OCEAN'S 13 ROSETTA STONE

[Leo Anthony Vale]

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.

[Phil Rhodes]

That's pretty arrogant.

 

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

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

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.

[Michael Collier]

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)

[Brad Grimmett]

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

[jan von krogh]

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.

[jan von krogh]

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.

[Sam Wells]

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

[Phil Rhodes]

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

[e gustavo petersen]

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.

[Josh Brokenbourgh]

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.

[Hal Smith]

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.

[jan von krogh]

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.