FLIGHT in theaters Today

[Michael Cioni]

FLIGHT, the latest EPIC theatrical release, hits US theaters today. -I think audiences are likely to be more excited about seeing Bob Zemeckis' latest feature over the fact that it's shot on Epic. But for the RED and D-Cinema community, FLIGHT is a testament to the camera's efficiency, quality and malleability. "Closeups of big actors on big screens" used to be R3Ds Ted and I looked for and were hard to find. Now it's just another day in the world of RED Digital Cinema.

Don Burgess, ASC photographed this film earlier this year and it was his first feature shot on Epic (Muppets was MX just as Epic was becoming available). Don told me that Zemeckis had frequently asked about shooting digital many years prior to RED (Don has photographed a number of Zemeckis features for more than a decade) but it was Don who said, "We need to wait a little longer. Digital is not quite there yet." So once Zemeckis and Burgess were ready for Flight, there was no time spent convincing the director that Epic was the best tool for the job.

Below is a link to an article in which Don speaks a lot about the making of this film. I think you'll find a lot of it interesting and valuable. I have to say that I learn so much from Mr. Burgess and his down-to-earth attitude. Don has an incredible gift for images and framing and he is a fantastic teacher, dedicated professional and a wonderful person. FLIGHT also represents a film in which 100% of the dailies, backup, AVID files, color, syncing, triplication, iPad dailies, web dailies and uploading was done remotely with production in Atlanta. In other words, no post house was used until the finishing of the FLIGHT project. Carissa Ridgeway managed all the on-set looks directly with Don on a Lily Pad and Drew Kilcoin managed all the processing and uploads on an OUTPOST cart. This tandem-workflow utilizes the best characteristics of production (DITs) and post (AEs) for a powerful combination that limits reliance on off-site post laboratories and more on in-house talent. You've heard me discuss this before, but I'm telling this community: fully-managed post production needs to be a service of the set. DITs are a necessary group, but you must make movements to include *all* of the laboratory services films need as part of your value-add to the set. FLIGHT is a perfect example of post-houseless-post. It isn't just for indies, it's for everyone.

The last component I want to point out that I think the D-Cinema community will appreciate is the plane crash. You all obviously know there is a serious plane crash in this film. But what always got me excited about movies that Zemeckis does is the use of visual effects and practical effects in harmony with one another:
- the forward/reverse shot in Contact where little Ellie runs to the medicine cabinet
- the camera going under the floor in What Lies Beneath when Harrison Ford collapses
- the elements of Forrest Gump talking with John Lennon or JFK
- the entire feature of animation/live action integration Who Framed Roger Rabbit (little fact: RK Maroon Studios is now RED Studios

In FLIGHT, Zemeckis brings back to the screen his mastery of real and false components that are woven together so well they are nearly impossible to notice. Only people that realize, "A camera can't do that" or "A camera can't go there" will see his signature. When you see the plane crash, know that the entire set was built to invert 180º. With an entire fuselage of people strapped in, the entire set rolls over with the camera suspended so the set moves around the camera. A significant scene of the film takes place completely upside-down. The acting, the falling, the stress of being inverted are all real elements based around an incredibly complex set that literally turns on its head. The windows are composited with elements built in perfect sequence with an actual plane crash - all in real time. So when you see this, if you know anything about being a pilot, you will know it's literally a seamless and believable integration of effects buttons, windows and practical sets that make this crash scary, moving and impossible to look away from.

The DI was done by Corinne Bogdanowicz at Light Iron on a Quantel Pablo 4K. Paramount Pictures budgeted for a 2K finish, so the theatrical release is a 2.40 2K (2048x856) P3 DCI master. The source files were shot in 5K full frame 1.89 @ 5120x2700 on an Epic in 5K FF mode. There was no "look-around" area on this film. The 2.40 was extracted from the the 1.89 5K FF source and debayered at a full debayer using CPU (not a Rocket) to 2048x1080 (also 1.89). Then we cropped to match the framing of 2.40:1 which is what you will see in the theatrical release. One of the biggest benefits of doing it this way and working with EPIC cameras is that all video deliverables at 1.78 do not require a push-in. In other words, we simply remove the 2.40 matting and are left with a 1.89 source which can be adjusted to fit 1.78. So the 1.78 version is just as clean and clear as the 2.40.

