Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[Callum Just]

I was really proud coming out of Pirates 4. I worked on the show for 10 weeks as the London 2nd Unit DIT and had mixed feelings at the time that the footage and 3D would be treated with respect through post but I was pleasantly proved wrong.

I thought the overall look of the film was great, the 3D at times fell apart and the story was a bit formulaic but I came out the cinema having really enjoyed it.

I’d also like to eco Jannard comments about the Red techs on main unit. They couldn’t have worked harder to get the best possible image out of those cameras… even when they were in the middle of a swamp!

 

[Ameer Azari]

I was really proud coming out of Pirates 4. I worked on the show for 10 weeks as the London 2nd Unit DIT and had mixed feelings at the time that the footage and 3D would be treated with respect through post but I was pleasantly proved wrong.

I thought the overall look of the film was great, the 3D at times fell apart and the story was a bit formulaic but I came out the cinema having really enjoyed it.

I’d also like to eco Jannard comments about the Red techs on main unit. They couldn’t have worked harder to get the best possible image out of those cameras… even when they were in the middle of a swamp!

I saw you guys shooting in Greenwich, didn't get a chance to get close enough to grab a good look at the 3D rig though

I'll be seeing Pirates 4 in IMAX sometime next week. Hopefully the visuals will look good, haven't got much hope for the story itself...

 

[Jordi Figueras]

First of all I still haven't seen the movie, but what Justin is saying seems clearly a bad projection.
We presented a movie in the last Venice Film Festival and had such bad screenings it looked worst than YouTube. We all knew it was a bad projection. The Festival organization knew it was a bad projection. But a critic from "Variety" published about the "quality of the videoish and underexposed photography" of the film... Quite a shame people who think they know everything in this world never consider a bad projection as a possible problem.

I think this is the case with Justin. I'd never doubt David Mullen's opinion.

Cheers!

 

[Julian Gerretsen]

I saw it yesterday in 2D X 2K projection (3D gives me headaches) and enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

From a technical point of view, I had been looking forward to this for a year since the announcement that it was being shot on R1 MXs, because given the genre and the history, this wasn't one of those films that could deviate from the "look" of the previous installments. i.e. Book of Eli had it's own look, but POTC4 HAD to follow on with the classic rich film look.

I've read a couple of complaints here about noise in the darker scenes etc., but the version I saw was almost perfect, and pretty much indistinguishable from film, IMHO. They must have seen really bad prints or badly set up projectors etc.

The detail was pin-sharp.... jaw-droppingly so... I spent a lot of time trying to find fuzziness or artefacting, but there just wasn't anything noticeable (to my eyes, anyway).

That said, there was one really dark shot that seemed to have a vague aura of bluey noise around it (can't remember which one though), but no worse than I've seen off fast film shot in the same kind of lighting.

There was one beach shot with severe contrast where the wave break line looked a tad clippy... a bit more time spent on the fill lighting in order to bring the overall exposure down could probably have avoided that (but time is money), but overall the exposure was well done, under generally very difficult and contrasty conditions.

Anyway, that's my take on it.... pretty much as indistinguishable from film as one can get and it makes you realise that an R1 is as viable a piece of filmmaking kit as it ever has been.

 

[Justin Armstrong]

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Have you ever actually shot on or worked with a RED camera, Justin?

The only problem with a bad projection is that I would ASSUME that I would have to have the same complaint about Trailers for Green Lantern and Transformers 3 (Which I do not). Maybe the print was bad starting from the title sequence of the film? Would this cause a very nasty Blueish "Sony" noise in the shadows?

That said, there was one really dark shot that seemed to have a vague aura of bluey noise around it (can't remember which one though), but no worse than I've seen off fast film shot in the same kind of lighting.

There were quite a few of these, to the point where I found it distracting.

See I don't know if was their color correction that trashed the footage or what. I think my complaints lie farther towards the way this film was shot you see. I don't think at this point I'm downing Red, I imagine I'm upset with the way this was cheaply shot apparently.

Justin's been sent to pour poison in this forum. He's way too negative. You've seen better footage from video cameras? No way.

Red one is a video camera...... yes? Yes it is. Your arguement is invalid.

Either the grade and or projection brightness failed to deliver tonality in deep shadows during the night scenes...

Pick one or the other. Every other post is "Well I agree with you slightly.....but it was a good movie over all"
Of course, I've been sent to poison your thread when people are agreeing with me.

