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

[Sanjin Jukic]

Motore! Partito. Azione!

Motore! Partito. Azione!

Motore! Partito. Azione!

It's said in Italian and English literal translation means Camera, Rolling, Action!

And that was exactly what a famous Italian film director and two times Oscar winner Bernardo Bertolucci

repeated several times at BTS of his latest movie Me and You (original title Io e te) (2012).

BTS is available at Bluray of the movie.

Trailer can be seen here >>>>

But also in that BTS documentary you can see that to Bertolucci was offered an Epic and Alexa as a digital option.

He refused both digital cameras and then was using Arricam LT to shoot on film stock.

Why?

To him as an old film guy digital image quality didn't pleased his vision.

Also technically speaking today's digital cameras still offer low colour resolution something like 4:2:0 and film after scanning has full 4:4:4.

That's why film stock has a reach and full colours in a comparison with any cine digital camera.

Also latitude of 65mm film is still unbeatable by any other format, digital or so...as Ron Fricke often tells in his interviews.

Very easy to understand.

Motore! Partito. Azione!

 

[Nick Morrison]

Also technically speaking today's digital cameras still offer low colour resolution something like 4:2:0 and film after scan has full 4:4:4.

Sanjin, digital cinema camera have been shooting 4:4:4 color for quite a while. The Alexa and RED cameras are all capable of 4:4:4. I have to imagine more affordable solutions can shoot 4:4:4 as well.

From what I can tell, the biggest difference right now between FILM and DIGITAL are the analog "intangibles" that happen when you shoot on film. The character, grain and personality of emulsion and how it reacts to light is unique, and much loved by film-makers. Which I find completely understandable.

I personally would love to see Star Wars shot digitally, but I'm also excited to see what film can continue to bring to this franchise.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin, digital cinema camera have been shooting 4:4:4 color for quite a while. The Alexa and RED cameras are all capable of 4:4:4. I have to imagine more affordable solutions can shoot 4:4:4 as well.

From what I can tell, the biggest difference right now between FILM and DIGITAL are the analog "intangibles" that happen when you shoot on film. The character, grain and personality of emulsion and how it reacts to light is unique, and much loved by film-makers. Which I find completely understandable.

I personally would love to see Star Wars shot digitally, but I'm also excited to see what film can continue to bring to this franchise.

That is so called a fake information or a marketing bluff.

This you can simply proof in cinemas just go there and watch movie shot digital and before or after watch a movie shot on film stock!

No need for a further discussion!!!!

 

[Nick Morrison]

That is so called a fake information or a marketing bluff.

This you can simply proof in cinemas just go there and watch movie shot digital and before or after watch a movie shot on film stock!

No need for a further discussion!!!!

Sanjin, just so we're clear, you don't think a RED camera or an Alexa are capable of 4:4:4 color?

 

[M Most]

Sanjin, digital cinema camera have been shooting 4:4:4 color for quite a while. The Alexa and RED cameras are all capable of 4:4:4. I have to imagine more affordable solutions can shoot 4:4:4 as well.

Well, actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. 4:4:4 is a sampling method related to color difference recording and dual link SDI transport, but it is commonly used today to describe a system in which equal sampling is done on the three color primaries, red, green, and blue. If one uses that definition, there are no current digital cinema cameras that capture that, because they all use either a Bayer pattern or a variation thereof on the sensor. By definition, that means they're capturing twice the information in the green spectrum as they are they other two, which in the current version of the terminology you're using would equate to 4:2:2. In the case of Red, any recording other than RAW (which is still what I just described) is done either with an external recorder, or delivered via a software conversion. So in that sense, yes, you can get 444, 422, or other variations. But it's not the camera that's producing that. In fact, the only cameras I can think of that would have been classified as "digital cinema cameras" that could directly capture and record what you're likely referring to as 444 would be the Genesis/F35 (it has a striped filter on the sensor that gives equal weighting to R, G, and B), the Viper (it was a 3 sensor design), and the F950 (also a 3 sensor design).

 

[Dave Blackham]

That's just not going to happen. It's already to the point where processing film, even in some of the world's busiest production centers, is difficult. Nearly all of the major labs have either been shut down (Technicolor Pinewood was only the latest one) or merged with each other (New York and Vancouver are examples of this). And in some parts of the world there are simply no labs left (Australia comes to mind, with Deluxe's purchase and subsequent closing of all the Atlab locations). Even in Los Angeles, only Fotokem and Deluxe remain to process negative (and I'm not really sure that Deluxe even does that any more). Basically, you REALLY have to want to shoot film to justify the logistics that might be involved in supporting that decision today.

