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 :)

Ridley Scott and Dariusz Wolski...

M Most said:
While I know what you're trying to say here, I would also point out that the picture in question is intended as a stereoscopic production. The only sensible way to make a stereoscopic picture on film today is to shoot in 2D and do a post conversion, which for many is not an alternative they want to consider. I know Jim disagrees with this (he told me so), but I really do feel that one of, if not THE primary drivers for Red's acceptance into tentpole features is its 3D friendliness, and in the case of the new designs (Epic in particular), it really is unique in that environment both in terms of the resolution that's possible and, perhaps as significantly, the physical form factor. Every new technology needs a reason for being, particularly when the largest investments are involved, as they are on some of these huge features. 3D stereoscopic is, whether one wants to admit it or not, one of the primary reasons for higher end pictures going to digital production, particularly in an "if it ain't broken don't fix it" centric world like major studio features. Those who go to Epic and other tools still to come from Red and others might well find there are a lot of other things they like, even when shooting 2D. But it's 3D that's making them look at it in the first place.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. 3D is what is really going to push Red into the mainstream but Ridley has shot film all his life and has made a couple of films since digital became popular that were on film so I have to guess that his selection of the Epic came down to the need for a digital camera to shoot 3D. Will he use Epic for 2D stuff? Possibly. Everyone will want a slice of the 3D profits and Epic will be at the top of the list for sure so I expect a lot of big-budget films to use Epic but I can't help but imagine that some would rather be shooting on film. Take Michael Bay, he always wanted to shoot film and said he would not go digital but look, here he is shooting Transformers in 3D using Pace Digital rigs. I expect Spielberg will be shooting 3D as well and he will need to choose a digital camera, does not mean he is happy about it.

As much as 3D can be an annoyance at times, it is pushing digital into the forefront much faster than it would have if there was only 2D projection. Over time, even die-hard film fans will get used to the look of Red and others and it will seem like less of a downgrade.
 
Ah, Ridley Skott and Dariusz Wolski shooting science fiction on Epic! What could be better? I am happy man in no need for new year presents!
 
I agree that Scott's move to digital is more a result of the move to 3-D, but that said, plenty of successful 3-D movies have been shot on 35mm film in the past.

Saw 3-D even utilized modern rigs to shoot some 35mm sequences last year with minimal additional issues.

Not to get off topic, but somebody out there is bound to do a full 3-D 35mm shoot, just to keep it in the mix, and I for one would love to see the results.

But that's not to say, "Congtats to the RED team on all of the Big Budget Hollywood productions using they cameras, and the many more to come!"
 
Where you involved in the production of Saw 3D? My understanding is that there was no native 3D film shot on the production. At the DCP checks, on the showprint, at the premiere the film seemed to scream SI2k 3D stereo or converted 35mm (for a few slow mo but mostly for the requisite Saw flashbacks from earlier movies).
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Don't make me blush Jim and Jarred :-)

Just stating the obvious, art is in the eye of the beholder, technical quality is not, is either there or it isn't.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Dion Beebe, "the second incarnation of Storatro" and technical quality...

I think Michael Mann with his DoP´s (Dante Spinotti and the mentioned Dion Beebe) would have a word. One could say that Collateral, Miami Vice and Public Enemies are absolute garbage from HD video technical standpoint, put I think each one of them are beautifully shot movies with cinematography suiting the story and direction (Collateral being nominated for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography by ASC in their awards). So I would say that the technical quality is too, like this "art", in eye of the beholder (and I think it´s silly to even separate them).

And I too think that downplaying the cinematography merits of Lynch, Hertzog and PTA is nonsense.
 
Saw 3D was SI-2K. The company that supplied is Bill White's company 3DCC.

They have 20+ SI-2K units and use C primes recording uncompressed 2K into proprietary boxes with the Cineform codec. They use both Technica 3D and Tango rigs.

And Michael Burns of Lionsgate loved the pictures claiming it was the best 3D they had seen.
 
I'm not sure if anyone has thought about this, but using Epic or Red One MX for Alien actually concerns me. One of the greatest parts of the alien films is how they crawl out of the darkness to attack... With the new latitude capabilities of either of these systems, we're going to be able to see them coming! It's not going to be scary at all!

Maybe they should use something with less latitude? Like film?

/sarcasm
 
Jeremy Torrie said:
Saw 3D was SI-2K. The company that supplied is Bill White's company 3DCC.

They have 20+ SI-2K units and use C primes recording uncompressed 2K into proprietary boxes with the Cineform codec. They use both Technica 3D and Tango rigs.

And Michael Burns of Lionsgate loved the pictures claiming it was the best 3D they had seen.
Click to expand...

I was making no comment on the quality, just saying that the native 3D material was clearly not 35mm film and that I had tons and tons and tons of time looking at the finished film (7-8 times I believe). This was all in response to Bruce William Harper's comment about 3D film originated material in Saw. I do not believe there was any. Anyhow, back to the Alien prequel. I LOVE Ridley Scott's alien and don't want to take any more of the discussion off track here.
 
Jonathan Payne said:
I was making no comment on the quality, just saying that the native 3D material was clearly not 35mm film and that I had tons and tons and tons of time looking at the finished film (7-8 times I believe). This was all in response to Bruce William Harper's comment about 3D film originated material in Saw. I do not believe there was any. Anyhow, back to the Alien prequel. I LOVE Ridley Scott's alien and don't want to take any more of the discussion off track here.
Click to expand...

Paul Taylor one of the owners and lead stereographer of 3DCC has shot alot of 3D on film.

In fact here is one of his ARRI rigs strapped to skydiver......!!!

Picture5.png


Also to clear things up, the main camera was one of his Si-2k rigs....as you can see on the on Saw 3D set pictures below.

