This is topic Superman Returns Article- What could have been shot in 65mm ends up in HDTV in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004711
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-05-2006, 07:35 AM:
One quote of interest:
quote:
“It dawned on me that the reason the 65mm test blew me away was that we were watching it projected in 65mm, and the ability to exhibit this film that way today would be almost non-existent,”
I guess nobody told him they were going to end up releasing in IMAX, not to mention the hundreds of theatres that could have played 70mm.
quote:
http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=20718
HD Heroes
Jun 1, 2006 12:03 PM, By Michael Goldman
Striving for a Unique Filmic Look with Genesis
When, at press time, Superman Returns rolled into the digital intermediate phase at Technicolor Digital Intermediates (TDI), Burbank, Calif., it was very close to a complete movie, awaiting only the completion of a handful of visual effects shots. As that was happening, director Bryan Singer paused to express great satisfaction with his workflow and the resulting content. Singer gives part of the credit for these results to the choice he and his cinematographer, Newton Thomas Sigel, ASC, made to deploy the Panavision Genesis digital camera system for the film's image acquisition needs.
Ironically, given his early commitment to the then-unproven Genesis system, Singer insists he's “a regular, old-fashioned guy” who very much wanted a filmic ambiance weaved into his tribute to the legacy of the big lug in the blue tights. In fact, he didn't jump into the HD pool quickly, or easily.
“We cut The Usual Suspects [1995] on film, don't forget,” he says. “It took me a while to convert to the Avid, let alone shoot a big, romantic movie, which Superman Returns is, with digital cameras. I'm kind of surprised we went this way, to be honest, but we did. I talked to all the guys [shooting with digital cameras] — George Lucas, Michael Mann, Jim Cameron, who is a friend of mine. I was at Lucas' ranch with all those other filmmakers a few years ago when he had his digital summit to educate everybody about HD. That was before I made [X-Men 2], and I was hardly a convert at that point. I wasn't ready. But I got to talk to a lot of filmmakers about this process, and I became more open-minded by the time I took over this project.”
Why Genesis?
When deciding on the recording medium for Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer and DP Newton Thomas Sigel, ASC, shot tests with Super 35 and 65mm, the latter of which impressed them visually, but not in terms of cost and convenience. They opted to use the Panavision Genesis digital camera system in an attempt to replicate the visceral feel and rich color of 65mm, as illustrated in some of these shots, but with the production advantages of HD.
Photos by David James. ©2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.—U.S., Canada, Bahamas, and Bermuda. All Rights Reserved.
Still, it was Singer's desire to experiment with different kinds of rich, filmic looks during his early tests, combined with Sigel's intense research into Genesis, that was most responsible for moving Superman Returns into the digital acquisition column. Singer says he had “a brief, crazy notion” to shoot the movie on 65mm film, and that eventually led him and Sigel into the Genesis universe.
“We shot a test with [lead actor] Brandon Routh, purely for the sake of experimentation, on 65mm, using an old camera that Tom Sigel had access to — just a few takes,” Singer recalls. “We shot the screen test in Super 35 and 65mm, and when we printed and compared them, we both realized the large-format material was so vivid and had so much resolution. At that point, I actually started thinking about shooting the movie that way, but, of course, the cons outweighed the pros. No one in Australia, where we were going to shoot the movie, processes 65mm; the cameras are way too heavy; the film stock is very expensive. It was just way too cumbersome of a technology for a movie like this.
“But Tom Sigel mentioned he had heard about this new camera that Sony and Panavision had developed together from the ground up. He told me that if we used it, we could use the same [Super 35] lenses we were familiar with, with Panavision-accessible equipment, and that he thought that maybe, because they were laying the image off onto a single chip, that the image, in terms of color and dynamic range, might be close to the richness we were looking for.”
According to Singer and Sigel, filmmakers did a wide range of tests in Australia, comparing Genesis to Super 35. “We filmed it all out, locked ourselves in a screening room in Sydney, watched every bit of it, and made a decision between the two of us to go with the Genesis camera,” Singer says.
Sigel adds that, based on dailies, preview versions of the movie, and several filmout tests ahead of the DI, the production's initial commitment to the format paid off, in his opinion. He says, “[The format achieved the] smoothness and creaminess that 65mm had, while still giving us something new and different.”
