Analog Star Wars - The next Star Wars will be shot on Kodak 5219

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Oh, no. If it were 65mm, yes. But 35mm falls flat on 4K projectors compared to full res 4K cameras. The sharpness is not there.

I remember watching Django unchained at the cinema and it was as good as if not better then anything I've seen in cinemas shot on Red and that includes the first hobbit film at 48fps 3D.

 

[Robert Hart]

I am one of those luddites. I am not against progress, nor am I much for public speaking. I did stand up in a 2/3" Sony Cine-Alta product night and suggested that someone in film would have something to say about an assertion that was made that the Sony image was then better than film. I don't think I was much loved for it. The lecturer did concede that the film workflow via digital processing was then throttled back to 2K. I will be interested to see how this new film pans out if it is given top treatment in digital processing instead of being crippled down. As for film, there is a short project right now being shot in York, Western Australia on real 35mm film by a real film DoP. I suspect it may be one of if not the last here, so I went for a drive to go see. I'm not rubbishing the Dragon or other digital cinema system for that matter. I am looking forward to the opportunity of leaving my dandruff, finger-sweat and DNA all over one at the first chance I get. I think there will be a new art form come from this new camera, such that Mr. Jim and his team did not originally imagine - or maybe they did. 3D off it WILL be magic and it may well be the saviour of 3D if given a proper chance. I think more in terms of choices and options as an artform. Did I enact that churlish pseudo-dumb question thing when encountering increasingly rare film cameras - "That's an original 4K camera isn't it? ( cue the "nerdy kid-eager" look ) Is that - a RED?" - Yes I did do that. The camera was this beautiful big AATON with a black shiny Cooke S4 lens on the front bigger than a Sunshine Milk tin. (Image was ripped from the facebook post.)

 

[Freya]

I think they are doing whatever they can to get back to the spirit of the original movies. Shooting on film is an easy way to start in that direction. Getting the original actors another. The use of real sets and miniatures also. I think you will find however, that this will be mixed with the latest VFX too, if nothing else because that is a practical thing to do. I think this is a good place to start from. Sometimes when you have taken a wrong turning you have to go back a bit and try again from a slightly different direction. Getting back to what worked originally seems like a good start.

I can't relate to those who suggest the cinematography doesn't matter at all. One thing the original Star Wars had going for it was that it was really quite atmospheric. Especially the stuff in the desert, that mix of red and yellow/browns and the soundtrack, it really had something that greatly added to the movie. I think if they can recapture some of that spirit, that will be a great thing.

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing new and exciting things from the Dragon but this doesn't seem like the right project to start experimenting on in that way. I think when people get their hands on the Dragon they are going to find they can make movies in a bit of a new way and may find unexpected new ways of doing things. I see Dragon as being a thing that will shake things up for the future. This is a movie franchise that dates back to the late 70's.

Right tool for the right job.

Freya

 

[Freya]

The Studios are going to have to find some gimmick, "Shot on film, and we serve spaghetti!"

That sounds great George!
I'd go to that!
That would beat 3D for me hands down!

Freya

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

Sorry if this is offtopic a little bit, but talking about space operas, if they would ever do something with Mass Effect property (like a movie based on the characters and more interesting story arcs from the source material), I'd like it to be shot on 4K+ digital, just because I've always imagined live-action look of that universe as very sharp and pristine, without any trace of film grain and things like that. The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't glossy-looking all that much, since Disney is now continuing the saga with Episode VII, that textured film look really suits.

 

[Michel Hafner]

I remember watching Django unchained at the cinema and it was as good as if not better then anything I've seen in cinemas shot on Red and that includes the first hobbit film at 48fps 3D.

Define "good". I was referring to sharpness. Hobbit was 2K. 35mm in 4K is beyond 2K. How did Django in 4K compare to Elysium in 4K concerning sharpness? And Elysium is not even full 4K.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Define "good". I was referring to sharpness. Hobbit was 2K. 35mm in 4K is beyond 2K. How did Django in 4K compare to Elysium in 4K concerning sharpness? And Elysium is not even full 4K.

