Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[Bud Anderson]

Well, I for one, am really happy to be reading these posts.

I took my kids (29, 31, 10) down to the local Lowes Cinema in the mall on Friday night to see the 3D version, also telling them it was shot on RED. As a RED owner myself, I clearly know what the camera is capable of so I hyped it pretty much.

I had talked to the theater manager earlier in the day and they were projecting it on a "newly calibrated 2K projector" delivered two days before specifically for this film.

We all watched it to the end and I have to say we had a unanimously poor opinion of the showing. It was incredibly dark throughout, lacked all detail and was really disappointing visually. Frankly, we talked about swearing off any more 3D movies after this. No offense to anyone but that was our honest reaction.

If this is what happened to Justin, I can understand his reaction.

So thanks to all of your posts, I am heading down to Seattle to see it on a proper IMAX screen to compare the two screenings.

But I think that this brings up a really important issue about the disparity of what is actually available in digital resolution and what is really shown on the wide variety of screens across the planet.
Our screen/projector happened to suck that night.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of projector certification or ratings program available so we all know what we are going to see before we go in and spin the roulette wheel.

 

[M Most]

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?

It's not impossible, but it's unlikely because most digital cinema projectors - essentially all of the DLP Cinema projectors - are set up via projector configuration files, which specify the color matrix, gamma, and a number of other things. Since digital cinema is almost universally delivered via DCP, the projector is set up to be fed images in that format - which is specified to be XYZ, 2.6 gamma, graded for a predetermined white point that is around 6300K, and link encrypted. The chances of using the wrong PCF are almost miniscule, because doing so would display an almost completely red image (the result of projecting an XYZ image using an RGB colorspace).

What is, unfortunately, common, is the installation of a silver screen in a theater that is only occasionally used for 3D. The silver screen used for RealD is, as I mentioned, a gain screen, so anything projected on it that is not polarized and viewed through polarized glasses is going to be too bright. So even if the theater is projecting the proper 2D DCP, if they are projecting it on a silver screen, it's going to be brighter than it should be. That is one of the selling points of the Dolby 3D system (which doesn't require a silver screen) and also the XPand system (an active glasses system that also uses a standard white screen).

 

[Gabriele Turchi]

i honestly think that to really judge the "quality" of the image of pirates 4 you should see it in 2D ... 3D is not quite ready ...too many variables
o
as i said , i saw it in 2d DCP , and looked the best image out of RED i ever seen on a theatrical release movie (it really looked like film to me ,or at least lets say , that i never thought (has been shot in Digital)

This extraordinary result is due to Post production and lighting , the RED camera can capture amazing images , but is not capable of Deliver amazing images , for that you need the greatest post production (where post production for Film (color grading) is way way easier )...

g

 

[M Most]

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.

Your definition. Mine is that video means electronic image capture, as opposed to photochemical means of image capture. It doesn't necessarily mean a specific means of recording it, and it has little to do with how or when it's processed.

Ahhh, Reduser. The home of random redefinition of terminology to serve whatever purpose one has an interest in serving.

 

[zak forrest]

i love how the red clips when it does, and i love making it do so

 

[Thor Melsted]

Saw the movie yesterday. Blown away by the beauty of the images. Probably the best looking RED film I've seen to date. Movie was boring though - could barely stay awake at a 1:15PM screening!

Technically a superb job. I loved the cinematography with its gorgeous, rich colors, perfect skin tones and beautiful contrast. Script and direction, not so much.
3D was very pleasant, despite the considerable z-space changes between many fast cuts, which usually causes headaches - but I did feel the 3D was underused overall. Didn't really add anything to this film. Certainly didn't distract though.

Yeah, I think it's quite obvious this Justin Armstrong character is a troll - or at least someone who has really lousy bedside manners. I didn't see any of the issues he talks about, at all. Noise? None. It looked absolutely flawless to me. If it hadn't been in 3D, and I hadn't known going in it was shot on RED I would have been wondering what super fine grain film stock had been used.
Maybe Justin saw a pirated camcorder copy projected on a wall...

BTW, now that it's out can anyone tell us which pick up shots were done on Epic?

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Your definition. Mine is that video means electronic image capture, as opposed to photochemical means of image capture. It doesn't necessarily mean a specific means of recording it, and it has little to do with how or when it's processed.

Ahhh, Reduser. The home of random redefinition of terminology to serve whatever purpose one has an interest in serving.

uh Mike, that's RED's definition. RAW image capture devices are not the same as video cameras. RAW is not processed the same as video files in post. YOU of all people Mike know this as you
challenged RED for not adopting the status quo DPX workflow. Among many other differences you lament from time to time.

