'Rogue One: A Star Wars Story’ shot on ALEXA 65

[Visar Sulejmani]

Just saw the Trailer and I just can't get over how good it looks, the trailer it self and obviously the Image from the ALEXA 65 (w. Panavision APO Panatar Lenses)

What do you guys think?

I would love to see RED and Sony release a Camera with a similar Sensor Size but 8K instead of Arri's 6,5K Sensor.

 

[Joel Voelker]

So you would love to see RED develop a camera they have already developed and that film studios are already using? RED for the win!

 

[Jason Diamond]

Yeah it's def got that anamorphic vibe and I had heard from a trusted source it was 100% Alexa65. So stoked for this.

 

[Kenneth C Merrill]

So you would love to see RED develop a camera they have already developed and that film studios are already using? RED for the win!

The Weapon 8K sensor (40.96mm x 21.60mm) isn't as large as the Alexa 65 sensor (54.12mm x 25.58mm). Doing the math reveals that the Alexa 65 is 50% larger than the Weapon 8K--it's actually slightly larger than standard 65mm film capture, while Weapon 8K is actually smaller than Ultra Panavision.

So yes, it would be cool to see Red make a truly 65mm equivalent sensor.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

I think this film looks incredibly promising. Really great visual texture/feel and beautiful art direction and design consistent with the original stuff Ralph McQuarrie designed.

 

[Visar Sulejmani]

Yeah it's def got that anamorphic vibe and I had heard from a trusted source it was 100% Alexa65. So stoked for this.

I absolutely Love Mindel's Work in The Force Awakens and I really love the anamorphic Panavision Film Look, but I would have really liked to see that movie shot on the ALEXA 65, even though Mindel & Abrams would probably rather take a bullet than do that and the camera wasn't even released back when they started shooting.

Still, I can' wait to see what the big three (RED, ARRI & Sony) are going to show us in the next few years, especially with the many new anamorphic lenses from Zeiss & Hawke.

 

[Phil Holland]

Rogue One looks great. Can't wait to see this whole Star Wars sub-series concept evolve.

cool

I've been harping about Film Format Size/Resolution Relevance for years here at REDuser and abroad.

Here's how this Resolution to Film Format Size Relevance breaks down:

- 2.5K in Super 16
- 4.4K in Academy 35mm 3-perf
- 5K in Super 35mm 3-perf
- 8K in VistaVision 8-perf
- 10-12K in 65mm 5-perf
- 14-16K in 70mm 15-perf

This is one of the big reasons I reacted so favorably towards the Dragon sensor technology as it put 5K in that Super 35mm area. It's what's giving us rather relevant VistaVision+ filming on Weapon 8K as well. If you look carefully at the DSMC[SUP]2[/SUP] camera line-up you'll see we have many digital film format alternatives if you take all of this into account.

As a motion picture profession, these are my minimum acceptable approximate resolutions to their respective approximate format sizes if we are talking about maintaining true motion picture film resolution relevance.

If RED goes 65mm I want 10-12K. Especially in the world of 4K and eventually 8K delivery (emphasis on 8K in this case).

 

[Note Suwanchote]

Rogue One looks great. Can't wait to see this whole Star Wars sub-series concept evolve.




I've been harping about Film Format Size/Resolution Relevance for years here at REDuser and abroad.

Here's how this Resolution to Film Format Size Relevance breaks down:

- 2.5K in Super 16
- 4.4K in Academy 35mm 3-perf
- 5K in Super 35mm 3-perf
- 8K in VistaVision 8-perf
- 10-12K in 65mm 5-perf
- 14-16K in 70mm 15-perf

This is one of the big reasons I reacted so favorably towards the Dragon sensor technology as it put 5K in that Super 35mm area. It's what's giving us rather relevant VistaVision+ filming on Weapon 8K as well. If you look carefully at the DSMC[SUP]2[/SUP] camera line-up you'll see we have many digital film format alternatives if you take all of this into account.

As a motion picture profession, these are my minimum acceptable approximate resolutions to their respective approximate format sizes if we are talking about maintaining true motion picture film resolution relevance.

If RED goes 65mm I want 10-12K. Especially in the world of 4K and eventually 8K delivery (emphasis on 8K in this case).

I like those numbers

Still haven't seen something that wows me like 70mm 15 IMAX.

 

[Visar Sulejmani]

I like those numbers

Still haven't seen something that wows me like 70mm 15 IMAX.

Agreed.

The negative (at 65mm as well) is insanely large and the amount of resolution you can get out of it, even if you don't master at that resolution, is an incredibly nice thing to have to make it future-proof.
That's one of the reasons why I don't understand how it took Hollywood this long to see that 4-perf 35mm may not necessarily be the state of the Art recording medium to choose for their biggest projects.

I can absolutely understand If movies with lower budgets use 35mm film instead of a larger negative to safe money (if film is the recording medium of their choice). But why aren't bigger productions, with budgets between 150-300 mio., doing this, just in order to make sure you get the most out of all the sets and surroundings you have shot.
James Gunn put it quite nicely when they asked him why he went with the WEAPON 8k: When you’re shooting a film at the level of Guardians of the Galaxy, the cost of film vs. digital is negligible – for me it’s an aesthetic and creative choice.

