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 :)

Captain America: Civil War

M Most said:
Not quite. It's largely Arri 65.
Click to expand...
I was also told Alexa 65 by one of the operators. The pieces I've seen look really beautiful -- Marvel is really pushing the envelope.
 
From ASC June 2016

the filmmakers shot primarily with Arri Alexa cameras, in this case about 70 percent with the XT Plus, recording 4:3 anamorphic footage for a final aspect ratio of 2.39:1 in ArriRaw format with a resolution of 2880x2160 active pixels. Additionally, the 17-minute sequence in which the two superhero squads square off will be presented in the 1.90:1 Imax format in Imax-equipped theaters, and was shot with Alexa 65 cameras at 6560x3100 resolution; the filmmakers dubbed this the “splash- panel” sequence, referring to a one- or two-page comic-book layout comprised of a single attention-grabbing image instead of multiple panels. All of the Alexa cameras recorded to 512GB Codex XR Capture Drives, which yielded 35 minutes of footage for the XT Plus and 10 minutes for the Alexa 65.

Red Epic Dragon cameras, which recorded Redcode raw at 6144x3160 resolution to Red Mini-Mags, were also used for certain action scenes. In the splash-panel sequence, for example, one was installed in a drone to provide an aerial view of multiple practical explosions overseen by special-effects supervisor Dan Sudick as Hawkeye and Scarlet Witch run toward an objective. In another scene, a Dragon was mounted to a remote-controlled car to provide the point of view from one of Falcon’s reconnaissance drones as it maneuvers underneath a moving truck.

For car-chase sequences, GoPro Hero4 Black units were rigged as crash cameras and captured 3840x2160 in Protune mode with the Flat color profile. “This allowed us to add an input color transform to match closer to the Alexas’ look,” explains digital-imaging technician Kyle Spicer. Additionally,Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera was used for security-camera footage that was played back via on-set monitors.
Click to expand...
 
Kemalettin Sert said:
From ASC June 2016
Click to expand...

Thanks for the excerpt.

According to IMDB the Movie was mastered at 4K as well:

[TABLE="class: dataTable labelValueTable, width: 619"]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Runtime[/TD]
[TD]2 hr 27 min (147 min)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Sound Mix[/TD]
[TD]Dolby Atmos | 12-Track Digital Sound (IMAX 12 track) | Dolby Digital[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Color[/TD]
[TD]Color[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Aspect Ratio[/TD]
[TD]1.90 : 1 (IMAX version: some scenes)
2.35 : 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Camera[/TD]
[TD]Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses (some scenes)
Arri Alexa IMAX, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses (some scenes)
Arri Alexa XT Plus, Panavision C-, E-, G-, T-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
GoPro Hero 4 Black
Red Epic Dragon, Panavision G-Series Lenses[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Laboratory[/TD]
[TD]Technicolor, Hollywood (CA), USA (digital intermediate)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Negative Format[/TD]
[TD]Codex
Redcode RAW (6K)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Cinematographic Process[/TD]
[TD]ARRIRAW (2.8K) (6.5K) (source format)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Printed Film Format[/TD]
[TD]D-Cinema (also 3-D version)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

A shame Disney & BV haven't jumped onto the UHD Blu-ray train yet.
 
Visar Sulejmani said:
Thanks for the excerpt.

According to IMDB the Movie was mastered at 4K as well:

[TABLE="class: dataTable labelValueTable, width: 619"]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Runtime[/TD]
[TD]2 hr 27 min (147 min)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Sound Mix[/TD]
[TD]Dolby Atmos | 12-Track Digital Sound (IMAX 12 track) | Dolby Digital[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Color[/TD]
[TD]Color[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Aspect Ratio[/TD]
[TD]1.90 : 1 (IMAX version: some scenes)
2.35 : 1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Camera[/TD]
[TD]Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses (some scenes)
Arri Alexa IMAX, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses (some scenes)
Arri Alexa XT Plus, Panavision C-, E-, G-, T-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
GoPro Hero 4 Black
Red Epic Dragon, Panavision G-Series Lenses[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Laboratory[/TD]
[TD]Technicolor, Hollywood (CA), USA (digital intermediate)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Negative Format[/TD]
[TD]Codex
Redcode RAW (6K)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: even, bgcolor: #FBFBFB"]
[TD="class: label"]Cinematographic Process[/TD]
[TD]ARRIRAW (2.8K) (6.5K) (source format)
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: odd, bgcolor: #F6F6F5"]
[TD="class: label"]Printed Film Format[/TD]
[TD]D-Cinema (also 3-D version)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

A shame Disney & BV haven't jumped onto the UHD Blu-ray train yet.
Click to expand...

