Spider-man 2 Shooting Film, not Epic?

[Marc Wielage]

Post-conversation can be done right, especially if they're shooting for 3D. It's also a great way to give old movies a bit of depth. I heard Titanic looks nice, well it's J. Cameron behind it, one of the director's that have some love for 3D.

The three things you need in order to do dimensionalized 3D are: a) a lotta money (about $200,000 per minute), b) a lotta time, and c) shots that are specifically designed for 3D in mind. In both the cases of Avengers and Alice in Wonderland, they did all of the above. The real problem I think is scheduling. Clash of the Titans proves that you can't constantly re-edit and tweak the movie and then only give the 3D people 6 or 7 weeks to convert the movie to 3D. Avengers took almost 9 months, and even then, there were upwards of 2000 technicians working on it at any one time, delivering roughly 4 minutes of material a week.

So I think they can do a terrific job converting Spiderman 4 to 3D. It'll be no worse than Men in Black 3, which was also shot on film and converted after the fact, and that movie made money. The main reason the latter was shot on film I think was because they wanted to minimize on-set delays. My perspective is that shooting in 3D slows down the production by at least 10-20%, which is not good if you have actors who are improvising or a script that's still in the process of being rewritten.

So, getting back to Spiderman, it seems to me that they have hired Dan based on his previous work and Dan's tool of choice is film. It's what he knows how to use best and what he will probably get the best results from. On a movie like this, the cost of the cameras or film stock isn't really that big a deal. It's really about what they are trying to achieve visually.

Yes, I agree with all of what you say, Steve. I'd bet on a $200 million movie, the cost of film stock, developing, dailies, and scanning will probably be less than $2 million-$3 million. I'd bet the catering will cost as much or more than that, especially if it's a 4-5 month shooting schedule.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Your loss of FOV example/mock up is based on what data? It looks a little extreme.

BTW - great choice of movie - I love Last of the Mohicans (apart from teh wobbly sack-cloth rocks near the end!)

Epic uses a super 35mm sized sensor and Anamorphic lenses are designed for academy film so right away by design you've cropped your horizontal FOV, then unless you want a super widescreen image you have to extract an academy image out of the 16:9 frame so you lose horizontal FOV as well.
In fairness super 35 is wider then academy or so I is my understanding because it doesn't carry a sound strip so perhaps there would be slightly more horizontal FOV then implied but unlikely by very much.

 

[Ned Wilson]

In this case, I don't agree. Although there are times when I question the reasoning for choosing a particular camera, such as the one I documented here on Reduser, in general I feel the choice comes down to aesthetics and achieving a look for a movie, commercial, music video, etc. Although we all acknowledge that film use is on the decline, we should embrace it as an artistic choice, same with all of the digital cinema cameras. I have met and worked with DPs whose selection of Alexa was not due to blind allegiance to Arri but as a result of tests that led them to the conclusion that this was the camera for them. Some have been able to articulate this choice very well. I never got the impression they felt they were stepping backwards. Now there have been instances where I felt the Alexa was chosen due to blind allegiance or anti-Red sentiment. But in those instances, you just have to let people sink or swim. Such is life.

Wise words. I've pretty much unloaded all of my gear. I'm no longer an owner op. As much as I loved my Epic, I work mostly in TV and Features in NYC, where at least 4 of 5 productions shoot on Alexa. Maybe one in nine shoot on Epic. As you said, not out of blind allegiance bur aesthetics but perhaps even more so, economics.

 

[Ned Wilson]

DOP's and Directors seem to like Alexa time and time again over Red. They seem to care less about higher resolution except for very specific things. It seems the Red is being used for VFX shots and where the cameras small form factor is the difference....not the image. Why is this in peoples opinions?