The image was far clearer then I expected and the colours were vibrant, we're not watching test patterns we're watching movies sharpness is irrelevant unless you've got text on the screen, you also have to factor in the screen itself I went to an F55 event where they showed a bunch if 4K content on a 4k projector but it didn't really look all that impressive because the screen wasn't really that big, I watched Django on a much bigger screen and your claim that the sharpness isn't there is utter rubbish.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

how on earth can it be a bad thing, if Dan Mindel or anyone else wants to shoot 35mm anamorphic??? Comments like those presented here will only further drive away the interesting posters... specifically the ones with the ".ASC" after their names.

+ 1

 

[Matt W.]

There's an article about timelessness and how Hitchcock would never let his characters use vernacular or dress "fashionably."

There's future-proof and then there's timeless… 5219 anamorphic is a timeless look.

 

[shashbugu]

@ketch Rossi, surely you can't be blindsided to actually think Red looks better than the holy grail aesthetic look of film. Please go rent the movie "War Horse", you'll see that digital still has a few years to catch up to film. It's one thing to have excellent alternatives to film, but to actually make claims that digital looks better than film is downright... Look up kodak vision3 500t 5219/7219 vision3 250D 5207/7207 you'll understand why they're used on so many features and TV shows destined for digital release. It cuts well with with Red and Alexa footage.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

@ketch Rossi, surely you can't be blindsided to actually think Red looks better than the holy grail aesthetic look of film. Please go rent the movie "War Horse", you'll see that digital still has a few years to catch up to film. It's one thing to have excellent alternatives to film, but to actually make claims that digital looks better than film is downright... Look up kodak vision3 500t 5219/7219 vision3 250D 5207/7207 you'll understand why they're used on so many features and TV shows destined for digital release. It cuts well with with Red and Alexa footage.

You must re-read more carefully what I wrote... I did NOT made such claim, not now not EVER, I consider Film and it's particular FLOW look, do to it's impurities do to the process of how celluloid is actually made, and processed to which end gives it such unavoidable characteristics and we got used to and come to love it by watching movies in the past 100 years, yet It remains a medium that does not produce Perfect and clear images, and that is what I like about Digital, yet I NEVER said nor will I never say that Digital is better then Film or viceversa, as it is purely a matter of taste.

What I would say is that if not convincing for any one with the Red Epic MX, it will absolutely be now with Dragon that Film has at last been outmatched in Resolution and Dynamic Range, as well as in the power for Post manipulation, 6k is a S^%$ Load of DATA comparable only from 65mm or 70mm an that is a fact.

Yet, I am not arguing not now not ever before or will I do so in the future that Film has and always will have it's particular look, but I will say that now more then ever before Digital, when acquired properly can be made to match Film, in any Stock, might never be exact, but very similar to were no one on a movie theater will know one from the other.

But for me none of it all really matters, as there are more reasons for me to never shoot film for any Motion project or still project for that matter.

My choice to NOT shoot film is also based on it's Dinosauric way of processing, I surely do not want to wait around for Film stock to get shipped out processed and scanned to be made digital to then have to reverse the process again for print to release, how tiresome... And waist of time that I do not have...

Camera Body and camera set ups, accessories to be able to use, and so on make the Red Epic my perfect camera, but there is a lot more of course, and I'l write a blog about it on my first Review and why I chose it, too long of a write up to post here.


Then there is the environmental reasons why I stopped using Film as soon as I went the Digital side too.


Despite of it all, I will never say to any one that Red is better then film, I would just showed to any one in a side by side comparison shoot as I did already against the Alexa, which of course lost BIG time, and that was with the Red Epic MX, consider the Dragon for a moment and you'll see were I am going with this...

The holy grail is about to go under for good and stay under... Till it does andy one shooting Film, good for them, it will surely not be me, nor any one I can convince otherwise.

Still, I will make no argument to nay one choosing Film, or Alexa or Sony F65 or any camera, or Media, as each of us has the absolute right to choose the best media that fits his/hers project, as simple as that, but I would surely not stand and be told that Film is better then Digital when compared to the Red Epic MX, and absolutely not compared to Dragon, nor am I saying to any one that even the Red Dragon is better, just different and because of the Dragon, Digital will no longer leave under the Film bridge, it will be only a matter of choice, for now, as I said, Film companies no longer produce it, and what ever is left will be soon gone, in how many years makes no different it will be gone nonetheless, and so all the Film Projectors form Cinemas.


