Jump to content




Photo

Passengers (Morten Tyldum, Rodrigo Prieto, Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence)

Passengers Alexa 65 Primo 70 Rodrigo Prieto Chris Pratt Sci-fi Jennifer Lawrence digital

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Director

Posted 20 September 2016 - 02:41 PM

http://movietrailers...er-1_h1080p.mov

 

 

 

Trailer came out today, releases same day as Rogue One. Sci-fi pic about a man & a woman waking up 90 years too early on a spaceship, and everything that ensues. Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game) is directing and the Black List script has been around since 2007, written by Jon Spaihts (early drafts of Prometheus, Doctor Strange), Keanu Reeves was attached for a while, so were Emily Blunt, Rachel McAdams, etc. Rodrigo Prieto shot this on Alexa 65 & Primo 70 (at least, that's what IMDB says, the Alexa 65 stuff is 100 % true though).

 

This is definitely, along with Live By Night, some of the best Alexa 65 footage I've seen, Prieto is a great great DP, looks cool. 

 

On an unrelated subject, I was wondering. At about 10K a day for Alexa 65 + optics + Codex Vault 65 rental, how do these big productions (like Assassin's Creed, Live By Night, etc) justify shooting on Alexa 65? It'd be much cheaper to shoot on film, hell, maybe 65mm would be cheaper than Alexa 65, I don't really get it, not to mention the insane logistics that must be involved in processing the footage, and that kind of data. Maybe the 6K rez is great for the VFX people, but it's not like anamorphic 35mm is that far off. 


  • 0




#2 Shawn Martin

Shawn Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 September 2016 - 04:43 PM

Dan Sasaki at Panavision mentions this shooting with the Primo 70s in last November's AC (in the article about Spectre, which also used them with the 65).
  • 0

#3 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2574 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 September 2016 - 06:08 PM

On an unrelated subject, I was wondering. At about 10K a day for Alexa 65 + optics + Codex Vault 65 rental, how do these big productions (like Assassin's Creed, Live By Night, etc) justify shooting on Alexa 65?

Probably because that figure is a single day list price. A production renting that package for several months would pay substantially less.

 

Another factor would be that while many people still regard film as superior to digital, there are also many who don't, or who have other considerations beyond format. Personally, I'd rather have the chance to shoot Alexa 65 than film. Not because I think one is 'better' than the other, but because one is the future, and one is, increasingly, the past.


  • 0

#4 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2350 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 September 2016 - 11:28 PM

What's humorous is that I haven't seen any real difference in the standard Alexa vs Alexa 65. I've tried to see a difference, but the field of view advantage of the larger imager and higher resolution, really make no difference when lens selection doesn't benefit the imager and the final output is 2k at your local theater.

What kills me about this whole larger imager boom is that nobody cares about theatrical distribution. It proves all they care about is how cool it is to shoot with the "new toy".

If they cared about quality, they'd call up Panavision and shoot on 5/65 which no matter what, is higher resolution in the theater then digital format available today.

As a side note, Texas Instruments, the soul manufacturer of DLP imagers, is struggling to make one any larger then 4k. They have tried and there are huge issues with building such a large grid of mirrors.
  • 0

#5 Landon D. Parks

Landon D. Parks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1626 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 21 September 2016 - 02:21 AM

In my opinion we don't need anything more than 4k projection. 2k is fine as it is, and looks on-par with typical film release prints to me. 4k is 4x that much information. Anything above that is simple technology for the sake of technology.


  • 0

#6 Jay Young

Jay Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 379 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lexington KY

Posted 21 September 2016 - 07:18 AM

I'm working on a feature right now, and just yesterday the only mention of shooting at 4k was when we needed a wider angle, but we only had a 25mm available.  4k was mentioned as a work around, but the old Alexa's we're using are limited to 2k.  

 

P.S.  That film looks interesting.  Hope it is good. 


Edited by Jay Young, 21 September 2016 - 07:22 AM.

  • 0

#7 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2574 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2016 - 08:31 AM

 the field of view advantage of the larger imager and higher resolution, really make no difference when lens selection doesn't benefit the imager and the final output is 2k at your local theater.
 

You could make the same argument about shooting 35mm and watching it on a TV at home. The capture medium should always surpass the display. We'd certainly complain if it were the other way around.


  • 0

#8 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11221 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 September 2016 - 09:37 AM

I find that trailer deeply disturbing because it makes me very aware of how I have never had any idea how to even begin making something look that good.

 

Although I suspect "that set" may be part of the answer.

