Jump to content


Photo

Oblivion


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:19 PM

I just got back from seeing this.

I'm still somewhat stunned.

 

1. A Science Fiction film where I didn't see the final plot twists coming when my garage door was still opening.

2. A film with Tom Cruise in it that didn't give me the sh!ts from frame #1.

 

AND, I originally thought:

3.  A movie shot on a Red camera where it wasn't obvious from frame #1 that it was shot with one of their products. (The way it's listed on IMDB, it sounds like Red cameras did most of the work). It didn't look like film exactly, but there have been quite a few movies that I would have sworn were shot on video that did turn out to be film. But this was a damned sight better than anything I've seen from Red before.

 

However I was rather surprised that there wasn't more shorts-starching about this on Reduser, so I did a google search including the domain:reduser.net thing, (because I'm permanently banned from there and so can't use their internal search function). 

 

Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman are excellent in this film, It's going to be great! Now Don't you forget Claudio Miranda - Cinematographer!!!. Sony F65 was used for 90% of the film, Epic was used for Steadicam, handheld, mini-heleicopter, and vehicle mount shots. We had to depend on Sony and their updates, but they listened to us and gave us new features almost every month. As soon as there was any problem, Sony was on Set the next day to solve any mystery that came up. Otherwise, The entire crew of this project was absolutely amazing...!!! Keslow Camera worked around the clock to finish the modifications to the Sony, They even improved the camera as we were shooting!! They deserve a lot of credit here, Micheal Kramer and Andre Wright! They have given us unprecedented support for the Red Epic an SonyF65. All I can say is 'We were well prepared after leaving LA'.

 

Then:

 

That is actually slightly depressing, I heard epic was used on this film...

I watched the preview at the cinema the other day and went wow.... someone did a great job with the epic, suffering zero of the hazy anemic face tones i'm used to on a lot of movies shot on red. 

 

Oho. Turns out 90% of it was shot with the Sony F65! That's why the flesh tones were so good.... 

Anyway, it was a great film, in my opinion anyway.

 

 

Actually, I wonder if that's the explanation  why a certain  long-time Red user/enthusiast  was suddenly banned today for the truly heinous crime of pointing of that certain features listed as "Shot on Red" actually only had Red cameras in minor or "B camera" roles  :(

http://www.reduser.n...l=1#post1187469

 

 

 


quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Kemalettin Sert viewpost-right.png
why they put movies which red was only b cam? pain & gain Panaflex XL but they had 7d gopro red epic etc.
 

 

 

That is your comment? Really? Rolls eyes...
I must be in a good mood or I would ban you for being incredibly stupid.
Note... I changed my mind.

Jim



 

  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:29 AM

I'm intending to go and see this a some point; when does it open in the US? I'd like to think I can go and catch it at the Arclight while I'm here.

 

Also, I appreciate there's something of a cherry-picking effect at work here, but Jannard really does seem unable to open his mouth without leaving a foul taste in mine. I can't be the only person on the planet who would avoid using Red simply because it's made by a bunch of people who appear to be such comprehensive dicks. How the hell could you hang a production on the good will of someone with that attitude?


  • 0

#3 Stephen Murphy

Stephen Murphy
  • Guests

Posted 14 April 2013 - 03:26 AM

You're not alone Phil - I try to avoid using their products wherever possible.
And back on topic I too thought Oblivion looked great for the most part although I did find some of the highlights a little clippy and in some of the close ups the skin tones looked a little lifeless.
  • 0

#4 Daniel Singer

Daniel Singer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 April 2013 - 04:11 AM

And back on topic I too thought Oblivion looked great for the most part although I did find some of the highlights a little clippy and in some of the close ups the skin tones looked a little lifeless.


I haven't seen the film yet, but especially in close-ups, is it really the cameras "fault", they could have easily changed it in the DI if not wanted, or am I wrong?
  • 0

#5 Stephen Murphy

Stephen Murphy
  • Guests

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:02 AM

I haven't seen the film yet, but especially in close-ups, is it really the cameras "fault", they could have easily changed it in the DI if not wanted, or am I wrong?


I'd have to say you're wrong, sorry:-)
  • 0

#6 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:44 AM

I'd have to say you're wrong, sorry:-)

 
 

I'd have to say you're wrong, sorry:-)

200% agree. It seems that 15 years into the "digital Cinematography" "revolution" people still don't get that if an overloaded  pixel is recorded as 11 1111 1111 it stays at 11 1111 1111 for whatever length of time the Human race can continue to display it. You can massively overexpose film, to the point where it looks completely opaque, but if you put enough light into it, you can still pull out a workable image. Now, that may only apply to less than 1% of the exposed image, but, that 1% percent makes all the difference. Once you've overexposed a pixel in a video camera, no amount of post jiggery-pokery is ever going to restore it
 
Shooting RAW makes absolutely SFA difference if the STILL EXTREMELY ANALOG photodiode gets saturated by a highlight. It doesn't matter if you have 16 bit capture either;  1111 1111 1111 1111 is always going to come out as 1111 1111 1111 1111 in Post (if you have anything that fancy) or 11 1111 1111 in 10 bit log or 1111 1111 on a DVD or digital TV. 
 
Also 3,000 f*cking lines is not the same thing as "3K"! You need a 6K sensor to resolve 3,000 analog lines, and Sony are FAR MORE CORRECTLY referring to the F65 as a "4K" camera.
  • 0

#7 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:55 AM

I'm intending to go and see this a some point; when does it open in the US? I'd like to think I can go and catch it at the Arclight while I'm here.

 

Also, I appreciate there's something of a cherry-picking effect at work here, but Jannard really does seem unable to open his mouth without leaving a foul taste in mine. I can't be the only person on the planet who would avoid using Red simply because it's made by a bunch of people who appear to be such comprehensive dicks. How the hell could you hang a production on the good will of someone with that attitude?

It'll be on IMDB. It'a bit creepy actually; IMDB seems to know where I live, and will only give me the cinemas near me that are showing it. However Wikipedia says April 19 for the US, whatever that means.


  • 0

#8 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:58 AM

Not exactly on-topic but note the camera lineup for the new Star Trek Movie:

 

Arri Alexa
IMAX MSM 9802, Hasselblad Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo, C-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Red Epic

 

Looks like they don't want to miss out on anything :lol: 


  • 0

#9 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2430 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:59 AM

Clipped highlights on digital

 

IMDB seems to know where I live,

Try clearing your cache and cookies and whatever else you can get at without soap, water and disinfectant.


  • 0

#10 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:07 AM

Also, I appreciate there's something of a cherry-picking effect at work here, but Jannard really does seem unable to open his mouth without leaving a foul taste in mine. I can't be the only person on the planet who would avoid using Red simply because it's made by a bunch of people who appear to be such comprehensive dicks. How the hell could you hang a production on the good will of someone with that attitude?

 

Jim got married in more recent times and to be honest I think that's been a good thing for him.

Jarred Land has been more the public face of things lately and I think that seems to be working a lot better for them.

I do wonder with some people where all the anger is coming from, especially when they seem to be really successful and are achieving things in their lives.

 

As to other people working there, I'm sure there are all kinds of people working for Red, and good for them if it's putting bread on the table and feeding their children or whatever, who can argue.

 

Freya


  • 0

#11 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:20 AM

I note that Mr Jannard has since unbanned the guy which is kinda cool. I've noticed this with other people who have the same issue, that they flare up suddenly with all this anger, not too long later you get the impression that they kind of regret what they have done, but normally they are unable to allow themselves to do anything about it.

 

Some progress there I feel.

 

Freya


  • 0

#12 James Compton

James Compton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:26 PM

Not exactly on-topic but note the camera lineup for the new Star Trek Movie:

 

Arri Alexa
IMAX MSM 9802, Hasselblad Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo, C-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Red Epic

 

Looks like they don't want to miss out on anything :lol: 

 

 

Not exactly on-topic but note the camera lineup for the new Star Trek Movie:

 

Arri Alexa
IMAX MSM 9802, Hasselblad Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo, C-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Red Epic

 

Looks like they don't want to miss out on anything :lol: 

 

 

Keith,

 

Read the credits in the camera department section. You will see the job title:digital imaging technician: aerial unit UK. Dan Mindel is a pro-film guy. There are film loaders listed, but no DIT's for the principal photography.I am willing to be that RED and ALEXA were used for aerial unit and some 2nd unit work.