I would really love to see more projects shot with "future proof material", by shooting, as Phil already mentioned above, at a higher Resolution than you actually deliver or master.
Hell, Lawrence of Arabia (a cinematography masterpiece in my opinion) was shot on 65mm in 1962, and others even before that. Now it's 2016.

It's a shame that so many movies, even today, are still being shot at 2K -3,4K (I love the ALEXA, but I believe a bump in resolution is required), especially because we now have the possibility to go up to 6K or even 8K and than watch it at home at UHD.

But well, what do I know, I'm a guy that just bought his first pro-grade camera to fulfill his dream of shooting a movie.

 

[Note Suwanchote]

Agreed.

The negative is insanely large and the amount of resolution you can get out of, even if you don't master at that resolution, is an incredibly nice thing to have to make it future-proof.
That's one of the reasons why I don't understand how it took Hollywood this long to see that 4-perf 35mm may not necessarily be the state of the Art recording medium to chose for their biggest projects.

I can absolutely understand If movies with lower budgets use 35mm film instead of a larger negative to safe money (if film is the recording medium of their choice). But why aren't bigger productions, with budgets between 150-300 mio., doing this, just in order to make sure you get the most out of all the sets and surroundings you have shot.
James Gunn put it quite nicely when they asked him why he went with the WEAPON 8k: When you’re shooting a film at the level of Guardians of the Galaxy, the cost of film vs. digital is negligible – for me it’s an aesthetic and creative choice.

I would really love to see more projects shot with "future proof material", by shooting, as Phil already mentioned above, at a higher Resolution than you actually deliver or master.

It's a shame that so many movies, even today, are still being shot at 2K, especially because we now have the possibility to go up to 6K or even 8K.

I agree. Definitely noticed the increase detail. Also I love the aspect ratio and DOF in that format.

 

[M.Halsell]

That format definitely reinvigorates the theatrical viewing experience. The new formats will beg for increased optical performance.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The Weapon 8K sensor (40.96mm x 21.60mm) isn't as large as the Alexa 65 sensor (54.12mm x 25.58mm). Doing the math reveals that the Alexa 65 is 50% larger than the Weapon 8K--it's actually slightly larger than standard 65mm film capture, while Weapon 8K is actually smaller than Ultra Panavision.

I don't think it matters beyond a certain point. DPs on $50M+ pictures are going to choose one camera over another more for exposure range and color accuracy, not for sheer pixel numbers. I don't think there's a significant difference once you start comparing cameras over $25,000, particularly if they're used with great lenses and great lighting. The productions will endure more for reasons of story and character, not what they were shot on.

When you have movies like Hardcore Henry shot on GoPros, technical quality goes right out the window. The movie is going to succeed or fail mainly on how well it works as entertainment -- not because of how many pixels the camera has (or doesn't have). I would argue that even if they used GoPros that had 16K pickups, it wouldn't matter because it still looks like crap. Rogue One looks good because it has great cinematography, great art direction, and terrific post-production people, not solely because of the Alexa 65.

 

[Kenneth C Merrill]

I don't think it matters beyond a certain point. DPs on $50M+ pictures are going to choose one camera over another more for exposure range and color accuracy, not for sheer pixel numbers. I don't think there's a significant difference once you start comparing cameras over $25,000, particularly if they're used with great lenses and great lighting. The productions will endure more for reasons of story and character, not what they were shot on.

When you have movies like Hardcore Henry shot on GoPros, technical quality goes right out the window. The movie is going to succeed or fail mainly on how well it works as entertainment -- not because of how many pixels the camera has (or doesn't have). I would argue that even if they used GoPros that had 16K pickups, it wouldn't matter because it still looks like crap. Rogue One looks good because it has great cinematography, great art direction, and terrific post-production people, not solely because of the Alexa 65.

I never said anything that disagrees with what you're saying. I was just pointing out to someone less knowledgeable why some people are still looking forward to a 65mm Red camera.

 

[Kenneth C Merrill]

Rogue One looks great. Can't wait to see this whole Star Wars sub-series concept evolve.




I've been harping about Film Format Size/Resolution Relevance for years here at REDuser and abroad.

Here's how this Resolution to Film Format Size Relevance breaks down:

- 2.5K in Super 16
- 4.4K in Academy 35mm 3-perf
- 5K in Super 35mm 3-perf
- 8K in VistaVision 8-perf
- 10-12K in 65mm 5-perf
- 14-16K in 70mm 15-perf

This is one of the big reasons I reacted so favorably towards the Dragon sensor technology as it put 5K in that Super 35mm area. It's what's giving us rather relevant VistaVision+ filming on Weapon 8K as well. If you look carefully at the DSMC[SUP]2[/SUP] camera line-up you'll see we have many digital film format alternatives if you take all of this into account.

As a motion picture profession, these are my minimum acceptable approximate resolutions to their respective approximate format sizes if we are talking about maintaining true motion picture film resolution relevance.

