Jump to content


Photo

OCEAN'S 13 ROSETTA STONE


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 19 July 2007 - 04:01 PM

I found the following on a google group.

It's a message printed on three frames in the head leader of 'Ocean's 13':
---


Ocean's Thirteen Digital Intermediate Rosetta Stone


The digital intermediate for Ocean's Thirteen was made February-April
2007 at Warner Bros. Motion Picture Imaging (MPI) in Burbank. Original
camera negative (mostly Kodak 5218) was assembled as lab rolls for
dailies telecine, and these rolls were the source of the Dl scans. Camera
format was Super 35mm 2.40 common top (.945x.394). Please reference
the master Ocean's Thirteen framing chart in verifying the framing of all
versions.


Scanning for the Dl was on a Spirit 4k at 4096x3112 resolution to .dpx,
10-bit log files. Visual effects were delivered to MPI as data.


Color correction was done on a FilmLight Baselight EIGHT, viewed on a
Christie 2k DLP projector in the DCDM_XYZ_239 color space. Final
rendered 4k files of the 2.40 data from The Baselight was formatted for
4096x1742 (matching .866x.732. outside the projectable image area
of .825x.690). including all color correction.


FILM OUTS:
Film out was done on ArriLaser recorders, anamorphically scaled in-
camera to 4096x3484. recording to Kodak 2242 Estar intermediate stock
for printing on Kodak Vision 2383. Printing was done to LAD aims
109-106-103 using the 470 LAD patch.


Multiple original digital negatives were output for North American
release printing An additional negative was used solely to create
photochemical IPs/INs for printing outside of the U.S.; this negative
should be considered the "god" film element for Ocean's Thirteen due to
its pristine condition.


Black and white YCM separation protection masters were made to
Kodak 2238. full-aperture, texted, as negative. A separate reel was made
of textless shots.


---


VIDEO/DIGITAL CINEMA VERSIONS:


The date in the Baselight EIGHT was also rendered to 4k lull aperture
(4096x3112) files, which were then used as the source for all home video
and digital cinema versions.


The home video versions were created in a Thomson VDC in the
SMPTE Rec 709 color space (from the film color space of the source
files), and rendered out to 2k (2048x1556) .dpx files. The 2k data was
then transferred to HDCAM SR 4:4:4 tapes for distribution. Two versions
were made: 2.40 letterbox within 16x9, and 1.33. Per the specific
request of Steven Soderbergh, there is no 1.78 version. Note that for
the 1.33 version there are many split-screen optical effects that are
letterboxed.


The Digital Cinema Package for distribution was created at MPI to the
DCI v1.0 spec. DCDM TIFF 4k XYZ TIFF flies were generated to create
the JPEG2000 MXF-wrapped files, along with the MXF-wrapped
Broadcast Wave 5.1 audio files.


---


DATA BACKUPS:


Each of the three version of the data - 4k formatted for 2.40 film out;
4k full aperture; 2k full aperture (for Rec 709)- was backed up to two
sets of LTO 3 data tapes. Recording was done in the tar format, per SMPTE
recommended practices, with one tar per frame.


The names of the files follow this basic syntax:
O13_nk_format_colorspace_Rnn_yymmdd_ccn.ffffff.dpx,
where: There is a block for resolution (2k or 4k), framing ("Scope" for
an anamorphic image on the Academy center, "Full Ap" for full aperture as
in the camera negative) and color space (RGB or 709); Reels are
expressed as two-digit numbers with leading zeroes; the date of the
render, with the number after the "cc" being the color correction version
The six-digit frame number begins with 000000 on the "Picture Start"
frame in the leader, with 000192 being the first frame of picture in the
reel (corresponding to 12+00/01:00:08:00 in normal film-speak).


Thus, for the first frame of Reel 1:
O13_4k_Scope_RGB_R01_070415_cc8.000192.dpx
O13_4k_FullAp_RGB_R01_070415_cc8.000192.dpx
O13_2k_FullAp_709_R01_070415_cc8.000192.dpx


Because all of these versions were done under the control of
director/director of photography Steven Soderbergh no one in the
future should endeavor to conform and re-scan the film negative and
re-color time the film to potentially take advantage of any improvements
in scanning and digital intermediate technology. His decisions were
rendered onto the film-outs, and the various data and video versions,
and should be considered definitive and final.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, that Soderbergh.
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 July 2007 - 04:50 PM

That's pretty arrogant.

"The future can hold no interest for me, for I am Soderbergh!"

Phil
  • 0

#3 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 19 July 2007 - 04:54 PM

What annoys me is that the rest of the world has its prints go through an IP/IN stage. But then again, it's only Ocean's 13.
  • 0

#4 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 19 July 2007 - 07:24 PM

This is the part that got me.

Note that for the 1.33 version there are many split-screen optical effects that are
letterboxed.


Come on, MPI, are we really to believe that they did a full DI on this film, but the split screens were done opticaly? Thats it, I am boycotting the film just for that! (ok, maybe thats a bit extreme, I will find a different reason to boycott)
  • 0

#5 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 July 2007 - 02:16 AM

Wow, that was boring. I can't believe you bothered to post it.
  • 0

#6 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 20 July 2007 - 06:04 AM

That's pretty arrogant.
"The future can hold no interest for me, for I am Soderbergh!"


I suppose, that it is a good idea to have a documentation of process and intention of the creator for later reuse/remaster inside of the distribution copies.

Many restaurations, south pacific or ben hur just to name two, have led to discussions if the remastered versions weren´t quite different from original.

I fail to see the arrogance, when a director/dp/producer gives advice how his particular movie is to be projected or duplicated.
  • 0

#7 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 20 July 2007 - 06:10 AM

What annoys me is that the rest of the world has its prints go through an IP/IN stage.

yes - and it seems this is becoming common practice.

But then again, it's only Ocean's 13.

I am always a bit surprised by the maximum self-esteem you express with such comments as the one above or "ballhaus bores me to death".
I try always to stay modest and have a little dignity, even if i dislike a movie. haven´t seen ocean 13 however.
  • 0

#8 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 July 2007 - 09:46 AM

So should directors and DP's put a statement on elements "Scan or Color Grade this any way you feel like it" ?

Or is this just aimed at Soderbergh; if Lubezski or Savides did it, it would be OK ?

-Sam
  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11937 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 July 2007 - 09:59 AM

Because it's not his movie; he doesn't own it.

Because he has no idea what future improvements might bring, which is arrogant presumption.

Phil
  • 0

#10 e gustavo petersen

e gustavo petersen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA | CA | USA

Posted 20 July 2007 - 12:07 PM

I too can't see the arrogance of this action. Isn't this exactly the kind of control every filmmaker wants over their films. How many directors of photography, who shot such beautiful black and white films, would be appalled by colorization? We should all be so lucky to have that kind of authority over our work.
  • 0

#11 Josh Brokenbourgh

Josh Brokenbourgh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Student
  • Portland, Oregon

Posted 20 July 2007 - 12:15 PM

Because it's not his movie; he doesn't own it.

Because he has no idea what future improvements might bring, which is arrogant presumption.

Phil


So being the cinematographer, director, and executive producer isn't enough to say- "Hey, I'll do what I want." I have not watched it yet: lately my patience for trilogies has run thin. The telecine/di is always naturally eccentric it seems.
  • 0

#12 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 20 July 2007 - 09:43 PM

Considering all the agonizing that people go through over workflows, am I the only person who has a fair amount of gratitude to Soderbergh for laying it all out, physically on his film no less? It's not exactly the cheapest workflow one will ever see but obviously one that has been thought through and works.
  • 0

#13 jan von krogh

jan von krogh
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 454 posts
  • Producer

Posted 27 July 2007 - 09:47 AM

Considering all the agonizing that people go through over workflows, am I the only person who has a fair amount of gratitude to Soderbergh for laying it all out, physically on his film no less?


no, i also think that this is a pretty good idea.

however, with dci using xyz colorspace our industry is finally moving towards a -clear- definition of what the original really has to look like.
  • 0


Visual Products

CineTape

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

The Slider

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies