Gemini Man 4K UHD 60fps (2019)

[Colson]

I basically agree with everything you said there, Geoff.

I wish more action movies were released in HFR, because the additional detail we get while things are in motion is wonderful.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I think the work on Irishman was pretty good for the most part, but who knows how much better it would've been had they used facial markers. Scorsese and the cast found them distracting and didn't want them. And had the movement coach actually done their job, that would've gone a long way to helping smooth out those lingering issues.

I said that already re: the markers and the other gubbins helping out, but it's as if the quality of de-ageing live performances in general has regressed these last few years, Michael Douglas looked scarily good in Ant-Man but awful in the sequel and in Endgame. I'm starting to lean more and more towards total CG replacement being the answer though even then that's no guarantee of getting it right, as CG without extensive mocap reference also doesn't work for me e.g. younger Arnie in Genisys or Rachael in BR2049. Great in still form just to look at but the illusion is shattered when they have to actually act, whereas Junior ticks both boxes IMO for both quality of the effect and quality of the performance.

Of course Irishman has the performances in spades which is why it's still a very well made (if rather meandering) film but the quality of the effect isn't quite there, though from looking at Junior I'm now getting rather excited at the prospect of what this tech can do.

[imsounoriginal]

I dunno if it's the quality so much as the amount of work needing to be done. It was initially used sparingly, so it was manageable. The more they demand, and we already know how squeezed for time and money these VFX houses are, the more the work tends to suffer. The exceptions being Sam Jackson in Captain Marvel (who I think is probably the most effective use of the tech so far when considering his screentime). And hell, De Niro and Pesci have their rougher moments but I think Pacino looks seamless throughout (and he has the least amount of screentime out of the three).

On topic though -- agreed that Junior looks great. That last scene is rough, but I'm almost positive it was a pickup (and I said as much when I saw the movie opening night).

[Geoff D]

Absolutely, I said as much in another thread that the workload was immense and Netflix's insistence on 4K VFX was another limiting factor in getting it done in time. Then again, with Gemini Man they were also working in 4K and weren't just working on Junior at 24 frames per second but at five times that rate, so while he wasn't on-screen for anything like as long as the Irishfella there was still a hell of a lot of work involved.

But Pacino, seamless? Not for me, no. Looked very odd, especially around his jawline and that was an issue I had with all of them in Irishman. And I barely think of Sam Jackson in CM in these conversations because he hardly looks any different than he does now IMO, it's very minimal work apart from having a few pounds shaved off digitally.

[imsounoriginal]

I dunno. I was sitting in the theater watching Irishman, leaned over to my dad and wondered if they even did anything to Pacino. Of course they did, but it looked incredible. De Niro's eyes are a dead giveaway that something's always off (not to mention his posture in general), and Pesci mostly looks fine but he often looks kinda sleek or smooth for some reason, like the texturing work on his skin just wasn't all the way there. But even in those courtroom close-ups of Pacino, the work holds up IMO. But I've noticed I tend to be more forgiving of these things than most; like, I thought Douglas looked fine in Antsy 2 and Endgame. (And I get that Jackson might've been easier to de-age because he's kept himself in good shape, but that doesn't really change the fact that end result looks fantastic. I remember people complaining about Gregg as well, but I didn't saw anything wrong there either.) And honestly, even the brief scene in the new Terminator looked excellent.

[Geoff D]

To be fair, Michelle Pfeiffer looked rather good in Ant-Man 2 but Douglas, holy hell that's a negatory from me. Sam Jackson was a bit of a sneaky one, I know I'm basically using 'black don't crack' as an argument that I've just shot down when someone aimed it at my own comments re: Junior but SJ still looks kinda old in CM to me, only he's got a young man's haircut and they slimmed his waist down a bit. I remember when the first stills appeared and people were crapping themselves in amazement and I was like "is that it?", lol

The prologue to Dark Fate does look stunning because it's not them shooting the actual actors and then trying to de-age them, they're pasting digital heads onto body doubles using some mocap and it works like gangbusters.

[emailking]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

That sounds good for a concert, but with a movie I don't want the image to be closer to what I would see if I was actually on set.

For example during a fight scene one of the characters was knocked into a wall and it broke apart. It broke apart in a very realistic manner for the material the fake prop wall was made of, but it didn't look like it should if it were a real wall. The extra realism of high frame rate just makes it obvious how fake everything is.

And if it's your personal preference that's fine. That can go to artistic intent. Even when movies are all HFR I expect some will still be made at 24 fps occasionally for artistic purposes, like there are still movies being made in black & white and even some silent! I don't get the appeal personally, I'd like everything to appear more real and authentic.

There are other things you could hypothetically do to the movie that wouldn't expose the fake wall. You could decrease the movie's brightness, or give it a fuzzy resolution, or put a cartoon filter on the whole thing. I'm guessing you wouldn't want these. But I think decreasing the framerate is just as ridiculous a downgrade. We're just used to it.

Hopefully there will be some option on turn down the framerate on movies for people who don't like it (just like you can turn off color on TVs, if you really want to). I'd like the technology to march on though since I see it as an improvement.

[newtonp01]

Originally Posted by emailking

And if it's your personal preference that's fine. That can go to artistic intent. Even when movies are all HFR I expect some will still be made at 24 fps occasionally for artistic purposes, like there are still movies being made in black & white and even some silent! I don't get the appeal personally, I'd like everything to appear more real and authentic.

I'm not sure HFR will ever replace the 24fps standard. The industry is definitely saying no right now to it.

