Epic vs Alexa Producer Arguement

[David Mullen ASC]

Alexa RAW is 3.5K. Adding that extra 0.5K to get it to 4K RAW isn't going to change much, if anything.

Well, to be precise, the recorded area of the sensor is 2880 pixels across in ARRIRAW.

It's a bit silly to say that "The Avengers" is not future-proofed though -- it looked great on a big theater screen. Many older 35mm titles are not going to resolve 4K worth of measurable detail either but one isn't going to say that they aren't future-proofed because of that. People rarely decide to re-watch old movies based on how much resolution they have. Does "Casablanca" resolve actual detail at 4K? Does "The Godfather"? Do those movies look sharper and more detailed than "The Avengers"? And what about movies shot in Super-16? No future for them?

I also saw some of "Think Like A Man" projected digitally before I went in to see "The Avengers", and that was shot on the Epic -- it looked great, but it was shot with Classic Softs and net filters and there is no way that the image is 4K in resolution even if it were mastered at 4K. So you end up seeing two movies, one shot at 2.8K with no diffusion and the other shot at 5K with diffusion, and the end result is about the same level of detail, so why is "Think Like A Man" future-proofed but "The Avengers" not?

[sergio arguello]

thank you i was about to say when did Alexa go 3.5k its has the look around at that size but 2.8k is more like it...

As for your strongest dialougue with the Producer to use the Epic...I would explain that a good DIT can efficiantly make all the DnxHd in relatively the same time he would be just Data duplicating if
the computer he/she is useing is loaded with Rocket and atto cards...we do it all the time.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think your strongest arguments for the Epic are:

High resolution
Small size
HDRx
High frame rates

So the question is whether some or all of these qualities would be valuable or useful for your project? I mean, if you are making a commercial where a middle-aged woman sits on a couch and talks about some health problem she is having in a medium shot and a close-up, I doubt you'll be doing a lot of resizing, efx compositing, slow-motion, or handheld shots inside a tiny space, etc. -- but maybe you are doing a spot that needs what the Epic can deliver and the Alexa cannot.

(Oh I now see that Bruce made the same points that I did, and more...)

[David Mullen ASC]

I would add that for cinema release, my own first inclination would be to shoot on a 4K+ camera.

[Shane Betts]

In addition to what's already been said, Michael Cioni had a great take on this recently. It goes something like this (don't have the link, sorry):

If you're shooting for 4k finish, then shooting on 3.5k is a bit like shooting 2 perf. You need to use 100% of the frame and even blow it up a little. (it would be stupid and unfair to suggest that Alexa is equivalent to super 16 - let's agree that's for 1080p cameras - but you get the concept - frame is a little smaller, you need every pixel).

With Epic you can actually shoot 5k with a 4k centre cut and it's the digital equivalent to shooting 4 perf open gate. You have the resolution and frame size to rack around in post - including image stabilising at full rez. This is the first time in the digital age we get to do this: shoot 4perf open gate. That can be very handy IMHO.

[Bruce Allen]

I'm sorry... but why are we now talking about doing a commercial as a 4K finish?

I suspect that... in 2012... even if it is playing in theaters as an advert beforehand... I'd be surprised if they actually would take a 4K DCI master file for a commercial. Maybe 2013.

Or maybe if you find a fancy chain that wants to show off its 4K-ness?

BTW, guys, even if it was shot at 2.8K, I'm pretty sure all of the VFX shots for The Avengers was rendered out at 2.1K (a little extra to allow for stereo conversion).

We did about two dozen VFX shots for the teaser / trailer and they went through the same pipeline as the feature VFX shots IMHO. Sometimes I got film scans at full aperture 4K, sometimes Alexa files rendered as DPX...

All that was needed was a 2.1K DPX from me.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Phil Holland]

I agree with David on all accounts here.

Many older 35mm titles are not going to resolve 4K worth of measurable detail either but one isn't going to say that they aren't future-proofed because of that.

Something magical seemed to happen with cameras and film stock in the late 80s early 90s where things "got better". I'm always impressed about the restoration efforts on older classics, like the recent Jaws one, to bring things up to snuff for modern standards.

[Nick Morrison]

I suspect that... in 2012... even if it is playing in theaters as an advert beforehand... I'd be surprised if they actually would take a 4K DCI master file for a commercial. Maybe 2013.

www.boacinema.com

Yeah, I delivered Lifetimes "Client List" 30sec spot to Theaters two months ago, and the maximum resolution allowable was still 1080p. I don't see that changing for a while...as so much of the pre-trailer material are TV promos...and 99% of all TV shows deliver 1080.

[Brad Allen]

Well, to be precise, the recorded area of the sensor is 2880 pixels across in ARRIRAW.

It's a bit silly to say that "The Avengers" is not future-proofed though -- it looked great on a big theater screen. Many older 35mm titles are not going to resolve 4K worth of measurable detail either but one isn't going to say that they aren't future-proofed because of that. People rarely decide to re-watch old movies based on how much resolution they have. Does "Casablanca" resolve actual detail at 4K? Does "The Godfather"? Do those movies look sharper and more detailed than "The Avengers"? And what about movies shot in Super-16? No future for them?

I also saw some of "Think Like A Man" projected digitally before I went in to see "The Avengers", and that was shot on the Epic -- it looked great, but it was shot with Classic Softs and net filters and there is no way that the image is 4K in resolution even if it were mastered at 4K. So you end up seeing two movies, one shot at 2.8K with no diffusion and the other shot at 5K with diffusion, and the end result is about the same level of detail, so why is "Think Like A Man" future-proofed but "The Avengers" not?

Got to admit that I feel a little bit silly after having you disagree with me David...

Either way though - I guess my point is not that people won't watch "the avengers" in the future (of course they will). My point was more that what was seen in the cinema today is the maximum resolution that the film will ever be seen - vs Spiderman or Prometheus that could potentially spit out 4k releases someday in the future. Does this really matter when the film looked so great at the cinemas anyway? I don't know, but it seems a bit of a shame in my mind anyway.

Regarding diffusion @4k vs no diffusion@2k - I think it kind of answers itself. If you are shooting with diffusion then you are always wanting to reduce resolution for viewers (including those in the future). If you are shooting without diffusion, then one of your goals is maximum image detail/resolution - which means that if given the choice you would presumably prefer viewers to be watching in 4k vs 2k. In this sense, a 4k version of "the Avengers" seems more future proofed than a 2k version since it better represents some of the creative vision of the film.

I feel like I'm taking this thread off topic though, so I'm happy to leave it there...

[steve green]

Thank you all for all the great info and options, all very useful. One point I think is being missed here is that last year we shot these spots on Alexa with SXS cards only, no Codex. So the theatrical portion of the job will be shot only on SXS cards if we shoot Alexa again. That being said, can I make a good case that the difference between Epic 5K and Alexa SXS (1080) would be noticeable on a big screen?

All the other points are not really an issue on this particular commercial. There's no high speed, VFX, Steadicam, etc.