Was District 9 shot digitally?

[42041]

Originally Posted by tyelway07

Quentin Tarantino recently said that he is going to retire from directing at 60 but if movies stop being shown in film that he will retire before then.

That's a bit strange considering he's used digital intermediates since Kill Bill you'd think he'd go all film like Nolan does if digital bothered him that much...

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

Can't stand the common thought in most of this thread that grain = bad. Just, wow.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Monkey

Don't they have software programs, etc to simply add back in fake grain artifacts?

Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to have a pristine master taken from a digital source then tweak it to obtain whatever look you want (adding grain artifacts, taking away color, adding scratch marks, etc).

Originally Posted by Monkey

Well I'd imagine in time they'll be able to fake it well enough where the digitally added artifacts look just like real grain artifacts.

Artificial software grain will never replicate what real film grain will do. In film, when the light that enters through camera, touches the film, it causes a chemical reaction with all the tiny particles on the film to produce the image. In a way, you can say the grain is what makes the image itself. This is something software artificial grain will not replicate very accurately. And it's pretty much pointless. My advise would normally, if you're shooting digital, then embrace the technology and focus on the story.

Originally Posted by tyelway07

Quentin Tarantino recently said that he is going to retire from directing at 60 but if movies stop being shown in film that he will retire before then.

He's a maverick. Who cares? The world doesn't stop for him.

Originally Posted by 42041

That's a bit strange considering he's used digital intermediates since Kill Bill you'd think he'd go all film like Nolan does if digital bothered him that much...

Nolan does use digital effects as well. Both of his Batman films used quite a bit of digital effects. Then again, it didn't matter to most. Both film kicked ass and it wasn't because of the digital effects.

[richieb1971]

People don't care if grain is part of the image. The perfect picture is not best a format can deliver, its the best the eye's can deliver.

[monkeyjb1988]

Blu-Rays of movies shot on both film and digital look great, with exceptions on both sides. Even older films like Wizard of Oz, Day the Earth Stood Still, and the old Disney classics look great, just like newer contemporaries like Iron Man, Get Smart, and the Pixar films (I know, Iron Man was shot on film, but it has enough digital effects to qualify, I think). If it's a good movie and the Blu looks half-way decent (and preferably has awesome extras ), it works for me.

I'm a fan of RED. It sounds like a cool camera, being digital yet produce digital images you could only get by scanning film at that resolution. I thought 1080p was pretty good until I watched the featurette about restoring the Wizard of Oz on the 2005 DVD and it kept talking about how 4k was the best resolution for a film. I looked to see if a 4k camera existed, I found out about RED, the rest is history. I have nothing against 1080p cameras, it's just I think RED is the better digital camera.

(to people that say "Well, Oz was scanned at 8k for the Blu, so is a 4k camera that great?", I say three things:

1.) Yes, a 4k camera is still cool.
2.) RED is working on an 8K camera.
3.) Wizard of Oz is that awesome to get an 8k scan )

[connect42]

Originally Posted by jamesdevil

Can't stand the common thought in most of this thread that grain = bad. Just, wow.

Disagreed ... sort of. More on that below.

Originally Posted by DidntKnowJack

You must learn to love the film grain.

No, but seriously. I can maybe understand someone not liking intentionally added grain (eg: 300), or noise from a bad transfer, but film grain is natural and part of how that film looked when it was first released. It's part of film. Makes it feel organic, in a way.

At the same time, I don't dislike digitally shot films either. It's (usually) the director's call what film stock to use or not use, or to shoot digitally. It all comes down to those 2 words we hear all the time: Director's vision...or intent.

I think I have a split personality. At home I love grain free, pristine images like "District 9" and "Shooter". I prefer grain free Blu-ray films.
However, my favorite theater to visit is our discount theater - and not because of the price. It is the only non-digital theater left in town. For some reason I really enjoy that experience.

[Jack Burton]

I love films shot in digital like Zodiac and Knowing but film gives something extra when it comes to detail.Films like QOS or the new Star Trek show every pour and line in the chracters faces which digital cannot reach.
Love how digital makes the entire shot for shot look sharp and crisp,but for detail film stock wins the day for me every time.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Valkyr47

I was watching this on blu last night and was blown away by the video quality... it seems like most blu rays are loaded with grain, minus a few exceptions... those tend to be animated movies like Wall-E and Up, which im assuming its because those are 100% digital so there is no film grain in a digitally shot film

so is district 9 shot digitally because this movie has AMAZING clarity and detail, and what appears to be not a drop of grain, it just looks so nice and clean.......