Where to start:

- A stop more in the highlights. That's a big deal. Less window treatment or less fill. Translates into crew, gear and time savings.
- Many DP's/Directors feel it has a wider color gamut. Less green bias.
- Less noise at higher ASA's saves time/money in lighting.
- Most TV production just shoot to SxS Pro Rez 444. Takes a step out of post transcoding or having to add a box. More money saved.
- Balances beautifully on shoulder with no rigging. More time / money saved on change over from support to handheld. Handheld is in just about every show these days.
- Fully budgeted shows use Fiz, Cinetape, AC's monitor, Zoom motors, etc. All can be powered from the Alexa body. I/O module does not.
- No 20 minute black balance at the start of the day. This is a killer as often the AC's have a pre-call because of that. Mo money.
- All the in/outs are integrated into the body. Less hassle.
- Alexa's have a reputation for being super reliable. Rarely do you have to reboot. I've never seen one just brick for no reason.
- Negligible fan noise in standby makes monitoring levels in rehearsal easier for sound. Epic's fan can be difficult in this respect
- Primary settings have external dedicated buttons. Easy to use. Can't be inadvertently knocked into a different spec. DP's love security.
- Eyepiece has and elegant and easy eyepiece leveler solution. This is vital especially if your operate with wheels.
- Most TV is 1080p deliverable and most movie theaters don't project much beyond that - so audience or producers don't perceive the 4k advantages

I still see Epic on commercials, videos and sometimes brought in for high speed work on narrative as a C body.
- Commercials / videos like to punch on 5k.
- transcoding a day or two's worth of dailies isn't as big a deal/cost as it is on a show or a feature.
- they do more high speed work
- small body is great for car mounts, jib work, steadicam, etc.

I'm pretty format agnostic and even more so now that I no longer own a package. While some say it's moving backwards from using the "the best" in the world to use anything but Epic, I personally believe the best depends on the requirements of the job. For most jobs I do, they don't exploit the best of the Epic's features so we use Alexa's mostly. Sometimes, I've used super 8 film cameras (loads of fun) because it's a special look. To say something's "the best" is like saying the best way to build a house is with carbon fiber not old dated stone.

 

[Ned Wilson]

that rules out film as well... where do you think the term 'rolling shutter' originated? :shocked:

Film does not get the rolling shutter artifacts endemic to CMOS. Not even close. It's nothing close to a rolling shutter.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Where to start:

- A stop more in the highlights. That's a big deal. Less window treatment or less fill. Translates into crew, gear and time savings. Generally, yes about 1 to 1.5 stops in highlights. HDR does enter the debate but it's not something you can use on every shot, so this all becomes situational.
- Many DP's/Directors feel it has a wider color gamut. Less green bias. Getting color temp and tint correct on RED is very important. It's very easy to mess up. These camera systems do see color differently though.
- Less noise at higher ASA's saves time/money in lighting. Yes, although I do find both cameras wok optimally between 320 and 1600. Outside of that and I think they both start to fall apart, although not in the same way perhaps.
- Most TV production just shoot to SxS Pro Rez 444. Takes a step out of post transcoding or having to add a box. More money saved. Although when shooting Log-C I have found that thisis not always the case. Often editors will tell production they don't want to edit in Log-C and they are not big fans of using LUT plugins, especially if it requires a render. So, I've been on several shoots where they have me transcode the Log-C ProRes 444 down to ProRes with a LUT burned in for their offline edit files.
- Balances beautifully on shoulder with no rigging. More time / money saved on change over from support to handheld. Handheld is in just about every show these days. Hard to argue this one. RED cams take some rigging to get handheld right, although I've often kept it simple and just use a shoulder pad attached to my body. But Alexa has more of a broadcast camera feel.
- Fully budgeted shows use Fiz, Cinetape, AC's monitor, Zoom motors, etc. All can be powered from the Alexa body. I/O module does not.
- No 20 minute black balance at the start of the day. This is a killer as often the AC's have a pre-call because of that. Mo money. In fairness, RED seems to have got the time down to 12 minutes or so. However, Alexa does keep the sensor at a constant temperature which is an advantage.
- All the in/outs are integrated into the body. Less hassle. I still love the Red One because of this. But the advantage with Epic is you get to strip it down to a small size which is beneficial for a lot of situations. But when used as a fully built camera I do like integrated.
- Alexa's have a reputation for being super reliable. Rarely do you have to reboot. I've never seen one just brick for no reason. I have seen Alexa go down on three occasions, one actually did overheat and shutdown. All cameras that have computer components in them are vulnerable to failure. Knock on wood, I've been fairly lucky on RED shoots, although they too have their issues.
- Negligible fan noise in standby makes monitoring levels in rehearsal easier for sound. Epic's fan can be difficult in this respect Agreed, this can be an issue. But, part of the tradeoff I suppose for packing in a ton of technology into a small body.
- Primary settings have external dedicated buttons. Easy to use. Can't be inadvertently knocked into a different spec. DP's love security. Epic's menus could use some refinement in my opinion but they are not too bad and you can lock them.
- Eyepiece has and elegant and easy eyepiece leveler solution. This is vital especially if your operate with wheels.
- Most TV is 1080p deliverable and most movie theaters don't project much beyond that - so audience or producers don't perceive the 4k advantages I've always subscribed to the "Acquire higher, deliver a sliver" mentality. I felt this way when I did audio as well. Even if the end result is 22khz MP3 I don't want to capture the audio at that. However, I don't fault DPs for choosing Alexa or other cameras that shoot under 4K. Sometimes it's not all about resolution. But, if you can get the look you want and capture in higher resolution like 4K or 5K, then that's great. But I concede that 4K alone won't get producers to jump. There are a lot of other factors involved.