Were there some nice shots in the film? Of course there were. That's what kept me from walking out. This why I also negate the bad projection theory. Some shots (daytime) that weren't over exposed looked fine. Not quite to my expectations of film, but they were good enough I suppose to pass again with "average joe" or a 7 and 10 year old.

People are seeing what I saw. I'm assuming these posts are not coming from the same screening in Detroit. Maybe I have a lower tolerance for picking this out along with others just not paying attention.


And lastly,

I have only seen the trailer and it looks awesome so far and my children and I can't wait to see it.

I agree with Kris, There are so many people that offer bullshit opinions on REDUSER and don't even work or own a RED or any proper camera. Especially people making opinons about lenses that they don't own or have used once in their life!

I have been waiting to get that off my chest and Justin was the perfect candidate for this post.

I have on fact worked with Red and its footage a single time for a small production. Your argument is now invalid.
Have you ever shot on a Sony Handycam? Maybe filming your kid's birthday parties? (Unless you lug around your Red kit for that; laugh out loud)
Do you know the noise pattern to which I compare with the poorly lit shots of this film?
Let's pretend I had never touched a Red camera, does that inhibit my ability to see? Did I forget to pick up my "RedVision" glasses at the door?

Let me make you shitty grilled cheese sandwich. I'll even let you wear your 3D glasses if that makes you feel better. :dita:
I think you'd have the ability to tell me that it tasted like dog shit even if you've never made a grilled cheese sandwich in you life. I don't think you would even need to compare it to a gourmet sandwich made by Wolfgang Puck to taste shit.
A poor analogy I know, but it's able to serve my opinion.

I nearly vomited when I saw George Lucas' Revenge of the Sith in theaters. Shot on Sony HD cams.
Of course I've never shot on these particular cameras so I'm not allowed an opinion, if I'm understanding you right?
That has to be by far the dumbest conclusion I've ever heard.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Justin - what about all these other people (with collectively tens and tens of thousands of hours making films) who think it looks amazing? They are wrong and you're right? Puh-lease.

Come on man - give it up. I know you're loving all the back and forth and rebuttals (ignoring posts from David, Jim and others contrary to your opinion) -- but you've had your 15 seconds of fame here, okay? Time to move on ...

 

[Julian Gerretsen]

There were quite a few of these, to the point where I found it distracting.

Believe me, if you saw what you described, you saw a bad print/projection... period.

Aside from the literal handful of shots that had barely noticeable noise or clipping, the overall quality of the image and lighting was superb.

If I was you, I'd be having words with your local theatre if you found it so bad.

 

[Justin Armstrong]

Justin - what about all these other people (with collectively tens and tens of thousands of hours making films) who think it looks amazing? They are wrong and you're right? Puh-lease.

Come on man - give it up. I know you're loving all the back and forth and rebuttals (ignoring posts from David, Jim and others contrary to your opinion) -- but you've had your 15 seconds of fame here, okay? Time to move on ...

I'd appreciate if you took the time to actually read my post before killing any notion that people are AGREEING with me.
Am I ignoring mr. Mullen, No. His argument is mostly valid. Again he, and many others who don't see my side, saw this in 3D. I image that would cover up abit of the noise and over exposure (due to tinted glasses) if not completely distract you.

And Jim himself hasn't even seen the movie yet. But what do you really thing the guy who made the camera is going to say? Hmm?

 

[Ivan Kovax]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/5817726/internet-bridge-troll

 

[Jordi Figueras]

Were there some nice shots in the film? Of course there were. That's what kept me from walking out. This why I also negate the bad projection theory. Some shots (daytime) that weren't over exposed looked fine. Not quite to my expectations of film, but they were good enough I suppose to pass again with "average joe" or a 7 and 10 year old.

People are seeing what I saw. I'm assuming these posts are not coming from the same screening in Detroit. Maybe I have a lower tolerance for picking this out along with others just not paying attention..

That's exactly what happened in our bad projection. The daytime shots felt quite correct, but they weren't (problems with contrast and saturation), the problem was in the really contrasted shots and the dark shots (and we had a lot of those in the movie).

Definitely a bad projection is what you saw, and it's even more clear if you read all the posts. We shot our movie with the old Red Mysterium Sensor, finishing it in a week in a post house that almost didn't knew anything about RED, and in all the other places it's been projected it looked gorgeous. Can't believe what you say is possible, sorry. Definitely a bad projection.

Cheers!

 

[Justin Armstrong]

That's exactly what happened in our bad projection. The daytime shots felt quite correct, but they weren't (problems with contrast and saturation), the problem was in the really contrasted shots and the dark shots (and we had a lot of those in the movie).