What's the point if most of the film is shot way below 4K?

The UHD releases of non-4K shot films is starting to irritate me. It's gonna make people question true 4K and make it hard for them to trust content providers.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
What's the point if most of the film is shot way below 4K?

The UHD releases of non-4K shot films is starting to irritate me. It's gonna make people question true 4K and make it hard for them to trust content providers.
Click to expand...

Well, Rec. 2020 and 10/12 bit sound like pretty darn good reasons to me.

Considering that most people aren't even able to perceive the full resolution of their TVs because they sit too far away, many people would argue (including me) that the enhancements in color and latitude easily outweigh the missing 1K in Resolution (in the case of a non Open Gate Alexa) to UHD.

And you can't deliver those on a standard Blu-ray, so, there isn't really another option to see those movies in their best possible version, even if that means that it's not 4K.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
What's the point if most of the film is shot way below 4K?

The UHD releases of non-4K shot films is starting to irritate me. It's gonna make people question true 4K and make it hard for them to trust content providers.
Click to expand...

So how would you handle the delivery of content with 3K acquisition ? a) HD standard, b) UHD standard, c) something else ?
 
Christoffer Glans said:
What's the point if most of the film is shot way below 4K?
Click to expand...



I understand your point, but for a film like this you've got to wonder: apart from a speck of skin color somewhere in the frame that is actual footage, the rest is a digital set. They could have comped it in 8k for all I know...

Well, not quite perhaps, but you understand what I mean.
 
Christoffer Glans said:
What's the point if most of the film is shot way below 4K? The UHD releases of non-4K shot films is starting to irritate me. It's gonna make people question true 4K and make it hard for them to trust content providers.
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters when you consider a movie like Captain America probably has 1500 VFX shots done at 2K by about 10 different visual effects houses. They can't make a $250 million movie and get it released in time for theatrical release with a 4K end-to-end workflow, not when they only have about 9-10 months for post. And that's even with over 1000 people tirelessly working around the clock to get it out. I think you'll find the number of 4K VFX-dominated films out there is very, very small -- but they do exist. I'm just skeptical it can be done when there's 1500+ shots going on. And don't forget the film is often post-converted for 3D and post-converted for Imax. Somehow, those versions generally manage to make money.

I believe all the Marvel movies done in the last year have been uprezzed to 4K and have been finished in SDR and HDR versions, so those will be coming out. The movies are going to succeed or fail on the basis of how good the story and characters are, not what the pixel resolution is. As we've discussed before, there's several hundred major blockbusters done in the last decade at 2K, and none of those are going to be worthless overnight solely for the reason that they aren't 4K. They'll survive because they're good stories, regardless of what they look like. Content trumps everything.

Here's a quick VFX breakdown on Captain America: Civil War where you can see some of the VFX plates being shot on Alexa...


There's a point where you have to admit that shooting it in 4K or 8K or 16K is not necessarily going to sell one additional ticket, and I don't think it makes a gigantic difference, even in 4K projection. I think the lighting, exposure, and art direction make far more of a difference. To me, capture and post resolution all boils down to available time and budget. Still, you wonder: if they can't do it in a $250 million film, when can they do it?
 
Damn good point.
That being said, I would likely drop $30-$40 to go see a good story, even if it was just natural history, which was shot to be output in 4k on imax (maybe not 3d, too distracting for the most part) Just to have my eyes and mind blown. It might be a case of once you see it done right, you will see the difference and everything else may then feel and look slightly standard def all of a sudden.
It wasnt that long ago I was shooting with a 3ccd video camera that was considered broadcast quality and imagine watching that same stuff today, even on my computer it looks like rubbish!
 
