Red and Lucasfilm?

[Tom Lowe]

So Indy 4 starts shooting in June. Obviously, Lucas will be pushing for HD, while Spielberg will want to stick with 35mm. Spielberg's best argument against HD is that the resolution and quality are "not there yet."

Even the Genesis is only 1080p, which is not "future proof" since people will have displays at home surpassing 1080p within a few years.

As far as I know, the only HD camera that might work for Indy 4 is the Red. Dalsa is just too big.

Question for Jim and the gang: Have you guys been talking to Lucasfilm?

And don't plead the Fifth! :D

[chuck colburn]

Hi Tom,

The Red is certainly going to make production a lot easier due to its size, (smaller heads, jib arms, batteries etc.) But I'm not quite sure by what you mean by the Dalsa being to big. I haven't seen one in person, but judging by the photos it doesn't look any larger than a Pana Platinum. And since it's being used on an Arri gear head it can't be any heavier.

http://www.dalsa.com/dc/origin/dc_design.asp

Chuck

[Shawn Nelson]

Great idea, but I severly doubt that Lucas and Spielberg would want to be first wave adopters of new technology on a movie like Indie 4, only a month after the product was released. I could see them doing a one-day Red side-by-side test but not the whole movie.

[Alex Boothby]

But isn't that exactly what Lucas did on Star Wars Episode 2 and bits of Episode 1?

[Isaac Brody]

From what little I read about Indy 4 it sounds like they won't be relying on many digital effects. They're planning on shooting it very similarly to the first three. I expect they're shooting on film with very little CGI. Spielberg is pretty pro film too, I doubt he'd suddenly change his tune.

[Poi Boy]

Probably film but I would guess lots of cgi.
Aloha
-A

[Mardi_Gras]

Should the RedOne ship as scheduled and with all of the anticipated specs, by April (NAB), then quite frankly I see Lucas and Spielberg agreeing to include it in their prod schedule. It'll be a no brainer, since they'd have a few weeks at least, to test one of them.

Even though Spielberg is largely considered a traditional "film man", he will be wooed over to the very filmlike 4k images the RedOne will produce, making their prod decisions even easier.

Just my guess.

[Don Woods]

Well I don't think just to have the camera ready and shipping in time is enough of a step forward for a big studio to use the RED ONE Cam. Although I agree that the Red would be a perfect fit for Indy 4. Big studio's need to see a full production pipeline in place and proven. From actual shooting with the RED ONE, to the footage all the way through the post production pipeline. Although I and most of use belive this will be a simple thing to acomplish. But big studios with big money on big films, like things that have been tried and true. That is why the porn industry and independent film makers, are the first to push new technolagey into the main stream. And then the studio's catch on.

[Michael Struthers]

Lucas and Spielberg are both counting on making millions and millions and no way are they going to risk it with a new tech just out the box.

However, I imagine the first dp that shoots a feature (that looks great) with a Red One will be in strong demand at top dollar for a few years as more directors say "Let's try that look..."

[Jeff Kilgroe]

That is why the porn industry and independent film makers, are the first to push new technolagey into the main stream. And then the studio's catch on.

...I tell ya, 4K porn is where it's at. ;)

[Tom Lowe]

Great idea, but I severly doubt that Lucas and Spielberg would want to be first wave adopters of new technology on a movie like Indie 4, only a month after the product was released.

Well Lucas literally help design and push forward the F900 working with Panavision and Sony. You cannot tell me Lucas is afraid being a first-wave adopter! But Spielberg is another story.

What I was wondering is if the Red team has been talking to Lucasfilm at all? Who knows, if Lucas is intrigued by the camera, he might talk Spielberg into trying it out, maybe doing second-unit stuff. Think of how big that would be for Red.

It was just a thought.

[Poi Boy]

I don't think lucas and spielberg are sitting around thinking "if only we could get a less expensive digital cinema camera that takes the place of film: then we would be truly free to create " I think not.
Aloha
-A

[Mardi_Gras]

Trust me, Lucas has used and obviously loves digital. If the Red team are not already in talks with him, he most probably would have heard of it. My guess would be, he will try it out, love it and then include it amongst other traditional capture methods in his workflow.

Spielberg will respect his wishes and the RedOne would have made history, making all owners of this piece of tech gem, a priceless bunch ;)

[Tom Lowe]

Well, listen, I could definitely see Lucas and Spielberg sitting down and having a long, detailed conversation about all this. Lucas is on record, from like two years ago, saying that he has been trying hard to get Spielberg to switch to HD. Lucas is religious about HD.

But Lucas will lose this argument, because all he can offer Spielberg is 1080p (Genesis). Then all Spielberg has to say is, "Not enough resolution, George," and the conversation is over.

My guess is that, one way or another, Lucas is going to try to bring some HD cameras into this shoot. I could be wrong, but you know he wants to. And remember, Lucas is partially bankrolling Indy 4 out of his own fat pocket.

Edit: I like your optimism, Mardi!

[Mardi_Gras]

But Lucas will lose this argument, because all he can offer Spielberg is 1080p (Genesis). Then all Spielberg has to say is, "Not enough resolution, George," and the conversation is over.

... And with 4k+ resolution from the RedOne, Lucas's arguments, plus of course being a co-exec producer, will hold sway and RedOne will be snuck in, making Spielberg go, "Whatever you say, George, its your money, too"?[/QUOTE]


Edit: I like your optimism, Mardi!

Thanks Tom.

[Poi Boy]

I just don't think it is that important to them for this film. Lucas is definately an HD head and will undoubtedly buy many Red cameras but I can not believe that they are sitting around thinking about usung red for indie 4.
Aloha
-A

[Tom Lowe]

You guys are probably right, but let's face it, Lucas took a huge risk shooting his $100-million Attack of the Clones on an almost brand-new F900. He didn't do that for his health... he is very, very interested in promoting HD technology.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I hate to ask the obvious but:

Why wouldn't Spielberg shoot on film? He's used to it, he likes it, and it'll probably produce better results.

[Digigenic]

...and it'll probably produce better results.
And an uncomfortable silence suddenly fell over the reduser forums before somebody whispers..."oh no he just didn't"

[Poi Boy]

I don't think it would be a better result but Spielberg doesn't need to save a million on his 100 million dollar movie. He will be one of the last to go digital whereas Lucas loves the workflow and red will be a no brainer for him.
Aloha
-A

[Isaac Brody]

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/8527/tumbleweedah9.jpg

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/images/smilies/evil.gif

[Jaime Vallés]

Indy 4K.

[Tom Lowe]

Indy 4K.

Yeah! :D

[Isaac Brody]

Starring Harrison Ford, in grotesquely stunning HD detail, all 64 years of him. :cool:

[Stephen Webb]

Indy won't be in 4k, regardless of George Lucas' wishes.

A BBC programme called The Culture Show over here in the UK recently did an hour long special on Spielberg where he spoke to Mark Kermode (UK Film Buff) about his life, career and future projects (of which Indy 4 was one he said he was really looking forward too).

He stated very clearly that when everyone else has switched to Digital, he will still shoot on Film - in fact he'd continue to shoot on film while the medium still existed. He said the smell of working in film, physically editing on a Moviola, was the same that Cecil B DeMille, Orson Welles et al had smelled when crafting masterpieces, was the "smell of our art" and that he'd likely be the last using it, but he wasn't going to change. He said Amblin would be at the forefront of new technology, but that he personally would never make the switch.

His closing comment on the subject was "it (film) has been good enough for audiences for a hundred years. Why wouldn't it be good enough anymore?" Trust me, if you'd seen how passionate he was on the subject you wouldn't have any doubts that he's sticking with film.

It doesn't matter what George Lucas thinks of new technology (and lets be honest, picture quality is hardly a concern of his), Spielberg will call the shots so Indy IV won't be digital.

[Tom Lowe]

Shocking! thanks for that info, Stephen.

[Ace]

http://www.kyoproject.com/ad.jpg

[Tom Lowe]

http://www.kyoproject.com/ad.jpg

HAHAHHAA.

[Mardi_Gras]

I still honestly believe that should the RedOne produce 4k+ images with exposure latitude and dynamic range comparable to 35mm film, then Spielberg won't stop Lucas from having his way of at least... including a RedOne in his workflow... mind you, as part of a more comprehensive acquisition options that they obviously have at their disposal.

[Greg Lowry]

Spielberg has worked with the same editor, Michael Kahn, for all of his films. Kahn is still using KEM flatbeds and Moviolas by choice. There is no way that Spielberg will change his process in the near future. Any suggestion to the contrary is ill-informed.

[PaulClements]

Indy won't be in 4k, regardless of George Lucas' wishes.

A BBC programme called The Culture Show over here in the UK recently did an hour long special on Spielberg where he spoke to Mark Kermode (UK Film Buff) about his life, career and future projects (of which Indy 4 was one he said he was really looking forward too).

He stated very clearly that when everyone else has switched to Digital, he will still shoot on Film - in fact he'd continue to shoot on film while the medium still existed. He said the smell of working in film, physically editing on a Moviola, was the same that Cecil B DeMille, Orson Welles et al had smelled when crafting masterpieces, was the "smell of our art" and that he'd likely be the last using it, but he wasn't going to change. He said Amblin would be at the forefront of new technology, but that he personally would never make the switch.

His closing comment on the subject was "it (film) has been good enough for audiences for a hundred years. Why wouldn't it be good enough anymore?" Trust me, if you'd seen how passionate he was on the subject you wouldn't have any doubts that he's sticking with film.

It doesn't matter what George Lucas thinks of new technology (and lets be honest, picture quality is hardly a concern of his), Spielberg will call the shots so Indy IV won't be digital.

Yeah I saw that Stephen, and was going to write it up until you did. He said that everyone he works with would be using it but he'd be the last. There is simply no way he would use digital and he has so much power over any film who the hell would tell him differently? No studio exec is going to be that interested in how it's shot and Lucas is hardly about to stem one of his friends passions by banning the use of film... The making of DVD however is a different matter :), they could use a Red One for that but it doesnt exactly matter.

Nice picture Acehole, I think a good poster ad would be a picture of Spielberg sniffing a RedOne to see whether it smells good enough!

[Mardi_Gras]

Spielberg has worked with the same editor, Michael Kahn, for all of his films. Kahn is still using KEM flatbeds and Moviolas by choice. There is no way that Spielberg will change his process in the near future. Any suggestion to the contrary is ill-informed.

With all due respect, Greg, I think its ill-informed to suggest that the Oscar winning editor, Michael Kahn, cut all of Spielberg's pictures.

Spielberg's monster hit, E.T, was NOT cut by Michael Kahn. It was actually cut by another Oscar nominated editor, Carol Littleton (Manchurian Candidate).

BTW, I think Lucas can conveniently add a RedOne to his workflow if he feels the need for it. Spielberg will understand.

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

And an uncomfortable silence suddenly fell over the reduser forums before somebody whispers..."oh no he just didn't"

Ha ha ha... if someone picks up on it this thread will be very very long, any way no way of knowing untill we get our REDs and start making our own tests.

[Simon Dean]

So has anyone not considered adding a film smell generator in to the Red ONE. Maybe you could win over more film people that way - smellyvision...

[chuck colburn]

Hey! I've got an idea. Let Stevie shoot in what ever format he wants. Hell, shoot tha damn thing in 65mm. Might as well find a use for all those 65 cameras (Arriflex, Showscan, Panavision etc.) sitting around gathering dust. Now here's the idea.... the Redone is so compact you could use it for the video tap ! That way Georgie could plug a direct video out into the BNCR plug thats been installed at the base of his brain stem. And also the vidiots over at the village would be frothing at the mouth. It's a win win situation !!!

[Mardi_Gras]

Trust me, Lucas and Spielberg will personally appear on this forum 2nite... they will thrash it out themselves... man to man, how about that?

[Graeme Nattress]

If Speilberg wants to still shoot film, that's up to him, but he should at least use 65mm, which looks so much nicer than 35mm, and scanned at 4k would be a great source for a super DI. It might even look as good as if he'd shot RED. :-)

Graeme

[Steve Gibby]

He said the smell of working in film...was the "smell of our art"

And art can't be created in digital cinema? With all due respects to Spielberg, I now prefer doing my art digitally. I also prefer the smell of money - being generated and staying in my bank account as net profit.

[Emanuel A.]

Digitally yours Steve, in both directions.

[chuck colburn]

If Speilberg wants to still shoot film, that's up to him, but he should at least use 65mm, which looks so much nicer than 35mm, and scanned at 4k would be a great source for a super DI. It might even look as good as if he'd shot RED. :-)

Graeme

Yeah... what he said!

[Steve Gibby]

Spielberg has worked with the same editor, Michael Kahn, for all of his films. Kahn is still using KEM flatbeds and Moviolas by choice. There is no way that Spielberg will change his process in the near future.

If he's comfortable with the film workflow, and doesn't want to change, he's obviously at the point in his career where he can make that choice to stick with film.

As a sidelight, a friend of mine, who I served on a film festival Board with, is an Oscar winning editor who has traditionally edited film on a flatbed. His name is Neil Travis. He received an Oscar for his editing of "Dances With Wolves". He has also edited a long list of films we've all probably seen, among them "Sum of All Fears", "Clear and Present Danger", "Terminator 3", and many more. I had breakfast with Neil and Morgan Freeman at Neil's ranch recently. Neil and me have had some film vs. digital discussions, as you might imagine. We both taught seminars at a recent film festival, mine on digital acquisition, and his on editing. His approach to the move to digital? He has brought on a partner editor who is younger, and is an ace at digital editing. When they edit projects they team edit. Neil's expertise in film editing dovetails nicely with his partner’s expertise in digital editing. Good editing decisions are still good editing decisions, whether it's being done on a film flatbed or on an Avid, FCP, or some other NLE.

I've edited my entire career and I've learned that I prefer a digital workflow. To each their own...

[Jeremy Hughes]

Lucas will be saying that he wants to shoot it with the RED ONE, and Spielburg will be saying, "I don't know, sure 4K matches 35mm... But I wanted to shoot on IMAX. That would take at least 8K. It's just not quite there yet."

[Emanuel A.]

So Indy 4 starts shooting in June. Obviously, Lucas will be pushing for HD, while Spielberg will want to stick with 35mm. Spielberg's best argument against HD is that the resolution and quality are "not there yet."I have no idea what Spielberg thinks on that but I know there are a lot of features already there and weren't shot with a film camera.

[Roberto B]

He said the smell of working in film, physically editing on a Moviola, was the same that Cecil B DeMille, Orson Welles et al had smelled when crafting masterpieces, was the "smell of our art" and that he'd likely be the last using it, but he wasn't going to change. He said Amblin would be at the forefront of new technology, but that he personally would never make the switch.yeah.. it should be because of that, welles shot all the projects he had..

[PaulClements]

And art can't be created in digital cinema? With all due respects to Spielberg, I now prefer doing my art digitally. I also prefer the smell of money - being generated and staying in my bank account as net profit.

He wasn't being anti-digital. It was more his love of film and what it means to him, the history it has and the emotions it provokes for him when using it. I don't think he was implying digital can't be used for art, just the opposite infact. It was more like he was saying I'm a bit of a stickler for tradition even though I probably ought not to be as technology gets better and better.

Whilst I agree earning lots of money is great, at the end of the day I'd rather make one amazing movie and be poor till I die than be rich with nothing to show for it. I suppose the beauty of the Red One is it will hopefully give many more the opportunity to make that great movie without the restrictions of huge budgets.

[Steve Gibby]

I definitely respect tradition, and I take great pride in my artwork. That said, my concept is that technology now enables me to create award-winning and high revenue generating productions, on cost-effective budgets. To me, that's the best of both worlds - quality artwork that generates solid revenue and increased net profits.

[Júlio Taubkin]

We shouldn't be so hard on spielberg. He says he "prefers" working with 35mm film, just because of what it means to him. I'm sure if I had the money, I wouoldn't find shooting 35mm so bad either. He likes so much, that he "edits" his films on moviolas (But not exactly, he just prints a cut on film, and checks it on the moviola for final adjustments... Afterall, he practically invented CGI on feature films, it would be almost impossible for him to actually EDIT on moviolas or KEMs).

Indiana Jones is a "vintage" remake. It`ll will probably be done just the same way they did the others, in 35mm. We will see how the cinematographer managed to mimic the original 1980s negative look through a very complicated DI process, and how everything actually look like it was shot 20 years ago.

Then we will look at ourselves and wonder why they didn`t shoot this 20 years ago...

[PaulClements]

I definitely respect tradition, and I take great pride in my artwork. That said, my concept is that technology now enables me to create award-winning and high revenue generating productions, on cost-effective budgets. To me, that's the best of both worlds - quality artwork that generates solid revenue and increased net profits.

Couldn't agree more Steve, I was merely pointing out that the piece Stephen quoted before about "the smell of our art" wasn't said in a pompous way or strictly negative to digital (although it comes across that way when written in a digital cinema camera forum :)). I'm fairly sure that if Spielberg was starting out today and went to buy his first camera it'd be digital - most likely a RedOne!

[Steve Gibby]

Very good point Paul...there is often somewhat of an age divide in someone's approach to their tools. In general, traditionalists tend to be older and comfortable with their workflows and tools. That's not always the case though. I'm 58 years old, started as a still film photographer in 1969, and started into film and video production in the late '70's, and yet I've stayed right on top of each evolving technology through the years, testing and adopting each one. It doesn't mean that I don't respect previous technologies. In fact, my experience using film is invaluable in my approach to digital cinema and EFP work, and I still occasionally shoot some film.

Having been in the motion media production business for some time now, I get the chance to mentor a lot of people just beginning their careers in this business. I always counsel them to do what they love and if they do it well enough and long enough, finances will take care of themselves. I tell them if they have passion, tenacity, and talent they have a good chance of succeeding. The final element is affordable, flexible technology. I feel that RED One could help a lot of them to reach their dreams...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

http://www.kyoproject.com/ad.jpg

Hmmm.... Needs sauce. No way am I going to choke that down dry. The rusty utensils are an excellent touch.

[kraemer]

More importantly, when are film makers going to go 30fps or 60fps? Its really irritating to watch a film when the camera pans and suddenly everything is unreadable and blurry....

[Jeff Kilgroe]

More importantly, when are film makers going to go 30fps or 60fps? Its really irritating to watch a film when the camera pans and suddenly everything is unreadable and blurry....

The opportunity for filmmakers to do this will come with digital projection systems. And even then, it will be a slow process of conversion and may not ever really happen. 24fps has a look of its own that lends itself to the art that is filmmaking. Shooting 30fps (and even more so 60i/60p) gives a very "video" look. Everything is smoother and there's so much more visual information there, but it lacks that somewhat magical look 24p has.

In the end, as cineplexes are converted into the digital realm, I think we'll see more of it. There will be times when 30p or 60p would make sense for a feature to get the right look and feel. I think documentaries, wildlife/nature/outdoor could benefit from 60p. War features could also benefit from the added realizm of 60p, but at the same time, this may be a double-edged blade on something of an intense nature.

[kraemer]

I don't agree with this. Given the right lighting and processing, a typical scene with two "talking heads" will look about the same. The higher frame rate makes the difference when the camera is moving or objects are moving quickly across the screen. The difference is that fast motion will no longer look ridiculously blurry, and special effects teams wont have to spend ungodly amounts of time making their effects look like blurry 24fps film.

[Steve Gibby]

Trust me, Lucas and Spielberg will personally appear on this forum 2nite...

A stretch, but it wouldn't surprise me if they eventually visit REDUser anonymously to see what all this RED rukus is about.

Food for thought:

Steve Spielberg is 59 years old and a billionaire
George Lucas is 61 years old and a billionaire
Jim Jannard is 56 years old and a billionaire

Jim made his fortune in the optics business. Steven and George made their fortunes using optics to create movies. If Spielberg and Lucas are aware of RED, they are also aware of the fact that RED was founded by a very successful businessman and a fellow billionaire. Jim has not only put his money where his passion is, and has shared his passion with us in the form of RED One, but he also takes the time to personally visit this forum daily and post with us. Though it would be far fetched to expect Spielberg or Lucas to post here, I'm sure they've heard of Jim Jannard, and I suspect they're probably keeping tabs on the development of RED One.

The cool thing about Jim Jannard is that he is accessible and down to earth. He hangs out in jeans and is a "real" person. If he passed you on the street you'd never suspect his wealth and accomplishments - no airs or posturing, just a real person who has a deep passion for optics and digital cinema.

[scriptor]

hello (sorry for the bad english, feel free to said me you dont understand what i write)
i think shooting in 35mm or 4k is a detail for a 100M$ production but it would be interresting to know lucas and spielberg wishes
i read that lucas dream about a 100% digital workflow because he want to post-process (correcting color, compositing etc) directly on the set what will be a warmy closed room
if spielberg prefer much more the 35mm, he cannot ignore the 4k format and the "100% digital workflow" because its the futur of his buisness, then i think spielberg's relation test this format for him and make report and think about way to work with because soon only a few director will still shoot in 35mm only for nostalgic purpose
i think both know well the red camera, each have probably preorder one, maybe they have contact the red team but due to buisness issue this kind of information must be secret
++

[Ace]

Hmmm.... Needs sauce. No way am I going to choke that down dry. The rusty utensils are an excellent touch.

Heh. Breakfast of champions!

Heres another variation with a play on words..

http://www.kyoproject.com/ad2.jpg

[P Andersson]

when you come to a 4K in the road, pick it up

[Mardi_Gras]

Countdown to the Lucas and Spielberg showdown on reduser.net...

[Mardi_Gras]

hello (sorry for the bad english, feel free to said me you dont understand what i write)
i think shooting in 35mm or 4k is a detail for a 100M$ production but it would be interresting to know lucas and spielberg wishes
i read that lucas dream about a 100% digital workflow because he want to post-process (correcting color, compositing etc) directly on the set what will be a warmy closed room
if spielberg prefer much more the 35mm, he cannot ignore the 4k format and the "100% digital workflow" because its the futur of his buisness, then i think spielberg's relation test this format for him and make report and think about way to work with because soon only a few director will still shoot in 35mm only for nostalgic purpose
i think both know well the red camera, each have probably preorder one, maybe they have contact the red team but due to buisness issue this kind of information must be secret
++

Me thinks you fronting with this piece. Me thinking you very good english man. Wha the dealio?

[Isaac Brody]

I think we should take bets on what they shoot with on Indy 4. I'm betting film. Come on people, make me a billionaire. :cool:

[Dominic Jones]

http://www.kyoproject.com/ad2.jpg
4K?! Oh my god that is the most horrible, horrible, horrible pun ever...

I love it! :)

[Michael Struthers]

Funny, I was at an event last night in SF and George was scheduled to show up. Unfortunately he didn't, but I was going to offer him the use of my Red One and see what he had to say...

It's not about the tech for Spielberg, it's about history and he is a student of Hollywood history and film. And a professor as well.

Lucas has always been a "screw you Hollywood" guy so of course he's going to be adopting different technology given the chance. His f900 Star Wars flick didn't look so hot though....cameras than do 4k such as Red will give him a chance to show the world.

[Billy Summers]

:confused: Who's actually SHOOTING this film? Janusz Kaminski (Speilberg's DP). And he is F'ing amazing! I know he also LOVES grain. When shooting Munich, he opted for Kodak Vision as opposed to Vision2 because the Vision2 has less grain and looks too clean (too much like HD?)

I do miss the FEEL of film, when watching HD productions, although some shows really pull HD off well(Superman Returns, Flyboy's, Battlestar Gallactica, Sleeper Cell etc.).

All said and done I'm more than willing to bet they're shooting 35mm...

[jeffry alan]

His f900 Star Wars flick didn't look so hot though....cameras than do 4k such as Red will give him a chance to show the world.

Did you see Star Wars III on a digtal projector? If you had you wouldn't have said that. There were only two DLP projectors in the Bay Area when the last Star Wars opened (the one in Emeryville next to Pixar where they do test screenings, and one at the Metreon), and the difference in detail and color was astounding compared to film. The three fully digital productions I saw there -Finding Nemo, Incredibles, and Star Wars III- were so different that I would bring people in just to see the digital experience (especially Finding Nemo) and they were always blown away.

Pixar had a lot of problems taking Nemo to film because the particles in the water came out cloudy, and they had to actually downgrade the image before it was transferred!
That said, taking 4k to film and retaining info is going to be a real challenge. Something to think about since universal adopting of 4k digital projectors is a long way off.

