Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

$101,800.00 for basic 8K package

Elsie N said:
Robert, apoligies. Took one look at the length of this missive and don't have time or inclination to read through it. Break it down to a Reader's Digest Condensed version and I'll look at it the next time I'm online. Sorry man... short attention span.
Click to expand...

My post was directed at the community at large, and most of all to students who often read these forums, so that's fine, no need for you to read it.
 
I would say that an IMAX Film does not have be shoot with an “IMAX 65 mm 15 Perforation Camera” (almost no one does), or whatever treaties there are between IMAX and whoever, what counts at the end of the day is the “Dynamic Range” the “Resolution” and the “Color” IMAX is concern with acquiring “PRODUCT” to show in its theaters. The “Motion Picture Film” has to be a Movie that “Entertains”, can compete with the Netflix of the World, they have a heavy “Hardware” and “Real Estate” investment that they must protected. So I would say that if after everything is said and done, you have one of those “PRODUCTS”, and you happen to have used the “Epic Dragon Weapon/ Stealth 8K Camera” have the Advertising and Publicity Budget to back-it-up, NONE OF THAT REALLY MATTERS, what matters is what you can get up on the “Screen” and how you can back-it-up with Advertising and Publicity.

Humberto Rivera
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
My post was directed at the community at large, and most of all to students who often read these forums, so that's fine, no need for you to read it.
Click to expand...

Well, I did read it. And as you surmise, I don't shoot the conditions you mentioned... so I spoke out of turn in my initial post.
 
The Path of the “Motion Picture Production & Exhibition”; is the path of BROKEN CONTRACTS AND LITIGATION whenever is in the interest of any of the parties involved; to filed a law suit, sometimes I think is a “Lawyers Dream”, but we hardly ever talked about that! There will always be something, look at how WE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORUM, imagine it 100 folds on the entire “Planet Earth”, were now playing within the “International Arena”, now foreign receipts bring in more revenue than domestic receipts. One small example is China, however they only ever so reluctantly pay the 25% that corresponds to the distributor from a Government Agency, that’s 25% is of actual revenues, and that’s after sitting on the table with them and diplomatically arguing a little bit, it’s their culture, they are slow payers, just one example, but there are many more.

While others, on the average is 50% for most other territories. This is after the first week where the spilt is usually 60 %/40% (or higher) with the 60% going to the Distributor. I continue to see films that would have been a “Hollywood Film” years ago, now they are produced in the U.K., France, Germany, and other Countries, in English with U.S. Distribution in mind, but their Country of Origin is where an Investments can come from or anywhere in the Globe, we are now in a “Global Community” as the Years go-on.

I agree with what Stacey Spears said; “This is key! We all shoot in so many different conditions and sometimes it is difficult for us to understand, or appreciate, someone else's point of view.” I would only add to what Stacey Spears stated, the equipment you use; the “Camera and Lenses” will also determine the “Look” that’s hard to put your finger on, but it’s there, and how you frame the “Aspect Ratio” within the “Real Estate” (8K) and the within the “Red Dragon Weapon/Stealth 8K Carbon Fiber Camera” will also make a difference, and you’ll have plenty of space to down-rezz to a 4K DCI to make your “Motion Film” look good, or the many different types of Screens that exists “World Wide”! By the way, in this “Multi Release Paradigm” there is also an IMAX “Aspect Ratio” within the 8K frame!

Humberto Rivera
 
Aspect ratios are just crops, u can create that on any format...

IMAX is about very high resolution and the unique perspective due to the super wide FOV...

8K is a step towards that but still has a 1.7 crop factor compared to 70mm capture...
 
That’s all fine and dandy, but what I’M TALKING ABOUT IS what is possible within the 8K frame, that’s all you got, and whether you are you going to make it slightly smaller so you can correct for a “shaky camera”, but whatever you chose, you have more options within the 8K frame.