“It dawned on me that the reason the 65mm test blew me away was that we were watching it projected in 65mm, and the ability to exhibit this film that way today would be almost non-existent,” Sigel says. “Then, I recalled how impressed I was with the Genesis tests I had seen at Panavision. It also meant I could use the same film lenses [Primo zooms and primes] I always use. Not just similar lenses, but the actual lenses I have been using for 10 years, which are kept available for me at Panavision. We tested the camera backward and forward, and I had never seen HD that way. I was intrigued by the idea that we could have a tonal and dynamic range close to film, and yet, give it a new, fresh look at the same time. We thought Genesis had better range than the [Sony HDW-F950 cameras], it didn't have to be tethered like the [Thomson Viper FilmStream] cameras, and it was further along in development than some others, like the Dalsa [Origin] and [Arriflex D-20] cameras. During production, we were able to throw the camera around, put it on a Steadicam, fly it from cables, and all kinds of other applications. Although it was early in the camera's life, I'm happy to say, it actually worked out the way we planned it. We got the resolution, detail, and the elegant look we wanted.”
And it was indeed early in the camera's life when the project launched — so early that Superman Returns actually accelerated the system's ongoing evolution. When the project began, for instance, the production did not yet have access to the software necessary to record images at speeds higher than 24fps. Therefore, they initially began shooting miniatures using film cameras. The ability to shoot 30fps and, later, 50fps soon came along, however, and Sigel decided Genesis could work fine on a motion control rig. He therefore switched to using Genesis for miniatures, except for a couple of instances when ultra-high-speed photography was required.
“As Genesis evolved, we worked with Sony and Panavision to add all sorts of things we needed — cables, power ports, Hollywood handles, and other amendments to their original design, which I'm sure will probably be used in future films by other filmmakers,” Singer adds.
The Palette
On set, filmmakers relied on 24in. Sony HD monitor (pictured: Singer with actor Kevin Spacey) while shooting.
Photo by David James. ©2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.—U.S., Canada, Bahamas, and Bermuda. All Rights Reserved.
The basic workflow during production involved recording to a Sony SRW1 VTR, usually docked onboard the Genesis camera on location in Australia. Original camera tapes were taken to post facility Cutting Edge in Sydney, where clones were made for archival and security purposes, and where sound was synched to picture. Dailies tapes in the HDCAM-SR format were then made and color corrected by colorist Trish Cahill at Cutting Edge, before being sent back to the production and digitized for editing.
This method was part of Sigel's overall plan to create much of the color palette in postproduction, based on specific parameters. Thus, Cahill's color timing work on dailies was based on a specific look designed in preproduction by Sigel, working with Stephen Nakamura, senior colorist at TDI, who would later handle the final color grading process during the DI. Filmmakers, in fact, took the unusual step of bringing Nakamura to the set in Australia, and then to Cutting Edge to work with Cahill to establish the general palette, while retaining flexibility for specific changes and details to be added later during the DI. Sigel also provided reference stills to Cahill each day that he personally color corrected in Photoshop to give her a template for specific shots.
“This was the first time I had worked this way, in terms of going to the location and working with the dailies colorist extensively early on,” explains Nakamura. “The idea was to make sure we were all on the same page, since this movie has a specific look. Tom Sigel was very concerned that everyone get used to the look during dailies, so that by the time they got to the DI, people would not be surprised that it looked different from what they had become accustomed to with dailies. So we designed the look and applied it during dailies, and by the time we got to the DI, we had basically pre-timed the whole thing. That is unusual in the sense that we don't normally do a lot of secondary color correction and defocus and things for dailies. But it paid off, because Tom Sigel knew he would be applying a certain portion of the look in post, and we needed to build that into the dailies for everyone to understand what he was going for.”
Singer manipulates models on a rooftop for the film’s bank-heist scene—a sequence shot with the Genesis camera operating on a Scorpio remote head.
Photo by David James. ©2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.—U.S., Canada, Bahamas, and Bermuda. All Rights Reserved.
Sigel adds that this whole issue of pushing Genesis-acquired imagery toward the digital intermediate, while keeping a clear and consistent vision of how the images would look on film along the way, was the subject of great concern from the project's earliest days.
“One of the main things I tested when looking at the Genesis camera was to see, when I got to the DI, would I lose the flexibility that I always had with an original film negative?” Sigel says. “What I found is that I had the same range of manipulation available to me as if I had shot on film. That gave me a lot of confidence that I would not have to sacrifice in the DI by originating on Genesis.
“Having said that, there is still a big difference in the DI when you originate digitally with this kind of system, and that difference is, simply, that what you see in the DI environment and what you see on the final filmout is not the same, exact thing. When you do a DI from something originated in film, we have created a series of LUTs so that, even though you are projecting data while doing color correction, you are projecting it in film space, and the original material already has the inherent qualities of film and grain built into it. When you do a DI from material that originated digitally, you start with an image that has no grain and none of the softening characteristics of film. No matter how many LUTs you have, there will always be a difference between what you see when you digitally project an image acquired on film and when you digitally project an image acquired digitally. The digital image, in other words, will always pick up some grain and softness along the way, because, for exhibition in [almost all] theaters, you are still outputting back to film. That will always be an additional process you go through, to add grain and softness, before outputting to film. That's why, during testing, we were constantly going back to film to see what it would look like.”