Yes, with the following -

Red One (Build 15)
Sony EX1/EX3s
Canon HF100s
Cineflex aerials via a Sony F950 (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....es#post2683514)

I would have to speak with the Editor (who recently picked up an ACE Eddie nomination for his work on District 9) to get the exact figure as to how much footage in the final cut is derived from Red One acquisition (which serves as the movie’s main perspective) but, it’s in the ballpark of 60-70%.....probably around 65%.

As an aside, the American Society of Cinematographers published their nominations for the year’s best Cinematography this past Monday and they are as follows….

AVATAR (Mauro Fiore)
The Hurt Locker (Barry Ackroyd)
Inglourious Basterds (Robert Richardson)
Nine (Dion Beebe)
The White Ribbon (Christian Berger)

The only primarily ‘digital’ entry on the above list is AVATAR for which Jim Cameron used the PACE Fusion 3-D camera system (based upon Sony HDC-F950 cameras, and to a lesser extent, Sony HDC-1500 cameras when they became available).
All the Sony cameras were paired with Fujinon lenses.

[krazeyeyez]

I loved the look of District 9, especially the mix of shots.

To the above "my way" discussion, i like both digital and film. Grain does not bother me and lack of grain does not bother me. I just enjoy knowing that a movie looks the best it possibly can, and by this i mean as close to the directors intent as possible. As digital advances i think it really can deliver one hell of an image though. Especially when you consider the best film available is rarely used thanks to the costs involved.

[42041]

Originally Posted by monkeyjb1988

I'm a fan of RED. It sounds like a cool camera, being digital yet produce digital images you could only get by scanning film at that resolution. I thought 1080p was pretty good until I watched the featurette about restoring the Wizard of Oz on the 2005 DVD and it kept talking about how 4k was the best resolution for a film. I looked to see if a 4k camera existed, I found out about RED, the rest is history. I have nothing against 1080p cameras, it's just I think RED is the better digital camera.

Doesn't really matter for blu-ray though, does it? It'll all end up at 1080p. Possibly with less scaling and de-bayering between the camera and disc if the camera spits out a 1080p image.
I like digital cinematography in general, but I don't know, the films that are out there right now haven't sold me on the Red. Maybe it's just cause it's usually low budget productions, but the colors, especially skin tones, seem "off", and if it's a color grading thing then it's kind of strange that so many movies would go for that look... Apocalypto on the other hand is a digitally shot movie that I think looks fantastic.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by 42041

Doesn't really matter for blu-ray though, does it? It'll all end up at 1080p. Possibly with less scaling and de-bayering between the camera and disc if the camera spits out a 1080p image.
I like digital cinematography in general, but I don't know, the films that are out there right now haven't sold me on the Red. Maybe it's just cause it's usually low budget productions, but the colors, especially skin tones, seem "off", and if it's a color grading thing then it's kind of strange that so many movies would go for that look... Apocalypto on the other hand is a digitally shot movie that I think looks fantastic.

Again, to reiterate: the RED shoots RAW data, so you can adjust ANY color within each frame specifically, or the whole frame itself. Just like a digital RAW photograph. There is nothing wrong or "off" with the way it captures images, because everything can be tweaked or changed. Its just that the majority of RED-shot films so far (D9, Soderbergh's stuff, Antichrist) have all had delierate color schemes or desaturation (which is the new popular thing to do).

[Kris Deering]

I just watched the Blu of Antichrist the other day and the photography looked stunning, especially the opening B&W montage. Really looking forward to seeing "The White Ribbon" at some point!

And yes, D9 looked incredible on Blu. One of my favorite transfers of the year!!

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Volume11

Doubtfull. Just like the best CGI it still doesn't look "as real" as traditional effects from film elements and real life objects.

I disagree. I think the exosuit in D9 is a perfect example as to why CGI is needed. Even if you build a model for it, the stop-motion animation would look horrible compared to CGI animation. I'm all for using props and real sets when needed, but I think CGI serves its purpose and then some. It's still artistically creative for most people, myself included, so I'm hoping others will eventually welcome CGI with open arms.

[phatrat1982]

Originally Posted by retablo

I wish he was 60 now.

I second that.

[jamclaur]

Originally Posted by retablo

The advantage of the RED One is that it captures images at 4K, unlike other digital cameras that only capture at 1080x1920 HD... I've shot movies with this camera and I certainly see it as being the future, although nothing can replace the "look" of film.

the resolution of film is roughly 4k. The RED shoots at 4k and the new Epic is going to go as high as 28k. We will DEFINITELY see things that look better than film coming down the pipeline.

