"Knowing"...

[Roberto Lequeux]

Peter I will let you know when I find it. RH, I'll take you up on that.
We are going through some hard times right now though. We are all in on a project and barely making it, but couldn't be happier. We still have our 3 x Blockbuster which gets us about 20+ DVDs a month, plus a nice Dish package. We barely get to go out, but when we do we go to the theater that gives us free admission with our SAG cards... (sit down) off focus, tilted, bad to horrible rolls, scratches on the screen!!! Cinema sacrilege. But we are doing this for a higher cinema purpose. It is all about content in the end anyway, and I'll watch movies on an iPhone for a long time if it gives me my first feature. Still we hope to be able to go see a few here and there, and in those cases a nice RED movie on a good 2k projector would be nice. :beer:

 

[Kenn Michael]

I try to see all the mainstream movies at the Arclight in Hollywood. The dome has excellent digital projection, but the rest of the theaters are film projection. Knowing is not in the dome...

So I'll check out some of the theaters suggested above...

Roberto, I'll let you know if I find a theater!

 

[C L Walker]

2K and 4K issues re presentation and DIs

2K and 4K issues re presentation and DIs

There are 4K movie theaters now - I strongly recommend you seek out a 4K screen and not a 2K screen if you want to see KNOWING for the purposes of comparing 35mm to digital presentation.

The glib version for me is, "2K is worse than 35mm presentation, but 4K is better than 35mm." But there are a lot of factors to consider, and film post-production workflows & budgets are certainly some of them. 2K DIs vs 4K DIs are a huge issue when trying to make comparisons.

Veering slightly off-topic here but I recently screened ADVENTURELAND on successive evenings in 35mm and 4K and felt like I saw two different movies in some ways... "some ways" being apparent sharpness in the big close ups, mostly. 4K is a bit scary, it's so good compared to a film print from a 2K DI.

ADVENTURELAND = shot on Fuji, lensed in 35mm spherical with Primos, then to DI and then to 35mm film out via ARRIlaser, in what I THINK was 2K resolution but I am not sure.

Postworks in NYC did the color correction, DI, minimal 2K VFX and opticals, and film out via ARRILaser as well as the 4K D cinema "release file?" (What does one call the hard drive that gets shipped to a theater? A D-print?)

Again, what I saw to compare was probably 2K to film (via DI) and 4K to digital projection so it may have been an unfair fight.

ADVENTURELAND is a good case study if you want to see straight dramatic cinematography, not "stuff blowing up real good" as you compare film vs digital presentation, but always be careful not to compare apples and oranges - the workflow and capture mediums are many, and true tests are done in a scientific manner under controlled conditions and with double-blind test methodology. YMMV

Still, seeing my first 4K screening was a revelation, and I can't top thinking about what this all means for the future. We aren't in Kansas anymore, Toto. My life's focus is indie feature film art and production, but I also have experience in the studio film world both above and below the line as a focus puller and a writer/producer so I feel like I can comment in at least a semi-informed manner on this topic, not to toot my own horn too much. FWIW, I have a long tech, industry, art and social implication blog post about this at my personal blog site. If you'd like to read more, PM me for the link to what is still just "one man's opinion."

Getting back on topic, KNOWING is shot on Red, cc'ed and prepped for film out and D-cinema at 4K, VFX done at 4K, composited into a 4K "file" master and then what? I'm honestly getting burned out trying to keep this all straight... was the film out done at 2K or 4K? To me, that may be the source of softness... I'm still guessing like we all seen to be, but the size of the DI certainly seemed to be the culprit with ADVENTURELAND, which may have also had slight "punch-ins," or reframing zooms for all we know.

The more informed we are, the less conjecture and speculation enters the discussion. Thanks to all who contribute their expertise and knowledge here in these forums.

 

[M Most]

Again, what I saw to compare was 2K to film and 4K to screen, so it may have been an unfair fight.

What you saw was 2K, period. As far as I know, the only "recent" release that has been sent out as a 4K digital cinema package is "Hancock." Every other digital release has been in 2K, regardless of the projection system used.

