Alien: Covenant Not Being Shot on Red?

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I just think Ridley Scott has been avoiding anamorphic since "Matchstick Men" (2003) because these days he's very used to run at least three cameras all the time, and zoom lenses are workhorses for this approach. Using spherical zooms allows him to use less light or get more depth of field. One of the things that I admire the most about "Alien", which was shot on 100 ASA film stock (Kodak 5247), is that a couple of scenes and some shots here and there were shot using the old Cooke Varotal 20-100mm (T3.1) rear converted to anamorphic (which makes it a 40-200mm T4.5) and somehow, Derek Vanlint managed to keep the great, sharp, contrasty and moody look while raising his light levels a lot. But that's not easy to do and using T2.8 spherical zooms can be much more confortable for everyone involved.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Using spherical zooms allows him to use less light or get more depth of field.

More DOF or less DOF?

Anyway... Perhaps you are correct. But large productions are not scared of taking the time to create lens profiles. Even very small movies with some VFX shots go through the correct motions so that the compositor and colorist can do their jobs properly. This is kid stuff today, just like 4K is kid stuff.

Even modest commercial crews have been known to shoot 6K for 4K extraction for 2K delivery. If they can do it, a big production can do it.

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I mean you can have more depth of field in spherical, using the same light levels, than you get in anamorphic. For instance, the classic Cooke 20-100mm T3.1 becomes a 40-200mm T4.5 in anamorphic. So if you use it spherically, you can shoot at T3.1 (less light than in anamorphic) or use a deeper stop (such as T4.5, T5.6, etc) and still get more DOF, since you are using shorter focal lenghts in spherical. For multicamera shows and zooms using +135mm focal lenghts, deeper stops can be really useful, as sometimes the camera operators are finding the shots and focus pullers have to react very fast as well. Dariusz Wolski once claimed, I believe that it was in the AC article on "Prometheus", that these days Ridley's shoots are kinda documentary in that sense (which also explains how he can shoot movies so complex with very short schedules). I'm not such a fan of his more recent approach as I'm of his early work, but...

 

[Andy White]

I mean you can have more depth of field in spherical, using the same light levels, than you get in anamorphic. For instance, the classic Cooke 20-100mm T3.1 becomes a 40-200mm T4.5 in anamorphic. So if you use it spherically, you can shoot at T3.1 (less light than in anamorphic) or use a deeper stop (such as T4.5, T5.6, etc) and still get more DOF, since you are using shorter focal lenghts in spherical. For multicamera shows and zooms using +135mm focal lenghts, deeper stops can be really useful, as sometimes the camera operators are finding the shots and focus pullers have to react very fast as well. Dariusz Wolski once claimed, I believe that it was in the AC article on "Prometheus", that these days Ridley's shoots are kinda documentary in that sense (which also explains how he can shoot movies so complex with very short schedules). I'm not such a fan of his more recent approach as I'm of his early work, but...

You'll only suffer T-stop reduction/light loss if you're using rear anamorphics on spherical zooms. Using front anas, such as the Panavision ATZ's (T3.5 on the 70-200 and T2.8 om the 40-80)... although that's probably not enough zoom range for the way Ridley Scott works now.

Personally, I prefer his older (ana) work

 

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Yes, sure, but T3.5 is two-thirds of a stop slower than T2.8, which is the stop of the 24-290mm and 45-120mm Angenieux lenses, or the 24-275mm Primo zoom if he's using Panavision gear. Plus these front anamorphics are shorter in range, etc. And if he uses shorter zooms, such as the 15-40mm and 28-76mm Angenieux or the 17,5-75mm Primo zoom, he can shoot a bit below T2.8.

Don't even know if Panavision can supply three, four, or five front anamorphic zooms (one for each camera) just for one production at a time; he probably would have to rely on primes as well. I would prefer that, but maybe Dariusz Wolski doesn't prefer that either. "Crimson Tide" and "The Fan" may well be are the only anamorphic shows that he has done. And that time, having tried Super 35 on "Top Gun" and "Beverly Hills Cop 2" late in the eighties, all Tony Scott's movies were shot in anamorphic. In the early 2000's with the advent of DIs, he switched to Super 35 to be able to use telephoto primes and zooms in lower light levels.

Even John Mathieson, who has shot several features for Scott and seems to prefer anamorphic, has only shot one film for him using the format: "Matchstick Men" (which looked very nice in 35mm projection). "Gladiator", "Hannibal", "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Robin Hood" were all spherical, sometimes using Arri & Angenieux, S4s or Ultra Primes and sometimes Panavision Primo and zooms. He once claimed that he did many lens tests for "Gladiator" and decided to shoot it spherically to avoid the overlit look of the old peplums such as "The Fall of the Roman Empire", since he felt he could get more realistic light from fire sources such as flames and candles by using very large apertures and low-light levels.