Picture1.png


Picture2.png


Picture4.png



Finally to end all and any debate.....here is a shot of 2 Arri's on a Tango beamsplitter doing a shot on Saw 3D.

Picture3.png



So yes, of course you CAN shoot 3D on film......but why? naturally that's just my opinion. There are soooo many advantages to shooting stereo on digital cameras. I don't see the need to make my life more difficult than it may already be on a 3D feature set.

3D has been responsible in many ways in the proliferation of Digital Cinema Projection and image capture in the US and abroad......naturally 3D has and will continue to be responsible for the many digital cinema camera developments.

Being a stereographer and steadicam operator, the arrival of the Epic and Scarlet are monumental industry changing events. They free 3D from the burden of light requirements, weight and size. This has been a huge barrier that has kept major productions and Talented film makers away from exploring the 3D medium.

Anyone who has ever worked on a 3D set understands the monumental change to filmmakers that an epic/Pulsar rig or a neutron/scarlet rig will bring to any 3D production.

3D is still a medium that has barely been explored by the great minds of cinema. What J.Cameron achieved with Avatar was historical and game changing. I'm anxiously awaiting Martin Scorsese's first 3D movie (shot on Alexa) "Invention of Hugo Cabaret". Personally, I would love to see what 3D could bring to a movie like True Grit. People might be quick to dismiss 3D. But we really haven't seen it's potential in genre's besides horror. Such a limited number of people have ventured into 3D land....

I look forward to seeing what the great talents in our industry will do with 3D, Epic, Scarlet and all the great 3D tools that will combine to make 3D film making less cumbersome.

It's not inconceivable that once they shoot a entire movie in 3D on Epics and see the freedom it gives them in post. That they might shoot their next 2D movie with the same camera.

I'm thrilled at the prospects that this new technology and what it means to all our futures.

Exciting times !
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Well, I beg to disagree 100% right there...No auteur cinema could ever do that.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post 95%. Although seriously you cannot put Rob Marshall Jason Schwartzman and Dion Beebe in the same category as Bertolucci and Storaro. Not the 'of today' category. As much as I respect them as visual storytellers they have not earned that yet. I would put that in the same category as when Jenni Falconer called Nicole Kidman a Legend to Lauren Bacall and she retorted ''She's a beginner. What is this 'legend'? She can't be a legend at whatever age she is. She can't be a legend, you have to be older.'' Bertollucci and Storaro ARE legends. The practitioners you mentioned, although they have crafted their art well are still beginners. Come back in twenty films time and they might have a slate worthy of the title. Ridley Scott has carved out a place for himself as one of the primary visualists working today and he deserves the title and the slate to prove it.

But I completely understand where you are coming from with your post and do completely agree from an industry perspective. But I had to get my oar in there. Sorry. No malice against your post just a disagreement with your choice of example.

Christopher Doyle on the other hand I consider an exception and is such a visual storyteller I would equate what he does as some of the best visual work and is in the top 5 cinematographers working today.
 
Pedro Guimaraes said:
Paul Taylor one of the owners and lead stereographer of 3DCC has shot alot of 3D on film.

In fact here is one of his ARRI rigs strapped to skydiver......!!!

Picture5.png


Also to clear things up, the main camera was one of his Si-2k rigs....as you can see on the on Saw 3D set pictures below.

Picture1.png


Picture2.png


Picture4.png



Finally to end all and any debate.....here is a shot of 2 Arri's on a Tango beamsplitter doing a shot on Saw 3D.

Picture3.png



So yes, of course you CAN shoot 3D on film......but why? naturally that's just my opinion. There are soooo many advantages to shooting stereo on digital cameras. I don't see the need to make my life more difficult than it may already be on a 3D feature set.

3D has been responsible in many ways in the proliferation of Digital Cinema Projection and image capture in the US and abroad......naturally 3D has and will continue to be responsible for the many digital cinema camera developments.

Being a stereographer and steadicam operator, the arrival of the Epic and Scarlet are monumental industry changing events. They free 3D from the burden of light requirements, weight and size. This has been a huge barrier that has kept major productions and Talented film makers away from exploring the 3D medium.

Anyone who has ever worked on a 3D set understands the monumental change to filmmakers that an epic/Pulsar rig or a neutron/scarlet rig will bring to any 3D production.

3D is still a medium that has barely been explored by the great minds of cinema. What J.Cameron achieved with Avatar was historical and game changing. I'm anxiously awaiting Martin Scorsese's first 3D movie (shot on Alexa) "Invention of Hugo Cabaret". Personally, I would love to see what 3D could bring to a movie like True Grit. People might be quick to dismiss 3D. But we really haven't seen it's potential in genre's besides horror. Such a limited number of people have ventured into 3D land....

I look forward to seeing what the great talents in our industry will do with 3D, Epic, Scarlet and all the great 3D tools that will combine to make 3D film making less cumbersome.

It's not inconceivable that once they shoot a entire movie in 3D on Epics and see the freedom it gives them in post. That they might shoot their next 2D movie with the same camera.

I'm thrilled at the prospects that this new technology and what it means to all our futures.

Exciting times !
Click to expand...

Thanks Pedro for clearing that up. You posses a lot more information regarding the Saw 3D production then I do. I was just chit chatting with the guys at Deluxe Post Toronto.
 
So pages 16-18 are what a YouTube comment fight would look like if YouTube commenters were as informed and intelligent as they are passionate... ;)
 
Deanan said:
Talking with Brook, Steve, and Zach on set, we were wondering how to explain Epic's power elegantly. This is it in terms of size, resolution, and fps:

View attachment 10254
Click to expand...

Man. Talk about an image being worth a billion pixels. I know you guys have friends at Arri, and somehow I doubt they are going to like this one.

Eryc Tramonn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top