Notes from "American Cinematographer"

[Rob Castiglione]

Shot on a Leica 135mm 2.8. Agreed that this too is a beautiful lens.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The following notes are from this December's article on Rust and Bone, the acclaimed French film lensed by Stephane Fontaine, on Epic with Cooke S4 primes and an Optimo zoom.

Thought it would be useful to share some of his Epic workflow, settings, and approach.


On Why He Chose Epic:

"I shot a lot of tests; we compared the Epic, the Alexa, the Canon 5D & 7D, and Kodak 5219 and 5213. I was really happy with the Epic. There's a lot to say about Epic vs. the Alexa. I feel that there is more detail with the Epic, sometimes too much, and the bokeh's are much rounder. Also the Epic is very light and compact. I didn't want to shoot handheld with the weight and bulk of an Alexa and a Codex recorder. In addition, the Epic gave us the ability to quickly go from 24fps to 300fps with the same camera body; that was a big advantage."

We usually hear all the reasons Alexa is "better". Nice to see the other side of the argument. Epic's smaller size, higher resolution and detail, and more FPS.


On the Format and Compression He Used (5K @ 5:1):

"We captured in 5K, cropping a 2:40:1 window out of the 1:90:1 frame. We tested different compressions at 5K, and my eye wasn't able to see the difference between 3:1 and 5:1, but we started to see a bit of difference at 6:1. So we shot 5K with 5:1 compression except for the 300-fps shots, which are 2K with 6:1 compression. They have an interesting texture "

So his 5:1 analysis and decision matches Ridley's on Prometheus (though they at times used 3:1 on very busy shots, with heavy water or vegetation).

Interesting to see them shoot 2K 300fps, and have no problems with these shots making it into theaters. I know there are discussions on RUSER that 2K out of the Epic "isn't good enough", so it's heartening to see a major DP and production not give a fuck and think it's perfectly good to use. Nice to know. Encouraging.


On Epic's Larger Sensor Size:

QUESTION: There are many moments with reduced depth of field, like the shots of Stephanie in her hospital bed.

"That's a choice of mise-en-scene that was reinforced by the Epic 5K mode. In that mode, the sensor is much larger than S35mm. A 40mm lens with the Epic is [in 5K mode] is about the same as a 35mm lens in Super 35 "

Interesting to hear them talk about the shallower depth of field on Epic. You don't hear that so often. He also mentions the "rounder bokeh" previously, presumably for the same reasons.


On How He Rated the Camera (at ISO 800):

"I set it at ISO 800 and worked with my light meter as I would with film. That way, I could shoot very quickly. When you're working on a stage and you have time, you can consult the waveform monitor and have a video village of calibrated monitors, but when you are on a set with a handheld camera and shooting with our a rehearsal, which often happens with Jacques (his director), you take a quick reading and you go!"

I guess we can add him as an 800 member in the 320 vs 800 debate. Love how he barely checks his waveform! I have to assume he's checking the traffic lights though...


On What LUT he used (Red Gamma 2):

"We used the Red Gamma 2 display LUT for the monitor image. It has reinforced blacks, but it's still low contrast"

Interesting to hear how he seems to like the lower contrast of RG2 (compared to the higher saturation of Red Gamma 3 that everyone now seems to like).



On Epic RAW vs Alexa Pro Res:

"I have shot commercials with the Alexa in ProRes. You turn on the monitor, and everyone's happy. You feel like you're watching TV. There's a kind of ease to it; there is already a result that is satisfactory. That worries me. I think the Epic is a camera that's more orientated toward postproduction. Of course, each film is a different case. You can also shoot Alexa in ArriRaw with a digital imaging technician."

I think his comment about Epic being a camera for postproduction is very prescient. It's true that the RED RAW workflow is more time consuming, but geared for those who want the options in post. That's the trade off.


On Projecting in 2K vs 4K:

QUESTION: You finished the film at 4K resolution. Why did you project 2K at Cannes?

"The 4K image was too defined, too digital, too hard; there were too many things in it. The 2K seemed true."

For those of you who say RED "has no soul" then maybe you've found your answer. Project in 2K.

 

[Will Keir]

Nice thread Nick, thanks for taking the time!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nice thread Nick, thanks for taking the time!

No problem, Will. I tend to take copious amounts of mental notes and google doc updates of all the info I cram out of this mag. Kinda helps to put it all in one place...and at least this way I can share!

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Ah... I really hate the "because it is "better" arguments.

These, I can all see, follow, understand and agree with.
Arri and RED made different choices in their designs.
Thus the cameras are different.
There are even a few more differences, but it is good to see someone being able to articulate which differences counted for which production...

