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.
Daniel Valle said:
This is great news for RED. Congratulations!

I haven't seen enough EPIC footage to evaluate this particular case, but given a budget such as POC, I too wouldn't shoot a period piece on digital.

In fact, as of today, I don't think I would shoot any story set in pre-1980 on digital, assuming the budget allowed me to choose whatever system I wanted.
Click to expand...

Wow, Not me... with all the green screens and effects, it's Digital all the way!

Dave.
 
Daniel Valle said:
This is great news for RED. Congratulations!

I haven't seen enough EPIC footage to evaluate this particular case, but given a budget such as POC, I too wouldn't shoot a period piece on digital.

In fact, as of today, I don't think I would shoot any story set in pre-1980 on digital, assuming the budget allowed me to choose whatever system I wanted.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Right... Considering most Hollywood produced period films or other period films with a decent budget these days are so overridden with CGI, not to mention how many are being shot digitally or that are going through a DI process anyway. Not sure what digital has to do with your reasoning.
 
It would seem that some very savvy folks have done the comparison tests and determined that digital ala Red works just fine for them. I can't wait to see the footage.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Hmmm... Right... Considering most Hollywood produced period films or other period films with a decent budget these days are so overridden with CGI, not to mention how many are being shot digitally or that are going through a DI process anyway. Not sure what digital has to do with your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why a lot of them look bad and specially generic? Just because everybody does it it doesn't mean it's the best look.

I'm pretty tired of the Kingdom of Heaven look you get these days.

There Will Be Blood for example was shot on film and didn't go through a DI (as far as I know), and in my opinion it perfectly matched its subject matter. It also won the Oscar for Best Cinematography.

Call me old fashioned, but I usually associate films set in the "past" with the way films used to be shot before we had digital acquisition and DIs.

But yes, it looks like EPIC will change this, wouldn't doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Hard to argue with the advantages of digital for VFX/CGI heavy projects. Keep everything clean until the end and then add grain to taste. If the budget allows I would do it all at 4K and create a 4K 16bit OpenEXR master from which DCPs and 35mm film prints would be struck.

Of course that's easy to promote when I'm not writing the checks :sifone:

Cheers - #19
 
hans de vries said:
Hey! I just read in a Dutch newspaper that Todd Solondz' "Life during wartime" is shot on Red! This is what it more less says:"It profits perfectly from the unprecedented sharpness of the new Red digital cameras; "Life during wartime" looks hyperrealistic...
I'm a happy Red owner
(is this off topic?)
Click to expand...
Yeah - you are off topic - but "Life During Wartime" was shot on RED - OFFHOLLYWOOD provided the DIT/tech support and dailies for that film shot by Ed Lachman, ASC - amazing looking film.
 
not quite "out the door"

not quite "out the door"

I loved seeing this post! A close friend of mine who is a director was telling me that since DP's have always loved Arri, the release of the Alexa will put RED in a tough position. One of the number one reasons being that DP's can't "look through the lens." He thinks that RED could be on its way out the door. I'm an amateur in comparison to the other DP's & Directors who have used this camera, but I personally prefer to see the image as it will be shot, not necessarily what is going on just through the lens. Anyways, its nice to hear that those bigger than myself might feel the same way. Can't wait for my turn to purchase an Epic.
-Ryan



ryan-fitzgerald.com
 
Andy Jarosz said:
Thar be all manner o'queer camera in this he'ar industry, but noine as lovely as RED.

Arrrgh, congrats!
Click to expand...

Aye, that be the old pirate's credo:
"An aye for an aye, and an aarrgh for an aarrrgh!"
 
Daniel Valle said:
Maybe that's why a lot of them look bad and specially generic? Just because everybody does it it doesn't mean it's the best look.
Click to expand...

I guess a lot of them do look generic or even bad. But that wasn't my point. I don't see digital acquisition and workflows being the culprit here.

Call me old fashioned, but I usually associate films set in the "past" with the way films used to be shot before we had digital acquisition and DIs.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... But then how does one say a period film which takes place in the 1600's would look better on film vs. digital? It's not like they had 35mm photography in any shape or form in that period. Of course it's all just about looks and this is entirely subjective. A lot can be done with lenses, filters, stage and camera FX, etc.. to make digital have a very organic and/or vintage look. Shooting many current 35mm film stocks with the latest super-sharp lenses with even corner to corner illumination can yield a very sterile and almost grain-free image. I guess what I'm saying is I think I understand what you're talking about in terms of what a period film should look like. I just don't see where shooting digitally would keep you from achieving such a look or where shooting on film will automatically give it.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Hmmm... But then how does one say a period film which takes place in the 1600's would look better on film vs. digital? It's not like they had 35mm photography in any shape or form in that period. Of course it's all just about looks and this is entirely subjective. A lot can be done with lenses, filters, stage and camera FX, etc.. to make digital have a very organic and/or vintage look. Shooting many current 35mm film stocks with the latest super-sharp lenses with even corner to corner illumination can yield a very sterile and almost grain-free image. I guess what I'm saying is I think I understand what you're talking about in terms of what a period film should look like. I just don't see where shooting digitally would keep you from achieving such a look or where shooting on film will automatically give it.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that it's completely subjective, and that digital has reached a point that it can look pretty organic. I never said film is inherently better than digital.