I completely agree, Ive owned Spirit Telecine's and supported shooting film for a long time. Now we own Epic and other cameras and have moved on to new things. It still doesn't stop me wanting more film to be shot though no matter how unrealistic a prospect that might be. Only last week we were remastering some of our previous work for a client and thinking ho good the image looked for the time it was shot. For JJ to pull this of is really quite a big achievement, anyway its his film and he must make the film the way he thinks best.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Sanjin, just so we're clear, you don't think a RED camera or an Alexa are capable of 4:4:4 color?

I kinda beg that we try to avoid derailing threads.

THAT is of course provocative.
And the statement entertains my mind after supervising a few hours of imagery from different cameras and doing some research.

But in the end...

It is quite irrelevant.

If people prefer one camera, they will use it, whatever tech rationale they put behind it.

I learned to know (and like) San, when he entered an all Panasonic DVX/HVX forum and fought for the qualities of his Sony.

Which was an uphill battle, and seems to be the battles he enjoy.

They have continued here...

But in some ways, Sanjin is really a very friendly, passionate and knowledgeable guy.

I appreachiate that he is back in.

And need to ignore some of his derailings...



All the best!

 

[Dave Blackham]

Well, actually, it's a bit more complicated than that. 4:4:4 is a sampling method related to color difference recording and dual link SDI transport, but it is commonly used today to describe a system in which equal sampling is done on the three color primaries, red, green, and blue. If one uses that definition, there are no current digital cinema cameras that capture that, because they all use either a Bayer pattern or a variation thereof on the sensor. By definition, that means they're capturing twice the information in the green spectrum as they are they other two, which in the current version of the terminology you're using would equate to 4:2:2. In the case of Red, any recording other than RAW (which is still what I just described) is done either with an external recorder, or delivered via a software conversion. So in that sense, yes, you can get 444, 422, or other variations. But it's not the camera that's producing that. In fact, the only cameras I can think of that would have been classified as "digital cinema cameras" that could directly capture and record what you're likely referring to as 444 would be the Genesis/F35 (it has a striped filter on the sensor that gives equal weighting to R, G, and B), the Viper (it was a 3 sensor design), and the F950 (also a 3 sensor design).

Id agree the principle but has one one ever measured resolution of each colour channel from say an Epic, Im not saying they havnt but Ive never seen a test result.

 

[Dave Blackham]

I kinda beg that we try to avoid derailing threads.

THAT is of course provocative.
And the statement entertains my mind after supervising a few hours of imagery from different cameras and doing some research.

But in the end...

It is quite irrelevant.

If people prefer one camera, they will use it, whatever tech rationale they put behind it.

I learned to know (and like) San, when he entered an all Panasonic DVX/HVX forum and fought for the qualities of his Sony.

Which was an uphill battle, and seems to be the battles he enjoy.

They have continued here...

But in some ways, Sanjin is really a very friendly, passionate and knowledgeable guy.

I appreachiate that he is back in.

And need to ignore some of his derailings...



All the best!

Sorry for the derail......

 

[Tony Lorentzen]

I hope they have an ample supply of 5219 already lined up and allocated for these next 3 SW movies... Just sayin'

With the kind of budget I'm expecting them to have for those films, couldn't they just buy Kodak and start making celluloid again? ;-)

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

While Mike is technically correct in terms of Bayer CFA sampling math, it could be argued that the post debayered "signal" is reconstructed using an algorithm that creates the equivalent of a 4:4:4 file. Essentially, that the upstream chroma sub-sampling is superfluous if the RGB derived image from the RAW data set is not. Of course the accuracy of these interpolated values is another discussion.

FWIW the color information retrievable from modern color negative stocks like Kodak 5219 holds fine gradations, subtle hues and high saturation extremely well. Its also worth noting that some of the innate characteristics of film response, both spectral and density, happen to closely mimic the human visual system. Super sampling, both in terms of resolution and spectral character, will likely be necessary for digital capture (and processing) to convincingly synthesize some of the logarithmic properties in play.

The good news is that RED has pushed so hard to make digital a suitable film replacement that we are about to have the Dragon sensor, as well as next generation digital cinema offerings from Sony, ARRI and, hopefully, Aaton and Panavision. Like it or not, as Mike notes, the infrastructure necessary for film to be a viable option is vanishing rapidly - so, IMO, the onus is on us as content creators to keep pushing for things like better color bit depth, greater usable DR, smart management of compression usage in the signal chain, etc.

Cheers - #19

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

With the kind of budget I'm expecting them to have for those films, couldn't they just buy Kodak and start making celluloid again? ;-)

Considering how cheaply Kodak sold off much of its patent portfolio, you might be right. Perhaps Disney should lowball them ;-)

Cheers - #19

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Food for thoughts: Episode III is 817 pixels high.

