Gemini Man 4K UHD 60fps (2019)

[JEArgumedo]

The film is nothing special, it's more tech demo than movie. I don't think it's as bad as some people think, but if it wasn't for the technology, this movie would probably be ignored and forgotten.

So I got lucky and saw the 120 fps version of the film. There's good and bad to it. The clarity is pretty jaw-dropping. Images are sharp and it's the best implementation of HFR so far. As long as everything on-screen is practical, it looks great.

Unfortunately, there's a ton of CGI in the film and the 120 fps calls attention to how fake it all is. Junior (the young Will Smith digital double) is incredible in the 24 fps trailers I've seen. In 120 fps, his head is floating on another actor's body. VFX artists clearly have a way's to go with working with HFR footage. I feel like all the tricks they've probably used to hide flaws in 24 fps do not work here at all.

This isn't a spoiler, but there's one scene where Benedict Wong's character is piloting a plane. The camera is outside looking into his cockpit and it's just so obvious that he's on a soundstage and the plane around him is a cartoon.

Part of me wishes a director who sparingly uses CGI would try out HFR because the VFX teams just are not ready.

Ok, the good stuff. Again, all the practical stuff and locations look great. The 3D is by far the best I've seen. HFR is definitely helpful to 3D. Some of the stuff I think people would suffer from headaches watching in 24 is totally not an issue at 120. I hope to see this tech pop up elsewhere... like a better movie.

Glad I saw it for the tech. If you can see it in 120 fps and have an interest in that stuff, try to see it before they yank it from theaters. Otherwise, skip it.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by JEArgumedo

Unfortunately, there's a ton of CGI in the film and the 120 fps calls attention to how fake it all is. Junior (the young Will Smith digital double) is incredible in the 24 fps trailers I've seen. In 120 fps, his head is floating on another actor's body. VFX artists clearly have a way's to go with working with HFR footage. I feel like all the tricks they've probably used to hide flaws in 24 fps do not work here at all.

Huh, we had opposite experiences with Junior. He was easily the most convincing CGI human I've seen so far. It's crazy how different opinions on this sort of thing could be.

[shane01]

Originally Posted by JEArgumedo

Junior (the young Will Smith digital double) is incredible in the 24 fps trailers I've seen. In 120 fps, his head is floating on another actor's body. VFX artists clearly have a way's to go with working with HFR footage. I feel like all the tricks they've probably used to hide flaws in 24 fps do not work here at all.

I think Junior was entirely CG. I don't think there was any head replacing.

I liked the movie, but I think sweetening the color grade a bit might help ease the in-store demo look.

[JEArgumedo]

Originally Posted by Colson

Huh, we had opposite experiences with Junior. He was easily the most convincing CGI human I've seen so far. It's crazy how different opinions on this sort of thing could be.

He's not better than X23 from Logan or Rachel from Blade Runner 2049 for me. In 120, he's deep in the uncanny valley.

Originally Posted by shane01

I think Junior was entirely CG. I don't think there was any head replacing.

I kinda doubt that, it sounds like a marketing thing. I don't doubt that they made an entirely CGI Will Smith double but there are too many shots where there's clearly a physical body there and it's not Will Smith's body, but someone put his young face on it. You can even see moments where it doesn't line up. I looked up some of the shots in the 24 fps trailers and it's hard to tell, but in 120 it doesn't blend for me.

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but all the CG in the movie (not just Junior) called attention to itself.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Colson

I got to see this in 3D 120fps, and it was glorious. The movie itself was all right, nothing amazing, but it was a technical showcase, for sure. Seriously awesome stuff. The high framerate was so effective for the action sequences that I wish every action film was shot that way - it really did lend a level of clarity to the whole affair. I think I remember someone commenting that it looked as if the screen were a giant hole in the wall, and I'd like to echo that sentiment. Everything looked very real.

Speaking of things that looked very real, young Will Smith was definitely the most impressive CGI human I've seen yet - much better than Tarkin, for example. There was only really one scene where he looked totally off (

[Show spoiler]the scene at the university at the end had him looking super duper weird and uncanny, for some reason

), but other than that I would say it was 95% convincing most of the time and 100% convincing often. Really incredible stuff, and I applaud the team that worked on it.

Part of me hopes they add a 12-fps spec to 4K Blu-ray by the time this is released, but either way, I hope we at least get a 60fps version, because WOW.

4K120 wouldn't even work on most TVs and HDMI cables so no, it's not going to be added to the disc spec any time soon. But I reckon a 4K60 UHD Blu is nailed on

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by JEArgumedo

The film is nothing special, it's more tech demo than movie. I don't think it's as bad as some people think, but if it wasn't for the technology, this movie would probably be ignored and forgotten.

So I got lucky and saw the 120 fps version of the film. There's good and bad to it. The clarity is pretty jaw-dropping. Images are sharp and it's the best implementation of HFR so far. As long as everything on-screen is practical, it looks great.

Unfortunately, there's a ton of CGI in the film and the 120 fps calls attention to how fake it all is. Junior (the young Will Smith digital double) is incredible in the 24 fps trailers I've seen. In 120 fps, his head is floating on another actor's body. VFX artists clearly have a way's to go with working with HFR footage. I feel like all the tricks they've probably used to hide flaws in 24 fps do not work here at all.

This isn't a spoiler, but there's one scene where Benedict Wong's character is piloting a plane. The camera is outside looking into his cockpit and it's just so obvious that he's on a soundstage and the plane around him is a cartoon.

Part of me wishes a director who sparingly uses CGI would try out HFR because the VFX teams just are not ready.

Ok, the good stuff. Again, all the practical stuff and locations look great. The 3D is by far the best I've seen. HFR is definitely helpful to 3D. Some of the stuff I think people would suffer from headaches watching in 24 is totally not an issue at 120. I hope to see this tech pop up elsewhere... like a better movie.

Glad I saw it for the tech. If you can see it in 120 fps and have an interest in that stuff, try to see it before they yank it from theaters. Otherwise, skip it.

This is what Hollywood has been reduced to. Relying on gimmicks such: 3D, CGI, and elaborate special effects. Eye candy! When actors and actresses won Academy Awards back in the day they've earned it, and they didn't have to take off their clothes, do explicit sex scenes and use vulgar language. Their movies didn't have to rely on 3D, CGI and special effect to draw the people to the theaters to see their movies. Movies are now 75% CGI, special effect and 25% acting, with hardly no scripts, storylines and acting. If it wouldn't have been for the old comic books and video games, there wouldn't be any movies.

[Gacivory]

Originally Posted by slimdude

This is what Hollywood has been reduced to. Relying on gimmicks such: 3D, CGI, and elaborate special effects. Eye candy! When actors and actresses won Academy Awards back in the day they've earned because they acted had good scripts, and they didn't have to take off their, do explicit sex scenes and use vulgar language. Their movies didn't have to rely on 3D, CGI and special effect to draw the people to the theaters to see their movies. Movies are now 75% CGI, special effect and 25% acting.

Gimmicks didn’t exist before 3D was invited this decade and not around in the 50’s! Widescreen wasn’t invented to compete with people staying home to watch TV! The Hayes Code wasn’t invented to combat things deemed immoral in movies!

[JEArgumedo]

Originally Posted by slimdude

This is what Hollywood has been reduced to. Relying on gimmicks such: 3D, CGI, and elaborate special effects. Eye candy! When actors and actresses won Academy Awards back in the day they've earned it, and they didn't have to take off their clothes, do explicit sex scenes and use vulgar language. Their movies didn't have to rely on 3D, CGI and special effect to draw the people to the theaters to see their movies. Movies are now 75% CGI, special effect and 25% acting, with hardly no scripts, storylines and acting. If it wouldn't have been for the old comic books and video games, there wouldn't be any movies.