I still see Epic on commercials, videos and sometimes brought in for high speed work on narrative as a C body.
- Commercials / videos like to punch on 5k.
- transcoding a day or two's worth of dailies isn't as big a deal/cost as it is on a show or a feature.
- they do more high speed work
- small body is great for car mounts, jib work, steadicam, etc.

I'm pretty format agnostic and even more so now that I no longer own a package. While some say it's moving backwards from using the "the best" in the world to use anything but Epic, I personally believe the best depends on the requirements of the job. For most jobs I do, they don't exploit the best of the Epic's features so we use Alexa's mostly. Sometimes, I've used super 8 film cameras (loads of fun) because it's a special look. To say something's "the best" is like saying the best way to build a house is with carbon fiber not old dated stone.

My thoughts are in yellow.

 

[Dmitry Burenok]

First of all, it is not started yet. I mean shooting of amazing s-man. Second - even if they choose film instead of digital - it doesn't matter. 60% of it is rendered 3D and compositing. Third - yeah rolling shutter could be a bit pain in the ass, especially for 3D rig. And finally - I don't like the movie. I mean - entire idea of re-starting it in less than 5 years of original series. Totally stupid idea. Don't think film could help to make it better.

 

[Marc Wielage]

In fairness super 35 is wider then academy or so I is my understanding because it doesn't carry a sound strip so perhaps there would be slightly more horizontal FOV then implied but unlikely by very much.

Quite a bit more horizontal area in Super35, as shown by this diagram:

The importance of being able to recompose the image north or south can't be underestimated, particularly in green screen VFX. Having said that, I think that 3-perf is a perfectly viable alternative, especially if you're shooting scope, and that still gives you some weasel room up and down.

 

[Andy White]

Epic uses a super 35mm sized sensor and Anamorphic lenses are designed for academy film so right away by design you've cropped your horizontal FOV, then unless you want a super widescreen image you have to extract an academy image out of the 16:9 frame so you lose horizontal FOV as well.
In fairness super 35 is wider then academy or so I is my understanding because it doesn't carry a sound strip so perhaps there would be slightly more horizontal FOV then implied but unlikely by very much.

I thought I'd do some more googling

Here's a few interesting ones -

http://www.lovehighspeed.com/shooting-anamorphic/
http://benmoulden.tumblr.com/post/11945430925/alexa-v-epic-anamorphic-resolution-comparison

And this is interesting in the idea of the FOV you get in non Ana mode - http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?75418-3-5-1-Anamorphic-on-Epic - I suppose you could shoot 5K FF and then aspect ratio correct and center extract a 2:35:1 - that would give two options in post.

I'm working away from the studio at the moment, so no access to my Epic or Ana's... but some testing might be in order

Now, wonder what 6K Ana mode will be on the Dragon...

But that's for another thread

 

[M Most]

- Most TV production just shoot to SxS Pro Rez 444. Takes a step out of post transcoding or having to add a box. More money saved.

This might be the case on some productions, but on "studio level" television series it is not the case, for four major reasons. First, the vast majority of series are cut on Avid, so the material needs to be transcoded to DNxHD (usually DNx36) for fluidity in editing. Second, most shows are not willing to provide enough SAN storage in editorial to accommodate the approximately 4TB per episode that is required for the Prores444 files. Third, most shows record Alexa material using LogC, which no editor or producer working in television series is willing to look at through the editorial process. And finally, dailies on those shows require both double system sound sync and multiple deliverables uploaded to different places, some of which are done for every shot and some of which are done only for select takes. These kind of complications almost always dictate that the material go through a dailies process, either near set or at a facility (although it's increasingly not in facilities).