Humberto Rivera
 
IMAX films will be delivered to IMAX to begin their DMR process as DPXs or JPEG2000 files regardless of what camera shot it originally. If you bring IMAX a film that will make them money they'll exhibit it. Almost every feature film today is finished in 2k and then run through the DMR process. I just watched Avengers AoU on the latest and greatest IMAX Dual 4k laser projector. It looked over sharpened in a lot of places like DMR upscaled films tend to look. But do you really gain anything from going native "IMAX"? I would argue no if you already are shooting in a 4k resolving format. If you give them a 6k master of [Insert Blockbuster] they aren't going to turn you away if they can make a ton of money from it even if it was shot on a RED instead of on "IMAX" (Arri 65).

Digital is the great equalizer. It's ultimately all pixels regardless of aquisition: 70mm film, Alexa 65 "IMAX", Dragon, Weapon... if it's a nice high resolution file that looks good then great. After all if IMAX does start swapping out all of their 70mm projectors for dual 4k projectors then you aren't going to gain anything except super sampling by working in anything over 4k. 8k, 6k.... it's all going into a 4k projector (or 2k for lieMAX).
 
Gavin Greenwalt, has HIT THE NAIL SQUARE ON ITS HEAD, I couldn’t put-it better myself, SO I’LL JUST QUOTE HIM ONE MORE TIME FOR EFFECT; “IMAX films will be delivered to IMAX to begin their DMR process as DPXs or JPEG2000 files regardless of what camera shot it originally. If you bring IMAX A FILM THAT WILL MAKE THEM MONEY they'll exhibit it. Almost every feature film today is finished in 2k and then run through the DMR process. I just watched Avengers AoU on the latest and greatest IMAX DUAL 4K LASER PROJECTOR. It looked over sharpened in a lot of places like DMR up scaled films tend to look. But do you really gain anything from going native "IMAX"? I would argue no if you already are shooting in a 4k resolving format. If you give them a 6k master of [INSERT BLOCKBUSTER] they aren't going to turn you away if they can make a ton of money from it even if it was shot on a RED instead of on "IMAX" (Arri 65).”

“Digital is the great equalizer. It's ultimately all pixels regardless of acquisition: 70mm film, Alexa 65 "IMAX", Dragon, Weapon... if it's a nice high resolution file that looks good then great. After all if IMAX does start swapping out all of their 70mm projectors for dual 4k projectors then you aren't going to gain anything except super sampling by working in anything over 4k. 8k, 6k.... it's all going into a 4k projector (or 2k for lieMAX)”.

With an “Epic Dragon Weapon/Stealth 8K Camera” you have a better way to go which is actually the highest resolution for an eventual IMAX conversion with a “Digital Cinema Camera”, but it could be 6K, or whatever, remember Roger Dearkins and how he worried that “up-rezzing” the Showing the James Bond film “SKYFALL” in IMAX, because it was originally shot with the Arri 2K, the Film DID cross the “$1 Billion Mark” in “Box Office Revenues”, and that’s what really counts for the Box Office Hype (gross recipes-not profits). Gavin you’re 100% correct!

Humberto Rivera
 
Stacey Spears said:
This is key! We all shoot in so many different conditions and sometimes it is difficult for us to understand, or appreciate, someone else's point of view.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That's why I think when people here review cameras or any products, they should specify what kind of shooting they do. It's always relevant.

For example our Kessler full sized jib has been awesome for us, but if I were hiking up a mountain and carrying a jib on my back, it wouldn't be my first choice.
 
I’ve been thinking about “Film Production & Distribution” on a “Global Worldwide Basis”! Imagine “Cloud Atlas” it was made in Germany, financed by a “European Consortium”. “Cloud Atlas” took in $27,108,272 Domestically, and $103,374,596 Internationally for a total “Worldwide Box Office” of $130,482,868, THAT’S NOT ALL THAT GREAT, but it was a GREAT FILM nonetheless, at least for me. It was distributed in the Unites States by “Warner Brothers” and the rest of the World by others. “Cloud Atlas” was directed by Andy & Lana Wachowski, the same people that brought you "The Matrix”!