I don't think 3D, CGI, or even HFR are gimmicks for the record, I just think in this particular movie, those were prioritized over story to the movie's detriment. There are movies that I love in spite of their lackluster stories, and because of their crazy inventive visuals like Jupiter Ascending.

I mean there are so many great movies that just would not be possible without CGI today. The Wolf Of Wall Street has like 400 VFX shots full of CGI and I wouldn't exactly call that movie gimmicky.

EDIT: Also, actors and actresses have been removing their clothing since the silent era, so let's not pretend like that's a recent thing.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

4K120 wouldn't even work on most TVs and HDMI cables so no, it's not going to be added to the disc spec any time soon. But I reckon a 4K60 UHD Blu is nailed on

Ah, that's a good point.

I'd like to reiterate that I found CGI Will extremely convincing. But again, these sorts of differences in opinion are common with CGI humans.

I'd highly recommend catching this movie in 120fps if you can, or 60fps otherwise.

[JEArgumedo]

Originally Posted by Colson

I'd highly recommend catching this movie in 120fps if you can, or 60fps otherwise.

Agreed. It's gonna be a while before we see another movie in HFR.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by JEArgumedo

I don't think 3D, CGI, or even HFR are gimmicks for the record, I just think in this particular movie, those were prioritized over story to the movie's detriment. There are movies that I love in spite of their lackluster stories, and because of their crazy inventive visuals like Jupiter Ascending.

I mean there are so many great movies that just would not be possible without CGI today. The Wolf Of Wall Street has like 400 VFX shots full of CGI and I wouldn't exactly call that movie gimmicky.

EDIT: Also, actors and actresses have been removing their clothing since the silent era, so let's not pretend like that's a recent thing.

Not in the Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Susan Hayward and Gena Rowlands days. Neither the men. No they did not! They wore bath towels and robes to cover themselves, even though they were not naked underneath. They were never totally nude. The industry had morals so did the actors, and full body nudity was not allowed. Now they show everything and anything, and doesn't leave nothing to the imagination anymore.

[Gillietalls]

Just got back from a Dolby Vision 3D HFR viewing and this is hands down the best looking movie I’ve ever scene! Say what you want about the movie. It’s not as bad as the critics are making it out to be in my opinion. But as far as picture quality, I don’t think anything is even close. It was hard to believe it wasn’t 4K. That’s how clear and sharp the picture was. The HFR was an added dimension that took the picture to a whole different level. The hyper real look kept everything smooth with no blurring or judder. It made the action way more easy to see. This is the first HFR movie I’ve seen in the theater. Second movie ever behind my home version of Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, and I’m a HFR fan. Hope to see more movies using this technology.

[JEArgumedo]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Not in the Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Susan Hayward and Gena Rowlands day. No they did not! They worn bath towels and robes on their bodies. They were never totally nude. The industry had morals do did the actors, and full body nudity was not allowed. Now they show everything and anything, and leave nothing to the imagination anymore.

You might want to look up Inspirtation (1915), Hypocrites (1915), Back To God's Country (1919), A Daughter Of The Gods (1916) and The Queen Of Sheba (1921) (20th Century Fox produced the last 2 I named). All American silent films with nudity (pre-Hays Code). It's literally been a thing since the silent era. But anyways, that's totally off-topic and basically has nothing to do with Gemini Man...

I hope to hear more people's thoughts on the 120 fps. I feel like 120 fps has mostly been received positively, but not 60 for whatever reason (at least anecdotally). I wonder if there a perceivable difference between 60 and 120.

[Colson]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Not in the Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Susan Hayward and Gena Rowlands days. Neither the men. No they did not! They worn bath towels and robes to cover themselves, even though they were not naked underneath. They were never totally nude. The industry had morals do did the actors, and full body nudity was not allowed. Now they show everything and anything, and doesn'tleave nothing to the imagination anymore.