 

As to the film itself, I shall consign it to my increasingly bulky mental-note file entitled "Americans in Space Suits" and move on.


  • 0

#9 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1032 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 21 September 2016 - 09:51 AM

Jennifer Lawrence is sweaty singlet .. this would look on a windup Bolex..  light with an torch..  and people are talking about pixels !


  • 0

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2350 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2016 - 11:36 AM

You could make the same argument about shooting 35mm and watching it on a TV at home. The capture medium should always surpass the display. We'd certainly complain if it were the other way around.


Mostly all Alexa shows are less then 4k, yet I've seen many projected in 4k.
  • 0

#11 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2350 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2016 - 11:37 AM

Although I suspect "that set" may be part of the answer.


Looks like a computer game engine 3d environment with people standing on a green screen stage.
  • -1

#12 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 September 2016 - 12:27 PM

Tyler, please, not again with the "CG IS BAD" rant, let's keep this thread clean, speak of the movie if someone cares about it, or about the look of the film. 


  • 0

#13 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2350 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2016 - 01:04 PM

Ok well, the "film" (not shot on film, so it's a movie) looks like crap.

First off, no space ship designed for long distance traveling would have high vaulted ceilings and big swaths of empty space. Had the filmmakers used ONLY physical sets instead of augmented green screen sets, they may have built things scientifically more accurate, or maybe not since even "The Martian" got it all wrong.

Second, I don't know anything about the movie, but I can tell you exactly what it's about because it's been done so many times before. The corporation that sent those people doesn't want them to be successful, so they purposely set the ship off course. The couple that wake up, do so because some other group behind the mission, wanted someone to save it. Of course, they can't get into the cockpit, hence the big door they're banging on. So they've gotta try to steer the ship another way and of course all hell breaks loose, lots of green screen action which ends happily ever after.

Third, it's going to be a failure because nothing released around Rogue One is going to make any money, especially a 120M SciFi film. They should have released it now or waited until early 2017.

Fourth, Written by the same bloke who started Prometheus? Can you say yuck?

Personally, I'm over how filmmakers treat their audiences. This isn't a SciFi film, it's an action film set in space with a cookie cutter love story hooked on so it appeals to a broader audience.
  • -1

#14 Manu Delpech

Manu Delpech
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 September 2016 - 01:17 PM

You never disappoint. 


  • 0

#15 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2016 - 01:44 PM

Ignore the beast...
  • 1

#16 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11221 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 September 2016 - 02:53 PM

I fear Mr Purcell may be entirely correct. Still, looks pretty spectacular, especially coming from a place where all films look like this.


  • 0

#17 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1032 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 21 September 2016 - 10:04 PM

hey thats a great film.. shot by my old mucker Mr Ackroyd.. .. was hard to understand though.. :)... but yes social realism to massive budget sic fi hollywierd epic..

 

I dont think space ships of the future in these type of films ,have to be "accurate " the whole thing is fantasy ..folks are paying cash to escape reality .. they dont want to sit through 100 mins of a dark, tiny capsule ..might as well question the aerodynamics of the flying cars in Bladerunner.. its a movie :)

 

Did anyone notice the sweaty singlet .. ?  if it was good enough for Aliens .. 


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 21 September 2016 - 10:12 PM.

  • 0

#18 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2350 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 September 2016 - 12:33 AM

I dont think space ships of the future in these type of films ,have to be "accurate " the whole thing is fantasy ..folks are paying cash to escape reality .. they dont want to sit through 100 mins of a dark, tiny capsule ..might as well question the aerodynamics of the flying cars in Bladerunner.. its a movie :)


I mean if it's really as stupid of a plot as it appears to be, then it doesn't matter.
  • 0

#19 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1032 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 22 September 2016 - 03:37 AM

I mean if it's really as stupid of a plot as it appears to be, then it doesn't matter.

 

 

Yes true.. I would agree from the trailer it does look more than a bit dodgy plot wise..   but that singlet..   sigh.. 


  • 0

#20 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11221 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 September 2016 - 04:20 AM

hey thats a great film.. shot by my old mucker Mr Ackroyd.. .. was hard to understand though..  :)... but yes social realism to massive budget sic fi hollywierd epic..

 

I don't have a problem with the way it looks, it's just that all British film looks like that.

 

jetpack.jpg?w=620


  • 0



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Passengers, Alexa 65, Primo 70, Rodrigo Prieto, Chris Pratt, Sci-fi, Jennifer Lawrence, digital

Pro 8mm

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Zylight

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

The Slider

Glidecam

CineLab

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Zylight

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Pro 8mm

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc