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 :)

Interesting......

I`d love to re read this thread in 5 or 10 years time.. i wonder just how far the goal posts will have moved..
 
Bob Gundu said:
If the new series is shot without a script again... that would be a disgrace!
:devil:
Click to expand...

The prequel trilogy had scripts... The disgraceful part is that Lucas had nearly 20 years to come up with something and look at what we got. :( I should have known what we were in for with the changes made to the original trilogy re-releases. Ugh... No amount of VFX wizardry or political arguments could ever justify Greedo shooting first. Fuck that.
 
Greedo shooting first... (head hanging low)

what about Han stepping on jabba's tail... horrible... horrible.. horrible...

I am fully aware that some of the members of this board are probably friends with George... I have never met him... and... in all honesty.... he brought us star wars... so... I do hold the utmost respect for him... but... .. well...

nothing can undo the damage that happened in episodes 1-3.... There's absolutely no room for a love story in the battle of Jedi vs. Sith.... period.

love should be reserved for movies about shipwrecks in arctic waters... not movies about lightsabers and wookies.
 
Tom Lowe said:
If they shoot this 1080p or 2K or 2.8K, that should set Disney Corp up for a class-action lawsuit from shareholders for willful negligence. It will drastically cut in to profits from 4K content sales for decades to come.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Wasn't The Hobbit finished in 2K because of the vast number of visual effects?

http://www.postmagazine.com/Publica...1-2012/Edit-This-The-Hobbit.aspx#.UV444qs__Wo

Does this mean they have to throw away a movie that made $1 billion only because it wasn't finished in 4K? I can think of a few thousand other famous films (including six previous Star Wars films) where most of the VFX were only 2K, and in Star Wars' case, episodes 2 and 3 were shot only in HD. Somehow, I don't think this will affect how much the movies made, whether people like them, or whether the movies are any good.

I'd worry much more about the scripts. That will be the main determining factor of all of these things, and I think the stockholders will mainly be concerned about whether or not the movies (and the ancillary marketing) do well, not how or what the movies are shot on.
 
That kind of argument is such a red herring to me. When choice of resolution is discussed, it is assumed that script, acting, soundtrack, etc, are "all other things being equal." The discussion here is not about script, story, acting, blocking, marketing, or any of that... it is about resolution, so please stick to that.

If you are asserting that shooting a feature at 1080p will have zero affect on a studio's ability to sell 4K copies of that film, I would love to see a logical explanation of that assertion.
 
Tom Lowe said:
That kind of argument is such a red herring to me. When choice of resolution is discussed, it is assumed that script, acting, soundtrack, etc, are "all other things being equal." The discussion here is not about script, story, acting, blocking, marketing, or any of that... it is about resolution, so please stick to that.

If you are asserting that shooting a feature at 1080p will have zero affect on a studio's ability to sell 4K copies of that film, I would love to see a logical explanation of that assertion.
Click to expand...

Nobody has asserted that in this thread.

I have asserted that shooting Alexa 4:3 anamorphic would be pretty much the same as shooting Epic anamorphic.

Also if you shoot Epic or Alexa anamorphic... you're not shooting "real 4K" are you? EG Epic anamorphic is only 3.6K across or so. And that's a Bayer sensor so it's not really getting more than 3K resolution on the horizontal.

So... do you really think that the public is going to see an anamorphic Alexa or Epic film shot today and go "yeah, that's not full 4K resolution, I'm not buying that BS for my 4K Netflix. My Netflix is only the pure 4K, duude."

How many people do you really think actually care about this resolution stuff?

Seriously... once you hit 3K or so... do you really think that the average viewer will care?

Look, I'm a big fan of hi-fi music. I have a $8,000+ Genelec 5.1 system in my 750 square foot rented apartment. I hate MP3 files. I think I can actually hear the difference when I hear SACD. But do I then say "hey dude, every big movie studio should record their film at 192khz 24bit or else they're throwing money away" ? No way. I acknowledge there's a point of diminishing returns relative to human perception and time is better spent elsewhere.

4K is a nice marketing buzzword but the fact is that 2.8K Alexa anamorphic footage will up-res to 4K just fine. They'll slap "remastered in 4K" on the label and nobody except for REDUSERS will care. Just as nobody cares that Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was mastered at 3.6K and will never be "true 4K"... Che was shot anamorphic and will never be "true 4K"... etc.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Bruce Allen said:
Nobody has asserted that in this thread.

I have asserted that shooting Alexa 4:3 anamorphic would be pretty much the same as shooting Epic anamorphic.

Also if you shoot Epic or Alexa anamorphic... you're not shooting "real 4K" are you? EG Epic anamorphic is only 3.6K across or so. And that's a Bayer sensor so it's not really getting more than 3K resolution on the horizontal.

So... do you really think that the public is going to see an anamorphic Alexa or Epic film shot today and go "yeah, that's not full 4K resolution, I'm not buying that BS for my 4K Netflix. My Netflix is only the pure 4K, duude."

How many people do you really think actually care about this resolution stuff?

Seriously... once you hit 3K or so... do you really think that the average viewer will care?
Click to expand...

Nevermind that the Alexa has a less aggressive OLPF so its "2.8k" is sharper per pixel than Red's "3.6k" and also nevermind that the larger sensor when shooting anamorphic would give about a 25% improvement in MTF, exactly canceling out the difference in resolution assuming all else was equal. And nevermind that 4k distribution won't catch on in a significant way in the home market except as a marketing ploy, the same kind of ploy that results in 28 Days Later being one of the first movies out on blu ray, or that Alexa anamorphic is sharper than the equivalent film and anamorphic film scans are almost always 2k, anyway, as are almost all vfx shots from the past two decades. (Spring Breakers was 4k anamorphic, though!)

The F65 is a good bet. No skew. That's huge for vfx.

But does this really matter at all? I hope they shoot on film, which is softer than either system, because I liked how Star Trek looked. Not that I expect they will or care that much. I won't have a 4k display to watch it on and can't tell the difference in theaters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top