I do believe that Sony has made a 4K DCP for "The Soloist," but I don't know if that will be what goes out for general distribution.

 

[David Birdy]

I was in the RED NAB theater last year and viewed the 4K demo...

The footage was all shot in 4K and displayed in 4K...I'm not sure what the playback device was, but WOW...... outstanding images!!

If I could only get that in my home theater!!!!!!!

Dave

 

[C L Walker]

Thanks mm, you are probably right that I saw ADVENTURELAND as a 2K DCP
(digital cinema print) even thought the projector was a Sony 4K. Is there an "up-res" or oversampling factor at work here? All I know for sure is that it looked good even from the front row, which has not been the case with the 2K projections I have seen.

It would be nice if these things came with warning labels or something so you know what you've paid a babysitter to see. All I've really found to go on is this from an out of date web article that dates back to the sundance premier:

ADVENTURELAND
Production Format: 35mm.
Camera: Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL
Lenses: 17.5:75 Primo Zoom; 24:275 Primo zoom, and Primo Primes.
Film Stock: Fuji 35 mm (Fuji Eterna 250D 8563, Eterna 500T 8573)
Editing System: Avid Media Composer version 11.2.7 at Post Factory.
Color Correction: Scanned by Postworks on a Spirit 4K and a Northlight 2 scanner, conformed on an Quantel iQ, color-corrected for D Cinema and film-out on a Pandora Pogle by colorist John Crowley and recorded on ARRILaser film recorders. In addition to opticals and effects done in iQ. VFX were done by Ben Murray at Postworks in 2K on an Avid Symphony DS/Nitris.

It looks impressive to a layman, but they've left out quite a bit... For instance, a Northlight 2 can do 8K scans I've read, but of course if the cash don't flow then the wheels don't roll. I wrote an email to Postworks and even asked one of the film's producers, who is an aquaintence for more detail but haven't heard back yet.

And yes, my brain still hurts from trying to figure all this out.

 

[M Most]

Thanks mm, you are probably right that I saw ADVENTURELAND as a 2K DCP
(digital cinema print) even thought the projector was a Sony 4K.

DCP stands for Digital Cinema Package, not Print. I'm not nitpicking, I just like people to get these things right.

And yes, my brain still hurts from trying to figure all this out.

There's not that much to figure out. If the picture was color corrected using a Pogle, it wasn't done at 4K. And if the VFX were done on a Symphony Nitris, they weren't done at 4K or 2K, they were done at HD resolution (1920x1080) because that's all Symphony can handle (DS Nitris can go higher, but not Symphony). And that's not surprising, because contrary to the belief of many on this board (and elsewhere, for that matter) there are very, very few DI's done at anything other than 2K, both for cost and practical reasons. And even in the rare cases of a 4K DI (usually done only for studio pictures, and only select ones at that), virtually all visual effects are done at 2K - once again, for practical reasons (like cost and turnaround requirements). So even for a large picture completed via a 4K DI, if it's got a big visual effects component - think Iron Man or Watchmen, for instance - every shot that has been touched by visual effects (and in these cases, it can easily be 75% of all the shots in the movie) is, by definition, 2K. That's today's reality. What it is 3 or 4 years from now, who knows.

Now, if you feel that what you're seeing on a 4K projector is "better" than what you're seeing on a 2K projector, I'm not going to argue with you. But just be aware that you're seeing the same 2K image projected from the same 2K DCP. A 4K projector can't invent information that isn't there.

 

[Jason Murphy]

But just be aware that you're seeing the same 2K image projected from the same 2K DCP. A 4K projector can't invent information that isn't there.

Which actually brings me to a random question: can/do 4K projectors/servers upscale from HD/2K the way some DVD players upscale from SD?

 

[Chris Swinbanks]

Getting back on topic, KNOWING is shot on Red, cc'ed and prepped for film out and D-cinema at 4K, VFX done at 4K, composited into a 4K "file" master and then what? I'm honestly getting burned out trying to keep this all straight... was the film out done at 2K or 4K? To me, that may be the source of softness...

Sorry, but not sure where you got this info from?
As I've posted before, Knowing was shot 4k, extracted 4k and, for the most part, immediately resized to 2k for both the VFX (Animal Logic) and DI (Park Road Post). DI finished at 2k by PRP. Film output to digital neg at 2k via Arrilaser (Weta Digital).

Chris S
Post Services Supervisor
Animal Logic

 

[C L Walker]

mea culpa.... at least I am trying to stay on topic.., which to me means let's talk about what we all saw, how it seemed to us, and how it came to look the way it does, with an eye to the future as a way to repeat the good and address the bad. (Of course, if someone wants to drop in renders and tech specs of upcoming cameras, far be it from me to complain.) But yeah, be accurate and cite sources, something I failed to de well. It won't happen again, from me.

Artifacts, apparent softness, noise and comparisons to 35mm are the some of the relevant issues that concern me, plus cost vs look regarding various workflows. Bang for buck. Stuff like that.

I'm working hard to cite sources and put forth accurate information, but clearly I've gotten off on a wrong track somewhere along the way, making assumptions in some cases and citing other uninformed sources.

Most of the 2K projection I have seen has been in festival situations, less than ideal conditions and often with low budget capture mediums. You get what you pay for more or less in these cases. In the studio feature world, and multiplex commercial cinema screenings of recent Shot on Red films like KNOWING (and CHE) what we have seen is impressive thus far but not without issues, and not without post expenses that come out of a budget line somewhere else along the way, probably.

I can say with confidence that everything I have ever seen with the word 2K in it somewhere in the flow has been judged by someone as "less than ideal," and by ideal I mean as good as contemporary 35mm film capture with a straight photochemical finish, projected as a release print. Pre CGI, that was pretty amazing stuff. Godfather 2, etc. Until the other night, that is, when I saw ADVENTURELAND projected with a 4K Sony projector. And I'm trying to figure out why. (Because the future is unwritten, but it doesn't look so good for analog.)

The answer seems to be artistic, subjective and complex but there are factors to consider and discuss.... that's the value of this forum. Thanks everybody... back to the drawing board.

 

[M Most]

I can say with confidence that everything I have ever seen with the word 2K in it somewhere in the flow has been judged by someone as "less than ideal," and by ideal I mean as good as contemporary 35mm film capture with a straight photochemical finish, projected as a release print. Pre CGI, that was pretty amazing stuff. Godfather 2, etc. Until the other night, that is, when I saw ADVENTURELAND projected with a 4K Sony projector. And I'm trying to figure out why. (Because the future is unwritten, but it doesn't look so good for analog.)

The answer seems to be artistic, subjective and complex ...

"Less than ideal" is a term that can be applied to almost anything. A car is "less than ideal" if it doesn't have the comfort of a Bentley and the performance of a race car. A computer is "less than ideal" if it doesn't do everything as quickly as you can think of it. In other words, "less than ideal" means, well, realistic. "Ideal" means unattainable. In the real world, what you might consider compromises are made because of very real limitations, both practical and economical. Movies could be finished at 4K if, and only if, they had unlimited time for post production, unlimited storage capacity for VFX and DI, and unlimited funds for doing all of this and recording it at 4K. That situation doesn't exist very often, and it almost never exists outside of studio pictures.

As for why something looks good in a theater, there is no secret, magic formula. It's always the same old things: Shoot it properly. Post it properly. Make the distribution copies properly. Show it in a properly calibrated and maintained theater. That's really all there is to it, but to do all of that requires proper care at every stage - something that requires skilled personnel at all stages. If one isn't willing or able to supply that, then the results will not be the same.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

It might be softer but on the other hand you also could never have a giant plane crash alongside a highway.

If we're just concerned with sharpness and resolution a photochemical straight process might be fine but you've just locked the door to a world of possibilities that a 2k finish offers. This may or may not enhance the picture, but they're possibilities none-the-less.

I saw a fresh print of BladeRunner from the 4k scan/master and thought it looked as good as any print I've ever seen. As the saying goes YMMV ("Your Mileage May Vary").