If RED goes 65mm I want 10-12K. Especially in the world of 4K and eventually 8K delivery (emphasis on 8K in this case).

In some ways I agree with you; in some ways I don't. I think the Red lineup right now is doing a great job at segmenting itself based on format size. I think your numbers are solid for the most part, but I think somewhere along the way we hit the point of diminishing returns with resolution. The difference between 2K and 4K is pretty noticeable, but the difference between 6K and 8K is less noticeable to me. I doubt if anyone could tell the difference between 8K and 12K on an IMAX screen. Maybe even 6K vs 12K. At those numbers the weak point becomes the optical path and the human eye.

Im also a fan of large pixels so there's that too.

 

[Stacey Spears]

Up until now, I had no interest in Rouge One. The trailer really changed my opinion.

 

[Patrick Grossien]

Rogue One looks great. Can't wait to see this whole Star Wars sub-series concept evolve.




I've been harping about Film Format Size/Resolution Relevance for years here at REDuser and abroad.

Here's how this Resolution to Film Format Size Relevance breaks down:

- 2.5K in Super 16
- 4.4K in Academy 35mm 3-perf
- 5K in Super 35mm 3-perf
- 8K in VistaVision 8-perf
- 10-12K in 65mm 5-perf
- 14-16K in 70mm 15-perf

This is one of the big reasons I reacted so favorably towards the Dragon sensor technology as it put 5K in that Super 35mm area. It's what's giving us rather relevant VistaVision+ filming on Weapon 8K as well. If you look carefully at the DSMC[SUP]2[/SUP] camera line-up you'll see we have many digital film format alternatives if you take all of this into account.

As a motion picture profession, these are my minimum acceptable approximate resolutions to their respective approximate format sizes if we are talking about maintaining true motion picture film resolution relevance.

If RED goes 65mm I want 10-12K. Especially in the world of 4K and eventually 8K delivery (emphasis on 8K in this case).

Sorry, if I'm wandering a bit off the Star Wars topic here:
Phil, do you base your suggestions on measured resolution or as a "compared to RED / Bayer sensor resolution" guideline?

What I'm still pondering, and due to lack of a way to measure final resolution, I have no way of truly reaching a verdict: does a resulting 4K image still gain resolution when scaled down from more than 5K? Where's the point (assuming best glass) that a resulting 4K image can't be loaded with more detail? Is it 4.5K, 5K, 6k or something in between? The cup must be filled at some point.... (And for the sake of narrowing it down, I'm only talking RED bayer sensor imagery) There probably is a theoretical, mathematical answer to this question...

 

[Patrick Tresch]

To bad Alexa65 is not a valid Tier 1 UHD camera.

Lol

Pat

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The Weapon 8K sensor (40.96mm x 21.60mm) isn't as large as the Alexa 65 sensor (54.12mm x 25.58mm). Doing the math reveals that the Alexa 65 is 50% larger than the Weapon 8K--it's actually slightly larger than standard 65mm film capture, while Weapon 8K is actually smaller than Ultra Panavision.

So yes, it would be cool to see Red make a truly 65mm equivalent sensor.

I would love to see Red doing a 65mm camera and show that you CAN own a 65mm (compared to the Alexa 65 which you can only rent), other then that I don't see how it will sell much. Just owning a camera that has a 65mm sensor isn't even half of the cost of working with 65mm. First off you need cine-lenses capable of covering the sensor and they cost a lot. Second, you need to be able to handle 12K files in post production, for VFX etc. You need specialized follow focus in order not to get vibrations when pulling focus, preferably motorized fine-tuned FFs. You also need production capabilities to light with those lenses since all of them probably are T3.5 at their minimum, not to mention most lenses will be wider and reveal more of the set so the production value for the art direction goes up as well and in public having the crowd control needed.

There are so many hidden costs when shooting with 65mm that people miss. But for large productions with the means for going 65mm I would love to see it, but I don't think it's relevant for Red to do a lineup and sell them, they could just do it as Arri does and have them specialized and rented out for specific productions. I mean, having the R&D making a few 65mm cameras and then renting them out wouldn't be as much of a headache as trying to manufacture tons of them and sell.

As for the Rogue One trailer... it feels like the Star Trek reboot of the reboot story.

 

[Vadim Bobkovsky]

I had to re-watch the trailer couple times to finally notice what's off about the image. It was depth of field. Right, makes sense, it's 65mm sized sensor.

 

[Visar Sulejmani]

I had to re-watch the trailer couple times to finally notice what's off about the image. It was depth of field. Right, makes sense, it's 65mm sized sensor.

That and the massive amount of detail, even though it's only 1080 compressed on youtube.
The sensor is, after all, 3x times as large as Arri's standard 2,8K (not Open Gate) Sensor and quite a bit larger than any other Super35 or close to 35mm Sensor out there.

Can't wait to see what Assassin's Creed looks like, as that one was supposedly shot on Alexa 65 as well, but with the new Hasselblad 65mm Lens Series.