Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Red and Lucasfilm?

Stephen Webb said:
Have to disagree, Eps 2&3 looked awful regardless of whether they were shown Digitally or Film.
Click to expand...

Yep. Essentially my point in that previous post.
 
kraemer said:
I don't agree with this. Given the right lighting and processing, a typical scene with two "talking heads" will look about the same. The higher frame rate makes the difference when the camera is moving or objects are moving quickly across the screen. The difference is that fast motion will no longer look ridiculously blurry, and special effects teams wont have to spend ungodly amounts of time making their effects look like blurry 24fps film.
Click to expand...

True, VFX teams will instead can use all that extra time for all the extra work they need do because there's 25% to 250% more frames.
 
AppliedVisual said:
...I tell ya, 4K porn is where it's at. ;)
Click to expand...

Ugh. No.

PLEASE, no! I was going to say "can you imagine?" but then YIKES!

Porn will have to go totally CGI for that to work.
 
uh-huh, yeah.

uh-huh, yeah.

At the end of the day, who really F'ing cares what you shoot it on?!?! I DO. But then, I know that no matter what I shoot on, I will be making the best damn image I can, period. Besides, MOST (not all) of that is acheived through lighting. Amongst other things...of course!

disclaimer: Obviously this subject is much more complex than my simple rant, but...
 
Graeme Nattress said:
"WE are the limiting factor." - Exactly.

However, with Digital Cinema, the sensor is digital, whereas with digital audio, the microphone is still very analogue, making analogy not quite there.

However, your last line is spot on correct. The technology is so superb now, that the humans that operate it are beginning to be the real last frontier in quality.

Graeme
Click to expand...

Sorry to disagree here Graeme.:p

I think the microphone is what the lens is to a camera not the sensor.
The A/D converters are the sensor.
All that is before the A/D converters is analog, all that is after is digital.
All that is before the sensor is analog, all that is after is digital.
Think of a cook S4 as nice tube Neuman microphone.:cool:
 
I've read an article a while back that also said that Spielberg would shoot the movie on whatever format Lucas requested because, well, it's Lucas' money and he's the producer.

But there's also the Kaminski factor. Kaminski won't even do digital intermediates. He only did it once on "The Terminal" and admitted that it was only an experiment and he didn't like it. He absolutely loves and adores the photo-chemical process.

So I really don't know how Lucas, Spielberg and Kaminski will work this out.

I have a sneaky suspicion that they'll shoot in Super35. The originals were shot in anamorphic 35.
 
As for money,
This is the big reason why Orson Welles would by RedOne before any of us coud reach our credit card (well especialy me…).
After Citizen Kane he had so much trouble finding money, that anything reducing costs in any way was a blessing to him, not to mention the digital workflow wich I believe would have had him screem for joy, for he was a true indie, actually he probably was the first indie of the talking movies era.
Very different from Mr Spielberg's way, we can safely say.
 
Well, I think film can still live on for quite a bit before it finally gets the boot. Who knows what barriers will be broken through via chemical processes or projection technologies? Right now it seems like digital took a big leap ahead in such a short time that film has yet (to ever?) catch up. I for one haven't seen a digital projection as many have mentioned on the thread so far nor did I have any idea that Finding Nemo had to be scaled back visually simply for a film transfer, that's impressive indeed! :thumbsup:

I think I may be in the group that believe that digital won't necessarily surpass film in all cases until it reaches the 8K levels. I mean, look around, people are still breaking quality barriers with each new movie that comes out.

As far as Steven and George are concerned, I hope they use the RED for at least a scene or two in Indiana Jones 4, very much like that quick scene was re-shot for Munich with the HVX200. Even that's enough to say something. More importantly, I wonder if George will show up at NAB to see the RED in person? :)
 
If Finding Nemo had to be scaled back, then Pixar made a very big mistake IMVHO. They know what their exhibition medium is, they know what standards they have to work to, what colourspace they need to be working in and how to calibrate everything to make sure that what they are doing is what's going to work. And I have no doubt they test to destruction to make sure they know exactly what to expect.

As for Digital Projection, saw Attack of the Clones in Digital when it was released and it looked awful. Saw Wizard of Oz on a 2k last week and it looked fantastic!

And as for Lucas insisting Indy 4 is shot digitally, I don't believe he'd disrepect Spielberg that badly and I know Spielberg simply wouldn't accept it if he tried (and nor would he have to). Lucas isn't helming the film, so it won't be a big deal to him anyway.
 
Jack_Felis said:
As far as Steven and George are concerned, I hope they use the RED for at least a scene or two in Indiana Jones 4, very much like that quick scene was re-shot for Munich with the HVX200. Even that's enough to say something. More importantly, I wonder if George will show up at NAB to see the RED in person? :)
Click to expand...
I really don't see this happening. If it starts filming in June 2007, that's just too soon after the initial camera release for someone like Spielberg to make a jump like that.
 
I would be willing to bet that even footage shot with a Red One and post-processed like mad cannot completely and exactly duplicate the look and feel of film. And if there is any difference at all, there will always be a need for film.
 