J*

[Michael Struthers]

You are right, I didn't catch it digitally projected. It should have looked better than what I saw.

I think going forward adding grain and warmth to the HD hyperclean images will be the post-wizard's task. I personally like grain, but maybe someone 15 or 16 doesn't care, so all the comic movies will be shot in ultra HD and the "human" factor stories in 35mm or 65mm.

[Greg Lowry]

With all due respect, Greg, I think its ill-informed to suggest that the Oscar winning editor, Michael Kahn, cut all of Spielberg's pictures.

Spielberg's monster hit, E.T, was NOT cut by Michael Kahn. It was actually cut by another Oscar nominated editor, Carol Littleton (Manchurian Candidate).

BTW, I think Lucas can conveniently add a RedOne to his workflow if he feels the need for it. Spielberg will understand.

And Verna Fields cut Sugarland Express and Jaws. Michael Kahn has been Spielberg's editor almost exclusively since Close Encounters -- nearly 30 years. Is that precise enough for you?

[CVB]

Did you see Star Wars III on a digtal projector? If you had you wouldn't have said that. There were only two DLP projectors in the Bay Area when the last Star Wars opened (the one in Emeryville next to Pixar where they do test screenings, and one at the Metreon), and the difference in detail and color was astounding compared to film. The three fully digital productions I saw there -Finding Nemo, Incredibles, and Star Wars III- were so different that I would bring people in just to see the digital experience (especially Finding Nemo) and they were always blown away.

Pixar had a lot of problems taking Nemo to film because the particles in the water came out cloudy, and they had to actually downgrade the image before it was transferred!
That said, taking 4k to film and retaining info is going to be a real challenge. Something to think about since universal adopting of 4k digital projectors is a long way off.

J*

Jeffry... I saw starwars in digital at a San Jose cinema.. you're right, its a totally different experience. Especially after the 500th time the movie is played it still looks good, not all scratchy.

[Antoine Fabi]

I think Digital is better than film.

I am a musician.
A few years ago, what i heard from digital recording was crappy sounding to my ears. CRAPPY, period.

But today, with superb analog to digital converters and high sampling rates and good bit depth, digital can sound very warm, natural.

The good thing about digital (with sufficient bit depth and sampling) is that you can do almost anything.

Unscompressed digital ( or visually lossless compression) and sufficient bit depth IS THE SAME AS ANALOG...without any degradation from copies etc...
With PURE digital, the image "feeling" or "warmth" or "beauty" will come from the sensor and from the post work.
That's what i call image or sound "signature".

WE are the limiting factor.

[jeffry alan]

Jeffry... I saw starwars in digital at a San Jose cinema.. you're right, its a totally different experience. Especially after the 500th time the movie is played it still looks good, not all scratchy.

Yeah, I used to sneak all my friends in there to see Nemo on the DLP (it was ok, I was Facilities Manager there!) just so they could experience the difference.

There was a consortium of People With Cash (PWC) that were trying to buy a large quantity of DLP's or the latest equivalent and get them integrated into theaters in America to facilitate the transition to digital. I think Mark Cuban (owner of the Dallas Mavericks and Landmark Theaters- another Bajillionaire) was talking about going completely digital in all his theaters.

But until that transition happens, the full impact of RED's 4k will be limited to the HD channels and DVD productions, since transfer to film will be like downconverting. :(

J*

[Graeme Nattress]

"WE are the limiting factor." - Exactly.

However, with Digital Cinema, the sensor is digital, whereas with digital audio, the microphone is still very analogue, making analogy not quite there.

However, your last line is spot on correct. The technology is so superb now, that the humans that operate it are beginning to be the real last frontier in quality.

Graeme

[Mardi_Gras]

And Verna Fields cut Sugarland Express and Jaws. Michael Kahn has been Spielberg's editor almost exclusively since Close Encounters -- nearly 30 years. Is that precise enough for you?

You're not disputing anything I said or didn't say, so I don't understand the need for the rather rude tone. I corrected an erronous blanket statement that you posted. You should have simply accepted your mistake and moved on.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Lucas has always been a "screw you Hollywood" guy so of course he's going to be adopting different technology given the chance. His f900 Star Wars flick didn't look so hot though....cameras than do 4k such as Red will give him a chance to show the world.

Yeah, I didn't thnk any of SW I thru III looked all that great... I think they would have been much better off to shoot them with film and use all the old VFX approaches and methods used in the original trilogy. That would have been really cool, IMO. OTOH, this may have drastically changed the costs of these films, not sure if it would have mad much difference in the end though.

As for Episodes II and III, I'm not sure if it mattered all that much what they were shot with. Probably could have had just about the same results using a couple HVX200s and/or XLH1s. So much of what was on screen was CGI, we were mostly watching a cartoon with some live actor elements. Perhaps that's somewhat of a slam against SWII/III, but one has to wonder after viewing scenes where the only real-life element in an entire shot is an actor's face. ...And even that is digitally enhanced.

[Steve Gibby]

I've been posting for over a year now this thought:

"The biggest challenge for any RED One user is for them to have an open enough attitude and broad enough skill sets to achieve the maximum potential that RED One's technology enables"

That translates quite nicely into "WE are the limiting factor"

[Isaac Brody]

That translates quite nicely into "WE are the limiting factor"

I retranslate that to: The honeymoon's over.

No more excuses on why you can't complete your brilliant script that's been sitting in the bottom drawer. What's it called, Rocky 5000? :cool:

[Antoine Fabi]

I feel like i'd found a 150K Steinway Grand piano for for 17.5 K

..OK now, can you play that concert ? ...Oh man... hee hee...

[Jaime Vallés]

Yeah, I didn't thnk any of SW I thru III looked all that great... I think they would have been much better off to shoot them with film and use all the old VFX approaches and methods used in the original trilogy.

Well, Episode I was shot on film, and in my opinion I felt that the all-digital episodes II and III looked better (in a digital projection at the Zigfeld Theater in NYC).

And, yes, I fully agree that from now on there can be no more excuses. WE are the limiting factor, indeed.

BTW- Nice poster, acehole!

