Pirates of the Caribbean 4

[Antony M]

My film is not in the same league as Pirates, however it was shot on the Red One and in the opinion of many people looks fantastic.

Last week, we had two screenings at a cinema in Bath, projected with a Barco.

At the 11am screening, it looked amazing.

At the 6pm screening it looked like a piece of **** shot on a cell phone.

Same film.

The problem was obviously to do with the projector and some interference, NOT to do with the Red. The cinema refunded us.

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?

 

[Joe Carney]

My film is not in the same league as Pirates, however it was shot on the Red One and in the opinion of many people looks fantastic.

Last week, we had two screenings at a cinema in Bath, projected with a Barco.

At the 11am screening, it looked amazing.

At the 6pm screening it looked like a piece of **** shot on a cell phone.

Same film.

The problem was obviously to do with the projector and some interference, NOT to do with the Red. The cinema refunded us.

That was the whole point of Eberts blog. It wasn't about the camera, but how projectors can cause problems and ruin the whole experience. He was mainly complaining
about the Sony XSRD and how difficult it is to change the setup. He also blamed the theaters for being lazy. Just because a theater manager tells you they did everything right, doesn't make it fact.
So when someone starts attacking Red because of a lousy experience and refuses to listen to others who offer a plausible explanation, can't take anything they post seriously. Lacing it with vulgar language just ends up putting a big wall between them and everyone else.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Image analysis

Image analysis

Well, little luck I am going to read these 57 pages, so I appologise if this has been covered before. I also am reluctant to waste space on opening a new thread on it.

I got to see Pirates on the fancy new expensive 3d screen last night to reveiw image performance. I have a few questions.

I know that the Red camera has excellent low light performance, but I noticed all the lowish light scenes had muted color, grayish. Is this the look, and can it be naturalistically corrected? Looking at captain jacks head scarf as another example, I dont know if it is meant to be faded, or seemingly grayish. Low light ability is in respect to documentary making is a desirable feature.

In contrast to this, London scenes in particular, bright colors are popped (red coat uniforms for example) but everything else is much more muted. We have seen this in some hd cameras since the Jvc gy hd10. Is this look or a natural effect of the system?

I wonder, if these things are related to color constancy?

I noticed some problem in the green channel. The greennery of hawai was good, we have much the same plants in my local area as hawai. But I noticed duller less florescent greens look less realistic compared to red, browns and blues. The broader banana like leaves, also did not have the sheen I normally see, and wonder if this is related to some extended dynamic range?

Around the scene of the exchange of the challices, I noticed some grass was maxing out. Did this camera have access to extended dynamic range?

In broad daylight, the footage was stunning, which is what got me to go there after seeing the previews.

Thanks.

 

[Deanan]

Around the scene of the exchange of the challices, I noticed some grass was maxing out. Did this camera have access to extended dynamic range?

In broad daylight, the footage was stunning, which is what got me to go there after seeing the previews.

Thanks.

Alot of what you're seeing is specific to how it was graded and in some cases the grade specifically for 3d projection and fighting the polarization and low FL levels. I know specifically some of the footage I had access to vs how it looked in the theatre was different enough that you can't really judge the source from looking at the final in a theatre.

 

[Sergio Perez]

Not much knowhow in 3D production, but to my eyes this was the second best looking 3d Hollywood feature film shot digitally, being the first one Avatar. I don't even know Iff I can consider Avatar a film "shot" in 3d, since There was so much CGI and Keying in it, which obviously helped the shooting and 3D cinematography, but I really thought the 3d worked well in Pirates 4- it really felt like an integral part of the film. I believe that this is a case were the 3D really adds to the movie both in cinematography and on the storytelling. This in my humble view is the biggest compliment a 3D film can receive! The story, however, was not as good as the first two films, (again, in my humble opinion), but kept me interested and looking forward for a sequel. Looking forward to see who will be the next Bond- excuse me- Sparrow girl.