Finally, even though the cost for 4K DI was not budgeted on this film, it does not fly in the face of what 4K supporters (including myself) believe. Jim has been very vocal lately on 5K acquisition. SONY has recently tripled their 4K capture offerings. But even though FLIGHT is exhibited in 2K, NONE of the benefits of 5K are wasted in a 2K finish. -That goes for everyone. While I prefer a 4K finish, the 5K capture still delivers a measurably superior image to a solid 2K DI and that's why FLIGHT still looks so good on the big screen, as do your pictures. Taking steps towards more 4K releases starts with 4K+ capture. The international cinema industry needs to be educated and very few read RedUser. But every high resolution film we make helps production and distribution companies inch towards mandating 4K mastering...which is getting closer and closer every time we shoot on a RED.

| m |



http://www.hdvideopro.com/display/features/mayday.html

 

[Bob Gundu]

I'm so pumped to see this! More so than Skyfall

 

[Eric Haase]

Thanks for the info Michael. Was the framing common top or 1/4 offset common top? I recently finished a feature on Epic in 2.40 with common top and found dropping out the bottom was a huge compromise for 1.78, as closeups become medium shots. We ended up finding a general preset for the 1.78 frame that cut a bit of the 2.40 sides off and dropped out some of the bottom. It was a good compromise. I think the 1/4 offset common top is preferable for headroom reasons. Just curious what the approach was.

 

[Michael Cioni]

You're totally on the right track, Eric, and asking the right questions. That's what I call "the Caboose Effect" which suggests you need to consider ALL of your deliverables first and work backwards up to the front to decide how to capture.
With 1.78 as a normal part of deliverables (television, web and airlines, etc.) it is imperative that features that choose a 2.40 aspect ratio for theatrical to consider the best path for a 1.78 version as well. On nearly all our 2.40 films, we recommend a center extraction to 2.40 so that the 1.78 is achieved through "opening" the frame top and bottom equally. This eliminates the need (in most cases) for any blow-up, which hurts the quality of the 1.78. The sacrifice is extra headroom...but good camera operators know that when framing people for 2.40 - especially in medium and closeups - should be done by cutting off the top of the head a bit. This keeps the eyes in the upper 3rd of the frame, which is a more comfortable geometric arrangement of faces in a wide rectangle. If you frame in the top of the head in mediums and closeups, you force the eyes closer to the center of the frame, which feels incorrect as it cuts off awkwardly on the neck or shoulders. So what's cool is that good framing in 2.40 (which can be monitored in camera easily) means a 1.78 opening puts the headroom right at the top of the frame and the eyes are still above the 50/50 mark.

On medium-wides and wideshots, there is a little more headroom than one would probably have originally framed - so in lies the compromise. But the benefit of choosing the 2.40 to be your "hero" framing and then allowing your 1.78 to be viewed without having to blow-up turns out to be the better choice in most instances.

When this is all done correctly (and a lot of this falls on the shoulders of the camera operator at the outset of photography), the result is a master in 2 different aspect ratios that almost no one could tell which one is the original. -That's the key to this: delivering both versions without having to make a massive sacrifice in one to save the other. I think the center extraction of 2.40 from 5K FF delivers this better than any other format.
Of course, if you shoot anamorphic, all this goes out the window and you are almost always forced to do a blow-up, which results in lower quality images and often a much higher expense for pan-and-scan trimming sessions to fit the shapes into each other.