Performance
Singer’s crew shoots a key scene using the Genesis camera system with a Scorpio head on a Super TechnoCrane.
Photo by David James. ©2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.—U.S., Canada, Bahamas, and Bermuda. All Rights Reserved.
On set, Sigel monitored imagery from a control station consisting of a 24in. Sony HD monitor, a waveform monitor, and a computer for recording digital stills and lighting information. He concedes this monitoring approach involved a cultural change for him as both the DP and an operator on the project.
“I've operated ‘A’ camera on every movie I've ever done, and in that sense, I was disappointed that we did not have an optical viewfinder on the one hand,” he says. “But what I found was that the 24in. monitor was a better viewfinder than any film camera I've ever seen. When you shoot with an optical viewfinder, you look at something off a mirror, and just get part of the light through a flickering shutter. We have all grown used to that over the years, and we do a good job with it. But if you compare that to a crystal-sharp, 24in. HD monitor, there is no comparison. You see focus, shadow detail, and other things on the monitor that you would never see in a viewfinder. So, in that sense, it's sort of a tradeoff. If you are not operating, it's superior, but if you are operating, then yes, it is a conundrum. On the one hand, you get a better image when you look at the monitor, but on the other hand, you are not getting that image while operating the camera, unless you are working off a remote head.
“But we did use remote heads a lot, and I must say, the camera held up great. We did a flycam, Steadicam, lots of crane stuff. It's a little heavy for Steadicam, but we were able to do it, and for everything else, it was pretty much used like a film camera. For this movie specifically, I did not find any situations where there was something I wanted to do that I couldn't do.”
Sigel says Genesis performed exceptionally well, as anticipated, in low-light situations, but adds that he eventually learned to bend the camera to his needs, rather than trying to tailor the imagery to Genesis' perceived strengths.
As Genesis evolved, Singer (pictured, right), Sigel, and the crew added cables, power ports, Hollywood handles, and other tools to the system—a setup Sigel asserts will be used for future projects.
Photo by David James. ©2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.—U.S., Canada, Bahamas, and Bermuda. All Rights Reserved.
“We shot a lot of day exteriors and had no problems,” he reports. “Everyone talks about how the camera sees into the shadows better, and that is generally true, and you are basically better off underexposing rather than over-exposing like you would with film negative. But having said that, my first few days, I was overly courageous and started going with so little light that, later, when I wanted to play with the image, manipulate it, I had boxed myself into a corner. So you have to be careful not to get swept away about shooting with limited light. You can run into lots of the same problems that you run into when you underexpose a negative and do a DI, saying you want to see more of this or that, and then, when you try to bring it up, you get a lot of video noise.”
Sigel was also extremely satisfied with the camera's performance shooting effects plates. But, he points out, the process of crafting LUTs for vendors, while similar to film-world procedures, is a road less traveled, and therefore somewhat more complicated when it comes to brand-new digital cameras.
“Creating LUTs, all that kind of stuff, is not that different from what we would do for vendors if we shot film, but the difference is that work has already been done in the film world,” he explains. “If you tell the vendor what stock you are using and give them other details, they know it already — it's in their system. With HD, there is more data management; it isn't all well established. But procedurally, it's not that different than what you would expect with any major effects film.”
Entering the DI phase at press time, Sigel said filmmakers were on track for “creating color space in post.” Following the edit, the movie was conformed and data-managed at Digital Sandbox, Los Angeles, before beginning the color timing phase at TDI.
Sigel (pictured) prepares two Genesis systems, set to record to Sony SRW1 VTRs, on the Daily Planet set.
“The Genesis gave us sort of a creamy kind of illustrative quality, which is what we designed, but the finishing touch is all being done in the DI, based on the look we created earlier,” Sigel says. “It's a subtle balance.”
Singer specifies that this basic approach to the DI is somewhat different, from a philosophical point of view, from the typical color-grading methodology on movies shot digitally.
“It's not really a digital intermediate in the sense that we shoot digitally — it's more like a delivery element, I guess you would say,” Singer explains. “It's different than, say, what George Lucas would do on a Star Wars film. He shoots digitally, drops in all visual effects, and then grades everything as a whole. We, on the other hand, are grading each image — the equivalent of color timing each image separately, the way you would in a conventional timing session with film, except using technology that permits us to work on digital files. Then, we are putting the effects in and doing a complete re-grade. It's a little more complex than the way others have done it for these kinds of films, and we are sort of working it out as we go along.”
Nakamura adds that with the basic color scheme pre-built on the front end, his job during the DI largely revolves around customizing imagery using his Da Vinci 2K system's ability to change gamma curves, highlight key defocus, and layer on secondary color corrections. As with most projects, his ultimate success with tweaking the imagery to Singer's specifications, he emphasizes, was largely dependent on the quality of Sigel's photography.