The reasoning behind upscaling is that "well, the colors are really good and it's 2020"? Sub-4K should always be a 2K master, all the upscaling that's being done is muddying what 4K is supposed to be. It's like shooting something in 720p and doing an upscale to 1080p and actually call it a 1080p release. No, 4K needs 4K and above to deliver 4K. This is why Netflix went hard on the specs for acquisition. If people want to have true 4K releases with Alexa cameras then either shoot Alexa 65 or wait for Arri to actually release a 4K s35 Alexa. Believe me, I love the look of Alexa, but I think their standpoint on resolution is weird to say the least. They point out 2K is enough back when releasing Alexa and six years later they say that they don't need more than 3.2K because their upscale is better than anyone else. Why aren't they just releasing a true 4K sensor? Everyone else is doing it and more and more want it while Netflix is demanding it. I just find Arri's point of view to be strangely arrogant to the zeitgeist.
 
Marc Wielage said:
They can't make a $250 million movie and get it released in time for theatrical release with a 4K end-to-end workflow, not when they only have about 9-10 months for post. And that's even with over 1000 people tirelessly working around the clock to get it out.
Click to expand...

that is not true. 4K or higher output takes the exact same time as HD VFX. The question is whether ur workstations are fast enough to handle the larger files (--> RAID speed) and if the CPU/GPU speed is fast enough to handle/calculate VFX comps...

the problem is that the workstations in the VFX shops are way out-of-date... and a lot of stuff is outsourced to India and these dudes sit on old ass machines that can barely deal with HD footage...

THAT is the only problem. The VFX houses obviously would have to upgrade quite a lot of workstations, but that is the only problem here.

In the same analogy, its like only being able to grade HD footage in real time because ur Raids and CPUs can't handle 6K footage which has been around for 3 years now.


In regards to Arri using 3.2K to uprezz to 4K: obviously not optimal, but one thing u have to keep in mind that Arri's 3.2K capture is better (IMO) than a 1:1 equal RED 3.2K capture...

RED philosophy has always been oversampling by a magnitude to gain the benefits of the downsampling.

While agree that a true 4K image (so 5K+ capture) is optimal, ultimately IQ counts. 4K has very minimal perceptional resolution increase unless u're close to the screen and/or the screen is VERY large.

Perception of color accuracy does not change with distance to screen...
 
Christoffer Glans said:
The reasoning behind upscaling is that "well, the colors are really good and it's 2020"? Sub-4K should always be a 2K master, all the upscaling that's being done is muddying what 4K is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

So you loose detail from a 3K original ?

Why would you want to do that ?

Christoffer Glans said:
It's like shooting something in 720p and doing an upscale to 1080p and actually call it a 1080p release. No, 4K needs 4K and above to deliver 4K. This is why Netflix went hard on the specs for acquisition. If people want to have true 4K releases with Alexa cameras then either shoot Alexa 65 or wait for Arri to actually release a 4K s35 Alexa. Believe me, I love the look of Alexa, but I think their standpoint on resolution is weird to say the least. They point out 2K is enough back when releasing Alexa and six years later they say that they don't need more than 3.2K because their upscale is better than anyone else. Why aren't they just releasing a true 4K sensor? Everyone else is doing it and more and more want it while Netflix is demanding it. I just find Arri's point of view to be strangely arrogant to the zeitgeist.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Arri is being arrogant here ?

By what exactly ? Not bowing down to status quo ? You love the look but you'd prefer higher resolution ? You do realize the part of the "look" is in that acquisition resolution ? Guess around which resolution 35mm film acuity happens to be.

Netflix should somehow decide on the creative tool properties and image aesthetic for the storytellers ? How does that make sense ?
That does not seem arrogant to you, but Arri's image acquisition routes for their cameras, based on their philosophy, their R&D, their engineering and motion imaging domain experience does ?
 
I have recently been looking at different versions of films projected in 2K and 4K on a cinema screen..... and in all honesty... I proffered the 2K projection (the image was just more cinematic). I did the same on the Sony 4K HDR TV 2016 model (75 inches) using the new Panasonic 4K player..... I played native HDR 4K blu rays and 1080p blu rays (the 4K player did upscaling).

There was almost no noticeable difference between the 4K and the 2K.

I know higher resolution has advantages in post - reframing saved me on a recent commercial - but in my VERY humble opinion we need to stop fixating on resolution.

I am saying this with due respect to others who do not agree with this opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top