300

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

Saw the movie "300" yesterday in our local cinema and was extrememly
disappointed with the print quality. Obviously shot in such a way as to
reduce colour for whatever reason, but the biggest problem was the amount of
grain in the film. I will be looking forward to the days of Ultra Hi def
cinemas screening movies shot in the same format and not shooting with past
use by dated 35mm or super35mm film.

DAVO

davidm2 · External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 91

The visible grain was intentional, which is why they used Expression
500T. The director and DP liked that texture, which added to the
graphic, painterly, and gritty quality to the image. They didn't want
that smooth, hyper-clean digital photography look.

They also needed to shoot a lot of the movie at 150 fps, another
reason to use a film camera.

David Mullen, ASC

davidm2 · External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 91

> > The visible grain was intentional, which is why they used Expression
> > 500T. The director and DP liked that texture, which added to the
> > graphic, painterly, and gritty quality to the image. They didn't want
> > that smooth, hyper-clean digital photography look.
>
> I realise that, but why? Just because they didn't want it, shouldn't mean
> everyone else should be subjected to what appeared to be a very poor film
> print and (in my opinion) certainly did nothing to enhance your passion for
> film over UH Def.

Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone shares your taste in
images? I loved the way that "300" looked and so did a lot of other
people I have talked to. And the grain is one of the reasons we liked
the look. Grain is not always bad.

These people -- the director, the DP, Frank Miller, the efx people,
production designer, etc. -- are ARTISTS. Not every movie ever made
has to be as sharp and clean as possible. It's an expressive medium.

David Mullen, ASC

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

<davidm2 DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1177033296.566205.270820@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The visible grain was intentional, which is why they used Expression
> 500T. The director and DP liked that texture, which added to the
> graphic, painterly, and gritty quality to the image. They didn't want
> that smooth, hyper-clean digital photography look.

I realise that, but why? Just because they didn't want it, shouldn't mean
everyone else should be subjected to what appeared to be a very poor film
print and (in my opinion) certainly did nothing to enhance your passion for
film over UH Def.
>
> They also needed to shoot a lot of the movie at 150 fps, another
> reason to use a film camera.

I have to agree the super slow mix with natural speed was rather impressive
as was the sync with the soundtrack. I really did enjoy that. However, what
makes you think specially equipped UH Def cameras can't output speeds like
that?

In Australia we have excellent quality SD special super slow video cameras
(used in sport) capable of much slower speeds than what was used in 300.

For example a cricket ball can be bowled at 160 kph (100mph) and the
playback in super slow will give perfect clarity of the ball spinning,
showing no visible loss of quality or blur and easily depicts the stitching
on the ball.

>
> David Mullen, ASC
>
I notice David, you are in the USA, perhaps many of your video problems are
associated with the NTSC format. The Pal format is widely known as being far
far superior to NTSC, particularly with resolution.

DAVO

davidm2 · External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 91

Considering how much money "300" made at the box office (201 million
to date), it's a bit foolish to suggest they don't understand what
audiences want to see or that you have a better idea of that than they
do. Maybe when you make a movie that grosses that much, you can
lecture them on what audiences want to see...

As for the beauty of grain, since you can't see it, I can't explain it
to you.

Movies are made by artists, not engineers and robots, and artists have
different aesthetic sensibilities. You might as well be complaining
that Monet's paintings are out-of-focus and that Van Gogh didn't know
how to use colors realistically and that El Greco got all his
proportions wrong.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

<davidm2.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1177039492.511107.53970@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > The visible grain was intentional, which is why they used Expression
>> > 500T. The director and DP liked that texture, which added to the
>> > graphic, painterly, and gritty quality to the image. They didn't want
>> > that smooth, hyper-clean digital photography look.
>>
>> I realise that, but why? Just because they didn't want it, shouldn't mean
>> everyone else should be subjected to what appeared to be a very poor film
>> print and (in my opinion) certainly did nothing to enhance your passion
>> for
>> film over UH Def.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone shares your taste in
> images? I loved the way that "300" looked and so did a lot of other
> people I have talked to. And the grain is one of the reasons we liked
> the look. Grain is not always bad.
>
> These people -- the director, the DP, Frank Miller, the efx people,
> production designer, etc. -- are ARTISTS. Not every movie ever made
> has to be as sharp and clean as possible. It's an expressive medium.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
>
I appreciate your reply but I don't agree. If the "artists" took note of
where their fortune comes from (that's the paying public) they will find
their fortunes diminishing quite substantially if they continue to produce
what appears poor print films. Some upcoming film revues will bear me out on
this one.