 

[Peter Chamberlain]

I have have to agree with Deanan. I know the 3D theatre presentation of P4 I saw last weekend did not represent the master that was released. Unfortunately too little effort is being made by too many theaters in the exhibition of our work. If the theatre does not project the required and standard brightness, and I know this also varies greatly between 3D systems, all the hard work by the DOP and colorists to position the image within the correct contrast and color range is lost, and many of the subtle artistic decisions are lost too. I'm going to see it again at a theater that I know does it right and am starting to build a list of individual theaters I wont visit again because i'm seeing a number that just don't seem to care.
Peter

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Alot of what you're seeing is specific to how it was graded and in some cases the grade specifically for 3d projection and fighting the polarization and low FL levels. I know specifically some of the footage I had access to vs how it looked in the theatre was different enough that you can't really judge the source from looking at the final in a theatre.

I checked some of the recent pages for an hour or so after i posted, and saw the problems with 2d projection, but it is a real bizaar shame if they can think they can full a 3d digital cinema at a $24us a ticket and project it wrong. Hate to say it, the industry, needs to realise they need to cut cinemas and halve prices, and the rest of the industry follow. They have everything back to front.

However, you are saying that the superbright carribean scenes and the dull london scenes are because the contrast range and gama on the projector is set to wide?
I can see it, but is that causing the extremely poppy bright colors in the same scene, and the color grayout in the night scenes? The shaded darker green leaves still look bizzar against the lighter shaded greens, but probably stretched too far.

I have have to agree with Deanan. I know the 3D theatre presentation of P4 I saw last weekend did not represent the master that was released. Unfortunately too little effort is being made by too many theaters in the exhibition of our work. If the theatre does not project the required and standard brightness, and I know this also varies greatly between 3D systems, all the hard work by the DOP and colorists to position the image within the correct contrast and color range is lost, and many of the subtle artistic decisions are lost too. I'm going to see it again at a theater that I know does it right and am starting to build a list of individual theaters I wont visit again because i'm seeing a number that just don't seem to care.
Peter

I hate to suggest this, people dont like taking anything on board. But a simple solution (which i would have assumed they allready use) is a profile of the original ranges and pionts, and a profile of the projector's, then it is a simpler mapping calculation to obtain a optimal image for the projector (beats doing a grade for each projector type). This is also the suggestion I would suggest for the Sony 3d lens effect on 2d images to improve it at least, which could be a software upgrade to change default profile for 2d when the 3d lens is on, vs retrofitting the lens externally (if at all possible).

 

[Wayne Morellini]

However, you are saying that the superbright carribean scenes and the dull london scenes are because the contrast range and gama on the projector is set to wide?
I can see it, but is that causing the extremely poppy bright colors in the same scene, and the color grayout in the night scenes? The shaded darker green leaves still look bizzar against the lighter shaded greens, but probably stretched too far.

So, I guess the answer is yes. I only mention because some are familiar from past Red features, so I wonder about the reason so as to avoid them.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

but I really thought the 3d worked well in Pirates 4- it really felt like an integral part of the film. I believe that this is a case were the 3D really adds to the movie both in cinematography and on the storytelling.

Wow I couldn't say anything more opposite. Just saw it tonight. Not the best of the series but that's not why we're here.

Personally, of the recent films I saw in 3D I thought this was one that totally didn't need it. I don't understand where the "integral" part fits in. I think I would have enjoyed this better in a standard theater without those glasses. I fail to see how having this one in 3D added ANYTHING to the film in any aspect. Other than budget and complexity.

 

[jbeale]

The broader banana like leaves, also did not have the sheen I normally see...