 

[M Most]

Even John Mathieson, who has shot several features for Scott and seems to prefer anamorphic, has only shot one film for him using the format: "Matchstick Men"

John shot "Logan" uaing primarily anamorphic lenses on both the Alexa XT and the Alexa Mini. There was a fair amount of spherical shooting, but it was primarily an anamorphic show.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Hi Ignacio,

I'm sure you've already seen John Mathieson's interviews on the Cooke website about working with Ridley Scott and choosing his lenses accordingly, but if anyone else hasn't seen them yet, they are well worth a listen:

http://cookeoptics.tv/b/case-study-gladiator.html
http://cookeoptics.tv/b/masterclass-John-Mathieson-choosing-lenses-1.html
http://cookeoptics.tv/b/masterclass-John-Mathieson-choosing-lenses-2.html

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

Even very small movies with some VFX shots go through the correct motions so that the compositor and colorist can do their jobs properly. This is kid stuff today, just like 4K is kid stuff.

Even modest commercial crews have been known to shoot 6K for 4K extraction for 2K delivery. If they can do it, a big production can do it.

You are drastically underestimating the amount of man-hours that are put into each delivered frame of VFX for a large film like this. It's not like a 30 second commercial or an indie film which may have maybe a few dozen VFX shots and no looming release date to deliver for. When you have enough time, a relatively small number of shots, and reasonable directors who don't demand constant last minute changes that means re-doing a ton of work, then 4K delivery is probably doable. Until then...

These films barely make it to the theaters on time when delivering in 2K. So how exactly are they supposed to deliver 4K with the same resources?

 

[Harry Lime]

You are drastically underestimating the amount of man-hours that are put into each delivered frame of VFX for a large film like this. It's not like a 30 second commercial or an indie film which may have maybe a few dozen VFX shots and no looming release date to deliver for. When you have enough time, a relatively small number of shots, and reasonable directors who don't demand constant last minute changes that means re-doing a ton of work, then 4K delivery is probably doable. Until then...

These films barely make it to the theaters on time when delivering in 2K. So how exactly are they supposed to deliver 4K with the same resources?

Exactly.

Also CGI is not always rendered at 4K even for plates that were shot natively at 4K, because it can be too sharp and won't integrate properly. So, even if you shoot at 4/6k the CGI may get rendered at 2-3k and get upscaled in th composite.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

These films barely make it to the theaters on time when delivering in 2K. So how exactly are they supposed to deliver 4K with the same resources?

I never said that they should. I said that digital productions should be shooting with 4K cameras or better. That's common sense.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I said that digital productions should be shooting with 4K cameras or better. That's common sense.

Why is this relevant for films which are mostly composed of VFX shots if they are being delivered in 2K? Unless post specifically requests more resolution to work with, you're not buying anything for the increase in data.

You could make the 4K argument for archiving purposes, but at that point you might just as well make the argument for shooting 35mm (or a larger film format). Regardless, the majority of the shots in these large films are VFX, which means they will likely be 2K.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Why is this relevant for films which are mostly composed of VFX shots if they are being delivered in 2K?

It costs almost the same. Why wouldn't you? If you're shooting digital you gain nothing from shooting in 2K.

 

[M Most]

It costs almost the same. Why wouldn't you? If you're shooting digital you gain nothing from shooting in 2K.

Cost is not a relevant criteria. In almost all cases that is not what drives this decision. There are, however, some good reasons for shooting a larger format when there is significant VFX content. Higher resolution allows cleaner matte extractions, which in turn allows cleaner, more convincing composites. It allows for a "lookaround" area that is outside of the intended frame, which in turn allows for stabilization to be done without encroaching on the frame edges. When shooting plates, it allows for additional area along all edges that lets you blow up and match move the plate to accommodate camera moves on the foreground photography.

Just to be clear, there are very few features shot today on "2K" formats. The most common camera system in studio features today is the Arri Alexa and its variants (Alexa Mini, Alexa65). Most pictures that use the Alexa shoot in either 2880x2160 (a 4x3 format that is very common, regardless of whether it's a flat or anamorphic production) or "open gate", which is 3414x2198. That is not "capturing in a 2K format," although it is common to debayer both of these to a 2K frame. The Sony cameras (F55, F65) are 4K by design (the F65 is considerably more than that, but is most commonly debayered to 4K), as are the Canons and the Panasonic Varicam 35. So it's really the Alexa you're talking about here, and as long as the production is capturing Arri Raw, that is not "shooting in 2K."

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

It costs almost the same. Why wouldn't you? If you're shooting digital you gain nothing from shooting in 2K.

What Mike Most said.

Also, because not all cameras (some of which do not meet the 4K spec) are created equal. If Roger Deakins or Chivo Lubezki want to shoot with an Alexa and record Arriraw, are you seriously going to tell them they can't because it's not 4K? What if Ed Lachman or Matthew Libatique want to shoot Super 16 again for their next project? Still no? Are Scorsese and Nolan still allowed to use 35mm? Seems a bit presumptuous to tell them otherwise...