Why on earth would anyone want to produce "grainy" films? In my opinion it
goes beyond the limits of improving the quality of cinema. You have made the
comment that you and others liked the grain, now perhaps you can explain it
in more detail.

Why would a grainy film look better than a crisp sharp clear well contrasted
image? I can understand why certain employees liked what the director wanted
but can you be sure it was their hearts speaking and not their wallets?

DAVO

Marc Wielage · External Since: Nov 06, 2003 Posts: 264

On Apr 20, 2007, DAvid <davideo.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> commented:

> I appreciate your reply but I don't agree. If the "artists" took note of
> where their fortune comes from (that's the paying public) they will find
> their fortunes diminishing quite substantially if they continue to produce
> what appears poor print films. Some upcoming film revues will bear me out on
> this one.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

IMDB claims that 300 has made over $406,000,000 worldwide as of last week. I
don't think their fortunes are diminishing.

What David Mullen says elsewhere is correct: sometimes, a director and
cinematographer want grain as a legitimate look and texture for a shot. Just
because you don't like grain doesn't necessarily make it bad for every film.
It's just another creative choice.

> In Australia we have excellent quality SD special super slow video cameras
> (used in sport) capable of much slower speeds than what was used in 300.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Everyone has the same systems all over the world. Sony's Super slo-mo system
has been available for 15 years that I know of (though their HD version has
only been available in the last three or four years). But it doesn't work at
all speeds, and there are still major exposure limitations with digital
compared to film.

> I notice David, you are in the USA, perhaps many of your video problems are
> associated with the NTSC format. The Pal format is widely known as being far
> far superior to NTSC, particularly with resolution.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Go over to IMDB and read up on Mr. Mullen's extensive credits. It's
important to know about the people to whom you're being condescending.

No one I know in the industry in LA is concerned with NTSC any more. It's
effectively a dead format at this point. Much of what we're working on
nowadays is all 2K data; HD is getting passe at this point. Working with 4K
is the real challenge at the moment.

--MFW

davidm2 · External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 91

This grain discussion is a little like someone saying "I hate cheese!
So tell me why you like cheese because I can't imagine why anyone
would like it!" Uh... because I like cheese? How could I move a
cheese-hater into liking the taste of cheese -- through the power of
my debating skills?

Movies have been an incredibly popular art form for over 100 years and
grain has been an aspect of many of them over that time. Spielberg's
movies like "Saving Private Ryan", "War of the Worlds", and "Minority
Report" all made a lot of money at the box office and they all used
grain as a visual element. War movies in particular use grain as part
of their gritty, dramatic texture -- and "300" is a war movie
basically. Though set in the distant past, it isn't even remotely a
naturalistic movie and thus can borrow heavily from the texture of WW2
movies such as "Saving Private Ryan".

"Blair Witch Project" made a bucket-load of money with horrible
technical quality so trying to draw a connection between grain level
and box office performance is ludicrous.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles

Marc Wielage · External Since: Nov 06, 2003 Posts: 264

On Apr 22, 2007, davidm2.RemoveThis@earthlink.net <davidm2.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> commented:

> Movies have been an incredibly popular art form for over 100 years and
> grain has been an aspect of many of them over that time.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

I had an eye-opening experience about 15 years ago, when I worked on a
feature project with British director Alan Parker. I showed him our
(then-new) digital grain reduction box and showed him the before-and-after
effect. Parker looked horrified and said, "why on earth would you ever want
to remove the grain?"

I kind of blinked and said, "o-kay, we'll be sure to leave all the grain in
for your film," and turned the switch off.

That was the first time I realized that grain could be considered something
desirable, part of the look of the film. Good lesson to learn.

--MFW

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

"Marc Wielage" <mfw DeleteThis @musictrax.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2505886000D1B26F0386530@news.giganews.com...
> On Apr 20, 2007, DAvid <davideo DeleteThis @bigpond.net.au> commented:
>
>> I appreciate your reply but I don't agree. If the "artists" took note of
>> where their fortune comes from (that's the paying public) they will find
>> their fortunes diminishing quite substantially if they continue to
>> produce
>> what appears poor print films. Some upcoming film revues will bear me out
>> on
>> this one.

<SNIP>

> Go over to IMDB and read up on Mr. Mullen's extensive credits. It's
> important to know about the people to whom you're being condescending.
>

<SNIP>

> --MFW

I take your above comment as being totally arogant and rude and way off the
mark. Simply because I and quite a few others in the cinema didn't like the
"grainy look" and the fact I came in here and tried to discuss it, how does
that make my comments condascending when comparing those comments to the
replies of David Mullens ASC. I would go as far as saying to you to read and
re-read the string.

