Ip Man looks a bit "washed out"!

[falkor]

Don't get me wrong; the film is great, but the DVD I got looks a bit washed out. In other words, if you look at the green trees and plants around 1:24, you will notice they are not at all vivid. It all seems a bit dark, and I don't really like the atmosphere. Nevertheless, Yip Man is a step in the right direction back towards Old School classics. Still some work to do before we get another Warriors Two methinks... take out all things modern looking, add some white face paint, acrobatic opponents, and praying mantis.

[Chinatown Kid]

Yes the print has dull, bland colors, seems someone on the forum said it was because it was shot on video instead of the regular filmstock? I might be mistaken though. Loved the film by the way, great traditional martial arts on display.

[kungfusamurai]

Yes the print has dull, bland colors, seems someone on the forum said it was because it was shot on video instead of the regular filmstock? I might be mistaken though. Loved the film by the way, great traditional martial arts on display.

I thought most films nowadays were shot on digital, as opposed to the old analog film method? I think you can use software to achieve the look of film. Perhaps it was just a stylized cinematography method used by the director?

KFS

[Guest katsumoto]

yes i agree the colours were a bit bland in places but the action and minimal use of wires was refreshing for me.

[KyFi]

I tend to think the problem is with the transfer rather than the actual film. There's some shimmering backgrounds there, and some shots of trees that just aren't very crisp--I don't think it would have been that soft on the actual film.

[doug maverick]

thats actually a process called bleach bypass, which sucks all the black out of the film print(ironically turning the film dark). alot of somber movies do. another example would be the film old boy.

[SimonMW]

I thought most films nowadays were shot on digital, as opposed to the old analog film method?

Hell no! 35mm is still king, and Ip Man, as 99.9% of other films was shot on film. No filmmaker worth their salt would consider shooting a large budget film on video unless it was for a particular look, such as Miami Vice or Collateral.

The Red camera is being used more and more these days, as is the Arri D20, but relatively speaking those sorts of productions are few and far between despite the best efforts of the company marketing machines.

Even those cameras cannot come close to the contrast latitude offered by film. By the sounds of it the Ip Man DVD has just had a very poor transfer. Not that the original film was particularly colourful. I found the whole thing to look dull and depressing, and the lighting was rather uninspired too.

I don't know what happened. SPL's and Dragon Tiger Gate's lighting and cinematography was utterly superb. Then Flash Point and Ip Man were very flat. I know they were more gritty films, but even still, I think they looked rather cheap.

[emacs]

I tend to think the problem is with the transfer rather than the actual film.

yes. the Blu-ray transfer is fantastic so, oddly, the DVD authoring sounds like it wasn't done well enough (relatively speaking).

[doug maverick]

actually all the star war films episode 1-3 were shot in HD. alot of films are being shot in HD. you'd be surprised. both panasonic and sony actually rule the market. the red is mostly used in indie films, these days. and actually many filmmakers are moving over to digital. its the director of photography, who usually is stuboorn against the change.

[SimonMW]

actually all the star war films episode 1-3 were shot in HD.

Yes, they were, but that was because George Lucas makes his films in a computer lab. It is still not very common for a big screen production to be shot in HD. Since I am directly involved in the industry I have pretty good handle on the percentage use of these things.

the red is mostly used in indie films

Again wrong. The BBC is using it more and more for drama and wildlife production and a few big names have used it, such as Steven Soderbergh. But still digital remains a small niche in terms of feature production because it brings with it its own set of problems.

Some filmmakers are embracing it, but you can forget about DOP's being stubborn. They aren't. What they want is a system that works and gets the job done with maximum quality. A DP couldn't care less what format the film is shot on, he'll use whatever the director wishes, or whatever he deems to be capable of what he wants.

The simple fact remains that no digital acquisition system can currently come close to the contrast latitude offered by 35mm film. No digital acquisition method currently offers the reliability of film. The Red and D20 are also large hefty beasts in production configurations with no substitute for when filming in confined spaces needs to be done for example, so they always need to be supplemented with 35mm at some stage.

In the LOW budget indie sector things are slightly different. But only for the very lowest of budgets. Great mention was made of the fact that Slumdog Millionaire was shot using a Sillicon Imaging 2/3" chip based digital camera. However little was mentioned of the fact that the film was still partly shot in 35mm.

Now, I'm not against digital acquisition. Personally I don't shoot with anything else. But in the real world of moviemaking, and by that I mean films that you see in the cinema and buy on DVD, by far the vast majority of them are still shot on 35mm. The reasons for that being that:

1. The workflow is highly established and works like clockwork.

2. A 35mm master print still offers superior resolution and detail to any digital system.

3. Cameras are available in varying sizes for all purposes, and all take exactly the same film stocks, so there is no risk of a totally different look unless the DP does it on purpose.

4. Film is totally reliable.

5. Film is superior to all digital systems when it comes to contrast latitude.

The question a DP asks when choosing between digital and film is whether the medium suits the project and whether the project can actually benefit from digital acquisition. in many cases the switch to digital replaces one set of issues with a different set. Usually in the form of data wrangling and management.

Much is often made of Red being a 4k camera, but in fact it only really produces 2k worth of detail due to the Bayer filtering needed to derive RGB from its single CMOS chip. Likewise an 8k camera using a single CMOS would also only produce around 4k of actual detail. So Digital video camera is a long way off from replicating the detail seen in the IMAX shots that were taken for The Dark Knight for instance.

[The Dragon]

yes. the Blu-ray transfer is fantastic so, oddly, the DVD authoring sounds like it wasn't done well enough (relatively speaking).

I agree. The B/R disc is quite good.