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I was talking about digital productions. I'd shoot 16mm over digital - for TV, at least. Small productions will love the Blackmagic 2.5K. I have no reason to ask productions with very small budgets to shoot with a RED - I'd rather that you got the film done with a 2K camera than to not make the film at all.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I was talking about digital productions. I'd shoot 16mm over digital - for TV, at least. Small productions will love the Blackmagic 2.5K. I have no reason to ask productions with very small budgets to shoot with a RED - I'd rather that you got the film done with a 2K camera than to not make the film at all.

My point was that if you are not being asked to shoot these productions, then their choice of format is really not up to you. If Deakins wants an Alexa with its 2.8K sensor, he's gonna get an Alexa. I'm sorry if you don't like his choice and would prefer him to use a 4K+ Red, but it's his choice, not yours. Same goes for Dariusz Wolski, Lubezki, and every other DP of their caliber. End of story. When it's your turn, then you get to choose.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I was talking about digital productions. I'd shoot 16mm over digital - for TV, at least.

I don't think that's a good idea. I think the $100K per week increase in cost for film stock, developing, and dailies is tough to overcome for most productions. (There are always exceptions, like Walking Dead.) This number could go higher for A&B camera productions, which a lot of TV does, at least in America. I think 4K digital acquisition works fine for TV, but they always have the option of finishing in HD and then archiving the 4K source material should they opt to deliver in 4K someday. There's a ton of shows shooting on Alexa nowadays, and I don't think 4K delivery is an issue just yet. They're worrying much more about content (story and characters and the creative end), and resolution is not even in the top 5 issues.

My point was that if you are not being asked to shoot these productions, then their choice of format is really not up to you. If Deakins wants an Alexa with its 2.8K sensor, he's gonna get an Alexa. I'm sorry if you don't like his choice and would prefer him to use a 4K+ Red, but it's his choice, not yours. Same goes for Dariusz Wolski, Lubezki, and every other DP of their caliber. End of story. When it's your turn, then you get to choose.

That's very true. It's interesting to reflect on this recent store in Indiewire about the cameras used to shoot 29 of the big independent films that bowed at the Cannes Film Festival this past week. Of these films, I think 80% of them were shot on Alexa or Amira, 10% were shot on Red, and the rest shot on film or other formats (even DSLR). You have to wonder why. I think there are some very good questions that could be asked.

Cannes 2017: Here Are the Cameras Used
To Shoot 29 of This Year’s Films
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/05/ca...eguiled-good-times-roman-polanski-1201817561/

I would also bet -- in fairness to Red -- that they'll make some inroads in bigger-budget films with the Panavision DXL, which is a remarkable system in many ways.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I think the $100K per week increase in cost for film stock, developing, and dailies is tough to overcome for most productions.

My preference is for aesthetic reasons. You can't force a production to spend more money than it has available. So your next step is to pick your favourite digital camera, and use that. In my case, it's RED. I have no issue with the image quality from the Alexa, Blackmagic 2.5K, F65, etc, but I'll pass. I would certainly not allow DSLRs unless your budget was close to zero.

Also, I think $100K per week is a little high.

 

[dio Zafi]

I don't think that's a good idea. I think the $100K per week increase in cost for film stock, developing, and dailies is tough to overcome for most productions. (There are always exceptions, like Walking Dead.) This number could go higher for A&B camera productions, which a lot of TV does, at least in America. I think 4K digital acquisition works fine for TV, but they always have the option of finishing in HD and then archiving the 4K source material should they opt to deliver in 4K someday. There's a ton of shows shooting on Alexa nowadays, and I don't think 4K delivery is an issue just yet. They're worrying much more about content (story and characters and the creative end), and resolution is not even in the top 5 issues.


That's very true. It's interesting to reflect on this recent store in Indiewire about the cameras used to shoot 29 of the big independent films that bowed at the Cannes Film Festival this past week. Of these films, I think 80% of them were shot on Alexa or Amira, 10% were shot on Red, and the rest shot on film or other formats (even DSLR). You have to wonder why. I think there are some very good questions that could be asked.

Cannes 2017: Here Are the Cameras Used
To Shoot 29 of This Year’s Films
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/05/ca...eguiled-good-times-roman-polanski-1201817561/

I would also bet -- in fairness to Red -- that they'll make some inroads in bigger-budget films with the Panavision DXL, which is a remarkable system in many ways.

Marc

I 'm shooting an ad campaign now on super 16mm and I can tell you there was no increase in budget..(compared when I shoot on red or alexa)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Marc

I 'm shooting an ad campaign now on super 16mm and I can tell you there was no increase in budget..(compared when I shoot on red or alexa)

Well, depends on the shoot to film ratio really. With a manageable amount of shots and ratio, it wouldn't break budget, but with digital cinema you would not break budget if you choose to film more and let things roll, which you sometimes want to do.