 

[michael zaletel]

I think it's great. Thanks to RED, digital has evolved to the point that decisions like these can be made for personal or artistic or even nostalgic decisions rather than for quality reasons alone. Kodak is trying to stage a brand comeback so it is possible there is more to this than meets the eye. (Pun intended).

Michael Zaletel

 

[Freya]

Mike,

What do you say about the impact on the environment that the photo chemical process has vs Digital? I'm just asking about your opinion and I am not judging.

This is much overplayed. Film cameras are re-used endlessly and serviced and keep finding a use for decades. Video cameras, not so much. Also modern video cameras make use of a lot of advanced technology that uses rare earth elements and the like.

On the red forum people probably have a slightly skewed idea of things because there are sensor upgrades (Dragon!) and also Red has been running a bit of a trickle down policy which while being unpopular with certain people here (I remember the phrase "handouts" being thrown around), does mean that the older technology gets re-purposed and stretches the environmental impact over a greater amount of time.

If you compare that to what tends to go on with other companies where there are not easily available upgrades etc, then the environmental hit is probably harder. The Sony F3 springs to mind although magic lantern definitely helps with the Canon cameras and Sony seem to be heading in a better direction with their more recent line up. There are some nice upgrades for the FS700 for example.

I'm not denying that film has an environmental impact but I think the impact from video cameras is much underplayed when the pace of technology is so fast. Film also has the advantage that the environmental impact is centralised so it is easier to make improvements on, whereas lots of people across the world dumping consumer electronics into landfill is harder to deal with.

Freya

 

[Freya]

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.

Thanks for this David! It amuses me because I remember finding the shots in Tunisia really atmospheric and magical feeling. It also totally makes sense to me that there wouldn't be any diffusion on the stuff in the death star. Perhaps it's because I've seen it the way it is, or perhaps I have a more modern eye for this stuff but that would seem to me to be exactly the right way to shoot it. I'm surprised that George Lucas wanted to fire Gil Taylor because it seems to me like a great job was done cinematography wise.

Freya

 

[Saumene Mehrdady]

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.

It's funny mention Mass Effect because the games themselves actually had film grain as an option in the graphics menu

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

It's funny mention Mass Effect because the games themselves actually had film grain as an option in the graphics menu

It looked like "snow", bad signal artifact on old CRT television, which I remember vividly. To me that in-game effect looked nothing like 35mm film grain and I switched this option off. I was referring to the overall cleaner futuristic look of the series, if that makes sense. The Original SW trilogy had that hi-tech, but textured and dry look of "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", which I dig too. Of course, you can perform strong de-grain passes on scanned neg, though judging by the stuff I saw over the years it looked almost more plastic afterwards than even older digital footage with internal denoise turned on and high compression.

 

[Dave Blackham]

While Mike is technically correct in terms of Bayer CFA sampling math, it could be argued that the post debayered "signal" is reconstructed using an algorithm that creates the equivalent of a 4:4:4 file. Essentially, that the upstream chroma sub-sampling is superfluous if the RGB derived image from the RAW data set is not. Of course the accuracy of these interpolated values is another discussion.

FWIW the color information retrievable from modern color negative stocks like Kodak 5219 holds fine gradations, subtle hues and high saturation extremely well. Its also worth noting that some of the innate characteristics of film response, both spectral and density, happen to closely mimic the human visual system. Super sampling, both in terms of resolution and spectral character, will likely be necessary for digital capture (and processing) to convincingly synthesize some of the logarithmic properties in play.

The good news is that RED has pushed so hard to make digital a suitable film replacement that we are about to have the Dragon sensor, as well as next generation digital cinema offerings from Sony, ARRI and, hopefully, Aaton and Panavision. Like it or not, as Mike notes, the infrastructure necessary for film to be a viable option is vanishing rapidly - so, IMO, the onus is on us as content creators to keep pushing for things like better color bit depth, greater usable DR, smart management of compression usage in the signal chain, etc.

Cheers - #19

We ran a Spirit Telecine some years ago. From what I recall it has a Y R/B sensor. 1920 960 I think. Effectively you could argue it was 4.2.2 but we measured it as best we could at the time and that certainly did resolve 2k RGB which was its spec. Its an excellent telecine. Id be interested to measure R G and b resolution from Epic, I don't have the tools to do it so would be interested to know if any one has done it. And Im not doubting the camera....

 

[Marc Wielage]

We ran a Spirit Telecine some years ago. From what I recall it has a Y R/B sensor. 1920 960 I think. Effectively you could argue it was 4.2.2 but we measured it as best we could at the time and that certainly did resolve 2k RGB which was its spec.

There were four or five different Spirit Telecines over the years, all the way to 4K 4:4:4, depending on what options you got. The original 1997 Spirit HD telecine was very primitive by comparison.