Definitely a bad projection is what you saw, and it's even more clear if you read all the posts. We shot our movie with the old Red Mysterium Sensor, finishing it in a week in a post house that almost didn't knew anything about RED, and in all the other places it's been projected it looked gorgeous. Can't believe what you say is possible, sorry. Definitely a bad projection.

Cheers!

I didn't know a poor projection would yield these exact results. I've seen a poorly focused projection and promptly received a refund until it was fixed.
I'm not claiming to know everything. I saw what I saw and I have never experienced these piss-poor results before in any theater thus far.
Maybe I'll have to go check out a different cinema in the area.

See, this reply that I quoted was more civil and intelligent than "Fuck you, get your eyes checked, your crazy, R3D R3ulez! [proceed to insert kiss ass-statement here]." This sounds more like a red-eyed rabid hamster than a professional cinematographer. Pun intended.
I appreciate and expect that especially from people with "thousands of hours of experience" who interact in a professional environment everyday.
I don't think you'd the greenlight for a film running into a room full of producers or studio execs. screaming the above statement.

 

[gbalaji]

One word - its awesome.

I saw it in Digital 3D Projection in two screens one is 200 seater and another one in 800 seater. Short throw helped a lot interms of brightness which nothing can be done for Digital 3D with Master Image single projector solution. Other than this except two shots - One in forest where the trees are clipped and another one in Johnny deep come to beach from forest from shadow to brightness where exposure change was done in the shot where the place where exposure was set for shadow the beach clipped. Other than these two shots nothing differs the film from the sequel and its one of biggest victory for digital cinema and especially RED ONE for being used on Big budget hollywood feature film.

Hope the digital legacy from both Red ONE MX / EPiC & Alexa continues to dominate the Hollywood Blockbuster 3D features films & 2D in coming years.

People who complaint about digital or red always does that and we need to step forward. Its the same way as how AVID(Non-Linear editing) were opposed by editors and now they are forced to and I believe almost 99 out of 100 features films being edited in Non-Linear and same way out of 99/100 feature films will be shot digitally either in RED / Alexa / Sony in next 3 years.

Join the digital revolution.

100yrs of Film History is now over.

Period.

 

[Eric Lange]

Wow,

I saw the trailers a few months ago on a SONY 4k projector in RealD 3d.

After this discussion, will drag the kids and everyone else down to see it.

Like David (Mullen) I was immediately blown away by how lush and deep (and film like or better) the imagery looked. However it did look like dimesnionalized 3d (I’m not a huge fan of that as there is no complex 3d detail).

I think the point that Jim made is pretty huge

JJ: “I do know that the final grade was done with a film LUT early on in the grade... which is not what we recommend.”

And Michael (Brennen) makes an excellent point “was relieved to see full colour skin tones after so much hip, grunge "off'" grades from RED users.”

I too was worried for a while that the Red color space might be “tricky” and that everybody tries to “off” grade to make their life easy and more hip; so I’m super happy that people are reporting beautiful and natural skin tones etc.

Callum’s post is impossible to refute and many others.

I do know that for some 3d work that they try to employ “Ghost Busting” algorithms. For example the killer situation for 3d is dark backgrounds with high contrast elements where you naturally get a lot cross talk as the right eye can see a small percentage of what the left eye sees and vice versa.To bust the ‘Ghosties” they alter the relative contrast at the edges of critical features. Similarly a dark linear feature set against a light back ground can also cause ghosting too, and so that has to be compensated for aswell.

If one were being an ‘Uber-Nerd” then one would concatenate all of the color transformations (in reverse) from final ghost busted output all the way back to acquisition to figure out what the limits and various curves should be. I’m sure the test shoots pinned that down fairly well anyway.

It does sound like a “dicky” 2k projection with bad gamma could reveal all kinds of nasties that you wouldn’t normally see. Restricted gamma output always makes “film” look much worse. I’m sure the same is true for HDR imagery.


Even the best films that have ever been (let’s say for the past 60 years) you do see all kinds of weaknesses and artifacts; the absolute beauty of the Red system is that you can go back to the original files and re-process and re-grade everything for future applications. OK so apparent clipping might be observed, for whatever reason (final output/projection) BUT, I’d be willing to bet (any amount of money) that the tonal data IS in the file, and the digital “dailies/hourlies” didn’t clip.

Common sense has to prevail (right?)