I know that a polarizer can remove the sheen from glossy leaves (or anything else shiny). Does shooting in 3D involve some polarization selectivity? If you are using a beamsplitter in front of your camera(s), I think you do end up with some polarization unless you've done something very fancy to cancel it.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Saw the movie last night in 2D and realized that there is only so much a camera can do to create a good film. Once it's in post, much happens that determines the final outcome. This version was a film printout that included scratches and the wrong aspect ratio. I knew I was in for a less than stellar viewing when the title Disney credit fell off the bottom of the screen. So I just sat back and watched the movie. Can't blame RED for that one. Colors were fine, but I know everything would have been better if we had seen it digitally. Might have to go back and see it in 3D at the local digital complex for a comparison and to see what I missed. But that'll still be in 2K even though they boast 4K. Would really prefer to see it in 4K.

 

[M Most]

Might have to go back and see it in 3D at the local digital complex for a comparison and to see what I missed. But that'll still be in 2K even though they boast 4K. Would really prefer to see it in 4K.

You can't. It doesn't exist in 4K.

 

[Mark Phelan]

You can't. It doesn't exist in 4K.

I know. We're not there yet. Doesn't mean a guy can't dream. Someday...

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

On Stranger Tides grossed $10.4 million domestically for a cume of $208.8 million. Overseas, the 3D tentpole grossed $41.1 milion for the frame, bringing the movie's international total to a massive $678 million and worldwide tally to $886.8 million

Almost $1B in box office and this was shot on the RED ONE M-X!!

can't wait to see the CUME on EPIC shot films...

Congrats RED TEAM> I know its all about EPIC now but if there was no EPIC... this is quite the RED ONE Feather

 

[Adam Eden]

I just saw this movie last night at the Cremorne Orpheum at Sydney, Australia. The 3D movies I have seen there before were great. This movie, Pirates of the Caribbean was very milky, and all the black were grey.

I think this is because the glasses they supply drop about 1/2 a stop.

The 3d was pretty ordinary and taking the glasses off and putting them back on again, didn't seem to be too different so for me i would have preferred to see it in 2d.

Normally the Orpheum which is an independent cinema has great projectionists, and all of the movies look fantastic, thats why i go there to see movies rather than a normal big chain.

All of the beginning scenes with the street chase looked very clipped.

So I will reserve my judgement until the Blu ray comes out, so I can compare in 2d on my screen at home as i feel i haven't seen the movie in its best light.

My kids and I thought the mermaids were the best, we didn't expect them to turn evil and kill/ eat people!

 

[Ravi Kiran]

Proper presentation is a problem across the board.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118037615

Excerpts:

Cinematographer Roger Bailey told me "Sometimes when I'm on vacation, I'll go into a multiplex just to check out the screens, and I'm appalled at how bad the projection is."

Said Bailey: "It's unbelievable that in an age when we think we have unbelievable technology, and the studios are talking about eliminating 35mm film prints in the next 18 months, that they haven't begun to sort out the problems that have been caused by digital projection."

On the other hand, last week's "Transformers 3" 3D presentation at Paramount and a screening of "Kung Fu Panda 2" at the Mann Chinese 6 looked crisp and adequately bright.

In fact, 3D has simply exacerbated an existing problem: lax exhibition, undermined by greed and sloth. At Paramount, James Cameron noted digital projectors have gotten brighter to support 3D, but some theaters use the new projectors as an excuse to turn down the projector lamp so it will last longer. Echoing that, Sony 3D maven Rob Engle recently tweeted "A modest proposal ... Every 3D digital cinema package should be delivered with a brand new projector lamp included."

This isn't just an exhibition problem, though. The problems begin well up the chain.

Rob Hummel, president of Legend3D, says one problem with my "Thor" experience was that I'd seen it at the ArcLight, which uses Xpand. "There's a problem where people create DCPs (Digital Cinema Packages) for RealD and Dolby," Hummel says. "RealD and Dolby have a 2-stop light loss. At the Cinerama, you're watching with Xpand glasses; they have a 3-stop light loss." In other words, watching a RealD DCP through Xpand glasses means seeing it half as bright as it should be.

Hummel, who worked for Prime Focus while it was converting "Clash of the Titans" said there had been only one 3D DCP created for that movie. "Jim Cameron did dozens of DCPs for 'Avatar,'" said Hummell, "optimized for each specific theater." If studios don't bother to master for all the exhibition formats, and theaters charge extra for substandard projection, aren't they all cheating their customers, the audience?

