|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Superman Returns Article- What could have been shot in 65mm ends up in HDTV
|
Cameron Glendinning
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 845
From: West Ryde, Sydney, NSW Australia
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 07-06-2006 09:56 PM
quote John Pytlak
NOT TRUE! Color reproduction can be a serious issue with some digital cameras and recording systems.
Well I don't disagree that film negative is still by far the best medium for production. I personally would love the chance to shoot in 65mm! better still if I am going to dream, it was produced for 60 frame a second exibition.
To me video and digital production remind me of working with reversal film stocks, what you see is what you get! correct exposure is critical and ideally aprox 2/3 of a stop under. Where as a negative will also capture information in the shadows and highlights that can be graded for the release prints.
Fifteen years ago, cinematographers use to discuss what stock or brand of film that they would use for emotional content for a scene, ie Fiji's strong green for exteriors ect. I feel that digital production now tend to use Flame for this purpose.
The last chance that I had to shoot negative film was for a beer company for a cinema ad campaign a few years ago, The look on screen was not determined by the stock, but rather by the colorist and grading in the telecine suite. The end result was modervated by the colors of super 8 reversal film.
For high end TV commercials and video clips, at one stage it was not unusual in the telecine to remove all the colors back to B&W and then add them one by one.
Now in the days of the 4k digital neg are you saying that these things arn't happening? I recently saw a low bugget aussie thriller called Wolf Creek, it was shot in HD and had a very interesting filmic grade done in a Flame suite.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Burtcher
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 194
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-11-2006 10:42 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
My response: I don't care if the bits are recorded to tape, flash memory or chiseled into stone by cavemen. The image is still pretty similar to HDTV. It is certainly not equal to the resolution capabilities of 4/35 and not anywhere in the ballpark compared to 5/65.
The Sony SRW-1 VTR docked to the Panavision Genesis supports multi-frame rate 1080 HD recording and playback. It's capable of 1080P at 23.98fps or 1080i at 59.94fps. Three different recording modes are available: Standard Quality mode with a 440Mbps bandwidth; High Quality mode with a 880Mbps bandwidth (but the tape moves at 2x speed, with a 2:1 compression ratio), and 3D mode "where two separate 4:2:2 HD SDI inputs can be recorded simultaneously to the same tape, providing an efficient means of recording stereo full bandwidth 4:2:2 images for 3D productions." (Source: Sony Broacast Electronics)
quote: Bobby Henderson
I strongly doubt Blu-Ray can support the 150Mb/s-250Mb/s data bandwidths listed for 2K video in the DCI spec. If the video stream is getting crushed down the 20Mb/s-30Mb/s level similar to what HD-DVD and Blu-Ray video playback formats use then home theater stuff would be the bit for bit equal to any D-Cinema output based on that setup.
The Sony XDCAM format uses the 23.3GB Sony PFD-23 Professional Disc, which appears to be based on the Blu-Ray disc. Both the PFD-23 and Blu-Ray use a blue-violet laser diode with a narrower beam, and as a result, the track pitch is 0.32µm (compare to DVD's track pitch of 0.74µm, and CD's track pitch of 1.6µm). Sony's high-end XDCAM unit, the PDW-530, can record around 85 minutes of video at 25Mbps using DVCAM compression on a PFD-23, or for higher-quality video, the camera can record around 45 minutes of video at 50Mbps using MPEG IMX compression. The PFD-23 disc's theoretical max bandwidth is 72Mbps from a single laser head deck or 144Mbps from a dual laser head deck, so the disc comes close to being able to move as much data as the DCI spec specifies. If a Sony camera was able to move that much data to the disc, however, you would only get around 16 minutes of video at 144Mbps per disc. Discs are around $30 a pop and are re-writable. (Source: Tape Resources)
[ 07-12-2006, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Robert Burtcher ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 07-12-2006 11:40 AM
I thought the article was very interesting in the fact that the Director and Cinematographer/DP took the time to evaluate the choices they had for making their movie, and chose the one that was going to provide them the best results overall.
The way some people talk trash about using digital cameras for making movies, you'd think that they believed that no effort whatsoever was applied to creating the final product. This article shows that quite a bit of care was taken to create a final product that matched the intent of the Director and DP. Isn't that the point?
I think it would have been great to see a blockbuster movie done in 65mm again. It would have made for a lot of press about the relative merits of 70mm projection vs. 35mm vs. Digital Cinema, and maybe even stirred a debate or two. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, but I like the fact that the Director and DP at least gave it some thought, and then compared the results of 65mm and the Genesis system before choosing the path they wanted to take. In my opinion, this is quite a statement for digital cameras!
In many of David Lean's films, the landscape and environment was as much a character in the story as any of the actors. Even in Far and Away, the lush Irish coastline at the beginning set the tone for the beginning of the movie, and the wide open Oklahoma landscape was the goal of the entire story. Not having seen Superman Returns yet, I don't know, but does the environment play as big a role in the story?
Complaints about the alleged dreck that is coming out of Hollywood in recent times would not cease if those same movies were done in 65mm. (They would still suck, but then people could at least say how nice everything looked, I guess) I have enjoyed movies that have been done on very simple equipment. 28 Days Later was a good story. Everyone really liked Sin City, and that was done completely with digital equipment. Even the most vocal detractors of the Star Wars prequels weren't complaining about the visuals and how they spoiled the otherwise great stories being told.
Bryan Singer had a story to tell. He took some time and chose the approach he was going to use to tell that story and deliver it to audiences. He sounds like he was very happy with the result. Where's the problem?
Oh, and one comment about the topic's title. HDTV is 720p or 1080i delivered typically at a rate of around 18Mbps over the air. According to the specs , the Genesis camera is capable of capturing 12.4 megapixels via a Super35mm-sized sensor at up to 50fps with an equivalent depth of field to 35mm. I think calling it HDTV is more about vitriol than reality.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-12-2006 11:57 AM
One thing I dont see being discussed (or perhaps it was before), is that since the majority of the film is all CGI, and they go to a DI to output the negatives/prints, how good could a 70mm print look really? I mean the old films like Lawrence were printed right off the negative, so you got that going for you, plus the fact the majority if not all didn't have cheesy fake effects (maybe some rear screen projection here and there). So if Supes was shot in 65mm, scanned at 2k, and then outputted back out to 70mm 5 perf, is it really taking advantage of the format or would prints look just slightly better than 35mm?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[scream]](graemlins/scream.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic