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 :)

Pirates of the Caribbean 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
P4 is without doubt the best footage quality (let's call it Film like/cinematic) i ever seen in RED , for the FIRST TIME in a Movie i basically could not tell if was film or RED ...again , for the FIrst Time (for a feature film )

I wish we could get any info about the grading approach by the colorist (stefan sonnenfeld i guess)...

g
 
I'm sitting here watching the first movie, can't sleep and it's on tv... there's a scene where Orlando Bloom gets knocked about by the boom about 50 minutes in. Lots of 'clipped' white clouds in the background and this one was shot on film. But if we're looking at clouds in the background instead of the characters in the foreground.... well....
 
Steve Freebairn said:
I probably over stated what I meant to say David. If when someone sees P4, there are lots of shots clipped, then it's something wrong in the projection/viewing. I'm sure there are a few shots that were clipped during acquisition due to the conditions, but very very few. Having seen the raw footage for the project, I can assure you that most of the footage lived on the lower end of the sensor. Let's just say that Darius (super talented) tends to like things not overly lit.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there wasn't much clipping, particularly in interior scenes -- which is why I pointed out that torches and candle flames exposed nicely. And I don't count things like a blown-out window in the background or a hot white sky above because those things can be burned out on film as well, and in the case of a window, is often done deliberately. That's just regular overexposure. When I point out any clipping, it's the things that wouldn't normally clip on film in that situation, like a shirt collar that is a couple stop overexposed in dappled sunlight. Generally with film, even if you expose for the shadows in hard sunlight, white fabrics and whatnot still tend to hold detail, or at least there's info on the negative that can be pulled down.

Keep in mind that the first "Pirates" movie was done using early D.I. technology; sometimes there was a problem with hot skies and whatnot when something like a Spirit Datacine was used for the scanning, as I think might have happened for the first one.
 
Saw Pirates last night with the girlfriend. We both really enjoyed ourselves and as we were walking out of the theater, we both agreed that we really want a Red One :coolgleamA:

In all honesty, I really enjoyed it in Imax. Its such an awesome experience seeing a major hollywood film shot on Red.

Good on you Jim!
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I thought it looked great, it was nice to see a Red-shot movie where the skintones and other colors were rich and film-like, not that brown and teal look you used to see on early Red movies. I'd say that 95% of it looked like really fine-grained film, there were no contrast problems in scenes with torches and candles, etc.

There were a few day exteriors with some clippiness in white sheets in sunlight, for example, but of course, filming on the ocean on a clear day on a ship or at shore with white waves can be the most challenging contrast problems for anyone, even if shooting on film. I can imagine that Darius Wolski must have been very happy with how the MX sensor performed.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious? Yes I will likely be banned for saying this, as when I mentioned Red's reel had more than a tad of moire, but really?
No contrast problems? The move WAS a contrast problem. ESPECIALLY the scenes with the candles. I don't think there is any need to kiss anyone's ass, and I'm not going to sugar-coat my opinion for any thin-skinned critics. I have to say I liked the quality of the up-rez'd 1080 footage of some of the previews much better than the quality of a lot of the film.

I nearly stepped out after the first 5 minutes. (You know the scene introducing the Spaniards and the voodoo man in the fish nets). The noise was absolutely horrendous! It looked like it could have been shot on a Sony 480i handycam and tried to hide it by crush the blacks into a nasty dark blue. I thought the whole purpose of the MX sensor was to help out with low light performance? Guess not.


I think most people when starting out with a camera in their hand and a dream in their heart are told, "it's all about telling the story and the equipment doesn't matter". Which means Steven Spielberg could shoot a blockbuster on a Flip-cam and if the story elements are in place people will still love it.
I think the worst part was the realization that this was the same awesome, untouchable camera that I had hoped to shoot on. I have not only seen the reverse of this come to light in the past, as shit can be shot at 5k and will still be shit, but had the pleasure of experiencing it again projected in the cinema. That's how painful it was. I was physically distracted by the footage from the plot of the film. Blown highlights, unnatural contrast, and an over all best described as a video-ish look. This ideology is dead to me now.

I felt like an ass after the shot today. Would you like to know why I felt like an ass Jim? I felt like an ass because on the drive to the theater (probably 20 minutes in the car with a group of fellow film maker buds of mine) you couldn't get me to shut up about how excited I was to see a Red being used to shoot the next installment of one of our favorite series of films.
Wow, was I wrong. I sure as hell got an earful on the way back.
"So that's a Red?"
"What's the big deal?"
"Not impressed."
Those were just a few to say the least...

I came home and gave it one last attempt.

Youtube. Yes, Youtube.

By then I could no longer prove it to myself. I've seen better quality footage on the net sadly....

That's all, before I am inevitably banned and this post lost or deleted.
 
Justin Armstrong said:
Are you being serious? Yes I will likely be banned for saying this, as when I mentioned Red's reel had more than a tad of moire, but really?
No contrast problems? The move WAS a contrast problem. ESPECIALLY the scenes with the candles. I don't think there is any need to kiss anyone's ass, and I'm not going to sugar-coat my opinion for any thin-skinned critics. I have to say I liked the quality of the up-rez'd 1080 footage of some of the previews much better than the quality of a lot of the film.

I nearly stepped out after the first 5 minutes. (You know the scene introducing the Spaniards and the voodoo man in the fish nets). The noise was absolutely horrendous! It looked like it could have been shot on a Sony 480i handycam and tried to hide it by crush the blacks into a nasty dark blue. I thought the whole purpose of the MX sensor was to help out with low light performance? Guess not.


I think most people when starting out with a camera in their hand and a dream in their heart are told, "it's all about telling the story and the equipment doesn't matter". Which means Steven Spielberg could shoot a blockbuster on a Flip-cam and if the story elements are in place people will still love it.
I think the worst part was the realization that this was the same awesome, untouchable camera that I had hoped to shoot on. I have not only seen the reverse of this come to light in the past, as shit can be shot at 5k and will still be shit, but had the pleasure of experiencing it again projected in the cinema. That's how painful it was. I was physically distracted by the footage from the plot of the film. Blown highlights, unnatural contrast, and an over all best described as a video-ish look. This ideology is dead to me now.

I felt like an ass after the shot today. Would you like to know why I felt like an ass Jim? I felt like an ass because on the drive to the theater (probably 20 minutes in the car with a group of fellow film maker buds of mine) you couldn't get me to shut up about how excited I was to see a Red being used to shoot the next installment of one of our favorite series of films.
Wow, was I wrong. I sure as hell got an earful on the way back.
"So that's a Red?"
"What's the big deal?"
"Not impressed."
Those were just a few to say the least...

I came home and gave it one last attempt.

Youtube. Yes, Youtube.

By then I could no longer prove it to myself. I've seen better quality footage on the net sadly....

That's all, before I am inevitably banned and this post lost or deleted.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... trollish? Yes - but I think this post is too dumb to get you banned.

Sorry, but David Mullen shoots on a LOT of different cameras - he's been willing to criticize Red or footage in the past, there is no reason for him to hype this. Same with many others here.

Not sure what your agenda is ... but it's pretty unanimous that the film looks great. Maybe it's time for an eye exam? :P
 
AnthonyFlores said:
Hmmm ... trollish? Yes - but I think this post is too dumb to get you banned.

Sorry, but David Mullen shoots on a LOT of different cameras - he's been willing to criticize Red or footage in the past, there is no reason for him to hype this. Same with many others here.

Not sure what your agenda is ... but it's pretty unanimous that the film looks great. Maybe it's time for an eye exam? :P
Click to expand...

That's where I am confused. I'm really not seeing the technical merit of this film that has been "hyped" so much in and out of the Red community. I honestly didn't see that in theaters today.
In the end it doesn't matter how shiny your camera body is, how many Ks it shoots or how much you payed for it. The final result is to impress average joe sitting in that theater seat he just rented for the next two and a half hours.. Not a techy like Jim, David, You, or Myself. If average joe leaves the theater unimpressed, and HE DID, where have you gotten at the end of the day?
Answer me this please. Have you seen the film?
 
Justin Armstrong said:
That's where I am confused. I'm really not seeing the technical merit of this film that has been "hyped" so much in and out of the Red community. I honestly didn't see that in theaters today.
In the end it doesn't matter how shiny your camera body is, how many Ks it shoots or how much you payed for it. The final result is to impress average joe sitting in that theater seat he just rented for the next two and a half hours.. Not a techy like Jim, David, You, or Myself. If average joe leaves the theater unimpressed, and HE DID, where have you gotten at the end of the day?
Answer me this please. Have you seen the film?
Click to expand...