[Vincent Rice]

Workflow, workflow, workflow. Spielberg likes to work very fast and he can do that because his workflow is tried, tested, and comfortable for everyone concerned. Its moot whether the workflow would actually be faster using Red; its unproven as far as SS is concerned.

Now Lucas is is a different kettle of fish completely! I've no doubt he knows all about Red.

[Stephen Webb]

Have to disagree, Eps 2&3 looked awful regardless of whether they were shown Digitally or Film. Nothing to do with the presentation format, they were badly lit, badly shot and looked horribly flat. The multiple composition layers were too obvious at times as well and the whole thing looked like one big technically compiled mess.

[Stephen Williams]

Have to disagree, Eps 2&3 looked awful regardless of whether they were shown Digitally or Film. Nothing to do with the presentation format, they were badly lit, badly shot and looked horribly flat. The multiple composition layers were too obvious at times as well and the whole thing looked like one big technically compiled mess.

Hi Stephen,

I have to agree, flat lighting is flat lighting regardless of capture medium.

Stephen

[Sanjin Jukic]

Guys, about Lucas, Spielberg and digital acquisition the thing is very simple.

Lucas is totally digital guy from acquisition to the post/VFX. As we all know he started Pixar Animation Studio (100% digital technology) than sold it to Steve Jobs because he was short with money to pay a settlement to the ex-wife. Than he started Lucasfilm Studio (100% digital technology) and StarWars serial (100% digital technology). His vision is more dependent from VFX than from shooting a real world and this is a reason that he went digital acquisition with the first Sony HD CineAlta cameras.

Spielberg is a bit different and he is surrounded with people who still trust in old technologies like 35mm film acquisition (Janus Kaminski) or editing film with Moviola or KEM flatbed film cutting table machines (Michael Kahn). Also Spielberg is doing a lot of VFX (to mention some of them in movies like E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Jurassic Park, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, The Terminal, War of the Worlds). "Spielberg has worked with George Lucas' digital special effects house Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) on all his films except The Terminal, which used effects by Digital Domain."(Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Spielberg). That means Steven Spielberg is a sort of digital guy too. If he would also have "digital cinema guys" as collaborators for movie acquisition and editing he would naturally switch to digital and be 100% there. But who knows one day when movies done with RED ONE digital cinema camera and 4K workflow start to get awards maybe even Oscars, the guys like Spielberg will switch to digital cinema for sure. He likes very much awards like every human.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Have to disagree, Eps 2&3 looked awful regardless of whether they were shown Digitally or Film.

Yep. Essentially my point in that previous post.

[Thomas Mathai]

I don't agree with this. Given the right lighting and processing, a typical scene with two "talking heads" will look about the same. The higher frame rate makes the difference when the camera is moving or objects are moving quickly across the screen. The difference is that fast motion will no longer look ridiculously blurry, and special effects teams wont have to spend ungodly amounts of time making their effects look like blurry 24fps film.

True, VFX teams will instead can use all that extra time for all the extra work they need do because there's 25% to 250% more frames.

[Jared VanLeuven]

...I tell ya, 4K porn is where it's at. ;)

Ugh. No.

PLEASE, no! I was going to say "can you imagine?" but then YIKES!

Porn will have to go totally CGI for that to work.

[Billy Summers]

At the end of the day, who really F'ing cares what you shoot it on?!?! I DO. But then, I know that no matter what I shoot on, I will be making the best damn image I can, period. Besides, MOST (not all) of that is acheived through lighting. Amongst other things...of course!

disclaimer: Obviously this subject is much more complex than my simple rant, but...

[Emmanuel Cambier]

"WE are the limiting factor." - Exactly.

However, with Digital Cinema, the sensor is digital, whereas with digital audio, the microphone is still very analogue, making analogy not quite there.

However, your last line is spot on correct. The technology is so superb now, that the humans that operate it are beginning to be the real last frontier in quality.

Graeme

Sorry to disagree here Graeme.:p

I think the microphone is what the lens is to a camera not the sensor.
The A/D converters are the sensor.
All that is before the A/D converters is analog, all that is after is digital.
All that is before the sensor is analog, all that is after is digital.
Think of a cook S4 as nice tube Neuman microphone.:cool:

[Robert Sanders]

I've read an article a while back that also said that Spielberg would shoot the movie on whatever format Lucas requested because, well, it's Lucas' money and he's the producer.

But there's also the Kaminski factor. Kaminski won't even do digital intermediates. He only did it once on "The Terminal" and admitted that it was only an experiment and he didn't like it. He absolutely loves and adores the photo-chemical process.

So I really don't know how Lucas, Spielberg and Kaminski will work this out.

I have a sneaky suspicion that they'll shoot in Super35. The originals were shot in anamorphic 35.

[Emmanuel Cambier]

As for money,
This is the big reason why Orson Welles would by RedOne before any of us coud reach our credit card (well especialy me…).
After Citizen Kane he had so much trouble finding money, that anything reducing costs in any way was a blessing to him, not to mention the digital workflow wich I believe would have had him screem for joy, for he was a true indie, actually he probably was the first indie of the talking movies era.
Very different from Mr Spielberg's way, we can safely say.

[Zack Birlew]

Well, I think film can still live on for quite a bit before it finally gets the boot. Who knows what barriers will be broken through via chemical processes or projection technologies? Right now it seems like digital took a big leap ahead in such a short time that film has yet (to ever?) catch up. I for one haven't seen a digital projection as many have mentioned on the thread so far nor did I have any idea that Finding Nemo had to be scaled back visually simply for a film transfer, that's impressive indeed! :thumbsup:

I think I may be in the group that believe that digital won't necessarily surpass film in all cases until it reaches the 8K levels. I mean, look around, people are still breaking quality barriers with each new movie that comes out.

As far as Steven and George are concerned, I hope they use the RED for at least a scene or two in Indiana Jones 4, very much like that quick scene was re-shot for Munich with the HVX200. Even that's enough to say something. More importantly, I wonder if George will show up at NAB to see the RED in person? :)

[Stephen Webb]

If Finding Nemo had to be scaled back, then Pixar made a very big mistake IMVHO. They know what their exhibition medium is, they know what standards they have to work to, what colourspace they need to be working in and how to calibrate everything to make sure that what they are doing is what's going to work. And I have no doubt they test to destruction to make sure they know exactly what to expect.