But, he adds, the project's use of the Genesis camera did make parts of his job easier.
“For one thing, I don't have to run much noise reduction with this material, because it was so clean,” says Nakamura. “And when we went to go out to film, the film grain is there, but I don't have to run as much noise reduction as I do when they shoot film. Also there is obviously no dirt fixing or scratch removal. The images are just so clean. So avoiding most of that stuff, I can get right to creative issues, and since the photography was so excellent, we're able to give filmmakers the results they are looking for.”
Sigel says the Genesis, as expected, performed well in low-light situations, such as this exterior shot in Australia at sunset. He warns, however, that in post, the darker shots caused the same problems as trying to work with an underexposed film negative.
Photo by David James. ©2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.—U.S., Canada, Bahamas, and Bermuda. All Rights Reserved.
That end result, Singer and Sigel are confident, will be a painterly, filmic look that evokes the era that gave birth to Superman comics in the 1930s. But Sigel insists he would prefer to see any richness achieved on his digital negative left out of the ongoing digital-versus-film debate, because it's all beside the point.
“Yes, we got that certain filmic quality in the sense of having the tremendous range of tonality and contrast and color we wanted. And yet, I would like to think that, little by little, through baby steps, we might actually move beyond the question of, ‘Does it look like film?’” Sigel says. “I think we are heading toward something more like an evolution of the look of film — something that has elements of film that we still find beautiful and appealing, and yet, has a new quality to it, as well.
“And that's no different than what Kodak and others have been doing with their film stocks anyway — they are evolving them. So, what ‘looks’ like film anyway? I mean, films from 100 years ago were, in fact, shot on film and have a ‘filmic’ quality, but they don't resemble movies shot today on film, or movies shot on HD. So there is no reason to think that with HD capture, not to mention the arrival of the digital intermediate, that we can't produce movies with a filmic sensibility, but which at the same time, continue that evolution of the look of motion pictures generally.”
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-05-2006, 08:19 AM:
quote:
[65mm] was just way too cumbersome of a technology for a movie like this.
A big, Hollywood blockbuster with more money behind it than ANY other type of movie, and a high-end film format can't be justified? I seem to be missing something. Apparently huge movies like this need the simplest possible way to film/edit/release it?
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-05-2006, 09:07 AM:
quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
I seem to be missing something
Yeah, you missed the sentence just before that one:
quote: Lyle Romer
No one in Australia, where we were going to shoot the movie, processes 65mm; the cameras are way too heavy; the film stock is very expensive.
So they tried out the Genesis, they got the image they wanted from it, the DP was happy because he got to use lenses he was already familiar with, they enjoyed a faster and more efficient workflow and saved a shitload of money on what turned into an overbudget $200 million picture.
quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
Apparently huge movies like this need the simplest possible way to film/edit/release it?
Why not? Why not make it easy?
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-05-2006, 11:47 AM:
The article only mentions 65mm production costs. After that, there's the additional costs to strike 70mm prints. And, sorry to say, a few will be ruined within the first few days of release.
That said, my own feeling is that regardless of the additional cost of 65/70mm production and prints, it represents a very small cost of the overall buget. Undeveloped negatives can be flown to where it can be processed, since the shots are checked by video; cameras are on tripods and Panavision made a new line of lighter 65mm cameras only about 10 years ago; and negative costs are just not *that* expensive. Lastly, 35mm blow-ups to 70mm release still look great, and have no effect on location production.
If the some of the actors and higher-level producers slept in regular good hotels instead of $5000 a night palaces, ate regular good food instead of flying in a fancy chef and dropped some of the other outrageous perks, the difference would easily pay for 65/70mm production.
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-05-2006, 12:12 PM:
I've nothing against making it easy, but my point was that if the BIGGEST budget movies can't justify an expensive, cumbersome route to get the results you originally want to set out for, then what movie could? If they were actually satisfied by what they ended up going with, then great, they saved money.
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-05-2006, 12:17 PM:
Yet David Lean was able to haul those "cumbersome" 65mm cameras around the desert. Australia's another story ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-05-2006, 12:17 PM:
That settles it, then. Digital is even better than 65mm! Let's go home. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-05-2006, 01:08 PM:
quote: Steve Scott
Yet David Lean was able to haul those "cumbersome" 65mm cameras around the desert. Australia's another story
I don't think it's so much of a hauling issue as it is a shooting issue. Lean shot movies back when almost everything was locked down onto a tripod, and camera movement was rather simple. But Singer's got hand-held cameras banging around the inside of an airplane, and all sorts of other crazy shit. Filmmakers often complain about how using an anamorphic lens gets in the way of doing a lot of things they'd like just because of the size. I'm guessing that that's nothing compared to a 65mm camera.
