Tyrannosaur camera

Steven Fierberg ASC · July 3, 2011

hi,

I saw the film Tyrannosaur last week and it looked fantastic. In particular, I was impressed because it was digital capture (according to the credits) and was shot in 2.35:1. Most of the films I have seen in that format that were shot digitally do not look sharp, but this one did.

Great cinematography. I wonder if anyone can tell me what camera they used, and/or if they used 1.3 Anamorphics, or what?

Thanks!

Steven Fierberg, ASC

David Mullen ASC · July 4, 2011

Try contacting Erik Wilson thru his website:

http://www.erikwilsondp.com/

I couldn't find out any more info on how that movie was shot when I searched online.

Steven Fierberg ASC · July 4, 2011

Thanks David, I couldn't find the info either. the website info is great! I'm off to NYC on Wed, that's where I'll be.

Steve

John Holland · July 4, 2011

On IMDB there is a credit for a Red DIT . So looks like a Red of some sort .

Steven Fierberg ASC · July 4, 2011

That's strange, I saw the movie and although there was a digital media credit, no mention of RED specifically. If it is RED, perhaps he used anamorphic lenses. Anyway, I have emailed Erik and perhaps will know soon. thanks!

K Borowski · July 4, 2011

Have been generally unimpressed with RED I've seen, with the exception of "Knowing" (granted they used great production design, only shooting overcast days to sidestep its limitations).

I am obviously biased in favor of 35mm, but I remember what's his name from Australia, the one that used to be "Murdoch" harping on me for "changing sides" and saying that.

Just call 'em like I see 'em, from the 4th row ;-)

I wish SCOPE lenses were used on digital cameras more often. After all the anamorphic bokeh and flaring is all due to the optics, not Kodak or Fuji 4-perf. neg. I've heard S16 and 8mm anamorphic glass has issues (not to start another 8mm film war), but yeah, with *EDIT a 35mm sized sensor you are locked, cocked and ready to rock. I forget what the native dimensions of the RED are so there might still be some cropping issues there. Most sensors IIRC have roughly a 1.85- or 1.78:1 aspect ratio although I seem to recall a square sensor, Dalsa?

If you can deal with the limitations of scope glass (some breathing, softness up close, and slower speed) no reason why NOT to use it.

From every thing you've said it points to real SCOPE glass. (I have the same issues with S35mm film as I do with digital scope. crops from 2K do NOT cut it for such a wonderfully large image, especially at the old theatres where the screens move OUT for 2.35 instead of cropping down. . . the reason theatres do this now is shockingly shameful: they can use a larger "screen size" measurement in the paper or on Twitter or whatever now with a larger flat size :-/ )

Edited July 4, 2011 by K Borowski

David Mullen ASC · July 4, 2011

Unless the sensor is around 4x3, using standard 2X anamorphic lenses on a digital camera won't give you more resolution for a 2.40 image, unlike when shooting 35mm when you compared cropped Super-35 to 4-perf 35mm anamorphic (and even there, it could be argued that the main benefit is the lower grain due to more of the negative being used and/or less of the image being enlarged... anamorphic lenses themselves tend to be a bit softer than good spherical lenses.)

But it certain has a look that is classically "cinematic"...

One of the first Red One movies ever shot, "Che: Part 1" was shot with anamorphic lenses. Soderbergh also shot "The Girlfriend Experience" that way. On the Red One sensor, the 1.20 : 1 area used for 2X anamorphic photography ends up being 2764 x 2304 pixels, 14.93 x 12.44mm.

Keep in mind that the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic area is more like 22mm x 18mm. What this means is that you are cropping the lens image a bit more when shooting anamorphic on the Red One, almost a 1.5X conversion factor -- you'd need a 35mm anamorphic lens on the Red One to match the view of a 50mm anamorphic lens on a 4-perf 35mm camera.

With the 5K Epic, it's a bit better: cropping to 1.20 : 1 in ANA mode, you use a 3296 x 2700 pixel area that is 17.8 x 14.6mm in size, a 1.2X conversion factor.

The ARRI D21 has a 4x3 sensor so 2X anamorphic photography would use about a 2592 x 2160 pixel area which is about 21.39 x 17.82mm. Once the 4x3 version of the Alexa comes out, it would be similar (which means even then, you'd still get more slightly resolution on the Epic cropping to 1.20 : 1 with 2X anamorphic lenses, roughly 3.3K RAW compared to 2.6K RAW in terms of pixels used.)

That Ashton Kucher spy movie "Killers" was shot on the D21 with anamorphic lenses by Russell Carpenter, ASC and it looked pretty good on the big screen.

John Sprung · July 5, 2011

Most sensors IIRC have roughly a 1.85- or 1.78:1 aspect ratio although I seem to recall a square sensor, Dalsa?

Phantom HD is the square chip camera, 2048 x 2048 photosites on a physical area of 1.008" x 1.008".

Dalsa's Origin was 4046 x 2048 pixels and 1.339" x 0.677", for a 1.98:1 aspect ratio.

-- J.S.

Joseph Arch · July 5, 2011

The ARRI D21 looks the best out of all the digital cameras. The look is closer to film. I could be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.

Steven Fierberg ASC · July 6, 2011

Hi,

I got a reply from Erik, the DP, and I was surprised to hear that he used the ORIGINAL RED ONE, although in the 4.5K mode, which helped. No anamorphics, but Cooke Century lenses, and rating the camera at 160. Aside from beautiful lighting and great shots, I think the presentation may have come off superior to others that I have seen perhaps from good digital projection and perhaps, superior post workflow. Otherwise, I'm not really sure, but still impressed. thanks all for your participation and assistance in this inquiry.