Plus the RED uses the same lens mounts as traditional film cameras so you can use 16mm or 35mm lens, giving you the same depth of field and "look" of film.

I work with the RED on a regular basis and have used it to shoot my own short film. It's definitely the way of the future... especially with special effects films like Jumper, Knowing, and District 9 using it. (plus Michael Jackson shot all the new featurettes for This is It on RED... )

[jamclaur]

Originally Posted by 42041

Doesn't really matter for blu-ray though, does it? It'll all end up at 1080p. Possibly with less scaling and de-bayering between the camera and disc if the camera spits out a 1080p image.
I like digital cinematography in general, but I don't know, the films that are out there right now haven't sold me on the Red. Maybe it's just cause it's usually low budget productions, but the colors, especially skin tones, seem "off", and if it's a color grading thing then it's kind of strange that so many movies would go for that look... Apocalypto on the other hand is a digitally shot movie that I think looks fantastic.

It does matter. The source material is MUCH more important than the outcome. Which is why when they do a lot of older films on BD they go back to the source film to clean it up.

You can shoot a film on VHS and upscale it to 1080p. It's going to be 1080p in the end, but it's not going to look like RED or 35mm.

And as for the RED, you must not have watched many movies shot with it. Jumper*, Knowing, District 9, Red Dirt Rising, and even a Peter Jackson Short WWII film were shot on RED and all look amazing.


*Jumper was shot on a combination of film and RED. RED was generally used at anytime there was special effects involved.

[42041]

Originally Posted by jamclaur

It does matter. The source material is MUCH more important than the outcome. Which is why when they do a lot of older films on BD they go back to the source film to clean it up.

You can shoot a film on VHS and upscale it to 1080p. It's going to be 1080p in the end, but it's not going to look like RED or 35mm.

And as for the RED, you must not have watched many movies shot with it. Jumper*, Knowing, District 9, Red Dirt Rising, and even a Peter Jackson Short WWII film were shot on RED and all look amazing.


*Jumper was shot on a combination of film and RED. RED was generally used at anytime there was special effects involved.

But my point is that there seems to be this notion among some people on AV forums that because the Red has 4K output it's going to produce a better looking blu-ray than "conventional" 1080p HD cameras (and i mean the super expensive ones hollywood uses, not the HVX200 or something). Why is no one jumping up and down about the Panavision Genesis? It has a 5760x2160 pixel sensor according to wikipedia, so if you neglect the fact that you're ending up with a 1080p image in the end it's a 5.8K camera

[jamclaur]

Originally Posted by 42041

But my point is that there seems to be this notion among some people on AV forums that because the Red has 4K output it's going to produce a better looking blu-ray than "conventional" 1080p HD cameras (and i mean the super expensive ones hollywood uses, not the HVX200 or something). Why is no one jumping up and down about the Panavision Genesis? It has a 5760x2160 pixel sensor according to wikipedia, so if you neglect the fact that you're ending up with a 1080p image in the end it's a 5.8K camera

The Epic camera (from RED) will have 28K res. So it will blow everything else out of the water as far as res goes. But I think the RED is getting a lot of play right now because it's very consumer friendly in terms of use, availability and price. Whereas a lot of film and high end digital cameras are a thing only seen on hollywood sets.

Besides that 5K, 8K, 28K are all pretty pointless as far as res goes. BD is 1080p and the human eye can't tell much difference beyond a few K so it wont matter much anyway. The Epic's 28K is supposed to match the IMAX look. So we'll see.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by jamclaur

the resolution of film is roughly 4k. The RED shoots at 4k and the new Epic is going to go as high as 28k. We will DEFINITELY see things that look better than film coming down the pipeline.

Plus the RED uses the same lens mounts as traditional film cameras so you can use 16mm or 35mm lens, giving you the same depth of field and "look" of film.

I work with the RED on a regular basis and have used it to shoot my own short film. It's definitely the way of the future... especially with special effects films like Jumper, Knowing, and District 9 using it. (plus Michael Jackson shot all the new featurettes for This is It on RED... )

Welcome Red user.

Actually, the effective resolution of the Red One is 3.1 or 3.2k.

What is really desired by DP’s working on feature films for the *best* image quality that digital cameras can usefully offer, is not marketing campaigns hyping sky-high k’s of resolution (esp. since the vast, vast majority of motion pictures are still being finished at 2k resolution with a 2k post workflow) but rather, true 2k and 4k cameras in regards to both sensors and storage < meaning no compression during original capture.

Many believe, this year, the ARRI Group will provide a digital camera which will have an option enabling it to allow uncompressed recording……other manufacturers should take heed.