Michael Struthers said:
I would be willing to bet that even footage shot with a Red One and post-processed like mad cannot completely and exactly duplicate the look and feel of film. And if there is any difference at all, there will always be a need for film.
Click to expand...

With the risk of sounding like a broken record, I still maintain that should the RedOne deliver with the specs as advertized, then emulating film in post will not only be a possibility, but also the preferred norm (cheaper, less complicated/cubersome workflow).

The argument will then be about the role of film rather than about making the obvious choice.
 
These guys are close friends and have enormous respect for each other, so there is not going to be any dissing by anyone. They will have a conversation about it -- if they haven't already -- and a format will be decided. I'm leaning toward those who are saying it will be shot 35mm, mainly because there is no working HD camera that can match it. But I would not be surprised if Lucas talked Spielberg into bringing a Genesis or 950 for a few scenes.
 
I wonder if Kaminski will consult with Douglas Slocombe. I love the look of those films personally...and to be slightly heretical...I want it to be shot on film. I want it to be, in total, a stylistic brother to the other films, and I don't think anything can match how those films looked in the digital realm. At least in the present time.

I recently got the chance to see Raiders again on the big screen with a pristine 35mm print and it was glorious....i'll give most of the credit to Slocombe, he's a fantastic cinematographer.
 
Adrian Correia said:
I want it to be, in total, a stylistic brother to the other films, and I don't think anything can match how those films looked in the digital realm.
Click to expand...

Normally I would agree - but - I have to add that on 'Superman Returns' the Genesis did a very good job of matching the look of the original Superman films.
 
A few comments on 70mm film need to be mentioned. One, 70mm has 1/2 the depth of field as 35mm as does 2:35.1 Cinémascope as seen in Oliver Stone used in the Doors. Shooting outside is not that much of a problem, but inside with low lights makes for a very blury background.

IMAX movies are almost all outside since they too have even less depth of field even with huge lenses. I don't agree that higher resolution, with shallow depth of field is so called better.

Also, in terms of film having a blur when panned - is bad? Our eyes normally blur motion in a pan. About 10 years ago, there was a company that shot 70mm at 60fps called Showscan. (It was suppose to be the ultimate film - great resolution fast scan rate.) It competed with IMAX and was used in themepark movie rides.

Anyway. I saw a demo of a Rollercoaster. The problem, everything was sharp - unrealistically sharp. The wooden rungs in front of the rollercoaster were all sharp and not blurred like in real life traveling at 60 mph.

So again, we need to find a balance 24-30 frames per second with a depth of field that approximates human vision for a 'real' feeling. High shutter speeds in video or film - stobe unrealistically like the showscan footage did - with overlysharp frames. (Ask any animator why he blurs cartoons to create a sense of motion - any why some video games don't look right driving 150mph... just sped up and tach sharp.) In life at 150mph your field of vision is about a 4 inch square looking 1/4 mile down the road... the dotted line becomes solid at that speed. If you don't believe me go rent a 350Z and find an empty 2 lane road away from me please.
 
I remember reading an interview with Harrison Ford a while back, and he said that George told him something to the effect that "People are either going to hate us or love us for doing another Indy; but we're still going to make it and try to have a great time". If Lucas actually said that to Ford, it sounds like he probably isn't going to have a problem with Speilberg shooting it on film. I could definitely see Lucas giving Speilberg a nudge or two to try and sway him but I wouldn't suspect that he's demand anything..but then again I don't know Lucas at all so who knows?

Also regarding the prequel Star Wars films; I definitely agree that alot of the brightly lit scenes seemed flat and unapplealing. The multiple layering also looked pretty shady at times too. One things for sure though, Natalie Portman still looked gorgeous.
 
Boothba said:
I have to add that on 'Superman Returns' the Genesis did a very good job of matching the look of the original Superman films.
Click to expand...

And I have to disagree. Not that Superman Returns looks bad, and it does have certain design features that are intended to complement the original,
but it doesn't have the same style or aesthetic of Superman: The Movie.

Greg Voevodsky said:
we need to find a balance 24-30 frames per second
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and in the early days of cinema they tried out various different frame rates before deciding that 24fps was the most "natural" to the human eye. More recent research places the average human eye at an equivalent to 21fps, with 18fps as an agreed minimum, so the current frame rate seems perfectly sensible.
 
If the human eye was the equivalent of running at 21fps, then how can we see the vastly superior motion characteristics of 50 and 60 fps??

The eye is adaptive, and it's focus point is not fixed but almost continuously moving. When you see a moving object, you track it, and the brain integrates that detail into a fantastic visual map.
 
Graeme Nattress said:
If the human eye was the equivalent of running at 21fps, then how can we see the vastly superior motion characteristics of 50 and 60 fps??

The eye is adaptive, and it's focus point is not fixed but almost continuously moving. When you see a moving object, you track it, and the brain integrates that detail into a fantastic visual map.
Click to expand...


I'm no expert, but I'm guessing it's because the images are not in sync with the ones you see with your eyes (like you have to synch on-screen computer monitors with the camera when you are shooting to avoid strobing artifacts)

I believe your peripheral vision has much better motion sensing capabilities (ever look at a tube monitor thats 60hz or less, and see the flicker only in your peripheral vision?)

But as I said, I'm no expert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top