Yep, saw it twice. Once it 3D, once in 2D. And for what it's worth, I had several people remark to me (unsolicited) that the "look" of it was beautiful - colors, sharpness of the image, and just overall photography was very pleasing to them. They said Johnny Depp nor Penelope Cruz never looked so good. Sorry to be harsh with my last post, but when both experts and average movie goers were clearly impressed with it (visually) - I think you missed something here ...
 
Justin Armstrong said:
Are you being serious?
.....

By then I could no longer prove it to myself. I've seen better quality footage on the net sadly....

That's all, before I am inevitably banned and this post lost or deleted.
Click to expand...

Justin,

Did you ever consider that you saw a bad print? That the projector had issues? Did you bother doing your research to see if this has been a problem at other theaters?

Or it might have even been an idea to have asked some of the experienced and knowledgeable people on this forum what may have caused this issue before posting your dissertation on "why red sucks based on one screening I went to in Detroit".

I have shot with MX many times at ISOs as high as 1600, and have not seen anything close to what you are describing.

So my question to you is - if many people have seen the exact same movie with as much, if not more technical knowledge than you, and have not noticed even a fraction of the issues you are describing - either we are all crazy, and going slightly blind (I swear I am getting Lasik soon!) or you saw a pretty bad screening of the movie.

I would strongly assume the latter.

Ivan
 
The only thing I would mention is that the very best RED tech (truly) was on set of Pirates and checked every take. He assured us that no take was clipped. I have to then assume that something was done in post to induce clipping if, in fact, there was clipping in the final grade. I do know that the final grade was done with a film LUT early on in the grade... which is not what we recommend.

I haven't seen the movie yet so I have no opinion of what it looks like in the cinema.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Because some of the clipping I specifically noted in my head during the screening did not show up in the 1080p quicktime trailers, I have to believe the issue was in the projection or the IMAX process itself. Which further goes to show that the next phase of the Redvolution is in projection and distribution ;)
 
Looked good to me and I'd say it is the highest quality digitally acquired movie I've seen.
No blocky noisy shadows.
Sharpness was very pleasing without a sign of artificial detail.
I was relieved to see full colour skin tones after so much hip, grunge "off'" grades from RED users.

Either the grade and or projection brightness failed to deliver tonality in deep shadows during the night scenes, bloody pola glasses!

I'd go as far to say POTC 4 is an important note in the technical history of digital imaging because it was largely free of digital camera or recording artifacts.

Where do we go from here!?

Mike Brennan
 
I'm going to report what my eyes (and the eyes of my two childrens) will see this afternoon. I'm pretty sure that the words of them (7 and 10) will be the most sincere...
 
Let me reiterate that the movie looked very good, and very film-like, and had great colors. I didn't see much noise, ever, and certainly much less noise/grain than on some dark scenes in the last "Pirates" movie. But I did see some mild clippiness in a few sunny scenes outdoors, on the ship, the beach, and the jungle. Now perhaps that came about somehow in the 3D process, i.e. either the digital projection or the files were brightened to compensate for the 3D glasses or something. I don't know. Or perhaps it was just timed that way, but that would be an odd choice for timing. I saw it in 3D digital at the Rave Cinemas; I haven't seen it in 2D digital, or on a film print, nor in IMAX prints.
 
Kris Anderson said:
*cough*bullshit*cough*

Have you ever actually shot on or worked with a RED camera, Justin?
Click to expand...

I have only seen the trailer and it looks awesome so far and my children and I can't wait to see it.

I agree with Kris, There are so many people that offer bullshit opinions on REDUSER and don't even work or own a RED or any proper camera. Especially people making opinons about lenses that they don't own or have used once in their life!

I have been waiting to get that off my chest and Justin was the perfect candidate for this post.
 
I think David Mullen's opinion counts for a lot... so does the fact that Dariousz Wolski, who shot Pirates 4, chose EPIC to shoot the new Ridley Scott movie. Actually... Ridley agreed.

Jim
 
There are a lot of ways that clipping could occur in between the digital master and the theatre projection. Such as, a bad film print, a poorly adjusted digital projector, a projector bulb that was old, etc. etc. I don't think too many people here pay attention to clipping when they're watching non-Red filmed movies :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top