Ta,

Eric

 

[Ed David]

I just watched the trailer to Pirates 4 and Pirates 3 and I feel overall well less noise in the shadows with the Pirates 4 footage. I haven't seen the movie in the theatre nor do I plan to, but overall, just like the Social Network, people aren't going to leave the theatre knowing that what they watched wasn't shot on film. Digital Cinema has for all intensive purposes made it in Hollywood. With Deakins announcing that he's shooting right now on a digital cinema camera coupled with this film and the Hobbit and Social Network and Winter's Bone, we now know that we are living in a new era.

 

[D Fuller]

Are you being serious? Yes I will likely be banned for saying this, as when I mentioned Red's reel had more than a tad of moire, but really?
No contrast problems? The move WAS a contrast problem. ESPECIALLY the scenes with the candles. I don't think there is any need to kiss anyone's ass, and I'm not going to sugar-coat my opinion for any thin-skinned critics.
...

That's all, before I am inevitably banned and this post lost or deleted.

Justin,

If you are banned, it will not be for any of the technical issues you mentioned. It will be because you have been rude and arrogant.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

I didn't know a poor projection would yield these exact results. I've seen a poorly focused projection and promptly received a refund until it was fixed.
I'm not claiming to know everything. I saw what I saw and I have never experienced these piss-poor results before in any theater thus far.
Maybe I'll have to go check out a different cinema in the area.

See, this reply that I quoted was more civil and intelligent than "Fuck you, get your eyes checked, your crazy, R3D R3ulez! [proceed to insert kiss ass-statement here]." This sounds more like a red-eyed rabid hamster than a professional cinematographer. Pun intended.
I appreciate and expect that especially from people with "thousands of hours of experience" who interact in a professional environment everyday.
I don't think you'd the greenlight for a film running into a room full of producers or studio execs. screaming the above statement.

Justin,

You come into Red's house -- and rather than politely ask or state your observations -- you ASSERT (as fact) that this gorgeous movie that many unbiased experts were praising ... was awful, problematic and almost unwatchable.

Worse, your entire tone was caustic, not respectful (look at the way you responded to David -- if there is anyone deserving of respect here it's him. See his threads for why I think this) ... oh, and then many posts laced with profanity. Even included the middle-fingure emoticon in another post for an extra classy touch ...

Now that your theory has been disproven, you want to take the high-ground? Look, I read and considered all your posts, I even said sorry that my statements were harsh ... but if you want to be treated differently and welcomed, then follow the golden rule.

You will get as much respect and courtesy as you give around here. Period.

 

[M Most]

There are a lot of interesting comments here, some of which are being misconstrued and some of which have logical explanations.

3D presents a lot of issues in grading, the primary one being the need to boost the image brightness to compensate for light loss incurred by three diferent things during projection: the loss through the polarizing screen (if using RealD, the most prevalent system today), the loss from the screen (even though it's a silver screen and a gain screen, there's still loss), and the loss through the viewing glasses. In most cases, over 2/3 of the original brightness that would be there in a straight 2D projection environment is gone by the time it hits your eyes. That requires a lot of compensation, and this in turn forces colorists to push images into clip territory more often than they would like. Now, in Justin's case, he saw a "too bright," too contrasty image, which would likely be the result if the 3D grade were used for a 2D screening, as is sometimes the case in cinemas that convert between 3D and 2D on selected screens. However, in almost all cases, a separate DCP is made for 3D and 2D and the proper grades are used for each. This doesn't always stop the cinemas from showing one eye of the 3D DCP in a 2D theater if that is the one they happen to have a key delivery for.

It is not possible to have a "bad print" in a digital presentation. All of the DCPs that are sent out are identical, and are data copies of the original. That is one of the biggest advantages of digital cinema. It is, however, possible to be using the wrong DCP on a particular system. It is also possible, albeit very rare, to have a digital cinema projector set up incorrectly, but in general, digital projectors are so stable (the most stable image presentation devices we've ever had, in fact) that as long as they were properly set up when installed, it is very unlikely they would be so far off as to be noticeable by an average viewer, or even a discriminating one.

