bale's Batman voice overly distracting, to the point of almost forcing me to fast forward through some of his monologues).

Heath's performance was very convincing and an awesome job. Kudos.

I find both films PROBABLY overated.

But Slumdogs photography was, from my point of view, really good and quite impressive. Even more so considering the circunstances (night/overcast/rain/exterior/interior/set/dreamy/flashback/train/POV/steady/video/film) and low budget.

Batman photography was, from my point of view, conservative/technical, but nothing "special" $200m wouldn't get you. Funny how it gets praised over the use of a "gimmick" like Imax and the Slumdog gets ... slumed over the use of a "gimmick" like a "cellphone". Stiller should've pulled out a GIGANTIC Imax-cellphone to laugh about the opposite side of the spectrum.

BTW, those hating "digital" as "video", please remember that there are NEW digital cameras that very closely resemble 35mm capabilities and image quality while SURPASING IT in some parameters and coming VERY CLOSE TO IT in others and that there are cameras announced for the next year or two that will GREATLY surpass most-or-all quality measurement parameters of EVEN IMAX CAMERAS.

So digtial doesn't mean worse or inferior to film automatically and necessarily. Best digital TODAY means (mostly) a bit worse and a bit inferior to film in SOME circunstances, but digital of SOON-TOMORROW will mean BETTER AND SUPERIOR to film. Yes, this will include latitude, DOF, low light sensitivity, speed, flexibility, resolution, noise (grain), etc, etc. Any and all paremeters of image quaility.

So don't get too complacent on digital=bad speech as it is true today but it will soon enough have to change to film=bad.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 02-26-2009 12:18 AM

quote: Pravin Ratnam
Also I agree on the death montage. Very annoying. And while Latifah sang well, the singing along with the shifting frames was needless. As Bale would say , IT WAS FUCKING DISTRACTING.

I couldn't stand all the camera zooming and panning across those LED panels. Those camera moves made me feel like I was watching a somber episode of CNBC's Mad Money. Where was Jim Cramer?

quote: Julio Roberto
Just to clarify my position: Slumdog was a very good movie, well shot, with notable cinematography, certainly one of the top *I* have seen this year, and a lot of people (ASC, AMPAS, BAFTA) think it's about the best.

Take a look at the comments on Slumdog Millionaire right here in the Film Tech movie reviews section. F-T members were speaking their mind about the bullshit cinematography well before the AMPAS and ASC nominations were even mentioned.

Stick a pretty bow on a piece of crap and it will still stink.

quote: Julio Roberto
BTW, those hating "digital" as "video", please remember that there are NEW digital cameras that very closely resemble 35mm capabilities and image quality while SURPASING IT in some parameters and coming VERY CLOSE TO IT in others and that there are cameras announced for the next year or two that will GREATLY surpass most-or-all quality measurement parameters of EVEN IMAX CAMERAS.

We're talking about movies being produced NOW with technology that is available NOW. Right now, "digital" is NOT better than film. And it won't be for some time to come, despite your optimistic predictions that it's going to happen any day. That especially goes for IMAX.

Even in a "digital" versus "digital" contest, the cinematography of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was infinitely better. David Fincher is one of very few contemporary directors who really understand how compose within the 'scope aspect ratio regardless of whether he is filming in Super35 or shooting digital video.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 02-26-2009 12:28 AM

Digital is video. It cannot NOT be video. It is an electronic reproduction of a moving visual image. It's video, but it's just good video. What's next, CDs aren't music/sound because they are digital?

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 02-26-2009 03:24 PM

All semantics. CD's are not records if you choose not to call it that way.

There is no "digital film", as "film" has to be analogue (in practice).

But there is analog and digital video. Up to about 20 years ago, all video was analog and it was called video.

I'm ok with calling it digital video as I'm ok with calling CD's digital records and tapes "analog tapes" and DAT's digital tapes.

But video has been digital and "HD" (i.e. close to intermediate-or-exhibition formats used in theatrical movies) for a while, so I guess that ALL "film" today is video, as it "originates" (in its final form) as a ELECTRONIC digital file (DI) that is "printed back" to an analog media (film).

So almost all (exhibition) "film" today is video (you can't have "film" back from video DI).

But this argument existed 15 years ago with still photography, when digital (photography) wasn't still good enough. People arguing film was superior, better for archiving, etc.

Then digital surpassed film in many quality measurements.

So the argument concentrated in medium and large formats.

But then, digital also surpassed those at reasonable prices.

So nobody (in their right mind) argues today that still "film" (chemical?) photography is tons better than digital alternatives (still digital video?).

The same will happen with moving photography (film? video?).

The only difference is that some of us thinks it may happen in 3-5 years, some think it will happen in 10, and some (who shouldn't be travelling to Vegas), that it won't happen for 20 years.

And a lot of it (be it film or DCinema "video") even originates as "video" today, and virtually all gets converted to "video" and then some shown as video and some shown as "film".

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 02-26-2009 03:30 PM

Records and tapes are physical formats. Perhaps the term you are looking for is "album". Yes, many films go through a video intermediate stage, but we're talking about shooting something with a video camera, not editing. You can exhibit something on film that originated on video, but that doesn't mean it is 100% video or 100% film. It's simply a movie that was shot on video and exhibited on film in some places. And yes, it bugs me when people say that they "film" something with their camcorder. The end.

| IP: Logged

Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008

posted 02-26-2009 03:36 PM

Hope it doesn't bug you when they say they "photograhped their honeymoon" (with a digital still camera) [Wink]

Anyway, just a quick reminder that English is a foreign language for me and I can not always fully grasp the exact meaning of some terms or posts nor can I exactly express what I'm thinking (as well as I could in Spanish).

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 02-26-2009 09:29 PM

Julio,

As for film versus digital still...I don't see the digital by and large exceeding film at this point, still. I'm not a photoshoper, by nature. Digitally shot images still look too flat (2D). What I most certainly conceed to digital for still photography is its convienence and relative ease.

I'm not say that the digital stuff is bad but I certainly don't find that it is a given that digital is the right choice for all applications.

As for digital intermediates...yeah...they suck! They ruin the "film look" and ruin the look, period. This is particlarly true for the 2K DIs...they suck...every single one I've had to endure.

I looked over my review of Slumdog before I knew how it was made...I called it right. It was not only not good cinematography, it was BAD cinematography....to the point it was distracting. The use of digital made the image look cheap and 3rd rate. Nobody should aspire to shoot a movie that incompetently. That fact that it won an award for that "work" shows a problem with how it achieved that award...it still sucks.

As for film's time in the mainstream cinema...it is an absolute crapshoot as to how long that is...and it is mostly in the hands of the exhibitors, not the studios. Don't buy digital, and film will be around a bit longer. Buy digital, and it will leave sooner. Its all about the numbers.

Steve

| IP: Logged

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-26-2009 10:07 PM

Joe--my understanding is that the difference between "video" and "digital cinema" was that a "video" image contains blanking and sync information, whereas a "digital cinema" image is simply a series of still images to be presented in sequence at a particular frame rate.

Do the digital video formats (Digi-Beta, etc.) actually store the blanking and sync information on the tape, or is that information re-created on the fly when the tape is played?

In any case, Slumdog looked bad; I didn't think that it was a bad film, but it is a forgettable film. No one will be talking about it in ten years.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.