 

[Kris Anderson]

On Stranger Tides grossed $10.4 million domestically for a cume of $208.8 million. Overseas, the 3D tentpole grossed $41.1 milion for the frame, bringing the movie's international total to a massive $678 million and worldwide tally to $886.8 million

Almost $1B in box office and this was shot on the RED ONE M-X!!

can't wait to see the CUME on EPIC shot films...

Congrats RED TEAM> I know its all about EPIC now but if there was no EPIC... this is quite the RED ONE Feather

Don't mean to be a wet blanket but the camera it was shot on has nothing to do with the worldwide grosses. Nor is it an indicator of how good a camera is, nor is it a feather in anyone's cap. The success of Pirates 4, I would say, rests largely with the previous 3 films building the franchise. Not a thing to do with the technology involved in it's creation.

Do you think the average punter knows the difference? And if you think they do, how do you explain, say, Blair Witch?

I love Red, but it makes no difference to a film's success or failure.

 

[Deanan]

Don't mean to be a wet blanket but the camera it was shot on has nothing to do with the worldwide grosses. Nor is it an indicator of how good a camera is, nor is it a feather in anyone's cap. The success of Pirates 4, I would say, rests largely with the previous 3 films building the franchise. Not a thing to do with the technology involved in it's creation.

Do you think the average punter knows the difference? And if you think they do, how do you explain, say, Blair Witch?

I love Red, but it makes no difference to a film's success or failure.

It may not but it means something to those of us that put significant effort into the camera or supporting the camera on various shows.
Just as the crew would be proud even though the average punter could care less.

 

[Michael Olsen]

I love Red, but it makes no difference to a film's success or failure.

If the technical equipment used to produce a film made "no difference" in whether that film was a success of failure, there sure would be a lot fewer fans of particular cameras - RED, Arri, Sony, or otherwise. Likewise with lenses. Home depot would probably sell a great deal more work lights, and the local radio shack would always be out of the $35 microphone/recorder combo-pack.

Hyperbole, sure. But I suppose the fact that it makes "no difference" is somewhat affirmative to the concept that a RED M-X, properly used, is "no different" - if not in some ways better - than using film acquisition.

 

[M Most]

Rob Hummel, president of Legend3D, says one problem with my "Thor" experience was that I'd seen it at the ArcLight, which uses Xpand. "There's a problem where people create DCPs (Digital Cinema Packages) for RealD and Dolby," Hummel says. "RealD and Dolby have a 2-stop light loss. At the Cinerama, you're watching with Xpand glasses; they have a 3-stop light loss." In other words, watching a RealD DCP through Xpand glasses means seeing it half as bright as it should be.

Rob is a smart guy, but that's a very simplistic complaint that fails to consider the various parts of a 3D exhibition system. All glasses based viewing systems have light loss. The loss is partially compensated for by either using more illumination in the projector or a gain screen. With RealD, the screen must be a silver screen, which has about a 2.2 gain, but also has off axis loss that cannot be completely compensated for, and which cannot reasonably be used for anything other than RealD presentations. With Dolby and Xpand, a white screen is used, and it can be a "standard" 1.0 gain screen. However, both Dolby and Xpand recommend using a white gain screen to compensate for light loss. Some theaters do that, and some don't. Rob is attributing problems in viewing solely to the glasses, but the fact is that they are far from the only items that contribute to the lowered light levels hitting your eye when you watch stereo 3D projection. For theaters to be presenting the best 3D experience, they must be willing to customize each screening room for either 2D or 3D projection on a per show basis. That is not very cost effective, and is not completely straightforward, either, especially if gain screens are involved (as they should be). As long as we still have 2D and 3D releases (and I think the time frame for that is...... permanently, or at least for the foreseeable future), this problem will exist, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the exhibitor and how far they're willing to go.