Ah yes, the Hays Code and censorship are good things.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by JEArgumedo

You might want to look up Inspirtation (1915), Hypocrites (1915), Back To God's Country (1919), A Daughter Of The Gods (1916) and The Queen Of Sheba (1921) (20th Century Fox produced the last 2 I named). All American silent films with nudity (pre-Hays Code).

Those were erotic, silent B movies. I'm talking about mainstream films with A-list actors and actresses.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Gimmicks didn’t exist before 3D was invited this decade and not around in the 50’s! Widescreen wasn’t invented to compete with people staying home to watch TV! The Hayes Code wasn’t invented to combat things deemed immoral in movies!

To cross boundaries for a moment: that's what cracks me up about the pushback against HDR in general, it's pretty much all a goddamned gimmick - only some crossed over and became respected parts of the cinematic landscape over the last 100 years or so. The results when existing content is retrofitted to fit the gimmick aren't usually pretty when we think of colourisation or cropping 1.37 movies to fit 2.20 70mm or upmixing mono into surround sound with lots of new sound effects, but things like 3D conversions and HDR regrades have a broader canvas to start with and so I see them as extensions of what's already there, though being employed with taste and restraint are still vital components of those conversions. I wouldn't be quite so enamoured with 24fps movies getting retrofiitted for high frame rate via image processing, but something tells me that we're not going to have to worry about HFR becoming anything like a widely used standard for films in the years to come.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by Gacivory

Gimmicks didn’t exist before 3D was invited this decade and not around in the 50’s! Widescreen wasn’t invented to compete with people staying home to watch TV! The Hayes Code wasn’t invented to combat things deemed immoral in movies!

Ha Ha Get EM right! I'm gonna watch this in HFR 2morrow to see how good/bad it is.

[gonzo_fool]

Just saw it in Dolby Cinema 3D with HFR presumably in 120fps, as AMC Aventura 24 was on the list of 14 theaters in the US showing it that way. Ang Lee is not your average choice to direct an action movie and he brings a focus that's less on the spectacle (although what's there was very well done) and more on the moments in between where the characters contemplate their actions. This clearly wasn't what the snoring gent beside me was expecting but I dug it. It's an action movie that's going for tactility, and this is aided immeasurably by the high frame rate.

I thought Ang's previous use of HFR on Billy Lynn was well done but the movie was less than the sum of its parts. The smoothness and clarity work much better here, I thought, with the action sequences benefiting the most. I'm curious to check out the 60fps version as well, as this looked very similar to the 4K Blu of Billy Lynn. Though that wasn't in 3-D, which again helps with the immersion into the world and the elimination of motion blur.

I did have a question for those who saw it in Dolby: the one thing that detracted from my viewing was that I noticed occasional purple and green fringing in the image. This was caused, I believe, from the Dolby glasses not being the standard polarized affair. Did anyone else notice this? I also could tell I wasn't looking at a 4K image; it was missing that extra increase in detail, but that didn't bother me as much.

[ImBlu_DaBaDee]

If the 4K disc for this is indeed a 60FPS presentation I would get it when it’s cheap for the eye candy alone. Some of the imagery in this film was stunningly sharp and crisp and the super smooth action sequences in the practical locations looked amaze balls.

[JParfait]

Originally Posted by gonzo_fool

I did have a question for those who saw it in Dolby: the one thing that detracted from my viewing was that I noticed occasional purple and green fringing in the image. This was caused, I believe, from the Dolby glasses not being the standard polarized affair. Did anyone else notice this? I also could tell I wasn't looking at a 4K image; it was missing that extra increase in detail, but that didn't bother me as much.

Also saw it in Dolby 3D+HFR and I noticed a purple spot in the bottom left corner of my peripheral vision due to the glasses (and maybe the angle I was sitting?). Other than that, I didn't notice any issues visually.