RAW is not Video. ask Jim and Graeme. Are they redefining terminology? You bet they are.

What does any of this have to do with CAPTAIN JACK SPARROW

 

[Eric Lange]

i love how the red clips when it does, and i love making it do so

That’s the other thing that’s nagging at the back of my mind is the clipping an “artistic” conceit or is it a technical failure somewhere in the chain?

It’s crazy isn’t it, I have to go see Pirates on 4k Sony projectors in 2d and S-3d!

I note Bud’s comments, very valid; I honestly don’t understand how 2k is still accepted to my eye it looks really bad, but was pleasantly surprised with 4k.

And M (Most), yup the gain and response of a silver screen with regular “mono” DCP would blow it out of the water (no pun intended).

BTW… M, what do you prefer the shutter based systems for s-3d or the passive systems?

[Now that I think about I am unknowingly familiar with Stefen’s work. Amazing talent and some of his stuff I really like but I think I must be an old fuddy duddy with an overly sensitive disposition as some of the look I find (physically) disturbing/nauseating [I’m sure he’d like that] but the things that he pulls off that have a “cleaner” look are beautiful/impeccable.]

Interestingly one of Red’s patents is for a “video camera”; but I think that was an interesting distinction.

In spite of illness I need to do something more usefull…

Cheers,

Eric

 

[M Most]

BTW… M, what do you prefer the shutter based systems for s-3d or the passive systems?

Personally, I hate them both. The active systems give me migraines, and the passive systems are annoying to use for any length of time, as well as having crosstalk issues that are not completely overcome by anti-ghosting techniques.

Quite frankly, I'm really not a 3D fan. If it went away (again, like it has numerous times before) I wouldn't be particularly upset. Fortunately, I work primarily in television, where it's not much of an issue. Yet.

 

[M Most]

uh Mike, that's RED's definition. RAW image capture devices are not the same as video cameras. RAW is not processed the same as video files in post. ...
RAW is not Video. ask Jim and Graeme. Are they redefining terminology? You bet they are.

Hence my point. Redefining technology and coming up with new things is one thing. Redefining existing, accepted, and generally understood terminology to fit your own personal vision is not appropriate, regardless of whether it's Jim, Graeme, you, or me doing the redefining. If you come up with something new, come up with a new descriptive term for it. It's one thing to rewrite the rule book. It's another thing to presume that you can rewrite the dictionary. If all cars went electric, you wouldn't say that you were putting gas in them. You would say you're charging them. Different medium, different action, different terminology.

 

[Ed David]

Hence my point. Redefining technology and coming up with new things is one thing. Redefining existing, accepted, and generally understood terminology to fit your own personal vision is not appropriate, regardless of whether it's Jim, Graeme, you, or me doing the redefining. If you come up with something new, come up with a new descriptive term for it. It's one thing to rewrite the rule book. It's another thing to presume that you can rewrite the dictionary. If all cars went electric, you wouldn't say that you were putting gas in them. You would say you're charging them. Different medium, different action, different terminology.

Agreed. You can either shoot film or digitally. Respect should be due to preexisting technology just as all art does this as well.

 

[Jannard]

Sorry Mike. Don't have a clue what you are talking about. You make no distinction between RAW capture and video? Are jpegs the same as RAW stills? Shall we call movies "films" even if they are shot with digital cameras just because that's what they have always been called? Who said your definitions are correct or accurately describe the reality of what's going on? Should we clear our definitions with you 1st?

Jim

Your definition. Mine is that video means electronic image capture, as opposed to photochemical means of image capture. It doesn't necessarily mean a specific means of recording it, and it has little to do with how or when it's processed.

Ahhh, Reduser. The home of random redefinition of terminology to serve whatever purpose one has an interest in serving.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Language is a fluid thing and to some extent, majority rules whether or not it is accurate or even correct.

The only problem with the word "video" is that it comes with a lot of baggage, some negative (hence why it is used as a pejorative often when describing a digitally-shot movie), but honestly, saying that RAW versus, let's say, LOG, is the defining line between "video" and whatever the new term is, "digital cinema"?, has not exactly become a formalized, commonplace, generally accepted definition.

As someone who has had to write articles about emerging technology, it's very hard to avoid the word "video" sometimes because there is no clear-cut transition or demarkation between a video camera and a digital cinema camera, particularly when talking about something like the Sony F35, for example, which clearly falls under both categories.

