STAR WARS: EP V "REVISITED EDITION"ADYWAN - 12GB 1080p MP4 VERSION AVAILABLE NOW — Page 1094

Given that DSLRs give good image quality, and they don't need to record the sound...why not?

timdiggerm said:

Given that DSLRs give good image quality, and they don't need to record the sound...why not?

DSLR has good image, but compared to 35mm film, it's laughable. The colour range is only 8-bit, which drastically limits what you can do with colour grading. Most DSLRs don't even have a full frame image sensor. 5D does, which it seems like is what they are using though. You're bound to get artifacting.

The contrast ratio with DSLR is also hysterically shitty compared to film. DSLR crushes the blacks on shooting. The colour range isn't true YCrCb 0-255, and regardless of what you do with it, you end up with RGB 16-135. 

Artifacting and brightness/contrast/colour aside, the grain on a DSLR compare to that of celluloid is an even bigger difference that Gorilla Grain can't meet, as much as it claims that it can. 

When you have virtually every cinematographer in the industry saying that Digital STILL doesn't have the same look as Film (and these are people comparing film to the likes of the Alexa) how on Earth do you expect a DSLR to do it? Granted, MANY cinematographers are beginning to shoot digital now over film (obviously excluding the likes of Wally Pfister), but if they were doing some inserts for a film that was shot, coloured and edited on film, do you think they would shoot digital, let alone a DSLR?

Asteroid-Man: I'm certain that adywan would accept the donation of a 35mm Panavision camera as well as all of the equipment needed to digitize 35mm film at a >2K resolution.

Get crackin'!

Asteroid-Man said:

timdiggerm said:

Given that DSLRs give good image quality, and they don't need to record the sound...why not?

DSLR has good image, but compared to 35mm film, it's laughable. The colour range is only 8-bit, which drastically limits what you can do with colour grading. Most DSLRs don't even have a full frame image sensor. 5D does, which it seems like is what they are using though. You're bound to get artifacting.

The contrast ratio with DSLR is also hysterically shitty compared to film. DSLR crushes the blacks on shooting. The colour range isn't true YCrCb 0-255, and regardless of what you do with it, you end up with RGB 16-135. 

Artifacting and brightness/contrast/colour aside, the grain on a DSLR compare to that of celluloid is an even bigger difference that Gorilla Grain can't meet, as much as it claims that it can. 

When you have virtually every cinematographer in the industry saying that Digital STILL doesn't have the same look as Film (and these are people comparing film to the likes of the Alexa) how on Earth do you expect a DSLR to do it? Granted, MANY cinematographers are beginning to shoot digital now over film (obviously excluding the likes of Wally Pfister), but if they were doing some inserts for a film that was shot, coloured and edited on film, do you think they would shoot digital, let alone a DSLR?

Are you serious? You are comparing a fan film with a budgeted studio production?

Well if you want to give us the money to rent a Panavision 35mm camera, the money for the reels of film, the money for all developing costs, the money for professional digital scanning and all the other things attached to filming in 35mm and we'll gladly use film. And all that just to film a hologram shot and a brief distant walking shot?

But in the real world we use what we can that can still give us the results we want at the smallest costs. Funny how i have already shown a clip a long while ago that incorporated footage shot with a standard consumer camera ( before we got the Sony Z1) , yet NOT ONE person commented that the footage didn't match the original and stuck out as being digital.

It's just a fan edit after all.

If it's good enough for Iron Man 2. It's good enough for Revisited ;)

http://petapixel.com/2010/09/29/canon-5d-mark-ii-used-for-iron-man-2/

adywan said:

Asteroid-Man said:

timdiggerm said:

Given that DSLRs give good image quality, and they don't need to record the sound...why not?

DSLR has good image, but compared to 35mm film, it's laughable. The colour range is only 8-bit, which drastically limits what you can do with colour grading. Most DSLRs don't even have a full frame image sensor. 5D does, which it seems like is what they are using though. You're bound to get artifacting.

The contrast ratio with DSLR is also hysterically shitty compared to film. DSLR crushes the blacks on shooting. The colour range isn't true YCrCb 0-255, and regardless of what you do with it, you end up with RGB 16-135. 

Artifacting and brightness/contrast/colour aside, the grain on a DSLR compare to that of celluloid is an even bigger difference that Gorilla Grain can't meet, as much as it claims that it can. 

