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 :)

Soderbergh is a wild man...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, it's not about the resolution or the "squeeze". It has very little to do with aspect ratio (as it's been proven that there a far better methods to create a 2.39 frame than using anamorphic lenses).

What it is about is the inherent characteristics that anamorphic lenses create that no amount of software or resolution or chips can emulate.

It's not for everyone. Probably not for most. But it's important to some of us.
 
did Jim finance all those Soderberg projects for publicity?
 
Deanan said:
(or else why would they be selling their CF cards?).
Click to expand...

Hi,

To recoup some of the investment in soon to be obsolete CF cards. Assuming you are asking for a possible explanation!

Stephen
 
Deanan said:
(or else why would they be selling their CF cards?).
Click to expand...

Hi,

To recoup some of the investment in soon to be obsolete 8GB CF cards. Assuming you are asking for a possible explanation!

Stephen
 
Steven is a RED ONE camera owner... you guys are too funny.

Jim
 
I don't think soderberg would barter his reputation for funding- I'm sure he can find money
 
Has anyone read that Soderbergh will be doing DI at the end of each day of shooting? If you have a source for that information or know where I can read more about this online (or in print), please post here.

What would the advantage of doing this each night be over doing it at the end of post?
 
I don't see how anyone could afford to record out digital footage to 35mm film every day on a movie shoot. It costs around $50,000 to record a two-hour movie from digital to 35mm on a laser recorder, imagine what 20 or more hours of footage would cost over the course of a feature.

"Digital intermediate" is a term getting thrown around so loosely these days that for some people, they just mean electronic color-correction. Strictly speaking, at its narrowest definition, digital intermediate means "film->digital->film" where a digital stage replaces the traditional intermediate film post-production steps used on something shot on film for finishing and releasing a movie theatrically. The term sort has been expanded to include almost anything prepared digitally for theatrical release in both film prints and digital cinema masters. But nowadays, people are tossing term around to include simply color-correcting a movie digitally, or doing the work in a D.I. theater rather than a traditional telecine bay.

I wouldn't be surprised if Soderberg was looking at his RED footage now & then in a D.I. theater just to see it on a large screen, nor if he was occasionally having shots recorded out to film as tests. And he may be having his dailies color-corrected as well.
 
raquez said:
Has anyone read that Soderbergh will be doing DI at the end of each day of shooting? If you have a source for that information or know where I can read more about this online (or in print), please post here.

What would the advantage of doing this each night be over doing it at the end of post?
Click to expand...

Well, it's common for video dailies to do what I've heard referred to as a "best light". It's something in between a "one light" and a supervised transfer. Basically, the colorist does quick scene to scene corrects to make the shots look "good"

When shooting film the idea can backfire since then the DP has no idea what is actually on the film.

Since when working with Red the you must process the footage to look at dallies anyway, (unless you are recording the rec 709 from the video out as your dailies) SOME sort of color correct is indicated at that stage even if it's a simple one analogous to a "one light" in film. Basically, just a single LUT you use as your standard LUT for making dallies. But if you have someone who is skilled enough doing the dailies processing I guess they could spin the balls and make it look a little less raw in the process. But there seems to be very little point in it. At best they could only really attempt to make each scene look consistent take to take, but it's not going to save much time on the final color grade. Also, the colorist might hide mistakes made by the DP from the DP by "fixing" them. I think most DPs would rather see the equivalent of a "one light" to have a better base line for checking their work.

The one advantage I can think of (and it not a big one) for making stuff look good as you go is that you could show works in progress that look less rough to a lay-audience. It might also make studio execs feel more confident also (if stuff just looks more polished straight out of the camera) But in that case it would still be more efficient to just go though and do a quick color grade on the EDIT you intended to show. A good grading system can conform back to a revised edit anyway, so none of the grading work would be totally lost if the edit changed. It would simply be added to if required and re-rendered/re-conformed.

Now, perhaps the edit and grade are happening AS Soderbergh is still shooting? He could have his editor finish reels or sequences as they are shot and the colorist working on them as they come out of edit. That kind of makes sense depending on the arrangement with the post house and how much time/money you want to spend there.
 
there are rumours that the first movie, guerrilla, will be shown at the cannes film festival.
 
From what I understand, Steven cut both of them on FCP and is finishing on Scratch. I think he did do filmouts along the way to make sure he knew where he was with the footage.

Steven is very smart... much more than normal, IMHO. Not because he is shooting RED. He just is.

He told me he will shoot "The Informant" starring Matt Damon... all RED again. He seems to be very happy with the images he is getting.

Jim
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I don't see how anyone could afford to record out digital footage to 35mm film every day on a movie shoot. It costs around $50,000 to record a two-hour movie from digital to 35mm on a laser recorder, imagine what 20 or more hours of footage would cost over the course of a feature.
Click to expand...

Apologies to all for going off-topic, but where are you able to get digital to 35mm for $50,000?

For 1920x1080 HD to 35mm using Arrilaser we were recently quoted an estimate of £300,000 (UK pounds sterling) for a 100 minute feature, here in the United Kingdom.

Any pointers on good post-houses (worldwide, we will travel) that do this for around $50,000 would be VERY much appreciated David ;)
 
Booth said:
Apologies to all for going off-topic, but where are you able to get digital to 35mm for $50,000?

For 1920x1080 HD to 35mm using Arrilaser we were recently quoted an estimate of £300,000 (UK pounds sterling) for a 100 minute feature, here in the United Kingdom.

Any pointers on good post-houses (worldwide, we will travel) that do this for around $50,000 would be VERY much appreciated David ;)
Click to expand...

$300,000 is usually more the cost of a feature-length D.I., which is more than just the laser recording costs.

But if this was simply the cost of a film-out alone -- no scanning, no color-correcting, no conforming, no dust removal, no effects or transitions added, etc. -- then you are being overcharged. An Arrilaser recorder transfer of a 100 minute HD-shot movie is generally around $70,000-80,000 at the high end (at a place like EFILM) and more like $50,000 at smaller houses (Alpha Cine in Seattle for example, or Digital Film Lab in Copenhagen, if they still exist.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top