And there really aren't that many 70mm houses. I think that Chicago has one, and that's an art house. True, there's Imax, but after watching SUPERMAN RETURNS in that format, I was reminded that all of that format's benefits are outweighed by the horrible distraction of constantly dirty field flatteners (or whatever they're called).
There was a video online about a year ago of Singer and his team in a screening room watching test footage after it had been decided to shoot on HD. They were trying to assess how it would change the work flow, and one of the problems was that it would take an extra day to get the footage back to the editor. Singer seemed unhappy about this. I'm sure he wouldn't have been willing to wait for dailies to come from overseas.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-05-2006, 02:36 PM:
You have to take into account that the general public doesn't care about 65mm or digital or whatever. They care about seeing a quality image projected that they can see, and sound they can feel. With so many houses woefully lacking in quality projection, most movie makers are willing to accomidate the new digital medium, both in production and in the back end of projection. It solves the problems of quality in most cases.
It also makes things easier on movie makers. With equipment becoming less cumbersome, it becomes less taskful in planning shots and scenes. It becomes much easier to shoot on location instead of using large soundstages. It creates an entirely new realm of movie making that has previously been too difficult and therefore too costly.
I welcome the digital realm. I only see my films digitally now. I am tired of projectionists that cannot focus to save their lives. By embracing the new technology, we help it along during its evolution.
Just remember that movie makers must please the general public, so concerns from a very small minority will never be taken into any consideration.
As for budget, when I start to spend too much money, and I need to curtail it, I don't look at something and say "hey, it's not much more than you have already spent, go ahead and get the plasma screen", I actually have to take into account if spending even more money is really worth it. I know you can make lots of arguments about shooting on large format film, but lets face it, there has to be limits to how much money is enough to spend on it.
Ciao
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-05-2006, 02:59 PM:
Those who shot Superman Returns are not as skilled as those who shot Lawrence of Arabia. I think Hi8 would have been even easier than HDTV since you can watch the results right in the camera veiwfinder. I am curious why they would choose the more difficult HDTV over the easier Hi8. Why not make it easy?
Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 07-05-2006, 05:06 PM:
Maybe filmmakers today are just wusses.
It reminds me of the Danish "Dogme 95" movement. Those folks' fear/revulsion/indifference towards technology is of Amish and Luddite proportions. All I can say is, if you don't like technology, you picked the wrong medium. Write a novel, please.
To paraphrase Kennedy, one should make a movie not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-05-2006, 05:11 PM:
quote: Mike Schindler
the horrible distraction of constantly dirty field flatteners
I think you've just been going to a theatre with a horribly dirty booth, and have been unnecessarily jaded toward the medium. After the first few days of runs over PTR's (to clean up any stray bits accumulated during assembly), we don't have a speck of debris left on our prints! We could run without wiping for a show and still have a crisp picture.
quote: Christopher Seo
To paraphrase Kennedy, one should make a movie not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
That's an invaluable sentiment, and I would apply it to ALL creative endeavors. ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
Push the envelope, not because it'll save money or it'll be a quick way to get passable results (which it likely won't); but do it to further the challenge, to give the final product the power and integrity you aspire to see in it! Greatness and genius don't strive for middle ground and stay there because it's comfortable.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-05-2006, 05:16 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
I am curious why they would choose the more difficult HDTV over the easier Hi8
Or even better! Why not just dump videotape altogether and make an entire movie using Canon EOS digital still picture cameras slaved to laptops, just like Tim Burton did for The Corpse Bride?
Or, yeah, like Joe says, why not use just little POS handheld consumer video cameras to make a movie, just like the crews of 24 Hours Later, Full Frontal, The Anniversary Party, Dancer in the Dark, Robot Stories, Chuck & Buck, The Buena Vista Social Club, Pieces of April, Tadpole, Bamboozled, The Blair Witch Project, The Ballad of Ramblin' Jack, Gengis Blues and on and on . . .
Why not make it easy on yourself and your budget?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-05-2006, 07:09 PM:
EVEN EASIER: Don't make a movie at all. I can't believe they would make a movie when it is far easier not to make any movie at all. The Superman Returns crew obviously want it as easy as they can get, so I'm surprised they didn't choose this option.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-05-2006, 08:32 PM:
quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
I think you've just been going to a theatre with a horribly dirty booth, and have been unnecessarily jaded toward the medium.
I thought that this was the case, which is why I went to SUPERMAN RETURNS at a different theater than I had in the past. Unfortunately, the problem was worse. I'm sure that you're right, but the fact of the matter is that the theaters I can get to have this problem. Also, for some reason I can't figure out, the sound sucks in these two theaters.