Edited by James Compton, 14 April 2013 - 12:26 PM.

  • 0

#13 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 14 April 2013 - 12:33 PM

James are sure you are correct maybe just for some back ground plates ,which a Epic seems to be used on. Dont know why Alexa ,but it is IMBD not that reliable .


  • 0

#14 Daniel Singer

Daniel Singer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 14 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

 
 
200% agree. It seems that 15 years into the "digital Cinematography" "revolution" people still don't get that if an overloaded  pixel is recorded as 11 1111 1111 it stays at 11 1111 1111 for whatever length of time the Human race can continue to display it. You can massively overexpose film, to the point where it looks completely opaque, but if you put enough light into it, you can still pull out a workable image. Now, that may only apply to less than 1% of the exposed image, but, that 1% percent makes all the difference. Once you've overexposed a pixel in a video camera, no amount of post jiggery-pokery is ever going to restore it
 
Shooting RAW makes absolutely SFA difference if the STILL EXTREMELY ANALOG photodiode gets saturated by a highlight. It doesn't matter if you have 16 bit capture either;  1111 1111 1111 1111 is always going to come out as 1111 1111 1111 1111 in Post (if you have anything that fancy) or 11 1111 1111 in 10 bit log or 1111 1111 on a DVD or digital TV. 
 
Also 3,000 f*cking lines is not the same thing as "3K"! You need a 6K sensor to resolve 3,000 analog lines, and Sony are FAR MORE CORRECTLY referring to the F65 as a "4K" camera.


Agree with you on that, no need to get a little rude... What I ment were not the clipped highlights but rather the lifeless looking skin tones. Clipped highlights can not be pulled back, thats clear to me, but lifeless looking skin tones you can easily change in the DI, so maybe these skin tones are wanted the way they are??
  • 0

#15 Daniel Klockenkemper

Daniel Klockenkemper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 14 April 2013 - 02:30 PM

There's an interview with Claudio Miranda, ASC that discusses the background footage used in the sky tower scenes.  It sounds like they shot with 3 Red Epic cameras and stitched them together to get the 15K front-projected image.  http://www.fdtimes.c...sc-on-oblivion/

 

 

Agree with you on that, no need to get a little rude... What I ment were not the clipped highlights but rather the lifeless looking skin tones. Clipped highlights can not be pulled back, thats clear to me, but lifeless looking skin tones you can easily change in the DI, so maybe these skin tones are wanted the way they are??

 

Maybe that's just how Tom Cruise's skin tone looks these days? :P


Edited by Daniel Klockenkemper, 14 April 2013 - 02:31 PM.

  • 0

#16 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:29 PM

You can push a pixel to 11111111... in post too.


  • 0

#17 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 14 April 2013 - 05:38 PM

Having just finished post on my first digitally shot feature (Alexa) I can tell you all that there is still a hell of a lot of "stuff" to work out in the digital workflow.  Good grief, I do wish I had that 535 back and 50, 000 feet of film.

 

R,


  • 1

#18 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 15 April 2013 - 06:20 AM

Wait! You sold your film camera Richard?

 

I bet you could pick up another one cheaply in the current market, and pick up a great bargain on some discounted film.

 

Freya


  • 0

#19 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 April 2013 - 10:04 AM

Once you scan 35mm into 2K or 4K DPX files, the post workflow is about the same as anything shot digitally (conform, color-correct, etc).  The complicated thing today is all the delivery requirements, SD, HD, DCP, etc. but that's true no matter what format you shoot.  The old days of just doing a neg cut and answer print, making an IP, and dumping that to videotape are going away...


  • 0

#20 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 15 April 2013 - 07:48 PM

I'm talking about shots that just "vanish" into thin air during a render, or the computer just deciding to omit a shot here and there and leave black instead, or corrections suddenly disappearing and re-appearing, or strange artifacting that suddenly shows up after a render, or....

 

R,


  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

The Slider

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

CineTape

Glidecam

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Opal

Paralinx LLC