Great question, Eric. DPs who consider all these factors before production tend to avoid being painted into corners. I'll also say it shows how important a great camera operator can be. Good camera operation is a real art and many of those talents don't get a lot of recognition because they make the job look easy. but if you watch movies closely, or work on a lot of them, you can quickly see who's good at framing and who is great at framing.
m

 

[Jonas Rejman]

Thank you Mike!
Why CPU and not red debayer?

 

[Christopher Probst]

I saw Flight last night, nicely done Michael! I thought the material looked amazing. The only real shortcoming in the entire film was the rolling shutter split frames on Denzel when the photographer's flashes go off... this still remains an issue for Epic in those strobe-light situations... Was any measure taken to minimize those split frames in post?

 

[Detlev Eller]

thanks for writing this up, Michael!

 

[Marc Wielage]

Burgess does great work. Here's a clip showing how some of the effects were done for the crash scene:

 

[Paul Provost]

Thank you Mike!
Why CPU and not red debayer?

Potentionaly higher quality debayer? Was it Graeme who preferred it? Where is he anyway?
RR is $5k.
How much could you build a lean 16 core pc for with just enough ram to run RCX to cpu/software debayer 5k to dpx? And how much slower would it be than a decked out Mac Pro with RR that would cost 10 or 12 grand....

 

[Chuck Z]

Software debayer is cleaner with fewer artifacts vs RR.

 

[Kemalettin Sert]

Thanks for the detailed write up Michael.i was the guy who said hello on Amsterdam streets remember? lol
You said Paramount Pictures budgeted for a 2K finish ?? Red gurus always talking about 4K Future and you are sayin paramount didnt have budget for 4K? Really? even indie one man crew Tom Lowe finished his project (Lightiron) at 4K and paramount didnt have money for this? how many times price difference between 2K and 4K im really curious.
how many TB's of data they shot? i saw on BTS A camera was like 160 or something like that.How many cameras? its not your part but im also wondering do they format the cards until production finishes?

 

[Anderson Boyd]

Thank you for posting this Michael, your follow up "de-briefings" of films that go through Light Iron are always enlightening and invaluable. Saw Flight Friday, fantastic.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Michael,

Just curious about the budget differences between a 2K and a 4K finish. Obviously, one thing is that 2K is commonplace, almost the norm, in all digital cinemas while 4K is not, not yet at least. But from your POV, if the files are worked on RAW all the way till the end, meaning no difference in color correction or other processes, where are the cost, time, resources increases on the post side? That would be enlightening.

 

[Christopher Mills]

I was on the BTS unit a few times... did not ask the DIT guy how many TB... the days I worked we had 3 cameras built at set.. more on truck.. but often shot only 1 or 2 at a time...
RUMOUR was 8 bodies on hand... maybe someone who knows more than I can speak to that..
BTS was shot on an f900r to nano flash, I was audio for bts

 

[Jack Mosor]

Great film, and Thanks for posting the details Michael, I saw the film on friday and it looks great. I paid great attention to the DI work, and again it looked great in 2K
Great job by the effect team and LightIron DI team.

Hey Michael, what was the difference of debayer with CPU instead redrocket

Cheers,

Jack

 

[Mike Yonts]

Looks incredible–can't wait to see it.

With 1.78 as a normal part of deliverables (television, web and airlines, etc.)

I'm not sure how many airlines this one will be shown on, though.:wink5:

 

[James T Mather]

Looking forward to this - Delighted to see Bob Zemeckis back in the live action world - he's a terrific storyteller.

 

[Michael Cioni]

Michael,

Just curious about the budget differences between a 2K and a 4K finish. Obviously, one thing is that 2K is commonplace, almost the norm, in all digital cinemas while 4K is not, not yet at least. But from your POV, if the files are worked on RAW all the way till the end, meaning no difference in color correction or other processes, where are the cost, time, resources increases on the post side? That would be enlightening.