As for the other thing, there's a difference between something being hard and something being just not practical. I'm willing to bet that many shots in SUPERMAN RETURNS would not have been possible with a 65mm camera. Then it becomes a question aesthetics, and whether or not the added resolution is worth compromising other aspects of the movie. I'm not saying that it's not. I'm just saying that there's a lot to consider.
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-05-2006, 08:47 PM:
The resolution I felt was exceptionally good. It was the skin tones that really bothered me. Almost like colorized black and white.
Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-05-2006, 09:50 PM:
quote:
“It dawned on me that the reason the 65mm test blew me away was that we were watching it projected in 65mm, and the ability to exhibit this film that way today would be almost non-existent,”
Bummer! This makes three productions in the past year or so where 65mm origination was seriously considered. The other two that I'm aware of were "The New World" (which did manage to incorporate a small amount of 65mm, although the majority was originated in 35mm anamorphic) and Wim Wenders' "Don't Come Knocking."
It really is too bad that it appears 65mm photography (for commercial motion pictures) is a thing of the past, but I think fans of large-format, reluctantly, must accept that the cons of shooting in 65mm outweigh its benefits and that this IMAX DMR silliness is better than nothing. Plus, the number of suitably-equipped theaters in which to project (in 5-perf 70mm) a first-run, studio-produced wide release has been reduced to pathetic numbers. Even where the equipment still is in place, if a print was delivered today, would the staff even know what to do with it?
It's disappointing still to realize that here in Southern California, "Superman Returns," despite the lack of any 5-perf 70mm prints, has been booked into several 70mm houses, including the Village (in Westwood), the Chinese (Hollywood) and Edwards Big Newport in Orange County, all first-class venues that in "The Day" would've likely got a 70mm print had they been made.
quote: Lyle Romer
I guess nobody told him they were going to end up releasing in IMAX, not to mention the hundreds of theatres that could have played 70mm.
I bet there's less than a hundred at this point.
It's hard, and sad, to realize that at its peak in the early 1990s, 5-perf 70mm was installed in well over 1,000 screens.
A fascinating stat to ponder (and disgusting from a nostalgic perspective): During the week of June 8-14, 1984, I estimate there were FOUR-HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN 70mm prints between six titles in service in the U.S and Canada.
The major studios relied upon Lucasfilm's Theater Alignment Program to get involved in the evaluation and tuning of the theaters and to monitor the labwork. The infrastructure was there...and then it was destroyed in the name of "progress."
[ 07-06-2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Michael Coate ]
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-05-2006, 10:26 PM:
I'm way beyond tired of reading these interviews from filmmakers who say, "we thought about making the movie in 65mm, but decided not to do so."
My answer to that kind of thing: why did you even bring it up then? Who gives a fuck about a project thinking about using 65mm? It is NOT 65mm unless it actually used the process!
These guys should not be throwing around terms like 65mm, especially when it sounds like they're using it as a means of promoting a standard 35mm project or something merely videotaped in HDTV format. Basically they're trying to ride on the coat tails of 65mm without actually using the format.
I read one report that stated Superman Returns cost $250 million to produce. With such a huge budget it seems like there would be enough money to shoot the entire film in IMAX 3D. But no! Let's videotape it in HDTV format and blow up to IMAX and manufacture some 3D stuff and try to pass it off like the show was actually made in IMAX.
The arguments against using 65mm are not convincing. Not all 65mm cameras are gigantic, heavy monstrosities. Sure, there's not all that many 70mm equipped theaters. But lots of big equipment roll outs have happened in support of big movies before. If Superman Returns had actually been filmed in 70mm and some effort was made to get theaters in key places booked, I guarantee some 70mm installs would have happened -even if they were only temporary. They would have found some way to make it happen.
The thing I find far more destructive is the choice more major productions are making in shooting on video. They like the convenience of the format. But they are sacrificing the long term marketability of their property by doing that. 1080p HD may be today's best home video format. That will change. In perhaps a decade or two video formats may boast a much higher pixel count.
The 5-perf 65mm/70mm format may be that icky ass "analog," but it is not locked down into a video resolution standard already more than a decade old. The imagery may be analog, but it is also highly scaleable. A movie shot in 65mm will gracefully transfer to a video format with 10 times the pixel count of 1080p or even higher than that.
I think it's perfectly acceptable for independent movies to shoot on video or any project where the budget is limited or there are really severe time constraints. But it's stupid for major productions to do the same. They should at least be shooting on 35mm if not moving to larger formats like VistaVision and 5/65.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-05-2006, 11:03 PM:
quote: Joe Redifer
Those who shot Superman Returns are not as skilled as those who shot Lawrence of Arabia.
As unfortunate as it is, Joe actually hit the nail on the head on this one. Today's movie makers are raised on different equipment than those of the past, and as such there are fewer and fewer DP's willing or able to use 65mm.