I'm not sure that recording RAW is clearly what defines a digital cinema camera -- for example, what if the Epic ever offers a 1080P RGB recording option, just as the Alexa offers a RAW, LOG, and Rec.709 option? Would the Epic start being a "video" camera by dint of allowing a non-RAW format to be recorded? Is the Alexa a "video" camera the moment it is switched out of RAW recording mode? What if you simultaneously record RAW and Rec.709 from a camera?

However, since the word "video" is loaded, it seems merely good manners to avoid using it when it is likely to give offense, whether or not offense was intended. However, in it's most generalized definition, it merely describes the electronic capture of moving images. Here is one of many definitions for "video", from Wikipedia:

"Video" is the technology of electronically capturing, recording, processing, storing, transmitting, and reconstructing a sequence of still images representing scenes in motion.

Other definitions suggest that video always involves recording to videotape, others say it involves shooting for television transmission, etc.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Your definition. Mine is that video means electronic image capture, as opposed to photochemical means of image capture. It doesn't necessarily mean a specific means of recording it, and it has little to do with how or when it's processed.

Ahhh, Reduser. The home of random redefinition of terminology to serve whatever purpose one has an interest in serving.

The RED camera has no videotape. Neither is it DigitalVideo... because once again it does not record to videotape or videocassette.

vid·e·o
noun /ˈvidēˌō/ 
videos, plural

The system of recording, reproducing, or broadcasting moving visual images on or from videotape

A movie or other piece of material recorded on videotape

A videocassette
- a blank video
- the film will soon be released on video

A short movie made by a pop or rock group to accompany a song when broadcast on television

A videocassette recorder

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Trouble with that definition is that any cheap handycam recording 60i in Rec.709 gamma to flash memory automatically graduates from the category of "video"... I think most people would say today that the medium of tape is not what defines "video". We record RAW images to magnetic media, for example -- it just doesn't happen to be on a flexible ribbon.

I think a better demarkation, if one is needed, would be to limit "video" to anything recorded with broadcast television specifications for gamma, color encoding, etc. -- but that assumes that broadcast specs won't change someday to include things currently saved for digital cinema presentation, for example, so even that's a bit arbitrary. But most people would define 4:2:2 Rec.709 as being "video"... the question is whether they would also define 4:4:4 RGB Log as being "video". I think the physical recording medium itself is a bit of a red herring.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

Well as Mike says we can't redefine things at our will... that's the dictionary formal definition. So by the "formal" definition it's obvious that the RED does not do video. I'm sure Mike will agree.

 

[Jannard]

I don't presuppose that RAW = digital cinema (exclusively). To me, if it gets to the cinema and was shot digitally, that qualifies. I will argue the difference between "video" and RAW. "Video" does have baggage and was coined to describe something other than where we are today.

When we showed up, 1080P RGB was the digital standard set to replace film (or at least be the alternate to film). Since then, many things have changed and been added. Since few "industry established types" were supportive of RED even being in the discussion, it seemed like we were left to our own devices to define what we were doing. I guess everyone has the right to call 4K or 5K, REDCODE RAW whatever they want... including video. We just don't think that drills down the difference enough. It is like calling everyone on the planet "people"... with no distinction for men and women, race, religion, nationality, etc. Seems like we need a more specific set of terms so that 1080P RGB doesn't get lumped in the same bucket with 5K REDCODE RAW.

Jim

 

[Ivan Kovax]

M Most,

Thanks for that informative post. I certainly took a lot from it.

However the troll in question admitted that he never saw a 3D version of pirates, which leaves open the very likely possibility that it was a bad print.

Cheers,

Ivan

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

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Well as Mike says we can't redefine things at our will... that's the dictionary formal definition. So by the "formal" definition it's obvious that the RED does not do video. I'm sure Mike will agree.

That's just one definition, and if you believe that, then most video cameras today aren't video cameras since most are moving away from tape media.

 

[Andrae Palmer]

That's just one definition, and if you believe that, then most video cameras today aren't video cameras since most are moving away from tape media.

I complete agree with you Mr. Mullen... i'm just using Mike's reasoning which basically is that we can't redefine things just because we find it convenient for our purposes. By the formal definition of video... it's obvious that the RED camera is not a video camera. BTW my source was the Oxford dictionary.

The etymology of the word is borrowed from latin video = "I see". By that definition we all video (except the blind).

video (adj., n., pref.)
1935, as visual equivalent of audio, from L. video "I see," first person singular present indicative of videre "to see" (see vision). Videotape (n.) is from 1953; the verb is 1959, from the noun; videocassette is from 1971; video game is from 1973. Videocassette recorder is from 1971, now usually VCR (also 1971).