As for Digital Projection, saw Attack of the Clones in Digital when it was released and it looked awful. Saw Wizard of Oz on a 2k last week and it looked fantastic!

And as for Lucas insisting Indy 4 is shot digitally, I don't believe he'd disrepect Spielberg that badly and I know Spielberg simply wouldn't accept it if he tried (and nor would he have to). Lucas isn't helming the film, so it won't be a big deal to him anyway.

[Blaine Golden]

As far as Steven and George are concerned, I hope they use the RED for at least a scene or two in Indiana Jones 4, very much like that quick scene was re-shot for Munich with the HVX200. Even that's enough to say something. More importantly, I wonder if George will show up at NAB to see the RED in person? :)
I really don't see this happening. If it starts filming in June 2007, that's just too soon after the initial camera release for someone like Spielberg to make a jump like that.

[Michael Struthers]

I would be willing to bet that even footage shot with a Red One and post-processed like mad cannot completely and exactly duplicate the look and feel of film. And if there is any difference at all, there will always be a need for film.

[Mardi_Gras]

I would be willing to bet that even footage shot with a Red One and post-processed like mad cannot completely and exactly duplicate the look and feel of film. And if there is any difference at all, there will always be a need for film.

With the risk of sounding like a broken record, I still maintain that should the RedOne deliver with the specs as advertized, then emulating film in post will not only be a possibility, but also the preferred norm (cheaper, less complicated/cubersome workflow).

The argument will then be about the role of film rather than about making the obvious choice.

[Tom Lowe]

These guys are close friends and have enormous respect for each other, so there is not going to be any dissing by anyone. They will have a conversation about it -- if they haven't already -- and a format will be decided. I'm leaning toward those who are saying it will be shot 35mm, mainly because there is no working HD camera that can match it. But I would not be surprised if Lucas talked Spielberg into bringing a Genesis or 950 for a few scenes.

[Adrian Correia]

I wonder if Kaminski will consult with Douglas Slocombe. I love the look of those films personally...and to be slightly heretical...I want it to be shot on film. I want it to be, in total, a stylistic brother to the other films, and I don't think anything can match how those films looked in the digital realm. At least in the present time.

I recently got the chance to see Raiders again on the big screen with a pristine 35mm print and it was glorious....i'll give most of the credit to Slocombe, he's a fantastic cinematographer.

[Alex Boothby]

I want it to be, in total, a stylistic brother to the other films, and I don't think anything can match how those films looked in the digital realm.

Normally I would agree - but - I have to add that on 'Superman Returns' the Genesis did a very good job of matching the look of the original Superman films.

[Greg Voevodsky]

A few comments on 70mm film need to be mentioned. One, 70mm has 1/2 the depth of field as 35mm as does 2:35.1 Cinémascope as seen in Oliver Stone used in the Doors. Shooting outside is not that much of a problem, but inside with low lights makes for a very blury background.

IMAX movies are almost all outside since they too have even less depth of field even with huge lenses. I don't agree that higher resolution, with shallow depth of field is so called better.

Also, in terms of film having a blur when panned - is bad? Our eyes normally blur motion in a pan. About 10 years ago, there was a company that shot 70mm at 60fps called Showscan. (It was suppose to be the ultimate film - great resolution fast scan rate.) It competed with IMAX and was used in themepark movie rides.

Anyway. I saw a demo of a Rollercoaster. The problem, everything was sharp - unrealistically sharp. The wooden rungs in front of the rollercoaster were all sharp and not blurred like in real life traveling at 60 mph.

So again, we need to find a balance 24-30 frames per second with a depth of field that approximates human vision for a 'real' feeling. High shutter speeds in video or film - stobe unrealistically like the showscan footage did - with overlysharp frames. (Ask any animator why he blurs cartoons to create a sense of motion - any why some video games don't look right driving 150mph... just sped up and tach sharp.) In life at 150mph your field of vision is about a 4 inch square looking 1/4 mile down the road... the dotted line becomes solid at that speed. If you don't believe me go rent a 350Z and find an empty 2 lane road away from me please.

[Craig Ryan]

I remember reading an interview with Harrison Ford a while back, and he said that George told him something to the effect that "People are either going to hate us or love us for doing another Indy; but we're still going to make it and try to have a great time". If Lucas actually said that to Ford, it sounds like he probably isn't going to have a problem with Speilberg shooting it on film. I could definitely see Lucas giving Speilberg a nudge or two to try and sway him but I wouldn't suspect that he's demand anything..but then again I don't know Lucas at all so who knows?

Also regarding the prequel Star Wars films; I definitely agree that alot of the brightly lit scenes seemed flat and unapplealing. The multiple layering also looked pretty shady at times too. One things for sure though, Natalie Portman still looked gorgeous.

[Stephen Webb]

I have to add that on 'Superman Returns' the Genesis did a very good job of matching the look of the original Superman films.

And I have to disagree. Not that Superman Returns looks bad, and it does have certain design features that are intended to complement the original,
but it doesn't have the same style or aesthetic of Superman: The Movie.


we need to find a balance 24-30 frames per second

Absolutely, and in the early days of cinema they tried out various different frame rates before deciding that 24fps was the most "natural" to the human eye. More recent research places the average human eye at an equivalent to 21fps, with 18fps as an agreed minimum, so the current frame rate seems perfectly sensible.

[Graeme Nattress]

If the human eye was the equivalent of running at 21fps, then how can we see the vastly superior motion characteristics of 50 and 60 fps??

The eye is adaptive, and it's focus point is not fixed but almost continuously moving. When you see a moving object, you track it, and the brain integrates that detail into a fantastic visual map.

[Ruairi Robinson]

If the human eye was the equivalent of running at 21fps, then how can we see the vastly superior motion characteristics of 50 and 60 fps??

The eye is adaptive, and it's focus point is not fixed but almost continuously moving. When you see a moving object, you track it, and the brain integrates that detail into a fantastic visual map.


I'm no expert, but I'm guessing it's because the images are not in sync with the ones you see with your eyes (like you have to synch on-screen computer monitors with the camera when you are shooting to avoid strobing artifacts)

I believe your peripheral vision has much better motion sensing capabilities (ever look at a tube monitor thats 60hz or less, and see the flicker only in your peripheral vision?)