This isn't a bad thing, nor should it give us pause to question the value of movies or their makers. All this means is that different equipment is coming along that will aid in movie making instead of hindering it.
There is an entire new generation of movie makers that will be able to further their craft and advance the technology to do so.
quote: Christopher Seo
Maybe filmmakers today are just wusses.
It isn't a matter of being a wuss. It is instead a matter of choosing equipment to further a project that best suits the goal in question.
If the project is a 2 million dollar project, we say it's ok to use digital, but if it's 200 million, they have to use 65mm in order for it to be good? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Don't look at the budget, how much people get paid, or whatever. Instead look at the finished product on its own, never taking into consideration any other factor.
WAS IT GOOD OR NOT? ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
I loved the film. I don't care how much money it cost or what they shot it on. None of that changes how much money I paid to see it or how much I enjoyed it.
Ciao
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-05-2006, 11:13 PM:
You may have enjoyed the show, right here in 2006.
How will it play to people in 2026? How will it compare visually to movies made then? Lots of film snobs, such as myself, can enjoy an old black and white movie. But such people are a small minority.
$250 million is a hell of a lot of money to spend on a movie and only think of it in short shelf-life terms.
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-05-2006, 11:58 PM:
About a year ago I bumped into one of the camera operators who was working on Superman. I am not sure of which unit it was. This was his first digital production and he was describing how difficult it was to use the cameras viewfinder for fast action replay. After some takes one would have to go over and watch it on the Directors HD monitor to actually see what he got!
Now I've known this guy for about 17 years, since we use to work together in the old fashioned cine camera section of a TV station. His credits include "Daylight" "Waterworld" and countless others,
inexperienced he is not.
Last week I phoned yet another old work mate from that era, He had just shot Kenneth Brennagh's latest film. I was surprised to hear that if they had had more time to test the digital cameras, they would have shot it that way and not on the new Fuji stock that it was filmed in. Simply due to the cost of scanning the footage! Now wasn't Kenneth the last person to actually shoot a feature in 70mm, Hamlet?
The filmmakers are moving on, shouldn't we projectionists have an open mind?
Ps the color of finished productions is now the colorists job nothing to do with film stocks or styles of camera.
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-06-2006, 12:08 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Let's videotape it in HDTV format
The Panavision Genesis camera does not record to videotape. Its uses hard drives in a detachable compartment that looks like a small film magazine.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-06-2006, 03:41 AM:
There are HDTV cameras out there that record to flash RAM already. No moving parts (to record on). So far I think you can only get 8 gigs of RAM for the camera, which limits you to about 4 or 5 seconds frames of uncompressed footage, which is what it shoots in.
Tape is obsolete. Anyone who still uses tape probably still flushes their own toilet and wipes their own ass, too! Welcome to the future!
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-06-2006, 03:58 AM:
There was something on the Apple site the other day about the BBC; I've just looked again, but I can't find it now. It seems they're now using Final Cut Pro on some of their productions, as the cost is so low. What was more interesting is that they're moving to a 'fully tapeless' production and post production system. What media they will use for archival storage of finished work isn't clear, but it looks like film could have a longer life ahead of it than video tape. For home use, I doubt that VHS recorders are going to still be in the shops in a couple of years; several chains have already stopped stocking them.
Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 07-06-2006, 05:34 AM:
Bobby Henderson, Joe Redifer and others have already nailed it.
I was very dissatisfied with the look of SR.
As someone who (now) buys a ticket to see a movie in a theatre, I am not interested in the improved workflow of the crew or the production. I want to see long shots that are full of detail, color and contrast, not mushy, 7th generation, bad release print quality that is fobbed off as the latest in video camera technology (but they 'saved money' on the most expensive feature yet produced!).
Could this be the first remake with technically lower quality visuals than the original? That's embarrassing!
Why be defeatist, as in, 'most theatres can't play 70MM anyway'? Well, why not address this and make it happen? $260 million sure buys a lot of stuff! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
In short, why not ask how we can get technology to help us get THE BEST POSSIBLE RESULT, rather than THE SOFT OPTION?
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-06-2006, 05:48 AM:
quote: The Wise Joe Redifer
Tape is obsolete. Anyone who still uses tape probably still flushes their own toilet and wipes their own ass, too! Welcome to the future!
This is my new favorite Joe-ism. I will cherish the privilege of having heard it in my own lifetime, for years and years to come.
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-06-2006, 06:23 AM:
quote: Paul Linfesty
The Panavision Genesis camera does not record to videotape. Its uses hard drives in a detachable compartment that looks like a small film magazine.
No, that's not true at all. That's a Sony HDCAM/SR video tape recorder that's docked at the top.