 

[C L Walker]

Couldn't agree more with Mmost.... light it well, shoot it well, post it well, present it well and it will look well. And in regards to having ideals, I would add, how can we reach the heavens unless we aim for the stars?

But in the real world, where we live and are underemployed or overworked or both there is a formula - "good, fast, cheap: pick two." And all cameras are a box with a hole in it - just a tool. Different ones are best for different tasks at different times.

But both CHE and KNOWING were not "poverty row" productions. (Citizen Kane was, but that's another thread.) I think Soderberg made a wise and pragmatic choice to shoot Red for CHE, assuming his goals included DP'ing and operating the camera himself, (a real grind on a long shoot) achieving a handheld psuedo-doc look, presenting a color and contrast look that resembled period kodachrome look and last but not least making a film that would show well in overseas markets. The clear option would have been to shoot s16mm and do a DI - but then he threw in the kicker - he wanted THE ARGENTINE aka Part One to be widescreen. Bingo, Red One was the best tool. (It was a unique look, and it reminded me in a way of the first time I saw some of the japanese films that were B+W and anamorphic, something the USA studios were reluctant to combine., except by other maverick directors like Sam Fuller's FORTY GUNS. The shock of the new was part of the fun.)

KNOWING had different goals, different rules and I'd be curious to hear what others felt they were and how they were served by shooting Red. Because to my eye the results were "mixed" in comparison. Was the goal, cheaper "set costs," ie film and lab costs and easier/better marriage with CGI work? If so was that result achieved?

 

[Chris Swinbanks]

KNOWING had different goals, different rules and I'd be curious to hear what others felt they were and how they were served by shooting Red. Because to my eye the results were "mixed" in comparison. Was the goal, cheaper "set costs," ie film and lab costs and easier/better marriage with CGI work? If so was that result achieved?

dare I say it... search through the posts already made... there have been plenty of pointers to Alex's comments online, Simon Duggan's AC article on the shoot, and I just read an online page by Eric Durst who was a VFX sup on the end sequence working with Andrew Jackson (our in-house VFX sup on Knowing), and I've seen other articles talking about the fx work. A lot of the information is out there already, might arm you a little better for the discussion you wish to have. :beer:
cheers
Chris

 

[scott william]

Knowing

Knowing

In regards to C L Walker’s post about Knowing and it playing by a different set of rules I have to agree. It’s one of the reason I like Roger Ebert as a reviewer. He reviews film for what they are and doesn’t review every film against the same criteria. In the opening scene of knowing (going off memory here) my first impression was the performances were to perfect and unrealistic and visually it was to clean and overly lit. But as the film progressed and established its style I was drawn into the characters and found it visually compelling and unique.

My point. It’s a credit to the Red camera that it can be adapted successful into the science fiction genre. From what I’ve heard Red succeeded in creating the psuedo-doc look in Che and now I anticipate it used in a more traditional style film in Angels and demons. Let’s see just how versatile the image is.

 

[C L Walker]

Of course I have read the director's comments, and AC on KNOWING, and yes now that you mention it I also read a short interview with Eric Durst - and they are all essentially publicity or trade magazine articles written by well-meaning but biased players... I'm not looking to them for a whole lot of soul-searching or self-criticism. When's the last time you read an article in American Cinematographer where someone says "You know, we really blew it when we decided to go anamorphic/ shoot fuji / eat the fish from the catering truck," whatever. One doesn't bite the hand that feeds you, at least not in print. And where is the frank interview with the first director attached to KNOWING, the Donnie Darko guy? We'll never see that either.

Reading between the lines a bit I'd say Eric Durst has mixed feelings about the Red, too. He certainly damns it with faint praise when he points to "hey, it's already digital" as a big advantage. And while it may be true, I was somewhat appalled to hear the director point out that You Tube and video games have conditioned viewers to accept a lower standard in visual quality. I don't think that's what the designers who work hard to make RED all that it can be want to go by as their motivation.

I guess I am looking for the "less-spin" zone. Is posting here a good idea?