NOW, as for you directly, if you like to shoot Film, do so, if yo tell la good story and has good imagery I will enjoy it as I do for all other movies shot onFilm, just hope that you do a 4k Scan put of it, because HD will surely not last long, and will be as watching SD now when most will have UHD TV's.

Just also respect my opinion and my intelligence and tell me you like Film best, as each have their look, and you do not care to match that look with Digital in post, and I will respect your choice, as I respect those of all my fellow Directors, but do not come to tell me that Film is better then Digital as it stands today with the advent of DRAGON... Because you will simply show that you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Maximum sharpness was not really part of the intended "Star Wars" look -- originally Lucas wanted it to have some odd cross between documentary lighting for a lived-in look but lens diffusion for a fairy tale look. As the recent articles on Gil Taylor's passing a few days ago have brought back into the light, he and Lucas fought over this issue of diffusion.

The shoot started out in Tunisia using net diffusion on the lens, but the weather was horribly overcast most of the days and between the flat weather and the telephoto lenses that Lucas wanted to use, Taylor thought that diffusion was not a good combination. 20th Century Fox, having just had a box office flop with "Lucky Lady", shot by Geoffrey Unsworth with heavy fog filters, were in a bad mood regarding diffusion (interestingly enough, Lucas had originally wanted to hire Unsworth to shoot "Star Wars"). They complained to Taylor about the diffusion used in Tunisia and when production moved to the U.K. to shoot the Death Star sets, Taylor dropped the diffusion without telling Lucas, and after they screened the dailies and Lucas asked what happened to the diffusion, Taylor said that he felt that a military base like the Death Star should have a cleaner, harder, more sterile look and that the diffusion would make the visual effects harder to incorporate, etc. Lucas felt he had actually just bent to studio pressure and wanted producer Gary Kurtz to fire Taylor, but Kurtz didn't want to, or something to that effect.

Anyway, the later "Star Wars" films were generally shot with a minimal amount of diffusion when possible (non chromakey shots), low-con filters for "Empire Strikes Back", a mix of low-cons and fogs for "Return of the Jedi", and ProMist diffusion on the prequels. Nothing too heavy, maybe because the unfiltered second half of "Star Wars" had now established a less diffused look.

But creating the sharpest, most pristine image ala Christopher Nolan and the Batman films, wasn't really part of the visual design of the "Star Wars" films.

 

[António Fagundes]

Ketch, sharpness is not the holy grail of what constitutes a 'good image'. If sharpness is what you like, then of course you will find nothing better than Red or Sony. But there are many other things that people look for in an image, sharpness only being a problem when the lack of it is so apparent that it makes the image look inferior. But that is not the case with film for the last 15 years...

When you talk about film, it seems to me that you mainly have in mind films from the 60s and 70s... because the way you describe film is not the same film that I know of. There are people out there today doing brilliant things on film, things that could have been made on digital but were instead chosen to be shot on film, I still believe that film has a 'texture' that only film has, and digital cannot replicate. And sometimes that is exactly what people want their images to feel like.

Robbie Ryan is a very young Irish DP that is doing in my opinion some of the best, original and beautiful work anywhere in the world. Be it film or digital. His films are not about showcasing sharpness, scientific color measurments or dynamic range, they're about showing you beautiful images, images that he was able to see in his mind's eye and somehow exposed it on film for the rest of the world to see. Just give him a film camera and some Fuji stock and he'll show you how its done!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EceNo1LJj4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7BFZqQ4ruA


Having an image with super eye blinding sharpness or 40 stops of DR you are accomplishing absolutely nothing. Its only a super computer turned on. It's up to you to use it creatively. In other words, film has never stopped anyone from showing you amazing worlds and fascinating images.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

In another thread I suggested that perhaps - perhaps! - that even if film acquisition is dead, one could acquire on Dragon, then print to film, then scan that film. You would then have the cost savings of digital with the uncompromised look of film. Nobody had an opinion. Perhaps someone would like to say something about this? It sounds naive but it might be the perfect solution.