Finally, the notion of having "proper" fleshtones in this picture as opposed to distressed ones is amusing because this picture was graded by Stefan Sonnenfeld. Stef arguably invented distressed looks and modern grading styles and has been hugely influential in this regard. One major difference (among many) between Stef and a lot of colorists who try to emulate him, however, is that Stefan knows when to do what he does. He can make conventionally beautiful images as well if not better than almost everyone else, and he can also apply his artistry to create things that have not generally been previously seen. You can get a good illustration of this by looking at his body of work, which includes everything from "conventionally beautiful" pictures like "Pirates" and "Bad Boys II", to stylized pictures like "Transformers" and "Alice in Wonderland" to decidedly unconventional efforts like "Domino" and "Man on Fire," pictures that proved very influential to both directors and colorists. Having worked with him on an Epic-shot pilot recently, I can honestly say that he has great instincts and great technique, not to mention being a really good guy and very generous with his knowledge and advice. And because it's pertinent to this discussion, it should be said that his company (Company 3) was also largely responsible for the existence of the RedlogFilm gamma LUT, in part because of the needs of this and other pictures that they have done the DI's for. It was, in part, their input that helped to create it.

I didn't intend on turning this post into a Stefan love-fest, but there are always explanations for things even when people don't know what they are.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

There are a lot of interesting comments here, some of which are being misconstrued and some of which have logical explanations.

3D presents a lot of issues in grading, the primary one being the need to boost the image brightness to compensate for light loss incurred by three diferent things during projection: the loss through the polarizing screen (if using RealD, the most prevalent system today), the loss from the screen (even though it's a silver screen and a gain screen, there's still loss), and the loss through the viewing glasses. In most cases, over 2/3 of the original brightness that would be there in a straight 2D projection environment is gone by the time it hits your eyes. That requires a lot of compensation, and this in turn forces colorists to push images into clip territory more often than they would like. Now, in Justin's case, he saw a "too bright," too contrasty image, which would likely be the result if the 3D grade were used for a 2D screening, as is sometimes the case in cinemas that convert between 3D and 2D on selected screens. However, in almost all cases, a separate DCP is made for 3D and 2D and the proper grades are used for each. This doesn't always stop the cinemas from showing one eye of the 3D DCP in a 2D theater if that is the one they happen to have a key delivery for.

It is not possible to have a "bad print" in a digital presentation. All of the DCPs that are sent out are identical, and are data copies of the original. That is one of the biggest advantages of digital cinema. It is, however, possible to be using the wrong DCP on a particular system. It is also possible, albeit very rare, to have a digital cinema projector set up incorrectly, but in general, digital projectors are so stable (the most stable image presentation devices we've ever had, in fact) that as long as they were properly set up when installed, it is very unlikely they would be so far off as to be noticeable by an average viewer, or even a discriminating one.

Finally, the notion of having "proper" fleshtones in this picture as opposed to distressed ones is amusing because this picture was graded by Stefan Sonnenfeld. Stef arguably invented distressed looks and modern grading styles and has been hugely influential in this regard. One major difference (among many) between Stef and a lot of colorists who try to emulate him, however, is that Stefan knows when to do what he does. He can make conventionally beautiful images as well if not better than almost everyone else, and he can also apply his artistry to create things that have not generally been previously seen. You can get a good illustration of this by looking at his body of work, which includes everything from "conventionally beautiful" pictures like "Pirates" and "Bad Boys II", to stylized pictures like "Transformers" and "Alice in Wonderland" to decidedly unconventional efforts like "Domino" and "Man on Fire," pictures that proved very influential to both directors and colorists. Having worked with him on an Epic-shot pilot recently, I can honestly say that he has great instincts and great technique, not to mention being a really good guy and very generous with his knowledge and advice. And because it's pertinent to this discussion, it should be said that his company (Company 3) was also largely responsible for the existence of the RedlogFilm gamma LUT, in part because of the needs of this and other pictures that they have done the DI's for. It was, in part, their input that helped to create it.

I didn't intend on turning this post into a Stefan love-fest, but there are always explanations for things even when people don't know what they are.

Excellent post, Mike. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Red one is a video camera...... yes? Yes it is. Your arguement is invalid.

.

EH WRONG. Red One is a Digital RAW image capturing device with a PL Lens mount. where as VIDEO "bakes in" an RGB look on record.

RAW is processed (mostly) in post. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE.

You seem pretty reactionary and emotionally biased in your comments... perhaps tone down the emotion and people might take you more seriously?

 

[Eric Lange]

MOST!

Thanks for answering a lot of the questions I had in mind but didn’t want to stuff in to “clog” up the discussion. I was going to add the caveat that no doubt someone will correct or jump down my throat about the artfulness and skill required for good “distressed” grading.

I think you answered one of the questions I had in mind was that It’s really possible that a cinema can present one half of the stereo version rather than the proper “mono” version; and it’s also possible that a projectionist can have the projector set to the wrong gamma value or is this impossible?

Will enjoy studying Steffen’s work in greater detail in the future (when I have the chance).

Cheers,

Eric