I also think the "screen in 2k" argument has some merit.
As we don't mostly shoot charts, there are more qualities to an end-image than details.

Of course, I know RED does not necessarily agree with this...
Even when it comes from someone using RED...

But it is a nice reflection, as compared to the 48 fps debate going on here.

Hahaha

 

[Nick Morrison]

Ah... I really hate the "because it is "better" arguments.

These, I can all see, follow, understand and agree with.
Arri and RED made different choices in their designs.
Thus the cameras are different.
There are even a few more differences, but it is good to see someone being able to articulate which differences counted for which production...

I also think the "screen in 2k" argument has some merit.
As we don't mostly shoot charts, there are more qualities to an end-image than details.

Of course, I know RED does not necessarily agree with this...
Even when it comes from someone using RED...

But it is a nice reflection, as compared to the 48 fps debate going on here.

Hahaha

Agreed, I thought his 2K screening POV was pretty interesting too. And I also liked how specific he was for choosing Epic. Didn't seem shrouded in the usual demagoguery.

 

[Mitch Gross]

In addition to mechanics, the issue with shooting on stills lenses is consistency. How consistent is the quality of the various lenses from the given manufacturer, and more important, how well do they match from lens model to lens model? It is not an issue in the stills world, but in the cine world we shoot with a given set of lenses on a project because they are designed to match well to one another. Color, contrast, focus falloff, chromatic aberration, geometry, flaring, veiling, center to edge brightness, etc. There are many aspects to a lens beyond resolving power and mechanical construction. Cooke lenses are all designed with similar looks so that they can be intercut within a scene well. Same with Zeiss, RPP and others. This is often not true of stills lenses.

 

[D Fuller]

All true. And it does make a difference when choosing stills lenses if you choose from within the same era of lens production. For example, the Nikkor AIS series look a bit different from the older, pre-AI lenses. Primarily, I think, because the coatings have evolved over the years. And the G-series have a different look still - more modern, sharper-freeling (not that the AIS lenses aren't plenty sharp). They all have a Nikkor look, but in different "shades". So when choosing stills lenses, it helps to build a set out of lenses from the same era.

In addition to mechanics, the issue with shooting on stills lenses is consistency. How consistent is the quality of the various lenses from the given manufacturer, and more important, how well do they match from lens model to lens model? It is not an issue in the stills world, but in the cine world we shoot with a given set of lenses on a project because they are designed to match well to one another. Color, contrast, focus falloff, chromatic aberration, geometry, flaring, veiling, center to edge brightness, etc. There are many aspects to a lens beyond resolving power and mechanical construction. Cooke lenses are all designed with similar looks so that they can be intercut within a scene well. Same with Zeiss, RPP and others. This is often not true of stills lenses.

 

[Nick Morrison]

In addition to mechanics, the issue with shooting on stills lenses is consistency. How consistent is the quality of the various lenses from the given manufacturer, and more important, how well do they match from lens model to lens model? It is not an issue in the stills world, but in the cine world we shoot with a given set of lenses on a project because they are designed to match well to one another. Color, contrast, focus falloff, chromatic aberration, geometry, flaring, veiling, center to edge brightness, etc. There are many aspects to a lens beyond resolving power and mechanical construction. Cooke lenses are all designed with similar looks so that they can be intercut within a scene well. Same with Zeiss, RPP and others. This is often not true of stills lenses.

This may be true, but the highest end pro stills lines...especially Leica, Contax, Hasselblad, etc....were well known for maintaining consistent looks. As long as you purchase lenses from a matching "era", the differences are usually negligible. Especially when shooting in RAW when you can grade the small inconsistencies out. Hey, you yourself used to own and rent a Contax set for use on Aaton mount...you should know!

That being said, you are of course MORE LIKELY to get even closer matching looks from a Cine set of lenses, where all the lenses were usually made at the exact same time, have very similar serial numbers, and were designed to resolve on film in a twinning way.

But a matching set of pro stills lenses can get you far enough...especially in a RAW world.

 

[PatrickFaith]

This may be true, but the highest end pro stills lines...especially Leica, Contax, Hasselblad, etc....were well known for maintaining consistent looks. As long as you purchase lenses from a matching "era", the differences are usually negligible. Especially when shooting in RAW when you can grade the small inconsistencies out. Hey, you yourself used to own and rent a Contax set for use on Aaton mount...you should know!

That being said, you are of course MORE LIKELY to get even closer matching looks from a Cine set of lenses, where all the lenses were usually made at the exact same time, have very similar serial numbers, and were designed to resolve on film in a twinning way.

But a matching set of pro stills lenses can get you far enough...especially in a RAW world.