Steven Fierberg

John Sprung · July 6, 2011

The ARRI D21 looks the best out of all the digital cameras.

Have you compared it with its successor, the Alexa?

-- J.S.

Marcus Joseph · July 7, 2011

Unless the sensor is around 4x3, using standard 2X anamorphic lenses on a digital camera won't give you more resolution for a 2.40 image, unlike when shooting 35mm when you compared cropped Super-35 to 4-perf 35mm anamorphic (and even there, it could be argued that the main benefit is the lower grain due to more of the negative being used and/or less of the image being enlarged... anamorphic lenses themselves tend to be a bit softer than good spherical lenses.)

But it certain has a look that is classically "cinematic"...

One of the first Red One movies ever shot, "Che: Part 1" was shot with anamorphic lenses. Soderbergh also shot "The Girlfriend Experience" that way. On the Red One sensor, the 1.20 : 1 area used for 2X anamorphic photography ends up being 2764 x 2304 pixels, 14.93 x 12.44mm.

Keep in mind that the 4-perf 35mm anamorphic area is more like 22mm x 18mm. What this means is that you are cropping the lens image a bit more when shooting anamorphic on the Red One, almost a 1.5X conversion factor -- you'd need a 35mm anamorphic lens on the Red One to match the view of a 50mm anamorphic lens on a 4-perf 35mm camera.

With the 5K Epic, it's a bit better: cropping to 1.20 : 1 in ANA mode, you use a 3296 x 2700 pixel area that is 17.8 x 14.6mm in size, a 1.2X conversion factor.

The ARRI D21 has a 4x3 sensor so 2X anamorphic photography would use about a 2592 x 2160 pixel area which is about 21.39 x 17.82mm. Once the 4x3 version of the Alexa comes out, it would be similar (which means even then, you'd still get more slightly resolution on the Epic cropping to 1.20 : 1 with 2X anamorphic lenses, roughly 3.3K RAW compared to 2.6K RAW in terms of pixels used.)

That Ashton Kucher spy movie "Killers" was shot on the D21 with anamorphic lenses by Russell Carpenter, ASC and it looked pretty good on the big screen.

What about when using a spherical lens on the Red or 4x3 Alexa? Is there much difference between crop factors?

David Mullen ASC · July 7, 2011

What about when using a spherical lens on the Red or 4x3 Alexa? Is there much difference between crop factors?

If you are using a spherical lens, then you are not cropping the sides to get 2.40, and both cameras have Super-35 width sensors, so the focal lengths used are more or less the same (the Red One uses a 24mm wide area when in 4.5K mode, which is the width of Super-35.)

There is no 4x3 Alexa yet, but even if there were, if you were using spherical lenses and cropping vertically to get 2.40, then having a 4x3 sensor instead of a 16x9 sensor doesn't really matter if the horizontal pixel dimensions are the same.

So there isn't a difference in crop factors, just a difference in resolution (the full recordable Red One sensor area being 4.5K RAW as opposed to 2.8K RAW on the Alexa.)

Marcus Joseph · July 7, 2011

If you are using a spherical lens, then you are not cropping the sides to get 2.40, and both cameras have Super-35 width sensors, so the focal lengths used are more or less the same (the Red One uses a 24mm wide area when in 4.5K mode, which is the width of Super-35.)

There is no 4x3 Alexa yet, but even if there were, if you were using spherical lenses and cropping vertically to get 2.40, then having a 4x3 sensor instead of a 16x9 sensor doesn't really matter if the horizontal pixel dimensions are the same.

So there isn't a difference in crop factors, just a difference in resolution (the full recordable Red One sensor area being 4.5K RAW as opposed to 2.8K RAW on the Alexa.)

Would you consider to shooting with anamorphic lenses in digital for reasons besides the look? Would more scope mean less digital noise as anamorphic does with film grain?

Dom Jaeger · July 7, 2011

The ARRI D21 looks the best out of all the digital cameras. The look is closer to film. I could be wrong but that's what it looks like to me.

Have you compared it with its successor, the Alexa?

We shot some comparison tests with the Alexa and the D-21. Outside of available light scenarios the D-21 came closest to matching a filmic look.

The Alexa is certainly more sensitive and has a slightly wider latitude, but it was never designed as a feature film camera. It isn't so much a "successor" as a camera aimed at a different market. The D-21 is a heavy, studio camera with an optical viewfinder and a mechanical shutter that needs to be treated like a slow film stock (well, 200 ISO). Properly lit, it has better colour rendition, higher resolution and more cinematic motion capture. And the 4x3 sensor is better suited for anamorphic lenses.

That said, Alexa is amazingly good for much less outlay, a perfect fit for TV work.

John Sprung · July 7, 2011

It isn't so much a "successor" as a camera aimed at a different market.

Is the D-21 still available? It always had a temporary, unfinished feel to me, kinda like a prototype.

There was to be a version of the Alexa with a 4:3 chip and mirror shutter finder, but at about twice the price. I guess the price/performance point of the all-electronic version was the winner.

-- J.S.

Dom Jaeger · July 8, 2011

Is the D-21 still available? It always had a temporary, unfinished feel to me, kinda like a prototype.

There was to be a version of the Alexa with a 4:3 chip and mirror shutter finder, but at about twice the price. I guess the price/performance point of the all-electronic version was the winner.

-- J.S.

You might be thinking of the D-20, which was a kind of prototype.

For some reason the D-21 was taken up much more enthusiastically in Europe than the States. With the unprecedented demand for Alexas, Arri has now turned all it's focus on to that camera. An optical V/F Alexa model is still on the cards, I believe.