And tape is very, very far from obsolete. While most television networks are on playout servers for air, and all camera manufactures have non-tape recording formats, the vast majority of non-ENG video based production in America whether for TV or cinema is still onto tape, and it's going to be around a while longer. Once in awhile you see a production that lays off onto a hard drive, and Panasonic is trying to move to PCMCIA sized flash memory, but it hasn't yet taken hold on a wide scale, and the cost of the cards is huge. The best format to come along is Sony XDCAM, which records HD onto Blu-ray DVD, and is now available in a Cinealta configuration for feature production. Everything I've seen from this format looks great, and from personal experience, it's a pleasure to work with.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-06-2006, 09:11 AM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
Ps the color of finished productions is now the colorists job nothing to do with film stocks or styles of camera.
NOT TRUE! Color reproduction can be a serious issue with some digital cameras and recording systems. Likewise, no current digital camera can match color negative film for exposure range --- more care is needed with digital cinematography to avoid losing image detail, especially in the highlights.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-06-2006, 12:39 PM:
quote: Paul Linfesty
The Panavision Genesis camera does not record to videotape. Its uses hard drives in a detachable compartment that looks like a small film magazine.
Mark already commented on the Sony tape format actually used.
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.
quote: Mark Ogden
The best format to come along is Sony XDCAM, which records HD onto Blu-ray DVD, and is now available in a Cinealta configuration for feature production.
To get that video to fit on a little 5" disc, how severely are they data compressing the video?
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. That sort of thing represents a huge marketing opportunity for electronics stores. They can seize upon the slogan "as good as the movie theater" and actually be correct.
If a movie production shoots the movie on film they can have it scanned at whatever resolution is needed and run at the best bitrates any D-Cinema system can support. The original imagery is not locked down into a TV standard that is already over a decade old.
Posted by Paul Gordon (Member # 3320) on 07-06-2006, 04:07 PM:
Cameras are just tools, if you use them right they will look good regardless of format. That being said some formats work better then others depending on the story!. Super Man could have been great, instead it was ok. I think Hollywood is becoming lazy. Over 20 years ago they shot Tron in 65mmm then animated 90% of the film with optical printers, it still stands up today!! Also any DOP and I know a few would rather film in FILM then HD. HD is great for TV, sports and Docs but for a 200 + million dollar picture, give me 35mm at least. I'd truly love someone to brake the norm and shoot something in 65mm again, something with no effects, just a good story and a great visual landscape. Even if it only screens in 35mm do it just to say fuck you to digital. HD and digital formats are pushed by the effect houses... not by the DOP's
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 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.
Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 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 ]
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 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.
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 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?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-12-2006, 12:24 PM:
quote: Scott Jentsch
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.
That "12.4 million pixel" claim is misleading. That sensor is functioning like a 3-chip RGB array on a single chip die. Arri's new digital camera does the same sort of thing. When you actually get down the number of real full color pixels output by the camera it is indeed down into the 2-3 million pixel range. 1080i/1080p HDTV has a 2 million pixel image.
Commercial movie theaters have a real potential of being hurt by home HDTV setups, especially when the movies themselves are effectively being made in resolutions equal to or just slightly above current HDTV standards.
I agree over the air broadcast HDTV is highly data compressed. A D-Cinema master of something shot on film isn't so severely compressed and can feature data bandwidths well above anything a video camera can record.
quote: Mike Heenan
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?
Any movie put through a DI process, which is still typically only 2K, won't gain much of any benefit in being output to 70mm prints. You could show the print on gigantic screens 35mm could not illuminate properly, but that's about it.
2K (and even 4K) digital intermediates and CGI would also function as a bottleneck on levels of image detail for 70mm material. Higher resolution levels are needed to get somewhere in the neighborhood of the sharpness of 70mm.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-12-2006, 12:32 PM:
quote: Mike Heenan
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?
65mm origination would certainly have very fine grain and the ultimate in sharpness. But the sharpness advantage would be reduced by using only a 2K scan. There is no doubt that 70mm prints have significant advantages in filling huge screens --- that's why Warner Bros. partnered with IMAX and printed over 5 million feet of 70mm IMAX 3D prints, and why those showings continue to do good business.
Even 35mm 4K scans and output are practical today (e.g., Stuart Little 2"), so don't discount higher resolution scanning and output if there were a desire to do so.
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-14-2006, 03:15 AM:
quote: Cameron Glendinning
The filmmakers are moving on, shouldn't we projectionists have an open mind?
In the end, it's not going to matter one way or the other, Cameron. The projectionists don't make the decisions.
Whatever will be, will be. ![[scream]](graemlins/scream.gif)
Posted by Cameron Glendinning (Member # 3516) on 07-14-2006, 11:56 PM:
Totally agree with you Tim, infact I think I was probably taking about myself! I am personally finding it hard to move on. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-15-2006, 01:41 PM:
I hear ya. Felt the same way about losing carbon. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2