But there is a certain feel that at least I associate with films of the past. If you're making a film set in say, 1976, there's a whole feel to the films of that era, of the kind of film stock they used etc, that I just haven't seen replicated 100% convincingly in digital.

Obviously, you might opt not to to use films (or paintings, whatever) of a certain era as a reference; like what Michael Mann did in Public Enemies, that's also pretty interesting.

Anyway, I'm sure POC 4 will look even better than the first three. =)
 
Daniel Valle said:
Obviously, you might opt not to to use films (or paintings, whatever) of a certain era as a reference; like what Michael Mann did in Public Enemies, that's also pretty interesting.
Click to expand...

Is there any particular reason film would give a more painting-like image? Looking back at that article on the Alexa and M-X test, the shot (shot with a Red M-X) looks straight out of a painting.

http://www.awn.com/blogs/tracking-m...ide-arri-alexa-and-red-mysteriumx-camera-test
 
Ryan Fitzgerald said:
I loved seeing this post! A close friend of mine who is a director was telling me that since DP's have always loved Arri, the release of the Alexa will put RED in a tough position. One of the number one reasons being that DP's can't "look through the lens." He thinks that RED could be on its way out the door. I'm an amateur in comparison to the other DP's & Directors who have used this camera, but I personally prefer to see the image as it will be shot, not necessarily what is going on just through the lens. Anyways, its nice to hear that those bigger than myself might feel the same way. Can't wait for my turn to purchase an Epic.
-Ryan



ryan-fitzgerald.com
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment being expressed (that they are literally not getting the light thru the lens hitting their retina), but I must say that I personally feel this is a bass-ackwards way of thinkgin about it.

With an optical viewfinder, you look thru the lens, and then must mentally approximate what the the actual image on the negative will look like. You only get confirmation of this after the fact when the film is developed.

With "digital monitoring", not only are you "looking through the lens" in the sense that the light must traverse the actual shooting lens in order to produce the monitoring image, but you are seeing the exact image the sensor sees. With the application of in-camera looks, you can see what you rfinal image will look like without delay.

Seems more straightforward to me.

-sc
 
Steven Caesare said:
I understand the sentiment being expressed (that they are literally not getting the light thru the lens hitting their retina), but I must say that I personally feel this is a bass-ackwards way of thinkgin about it.
Click to expand...

As someone who has only shot digitally, I don't really understand the desire for an OVF. When shooting stills on a DSLR, for instance, the OVF is great, but is actually considerably more difficult for me to use for really critical focus and - as you mentioned - doesn't really display the actual image being captured by the camera in terms of exposure. It's interesting because I've watched a few professional photographers work, and they regularly check the LCD after snapping a couple of pics to ensure their images look proper. Which makes me wonder...if you just looked at the LCD the entire time (through an EVF, perhaps) couldn't you skip a step and be assured of what you were getting all the time? Of course, I understand that OVFs in film cameras do not function in the exact same manner as DSLR and so there may be less estimation involved.

Judging by the really really low number of requests for OVFs for RED when they opened the channels for input, I can only assume that there are few holdouts who want OVFs for digital when it actually comes down to putting money on the table.
 
13 cameras! Thats an order you HAVE to fill, I mean it's Disney.

Hopefully it'll help speed up production for these cameras and it's little brother ;)

Curious to see how the image looks through that Arri glass.

I also wonder how well they will hold up with all the salt water.

Congrats RED TEAM!
 
Robert Sanders said:
That probably means they're building 6 3D rigs. If they're building 13 3D rigs then that's 26 camera bodies! Shnikies!
Click to expand...

I wonder where they're getting the rigs from. About a month ago when I checked with panavision they only had 4 quasar rigs - Vancouver, L.A., London and New York I believe.
 
Daniel Valle said:
I agree with you that it's completely subjective, and that digital has reached a point that it can look pretty organic. I never said film is inherently better than digital.

But there is a certain feel that at least I associate with films of the past. If you're making a film set in say, 1976, there's a whole feel to the films of that era, of the kind of film stock they used etc, that I just haven't seen replicated 100% convincingly in digital.

Obviously, you might opt not to to use films (or paintings, whatever) of a certain era as a reference; like what Michael Mann did in Public Enemies, that's also pretty interesting.

Anyway, I'm sure POC 4 will look even better than the first three. =)
Click to expand...

Good time to revive this old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-father-on-black-and-white-pictures.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top