As a film, I personally liked “Cloud Atlas”, I’m not sure why, there was something about the film that resonated with me, I like it a lot, it should have been a “Big Hit”, but that’s the way of the world. This is one of many examples of film shot around the world. It was shot with Two American Directors (but really Global Directors’) Mostly American Actors, but the Crews were Germans, in a German Studio, European “Financial Backing”, it was a German Film in all of its senses.

But how about “Lucy” a French film written and directed by Luc Besson, it was shot on a $40 Million Dollar Budget and made $126,663,600 Domestically and $332,200,000 Foreign for a worldwide Box Office Total of $458,863,600, most of the Box Office Receipts came for other parts of the World, this film did make a profits for its investors. Remember to make a profit you have to have “at-least-take-in” “Two and Half Times” or possibly “Three Times” of the “Production Budget”, that’s the “General Rule of Thumb”. The Film was mainly shot with Sony Cameras’, but many parts were they required a “Lighter” camera, they use the “Red Camera”, you cannot tell one from the other on the “Movie Screen”, however that will change with the new “Epic Dragon Weapon/Stealth 8K CF Camera” comes in the market.

Think about the Australian Actors, Irish Actors, Canadian Actors, New Zeeland Actors, and British Actors, with a “Dialog Coach”, they can easily speak any variation of the “International American Accent”, and as they do “Hollywood Production” is slowly being left behind, soon “American Distribution” will go through the same filter, as the World enjoys today, using a different “Film Viewing Paradigm” which of course includes “Theatrical Distribution”, as people like Netflix and others like them continue to advance on a “World Wide Basis”, the theaters must do more but it will take time for this phenomena to become a reality, but it-is happening, the TRUTH is that the World brings in more than 60%-70% of revenues to any production. One day in the “not-to-distance-future” you will have a flat 120 inch television screen with all the “Theatrical Sound” at home, that will definitely change the your viewing Model, who knows when, but it’s coming, the “Aspect Ratio” will be 2:40.1 or 2.1 all in 8K.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ino-for-22-years-the-best-marriage-of-my-life Look at the people that showed-up at the “Harvey Weinstein” party at the “Cannes Film Festival”, that would have been a Major Studio party years ago, things are changing, slowly, but changing!

I know that none of this has anything to-do with the “Epic Dragon Weapon/Stealth 8K CF Camera” but on the other hand it does, there is a “New Sherriff” in town, it’s called the “Epic Dragon Weapon/Stealth 8K CF Camera” it’s by far the best of all the other option available, but it’s mainly Sony and Arriflex that are way behind Red, it once again leaves them in the dust; on every level. So as the “Hollywood’s” of the World continues to change, so do the options available to “Filmmakers”! I’m sitting here looking at Phil Holland’s last chart, and thinking there is a lot more Real Estate with the 8K camera than the 6K camera. My question is where would the lenses come from, that-is “The High Quality Lenses”? 46.3 mm is a very “Large Image Circle” to fill-up with something comparable to the “Zeiss Master Primes”; well there is still time till the end of the year, or the beginning of the next!

Humberto Rivera
 
He's like that character Chris Farley did on SNL during weekend update :001_tt2:
 
Shane Kelly, and Mike Krumlauf one of the good things about RedUser is that you can say whatever you want, in whatever method you choose, so long as you do-not offend another person, or personally talk about them personally, so I choose to say what I want, the way I want.

Humberto Rivera
 
Marc Wielage said:
Or you could just rent it when you need it and not blow $102K at one time. Just a thought. I know of many, many crews that just rent a camera a day or two a week for commercials, or get a package deal for 7-8 weeks for a feature, and there are lots of good rental/lease deals out there.

You should thoroughly explore the sobering realities and cost of doing post in 8K before planning to shoot in 8K. I know of several producers who were quite surprised at how costly and time-consuming it was just to do a full 4K end-to-end workflow for certain projects, particularly when there were tight budgets and deadlines involved.
Click to expand...


but, but, but, then I wouldn't be able to shoot my cat in 8K whenever I want. My kid doesn't really need college anyways.
 