FWIW I did appreciate his comments but when he told me quote "As for the
beauty of grain, since you can't see it, I can't explain it to you." if that
is not a condascending comment, I assure you, nothing else in my threads are
or were meant to be.

Just because he is a movie director and whatever else his qualifications,
should not allow my comments to be construed the way you are describing. In
Australia we treat everyone equal whether they are just movie goers or movie
directors.

Not everyone here kisses Americans feet like it's done in politics but it
appears you guys expect the same. I assure you, true Aussies won't ever
allow that to happen to our culture but if we don't like something, we are
the first to let others know, just as I did and obviously it has hit a raw
nerve just as it did you guys.

DAVO

Marc Wielage · External Since: Nov 06, 2003 Posts: 264

On Apr 23, 2007, DAvid <davideo DeleteThis @bigpond.net.au> commented:

> I assure you, true Aussies won't ever
> allow that to happen to our culture but if we don't like something, we are
> the first to let others know, just as I did and obviously it has hit a raw
> nerve just as it did you guys.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

No, it didn't hit a nerve. I just grow weary and exasperated when I run into
people who know very little but express strong opinions, especially on the
net. It's especially frustrating when people try to make hasty
generalizations based on what they read on a website or in a spec sheet,
without having actually used the equipment or technique involved. The real
world is vastly different than theory, especially in photography and video.

For the record, the best colorist I know personally here in LA is an
Australian with whom I've worked for almost 25 years. Brilliant guy, very
down to earth, and we both appreciate the other's ability to never bullshit.
We cut things right down to the truth, and get on with it as directly as
possible, which is the only way we know how to work.

--MFW

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

<davidm2.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1177304078.811756.242650@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> This grain discussion is a little like someone saying "I hate cheese!
> So tell me why you like cheese because I can't imagine why anyone
> would like it!" Uh... because I like cheese? How could I move a
> cheese-hater into liking the taste of cheese -- through the power of
> my debating skills?
>
> Movies have been an incredibly popular art form for over 100 years and
> grain has been an aspect of many of them over that time. Spielberg's
> movies like "Saving Private Ryan", "War of the Worlds", and "Minority
> Report" all made a lot of money at the box office and they all used
> grain as a visual element. War movies in particular use grain as part
> of their gritty, dramatic texture -- and "300" is a war movie
> basically. Though set in the distant past, it isn't even remotely a
> naturalistic movie and thus can borrow heavily from the texture of WW2
> movies such as "Saving Private Ryan".
>
> "Blair Witch Project" made a bucket-load of money with horrible
> technical quality so trying to draw a connection between grain level
> and box office performance is ludicrous.
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles
>

Comparing "300" with "Eragon", both heavily CG'd and fantasy, thus the
storyline was immaterial, the cinema quality of "Eragon" (in both visual and
audio) left "300" in it's wake. But of course this is just my opinion.

DAVO

DAvid · External Since: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 33

"Marc Wielage" <mfw.DeleteThis@musictrax.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C252BD8C00705B00F0386530@news.giganews.com...
> On Apr 23, 2007, DAvid <davideo.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> commented:
>
>> I assure you, true Aussies won't ever
>> allow that to happen to our culture but if we don't like something, we
>> are
>> the first to let others know, just as I did and obviously it has hit a
>> raw
>> nerve just as it did you guys.
>>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
> No, it didn't hit a nerve. I just grow weary and exasperated when I run
> into
> people who know very little but express strong opinions, especially on the
> net.

I think more to the point you guys in film making are so up each other that
anyone who dares to comment out of the circle is blasted as what has
happened to me in this thread. As I have and still work in television, I
guess I am (according to you anyway but thankfully not my client base) one
of those "people who know very little but express strong opinions".

FFS, all I did originally was comment on what I considered was a poor print
film and got blasted for simply stating it. I and many others simply did not
appreciate the "grainy look" and all your insults from both of you have done
nothing to make me change my mind. Yourself for stating I didn't know who I
was talking to, so I had better not have a differing opinion to someone so
highly regarded in the "film world". And David, for every sentence directed
at me was nothing short of "how dare you insult me by having a differing
opinion to those of us who live in castles".

It's especially frustrating when people try to make hasty
> generalizations based on what they read on a website or in a spec sheet,
> without having actually used the equipment or technique involved. The
> real
> world is vastly different than theory, especially in photography and
> video.

Here we are on common ground. In this instance, I never read anything on a
website or a spec sheet but what I saw with my own (obviously to you guys)
uneducated eyes. You don't have to understand the technique or the equipment
to either like or dislike the finished result. With regard to "300" I could
handle the almost sepia low chroma look of the opening sequences as an art
and I didn't have a problem with it, but I could not and I still can not
understand the grainy approach. To claim it is "art" is an insult to the
works of artists everywhere.