And to Scott W, I'm hope by equating my rationale to Roger Ebert's reviews you aren't also tying me to the idea of liking this film. I thought it was awful! (YMMV)

But that's neither here nor there when it comes to judging the overall effectiveness of whether it was a good decision for them to go Red or not. I'll go ahead and weigh in with my two cents and say they made a mistake.

That's not to say that the footage didn't look good, in fact seeing KNOWING gave me a lot of confidence in the Red as a viable choice for producers and directors to consider but... aesthetically I fail to see what the Red got them that 35mm would not have, so that leaves budget as the reason, or else we are back to "ease in matching the VFX looks." And I'm just not sure I buy that.

But I've been wrong before... and so I'm looking for informed third party opinions. There are some extremely knowledgeable people here, who have been frank, kind and patient.

 

[Jannard]

Of course I have read the director's comments, and AC on KNOWING, and yes now that you mention it I also read a short interview with Eric Durst - and they are all essentially publicity or trade magazine articles written by well-meaning but biased players... I'm not looking to them for a whole lot of soul-searching or self-criticism. When's the last time you read an article in American Cinematographer where someone says "You know, we really blew it when we decided to go anamorphic/ shoot fuji / eat the fish from the catering truck," whatever. One doesn't bite the hand that feeds you, at least not in print. And where is the frank interview with the first director attached to KNOWING, the Donnie Darko guy? We'll never see that either.

Reading between the lines a bit I'd say Eric Durst has mixed feelings about the Red, too. He certainly damns it with faint praise when he points to "hey, it's already digital" as a big advantage. And while it may be true, I was somewhat appalled to hear the director point out that You Tube and video games have conditioned viewers to accept a lower standard in visual quality. I don't think that's what the designers who work hard to make RED all that it can be want to go by as their motivation.

I guess I am looking for the "less-spin" zone. Is posting here a good idea?

And to Scott W, I'm hope by equating my rationale to Roger Ebert's reviews you aren't also tying me to the idea of liking this film. I thought it was awful! (YMMV)

But that's neither here nor there when it comes to judging the overall effectiveness of whether it was a good decision for them to go Red or not. I'll go ahead and weigh in with my two cents and say they made a mistake.

That's not to say that the footage didn't look good, in fact seeing KNOWING gave me a lot of confidence in the Red as a viable choice for producers and directors to consider but... aesthetically I fail to see what the Red got them that 35mm would not have, so that leaves budget as the reason, or else we are back to "ease in matching the VFX looks." And I'm just not sure I buy that.

But I've been wrong before... and so I'm looking for informed third party opinions. There are some extremely knowledgeable people here, who have been frank, kind and patient.

Your question can simply be answered by seeing what these guys use on their next feature... unless you believe that they will make the same "mistake" over and over again. There are several examples of RED being chosen a second time by the same guys making features... in Soderbergh's case, 5 times. Why don't we see what the rest choose for their next feature. That will be much more telling than a guess.

RED is new. Some of these features were shot very early in development. Post options were just being figured out. Knowing was shot on Build 15. Ché on Build 1. Of course there were things that needed to improve. And they have. To infer that shooting RED was a mistake is your opinion and you weren't there. I'll tend to believe the ones who were.

Jim

 

[Peter Majtan]

...That's not to say that the footage didn't look good, in fact seeing KNOWING gave me a lot of confidence in the Red as a viable choice for producers and directors to consider but... aesthetically I fail to see what the Red got them that 35mm would not have, so that leaves budget as the reason, or else we are back to "ease in matching the VFX looks." And I'm just not sure I buy that...

You basically nailed it here without even realizing it. THIS is the point. The RED ONE offers the same what 35mm would aesthetically, but with the added advantage of significant cost saving and much faster, easier and safer workflow - especially on the set...

So yes, if both offer the same "aesthetically" it really comes down to the workflow and budget - and here the RED is the clear winner...

We don't even need to mention VFX at all...

I hope You see that!

Peter

 

[scott william]

what does YMMV mean??

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

what does YMMV mean??

"Your Method May Vary"