Since we now have a Digital version of Vista Vision that no longer uses 35 mm Motion Picture Negative and has to travel through the camera sideways, it becomes easier to deal with VV it in digital cinema. So I thought I would share and “Old Article” from my archives.

Here is quote from a much larger version of an article on different formats for Cinema; “A History of Widescreen and Wide-Film Projection Processes” Written by: Les Paul Robley, Film & Video Critic, Los Angeles, USA With additional research by Dan Sherlock

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2010/widescreen/index.htm “VISTAVISION: An 8-perforation horizontal negative image of 1.485-in x .991-in. (twice the area of regular 4-perf 35mm film) that was later optically reduced to a standard 35mm frame. Paramount’s process was based on the Glamorama and Superama widescreen systems invented by Douglas Leigh. The studio did not rely on current anamorphic systems, such as Cinemascope, and looked for a more satisfying alternative. Their aim was to create finer-grained negatives by shooting with a double copy ratio in order that flat 1.85:1 images would be incredibly sharp when blown-up on wide screens. Paramount premiered a full 8-perf projected image with limited road-show engagements of “White Christmas” in 1954 (with maybe only two or three prints struck in this original format).”

“This original 8-perf projection process proved impractical since the footage had to travel at twice the speed through the projector (180-ft per minute), doubling that of normal 35mm film, thereby opening itself up to many technical problems. VistaVision films were shown in a number of aspect ratios, the most popular being 1.85:1. Others included 2:1 and 1.75:1. The resulting release print image was of such fine grain and high quality that the process proved favorable for making anamorphic prints, as it helped compensate for the high grain found in early color negative stocks. The negative was scribed with a different kind of cue mark, created at the start of each 2000-ft reel. Similar in shape to an F, the cue contained staffs that directed the projectionist to the top of the frame for 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2:1. The projectionist moved the framing knob so the staff touched the top of the masking (at the appropriate ratio) and the framing was perfectly set for the rest of the reel. For shooting, the camera threading patterns were horizontal, often referred to as “Lazy 8” or “Butterfly,” because the film lay flat. Whereas most competing widescreen film systems utilized 4-track magnetic striping for stereophonic sound, VistaVision typically carried Perspecta Stereo encoded into the optical track. Perspecta was a faux-stereo system invented by Fine Sound Inc. in 1954. It was a competitor to magnetic stereophonic tracks for motion pictures, and as it did not require a new sound head for the projector, proved a cheaper alternative until its abandonment in 1958. For the same reasons, exhibitors especially liked VistaVision since the reduction prints didn’t require them to purchase extra equipment. Eventually, it too was replaced by Panavision. In 1977, the VistaVision negative was revived for the enhanced quality found in the Dykstraflex visual effects camera used for shooting motion-controlled miniatures on the first “Star Wars,” as well as improved front-and-rear-projected background plates employed in Hansard’s and Introvision’s process photography.”

Humberto Rivera
 
Humberto, I don't usually read long posts but sometimes scan them for relevant information. I like the fact that you bring a background to show where we've come from and how that often relates to where we are.

David Mullen (and even Phil in filling in between very old ways and more recent film ways) is a master at that and even though most of us are immersed into what helps us now, still, having posts like David's, Phil's and yours are very comfortable to read with a hot beverage during a time of relaxed reading.
 
The other day I watch two films back to back; one was the “The Great Gatsby” (2013) and the other was “Thor: The Dark World” (2013) I was struck by the differences in all the aspects that make a Motion Picture Film, a “Motion Picture Film”. There was certain a CLARITY to The Great Gatsby and there was a visible LACK of resolution to Thor, there it was on my television screen all off all things, all the way to Costa Rica, I personally don’t know what kind of processing there was from the broadcast site to my television set, but it was there nonetheless. With the “Epic Dragon Weapon/Stealth 8K CF Camera” the differences should be even more pronounced at the higher end of the scale, and the option available for the different format even more, just a thought.

Humberto Rivera
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top