Edit: Ketch and David, thanks for your posts. They were noteworthy in their own ways.

 

[Dominik Muench]

I'm cool with this as long as they try to get the original starwas look and feel and go back to "analog" effects as well...meaning an animatronic/puppet Yoda again and not this green CGI monstrosity...and back to stop motion AT-AT's and so on....ohhh how fun would that be ^^

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Unlikely though... for example, even though J.J. Abrams wanted to build a miniature of the Enterprise for the new "Star Trek" films, he didn't, he felt that would have been self-indulgent. All the "Star Wars" films have tried to be at the forefront of visual effects, I don't see them doing anything old-school like stop-motion that could be done better (i.e. more convincingly) today -- just as I don't expect them to bring the old optical printer out of mothballs. But Abrams likes hybrid effects, blending CGI with set elements so that your eye is not sure what is real and what was added, or shooting greenscreen elements but outside in real sunlight, etc.

Though I agree that the Stuart Freeborn puppet Yoda in "Empire" was much better than the CGI Yoda in the prequels, by now, CGI creatures have gotten even better.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

The computer generated Yoda isn't that bad he just looks dated in attack of the clones because he has a sort of plastic sheen to his skin, the Episode 3 Yoda is much better, there seems to be an anti cgi sentiment which longs for puppets but there was a puppet Yoda in episode 1 and it looked awful, I think the reason the puppet Yoda worked in empire is because he fit in with the stage they put him on and didn't really move much, on top of that you have the performance.
I watched Dark Chrystal a while back and though it was a pretty neat sort of puppet tech demo it didn't leave me thinking "Why don't Pixar stop making CGI films and make a Puppet movie!?"

 

[Jack Smith]

Why we are so worried about tech and camera whoring ?? it's all about the story, the art direction, etc.... after all camera is just a tool. If the story is bad, regardless if you shoot on Film or Digital (Dragon or whatever digital camera out there), it's still bad film. If JJ Abram believes that shooting on film is his weapon of choice, then why you guys think Dragon will make a better camera??

 

[Brett Harrison]

The computer generated Yoda isn't that bad he just looks dated in attack of the clones because he has a sort of plastic sheen to his skin, the Episode 3 Yoda is much better, there seems to be an anti cgi sentiment which longs for puppets but there was a puppet Yoda in episode 1 and it looked awful, I think the reason the puppet Yoda worked in empire is because he fit in with the stage they put him on and didn't really move much, on top of that you have the performance.
I watched Dark Chrystal a while back and though it was a pretty neat sort of puppet tech demo it didn't leave me thinking "Why don't Pixar stop making CGI films and make a Puppet movie!?"

It's entirely down to the level of respect and talent dedicated to VFX. The whole 'practicals or GTFO' attitude stems from anemic schedules and a lack of planning. They started shooting plates for Terminator 2 10 months before principal production.

Which reminds anyone that it ain't the tools it's the artist. In the words of the late and great practical effects master Stan Winston: 'The computer does nothing. It's a tool.'

Which goes to my point (finally) that it's really irrelevant what they're shooting on, and film stocks ain't what they used to be anyway.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Agreed. FYI, not to quibble, but I believe JJ Abram's childhood friend Larry Fong shot Super 8.

Absolutely right -- I think Dan had already committed to doing Lone Ranger, so he was unavailable for Super 8. The latter still looked terrific, and again reflected Abrams' commitment to film.

In another thread I suggested that perhaps - perhaps! - that even if film acquisition is dead, one could acquire on Dragon, then print to film, then scan that film. You would then have the cost savings of digital with the uncompromised look of film. Nobody had an opinion. Perhaps someone would like to say something about this? It sounds naive but it might be the perfect solution.

No, it is naive. You wind up getting the worst of digital and the worst of film by the film-out and scanning combined. Don't forget that the scanners are not perfect, either, and they introduce a degree of errors (and have limitations in dynamic range and sharpness. If you want a film look on top of digital, just apply some grain and reasonable taste in color-correction, and you can get close.