But as I said, I'm no expert.

[ericyoung]

...in the early days of cinema they tried out various different frame rates before deciding that 24fps was the most "natural" to the human eye. More recent research places the average human eye at an equivalent to 21fps, with 18fps as an agreed minimum, so the current frame rate seems perfectly sensible.

I think that the minimum frame rate was chosen as the minimum refresh rate at which the average person would perceive a series of still frames as portraying continuous motion. 24fps gives a sufficient margin above the minimum motion portrayal rate. But humans would still perceive flicker at 24fps. The projected rate is twice this, using a shutter, at 48Hz so that the majority of people would not perceive distracting flicker. Higher frame rates, while improving both motion and flicker, has a much higher cost in film stock, processing and printing, storage and transportation, more expensive projector and camera mechanisms, etc.


I'm no expert, but I'm guessing it's because the images are not in sync with the ones you see with your eyes (like you have to synch on-screen computer monitors with the camera when you are shooting to avoid strobing artifacts)

I believe your peripheral vision has much better motion sensing capabilities (ever look at a tube monitor thats 60hz or less, and see the flicker only in your peripheral vision?) ...

Our eyes don't have a universal sharply defined "framerate", so none of our filming frame rates will be "sync" with it.

Research does back up that our peripheral vision is better at motion sensing than our vision in the centre, and flicker is analogous to motion. Human flicker sensitivity threshold is somewhere around 48Hz, hence film being projected at 48Hz, and why 50Hz was adopted in the UK for TV refresh rates. Actually the US 60Hz would have been a better choice to have a greater margin away from our flicker sensitivity, but then there would have been problems with UK 50Hz mains interference causing very distracting moving patterns if UK TVs were 60Hz.

Another factor in peripheral flicker detection is that we don't normally watch screens out of the corners of our eyes, and our brains haven't adapted to filter it out. I've heard (but not confirmed) that many Americans coming to the UK initially find our 50Hz TVs very flickery in their central vision, being used to 60Hz, but quickly adapt so that they don't notice it

As Graeme says, our stereoscopic eyes and brain mounted in a mobile platform are a fantastic adaptive scanning system capable of integrating a picture in both time, 2d & 3D space, and frequency! And they are capable of adapting to and perceiving more than the hardware and economy limited systems of the past and present. :D

[Tom Lowe]

Lol at how these threads inevitably drift into super-minute technical details.... gotta love it.

[Craig Ryan]

You said it mate; notice how my post was quite relevant to the point of the thread, yet an entire new page preceeds it without any reference to it. But I can't blame anyone, we are just too intellectually trained to let a thread go by without indulging ourselves with the most interesting technical discussions :)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Sorry to disagree here Graeme.:p

I think the microphone is what the lens is to a camera not the sensor.
The A/D converters are the sensor.
All that is before the A/D converters is analog, all that is after is digital.
All that is before the sensor is analog, all that is after is digital.
Think of a cook S4 as nice tube Neuman microphone.:cool:

It's still analog after the sensor. So the sensor as microphone is still a valid analogy since both output an analog signal.

[Graeme Nattress]

Both mic and sensor are a "transducer" - they convert input into electricity.

Graeme

[baro]

But humans would still perceive flicker at 24fps. The projected rate is twice this, using a shutter, at 48Hz so that the majority of people would not perceive distracting flicker.D

This is something I could not understand for a long time. How is it that when I look at a computer monitor that has a 50 Hz refresh rate I instantaneously start to get sick? But when I look at film projected at 48 Hz I do not get sick.

(With TVs you do not get sick as much because the phosphore remains bright for a longer time after a scan than how long it is bright on computer CRTs.)

[Graeme Nattress]

Flicker is also a factor of brightness level. Perhaps your CRT is too bright. It's also a cultural thing, where European's eyes have evolved to accept 50hz as corrrect, rather than 60hz. A computer monitor may not have high persistance phospors either, being really designed for a much higher scan rate than 50hz.

Graeme

[baro]

Brightness level is certainly important. A white screen is much more disturbing for me than a gray screen. But even in the case of a gray screen I can spot immediately a 60Hz computer display. I'm more sensitive to it than the average people. On several occasion I warned work colleges to set the refresh rate above 60 Hz. They did not understand what flicker I was talking about when I looked at their displays.

In my previous post I was looking for the right way to put it, but I could only remember it in Hungarian. Now I know, it is 'high persistance phospors'. Now that makes a big difference. My first IBM compatible computer was an XT with an I8088 processor. It had a monochrom Hercules display. I don't remember the refresh rate exactly, but it was not more than 60 Hz, probably 50 Hz. And the picture was rock solid. In comparison some VGA color displays displayed the 640x480 mode at 60 Hz and it was really flickery for me.

But when film is projected I think in regard of how long one frame stays on the screen in one flash can be considered the equvilent of low persistance phospor rather than high persistance phospor. Unless the projector changes the frames very rapidly so that the time the screen is dark is much shorter than the time the frame is visible on the screen.

This is why it is a mystery for me why I do not see flicker at movies.

[Dominic Jones]

Film projectors commonly use three blade shutters these days, which raises the effective flicker period to 72Hz, and also on these models the film is advanced slightly more quickly, to fit with the smaller shutter angle - so maybe you have been watching films in theaters equipped with these?

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Both mic and sensor are a "transducer" - they convert input into electricity.

Graeme

Sorry Graeme, my bad.:o

Yours Emmanuel

[Graeme Nattress]

Not bad, just different ways of looking things. There's no simple analogy to a lens in audio. Perhaps you could say that microphone placement or sound baffles could be analogous to a lens?

Graeme

[Emmanuel Cambier]

Well, the hardest part will be to find an audio analogy for RedOne I believe.
Congratulations to you guys.

Emmanuel

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

ProTools.

Before that, recording audio (multichannel with any quality) was a costly affair.

Jochen

[baro]

Film projectors commonly use three blade shutters these days, which raises the effective flicker period to 72Hz, and also on these models the film is advanced slightly more quickly, to fit with the smaller shutter angle - so maybe you have been watching films in theaters equipped with these?

Thanks for the information. Next time I will try to take a look at the type of the projector.