I was wondering, do the Leica still lenses have the same "look" as their cinema lens? Or what Leica still lenses have a similar look to Leica cinema lenses?

 

[Nick Morrison]

I was wondering, do the Leica still lenses have the same "look" as their cinema lens? Or what Leica still lenses have a similar look to Leica cinema lenses?

That...Patrick...is the million dollar question. I have a DP friend who has bet YES to that question...and invested in a TRUCK LOAD of Leica R's (I think he has over 15 at this point).

 

[Rob Castiglione]

What Nick said about consistency in still lenses is true. The set of Leica R which is all from about the same era is remarkably consistent.

 

[Tehben Dean]

Agreed, I thought his 2K screening POV was pretty interesting too. And I also liked how specific he was for choosing Epic. Didn't seem shrouded in the usual demagoguery.

I have actually never had the chance to see anything screened in 4k but I imagine if you don't want the super sharp look then adding softness or grain etc in post and still screening in 4k would be a better approach then screening in 2k because 2k is digitally softer and softened 4k would be more organicallyish.

I does seem like we have reached a point where higher resolution and sharper images is not necessarily better or needed and at this point it's just a matter of purpose and preference.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have actually never had the chance to see anything screened in 4k but I imagine if you don't want the super sharp look then adding softness or grain etc in post and still screening in 4k would be a better approach then screening in 2k because 2k is digitally softer and softened 4k would be more organicallyish.

I does seem like we have reached a point where higher resolution and sharper images is not necessarily better or needed and at this point it's just a matter of purpose and preference.

Agreed, we are at a cross-roads between extreme resolution and clarity...and the need to maybe....start softening it...

 

[Phil Holland]

On the Format and Compression He Used (5K @ 5:1):


So his 5:1 analysis and decision matches Ridley's on Prometheus (though they at times used 3:1 on very busy shots, with heavy water or vegetation).

Just to add to this. The shooting notes that I added to the Red Quick Reference Guide came from my own tests for 4K and 2K delivery, stress testing REDCODE in extreme color/post workflows, and researching productions from the last year or so.

Here's the snippet in case you don't want to download the PDF:

General Shooting Advice

With 4K or theatrical delivery in mind, it's common for most productions to shoot with a REDCODE compression ratio between 5:1 and 8:1 when shooting at 5K or 4K resolutions. Lower compression ratios like 3:1 work well for scenes with high frequency detail or if your intention is to pull stills from your material.

When shooting at formats below 4K resolution (such at 3K, 2K, or 1K) it's advised to shoot at the highest possible REDCODE compression ratio available for your frame rate and resolution choices to yield the highest quality image for up-scaling purposes.

If your delivery format is 1080p or a lower resolution and you are shooting at 5K or 4K switching to compression ratios such as 10:1 and 12:1 may be
desirable. Since you are scaling down your material from a higher captured resolution you can maintain a good balance between visual quality and receiving the added benefits of being able to role longer takes or holding more material on your REDMAG SSD media.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I find 3:1 being where I choose ro shoot more often than not, after starting off at 8:1 initially...

 

[Nick Morrison]

Just to add to this. The shooting notes that I added to the Red Quick Reference Guide came from my own tests for 4K and 2K delivery, stress testing REDCODE in extreme color/post workflows, and researching productions from the last year or so.

Here's the snippet in case you don't want to download the PDF:

Thanks Phil your snippet was very useful. To your point: we shot recently at 10:1 (for 1080p delivery) and it came out FANTASTIC. We were out in the wilds of a Florida swamp, and that setting helped us save a ton of card space. W/out it we would have been DITing in the wilderness, totally FUBAR'd.

 

[Phil Holland]

Cheers Nick. That's one of the crazier benefits to REDCODE. I can't imagine explaining to my insurance that a gator ate my gear

 

[Daniel Mimura]

One note about The Master and Dark Knight Rise still lenses from earlier in the post...

This isn't a very good comparison to small sensor stuff like Red (I'm joking of course), but it's an issue with optics. A crappy lens in medium or large format or 65mm will out resolve the best, highest quality full frame or super-35 lenses any day.

 

[Shane Kelly]

One note about The Master and Dark Knight Rise still lenses from earlier in the post...

This isn't a very good comparison to small sensor stuff like Red (I'm joking of course), but it's an issue with optics. A crappy lens in medium or large format or 65mm will out resolve the best, highest quality full frame or super-35 lenses any day.

I'm not sure that's true. AFAIK the larger format lenses do not need the resolving power of the smaller format as the negative is larger. I know that my zeiss zf's or compact primes out resolve my mamiya medium format lenses on my epic.