DAVO

Marc Wielage · External Since: Nov 06, 2003 Posts: 264

On Apr 23, 2007, DAvid <davideo.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> commented:

> As I have and still work in television, I
> guess I am (according to you anyway but thankfully not my client base) one
> of those "people who know very little but express strong opinions".
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

There are many fine TV series that use grain creatively. I would point to
CSI: MIAMI, HEROES, and CRIMINAL MINDS as examples of three very successful
current series that each use very intense looks, and use them effectively.
Grain is just one of the options.

> ...but I could not and I still can not
> understand the grainy approach. To claim it is "art" is an insult to the
> works of artists everywhere.
>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

Whether it qualifies as "art" is strictly in the mind of the person
responsible. But I think grain is definitely a "technique," no more or less
valid than the amount of color in the shot, whether it's in focus, choice of
lighting and shadow, camera moves, and everything else.

Many times, I've offered to reduce grain for clients, only to have them say,
"oh, no -- if you do that, it'll look too much like video. If we wanted
clean images, we would've shot it on tape." So there's a place for
pristine-perfect images, and grungy-grainy images, too.

--MFW

davidm2 · External Since: Nov 24, 2005 Posts: 91

> > ...but I could not and I still can not
> > understand the grainy approach. To claim it is "art" is an insult to the
> > works of artists everywhere.

Many filmmakers have claimed grain can be an artistic choice, whether
you like it or not.

>From American Cinematographer, on "Babel":

....They (the director and DP) decided to unify Babel's three stories
more subtly with color and varying levels of grain.... As for film
grain, "Alejandro loves it, and once we decided to make the grain of
Super-16 the texture of Morocco, we carried grain through Mexico and
Japan to different degrees."

American Cinematographer on "Jarhead" (shot by Roger Deakins):

To further emphasize the film's realistic tone, (director) Mendes
sought to lend the images a certain raw look. Grain and contrast were
appropriate... Deakins: "I wanted the kind of grain the bleach-bypass
was going to give me..." .... Testing helped Deakins determine the
degree to which he could augment the grain during the D.I.

American Cinematographer on "Munich" (shot by Janusz Kaminski):

"As our characters go to Europe and start to comprehend the weight of
their actions, the image becomes grittier, bluer, grainier... the
light creates something very grainy and raw.... Fuji is also a good
emulsion for bleach-bypass because it retains a good grain
structure..." Kaminski is particularly fond of the grain structure of
Kodak's 5279 and 5293, which he prefers over the newer Vision-2 line.
"What makes film negative special is the grain and the ability to
capture information. Some of the newer stocks don't have enough
grain.. without grain, film starts to feel digital... The last 25
pages of Munich's script takes place in New York, where Avner decides
to sever ties with Mossad, and I shot all of that footage on '79
because I wanted the grain and color-saturation." "Munich is not a
soft, beautifully lit movie, and occasionally the lighting is really
unflattering. There's a lot of texture, a lot of grain. It's almost
ugly, but I think it's right for the story."

American Cinematographer on "Minority Report" (also shot by Kaminski):
"It seems the tendency today is to go with stocks that are less
grainy... Steven and I are fascinated by the look of the movies of the
Seventies like The French Connection. We love that look and with this
film we wanted to return to that idea and show the viewers the grain."

I could go on pulling more examples of filmmakers using grain for
creative reasons.

David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles

manitou · External Since: Sep 21, 2005 Posts: 10

On Apr 26, 4:46 am, davi... RemoveThis @earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Many filmmakers have claimed grain can be an artistic choice, whether
> you like it or not.
>
> >From American Cinematographer, on "Babel":
>
> ...They (the director and DP) decided to unifyBabel'sthree stories
> more subtly with color and varying levels of grain.... As for film
> grain, "Alejandro loves it, and once we decided to make the grain of
> Super-16 the texture of Morocco, we carried grain through Mexico and
> Japan to different degrees."

While watching the stunning HD-DVD of this movie, I noted what
appeared to be anamorphic artifacts during much of the Japan
sequences, and this is confirmed by IMDb.com. Obviously the framing
was side cropped for the final movie --- presumably the images were
composed with this framing in mind.

The movie is truly a knockout visually, as well as structurally: the
stories' various chunks sometimes overlap, and the phone conversation,
shown in Morocco, between Brad Pitt's character and the Mexican
housekeeper toward the end of the film appears to be the same one we
hear near the start in San DIego.

While the two movies are, to say the least, very different, it's worth
noting that "Babel" and "Brokeback Mountain" share the same DP as well
as composer.

Charles