When you have virtually every cinematographer in the industry saying that Digital STILL doesn't have the same look as Film (and these are people comparing film to the likes of the Alexa) how on Earth do you expect a DSLR to do it? Granted, MANY cinematographers are beginning to shoot digital now over film (obviously excluding the likes of Wally Pfister), but if they were doing some inserts for a film that was shot, coloured and edited on film, do you think they would shoot digital, let alone a DSLR?

Are you serious? You are comparing a fan film with a budgeted studio production?

Well if you want to give us the money to rent a Panavision 35mm camera, the money for the reels of film, the money for all developing costs, the money for professional digital scanning and all the other things attached to filming in 35mm and we'll gladly use film. And all that just to film a hologram shot and a brief distant walking shot?

But in the real world we use what we can that can still give us the results we want at the smallest costs. Funny how i have already shown a clip a long while ago that incorporated footage shot with a standard consumer camera ( before we got the Sony Z1) , yet NOT ONE person commented that the footage didn't match the original and stuck out as being digital.

It's just a fan edit after all.

I can't give you the money for a 35mm camera, but I could have LENT you a 35mm camera and maybe even some film for the Montreal shoot if I had known prior to April. I could have scanned the film myself too. 

I'm kind of upset with myself now that I wasn't more up to date with this thread. 

Oh well, it's in the past. I hope the DPs did most of the colouring on location (with gels and in-camera colour temp) because grading 8-bit colour (specifically the 5D) is very limiting.

digitalfreaknyc said:

NEW CLIP ADDED ALREADY!!!

Wha!? Where? Links please!

It's on facebook.

Oh.   Damn.

ray_afraid said:

Oh.   Damn.

I don't use facebook and I can still watch it. Just google 'SW:Revisited facebook'. Should find it that way.

You should still be able to view it, even if you don't use facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=415356061905210

I was just wondering if the Vader/Veers hologram shot will have Vader looking up or looking forward. Just like most of the hologram shots (excluding Leia's) throughout the entire saga, holograms are looking in the wrong direction. Just because Veers is higher in the shot does not mean Vader would be looking up at him. He'd be looking forward at his viewscreen or wherever his monitor of Veers is. 

Now, I realize the continuity problem with the Vader/Emperor scene when the Emperor is looking down at Vader but that cannot be helped at all. 

Thanks for releasing the clip btw. I asked you on facebook to release it on the 21st and you did a day better. Bitchin dude. Hopefully you'll see the post about Chewie and the snow blowing around him not matching the rest of the shots. You said it was a completed shot visually so maybe I'll have to fix it for my own satisfaction once you've done all the heavy lifting. 

Darth Stewie said:

most of the hologram shots (excluding Leia's) throughout the entire saga, holograms are looking in the wrong direction. Just because Veers is higher in the shot does not mean Vader would be looking up at him. He'd be looking forward at his viewscreen or wherever his monitor of Veers is. 

The only holograms I can think of that aren't looking at the folks they're being transmitted to are Leia in Star Wars and Luke in Jedi and both of those were pre-recorded messages, not live transmissions. (I dunno how they work in the prequels.) I agree though that Vader looking up at veers is strange. It implies (to me at least) that on Vaders end Veers is a big, intimidating floating head like the Emperor. Seems that kinda thing would be reserved for the Emperor, not every commander or general.

adywan said:

You should still be able to view it, even if you don't use facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=415356061905210

Thanks! Looks great! Is that a new probe droid or modifications to the original?

Is there any way someone can provide a download link to the video (ie something Jdownloader can snag), as JD doesn't like the video on Facebook and cannot get the link.

Yup, check your PMs.

ray_afraid said:

The only holograms I can think of that aren't looking at the folks they're being transmitted to are Leia in Star Wars and Luke in Jedi and both of those were pre-recorded messages, not live transmissions. (I dunno how they work in the prequels.) I agree though that Vader looking up at veers is strange. It implies (to me at least) that on Vaders end Veers is a big, intimidating floating head like the Emperor. Seems that kinda thing would be reserved for the Emperor, not every commander or general.

 

The prequels are horrible about the holograms looking around and looking at who they are talking to. It makes zero sense. In ESB the various captains are the same size as Vader onboard the Executor. It makes sense that they are perhaps looking at life-sized holograms of Vader just as he is looking at them life-sized. Pre-recorded ones like Luke's and Leia's have them looking forward but not interacting. If memory serves, in the meditation chamber, the 'front-view' of the Emperor seems to be looking forward whereas the side view seems to have him looking down at Vader. With the Veers/Vader scene, I just think it makes sense that the shot be changed entirely or at the very least have Vader looking forward instead of looking up.