You make a great point, Rudi. I had to sound like a politician avoiding the question, but the truth is it depends. This has been a point that I've discussed in the past many times, but the gist of the discussion lies within the PROCESS of making a RED movie, not necessarily the budget. In Flight, there were about 580 VFX shots. When you have movies with a lot of VFX (many RED films have even more) you no longer have the *option* to work with RED RAW files in DI. It simply is impossible because the VFX require an RGB output of files to color. On Muppets (Don's previous RED movie we did together) had around 1,200 VFX shots. That means greater than 50% of the film is visual effects and therefore needed to be managed in DPX. -Even when doing VFX directly from R3Ds, you cannot *render* an R3D.

While some may disagree with me, if you know how to manage images, there is zero negative impact in working with DPX files instead of R3Ds when it's appropriate. "Appropriate" in some cases like this one is could be defined as "mandatory." So for many productions, the issue of RAW vs. DPX isn't one that is a choice.

With regard to the actual cost of a 4K DI vs. a 2K - obviously if you *must* work with DPX files, it is a massive storage and throughput issue (greater than 1GB per second). This is where companies like Li have to invest a lot in storage and throughput because there are many jobs that can't work with R3Ds.
Someone mentioned Tom Lowe in this mix: Hopefully people realize that Tom's movie Timescapes is kinda like one giant VFX shot! So most of the film was DPX because that's the only way it could be managed with all the blending and stabilization of the time-lapse shots. Tom's movie was very few cuts (long takes) and was only about 40 minutes long, so it's difficult to compare to a feature DI with 1800 cuts in it.
Another issue is the factor of monitoring. 4K Monitoring requires a lot of unique infrastructure, all of which increases the cost to a customer. We have a Christie CP4230 projector and need to be able to manage a solid 4K display architecture, which is still fairly expensive. Upon completion of grading, outputs (regardless of how you grade) need to be exported as RGB files. DCDMs, DSMs and DCPs all come from NON-R3D sources (they have to for a myriad of reasons). So to be able to move and playback uncompressed 4K files is fairly significant. Plus it needs to happen with other films in the pipeline as well (2K and 4K). So when you add all that together to a movie studio or any feature with a deadline, 4K costs more. Not 4x as much, not at all. In fact, on a 4K feature we recently did we were told by the post super that 4K was only about 40% more expensive than 2K. That number continues to come down, but for some budgets with lots of VFX, that 40% puts them over the top.
m

 

[Marc Wielage]

Good explanation by Michael, as always. I just saw the movie last night and enjoyed it very much. The performances were world-class, as was the writing and cinematography -- first-rate work.

My only nit-pick (and I tend to doubt anybody but an insider would notice this) was I saw some noticeable green edges on some of the VFX composite shots, particularly inside the cockpit, and more severely in one of the car driving shots. The people with me noticed it as well, so it wasn't my imagination. This was screened on a Sony 4K projector. It wasn't a deal-killer, and those were the only scenes in which I noticed the problem; the other VFX shots were damn near flawless.

I admired quite a few of the editing choices made in the film, particularly Zemeckis' willingness to let a scene build over time and stick with a very measured pace, without cutaways or a lot of fancy tricks. It's a powerful story, told very well. Color correction was exemplary.

 

[Luis Otero]

I saw it last night, and I need to say that from the big-budget films that LI has worked on with Red footage, this is the one that I feel more impressed. The cinematography/grading was a real excellent showcase of what RedRaw can provide to the DP and Colorist in order for them to deliver such a clean image.

With this movie, officially I dislike grain. There was NONE on this movie....and it did not need it to add the perceptual texture it typically is used for !!!

BTW, Michael, what was the compression rate used during shooting (8:1 , 5:1, other)? There were really pleasant images to enjoy throughout all the shades and shadows, specially on those scenes (hotel, farm-house) where no matter how many levels of darkness were present, you can distinguish them very well without having extreme black crushed.

Bravo...!