Originally Posted by emailking

There are other things you could hypothetically do to the movie that wouldn't expose the fake wall. You could decrease the movie's brightness, or give it a fuzzy resolution, or put a cartoon filter on the whole thing. I'm guessing you wouldn't want these. But I think decreasing the framerate is just as ridiculous a downgrade. We're just used to it.

I agree, realism is a friend to HFR. Ironically it makes the film look fake...because it is fake. In 60p you can tell that the wall is made of plastic skulls, or that the actors aren't really trying to hit each other. I agree that HFR generally works better with greater manipulation, but I think the answer is even simpler than that - if the lack of motion blur makes it look fake why then should the filmmakers feel constrained to shoot at a typical 180 degree shutter? I'd like to see HFR in upcoming movies done a little bit more creatively: maybe with a much slower shutter speed, maybe undercranked like Fury Road, or anamorphic/vignetted, etc.

Originally Posted by emailking

Hopefully there will be some option on turn down the framerate on movies for people who don't like it (just like you can turn off color on TVs, if you really want to). I'd like the technology to march on though since I see it as an improvement.

Not sure if that's possible. I think the best we can hope for are two different dedicated discs.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I said that already re: the markers and the other gubbins helping out, but it's as if the quality of de-ageing live performances in general has regressed these last few years, Michael Douglas looked scarily good in Ant-Man but awful in the sequel and in Endgame. I'm starting to lean more and more towards total CG replacement being the answer though even then that's no guarantee of getting it right, as CG without extensive mocap reference also doesn't work for me e.g. younger Arnie in Genisys or Rachael in BR2049. Great in still form just to look at but the illusion is shattered when they have to actually act, whereas Junior ticks both boxes IMO for both quality of the effect and quality of the performance.

Of course Irishman has the performances in spades which is why it's still a very well made (if rather meandering) film but the quality of the effect isn't quite there, though from looking at Junior I'm now getting rather excited at the prospect of what this tech can do.

I'm surprised you thought Douglas in Ant-Man OG was good, I've thought he looked a little weird from the start. I also thought Junior was great when you looked at him face on, but looked like a CG model when the cameras rotated around.

[Geoff D]

Not every shot of MD is perfect - as with Junior, when you catch him from the side it's not quite there - but in the big front-on close ups I still can't believe how good he looked in Ant-Man's prologue. And not just for how good he looks but how the performance also came through.

[emailking]

Originally Posted by newtonp01

I'm not sure HFR will ever replace the 24fps standard. The industry is definitely saying no right now to it.

Yeah it might be a bumpy road but we'll probably get there eventually I think.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I think you're being a bit unfair here since, as I'm reminded by friends and family "black don't crack" - Smith isn't nearly as old as the Irishman cast and also looks great for his age as it is.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

What does that have to do with it? I mean that's not actually Smith as the younger version, is it? The reason why I'm so amazed is that it's an entirely CG creation, nothing but pixels built from the ground up, and it looks fifty times better than what ILM did trying to shave a few decades off of the real De Niro and co. The latter just did not work for me, it was a valiant attempt but Ang Lee decided not to do that with Will - despite how black don't crack - and it paid off (in creative if not commercial terms) as the result is quite astonishing.

I don't why, but you guys having an educated discussion with "black don't crack" as a central point put a smile on my face. I'm tempted to buy this on iTunes in 4K while it's $10. It's only a few bucks more than a rental.

[imsounoriginal]

Almost picked this up yesterday with some Walmart store credit, but I can't help thinking that this is gonna drop in price pretty quickly, given that it's Paramount and not particularly popular anyway.

EDIT: also, I noticed that if you buy this at Walmart, you also get a bonus digital (possibly Vudu only) copy of xXx. Not sure if it's 4K but it's a nice little bonus.

[xellos2099alpha]

Is it me or Gemini man 4k 60 fps is more colorful/ vibrant than other movie in 4k? I show it to my friend the other day he said it look colorful and amazing.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by xellos2099alpha

Is it me or Gemini man 4k 60 fps is more colorful/ vibrant than other movie in 4k? I show it to my friend the other day he said it look colorful and amazing.

60fps gives a sense of 'clearer picture'so your brain might detect that as 'more vibrant' also

[aetherhole]

Or it's simply just the way Gemini Man was shot, along with the equipment used and post processing that was done that makes this film more colorful and vibrant...

[levcore]

Originally Posted by xellos2099alpha

Is it me or Gemini man 4k 60 fps is more colorful/ vibrant than other movie in 4k? I show it to my friend the other day he said it look colorful and amazing.

It look colourful and amazing? I'm sold.

[Geoff D]

It's bright AF with a very high average brightness level as well as the highlights, that plus the extremely sharp and detailed image capture will have most people salivating.

[BrownianMotion]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's bright AF with a very high average brightness level as well as the highlights, that plus the extremely sharp and detailed image capture will have most people salivating.

I think this is the strength of the presentation more so than "vibrant colors." Not that the colors were muted or anything, but it's certainly not the most "colorful/vibrant" presentation that I've seen, like the other poster stated.

[Geoff D]

Right, which is why I noted in my write-up that the colour comes from the production design rather than being goosed in the grade. It looks vibrant but naturalistic with it.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I think the work on Irishman was pretty good for the most part, but who knows how much better it would've been had they used facial markers. Scorsese and the cast found them distracting and didn't want them. And had the movement coach actually done their job, that would've gone a long way to helping smooth out those lingering issues.

The old man movement and some of the "too smooth" skin threw me off