Your comment about saving time is valid, but not in the way you implied. It's valid because on most dailies systems, the Alexa files can be processed to multiple deliverables much faster than Epic files, even given Rocket support. On a typical Colorfront system, for instance, Epic files will process to multiple deliverables at a slightly slower rate than real time (i.e., <24fps) with Rocket support. Alexa Prores files, however, can be processed at anywhere from about 48fps to 65fps, depending on how many deliverables are being made and of what type. So the step is not eliminated, but it is a lot faster.

 

[Ned Wilson]

My thoughts are in yellow.

Good points. I'm hoping that with Dragon and perhaps Meizler, Epic gives Alexa a run for its money or surpasses it. I'm sure it will in some specs departments.

That said, your rebuttals are all well and good, I'm just pointing out what I see and hear primarily from Producers (who pay the bills). Regarding reliability, I talked to my local rental house and they gave me a good idea on what goes down more and has to be serviced.

Regarding the highlight advantages, I'm hoping/expecting Dragon closes that gap. I'm betting it will based on preliminary reports.

I never had a problem with Epic handheld as I just left the grips on the rods and threw a shoulder pad on when going on shoulder. Takes two seconds. But far too often, I see people determined to get "rigged" up and losing valuable set time and producer's paitence.

In all, I think owner/ops know their Epics inside and out and how to configure them to be more practical. It's at the rental house level with non-owners (most cameramen) and AC's who are used to standardization that much of the flak comes from. As where an Alexa is pretty much the same from house to house.

 

[Ned Wilson]

This might be the case on some productions, but on "studio level" television series it is not the case, for four major reasons. First, the vast majority of series are cut on Avid, so the material needs to be transcoded to DNxHD (usually DNx36) for fluidity in editing. Second, most shows are not willing to provide enough SAN storage in editorial to accommodate the approximately 4TB per episode that is required for the Prores444 files. Third, most shows record Alexa material using LogC, which no editor or producer working in television series is willing to look at through the editorial process. And finally, dailies on those shows require both double system sound sync and multiple deliverables uploaded to different places, some of which are done for every shot and some of which are done only for select takes. These kind of complications almost always dictate that the material go through a dailies process, either near set or at a facility (although it's increasingly not in facilities).

Your comment about saving time is valid, but not in the way you implied. It's valid because on most dailies systems, the Alexa files can be processed to multiple deliverables much faster than Epic files, even given Rocket support. On a typical Colorfront system, for instance, Epic files will process to multiple deliverables at a slightly slower rate than real time (i.e., <24fps) with Rocket support. Alexa Prores files, however, can be processed at anywhere from about 48fps to 65fps, depending on how many deliverables are being made and of what type. So the step is not eliminated, but it is a lot faster.

Thanks for the clarification. I should've noted that many of the shows I've been on go to DNX as well. All are Log C. I was wondering why they choose often to shoot SxS alot.

 

[M Most]

Thanks for the clarification. I should've noted that many of the shows I've been on go to DNX as well. All are Log C. I was wondering why they choose often to shoot SxS alot.

If you're asking why they choose to record using Prores444, it's due to a number of factors, including the fact that it's 12 bit, 444 sampling, and a solid compression codec. It's also widely supported for conforming on Avid equipment via AMA relinking and on other devices via native import methods.

 

[Jon Jones]

I still get embarrassed when I'm shooting my EPIC, and there is no sound in the room, except for the ultra fan inside of my EPIC.... I was shooting with an amateur the other day who was sporting an XL-2, and we were shooting a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu club. Afterwards, we were doing interviews with x soldiers about PTSD, the fan on the EPIC was blaring as loud as can be, and the other shooter kept on commenting on how annoying it was. I was the only professional shooter there, and it was making me look like I had the cheapo camera.

 

[Pax]

Jon Jones- We put our EPICs on manual 45% when rolling, and 55% when not rolling, and I haven't seen the fan automatically kick on (this is shooting at 70ºF-80ºF ambient temps).

 

[Zharmane Washington]

BIRD