Oblivion

[Keith Walters]

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.net/forum/showthread.php?98204-Goose-bumps&p=1187469&viewfull=1#post1187469

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Kemalettin Sert

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

[Phil Rhodes]

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?

[Guest Stephen Murphy]

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.

[Daniel Singer]

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?

[Guest Stephen Murphy]

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:-)

[Keith Walters]

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.

[Keith Walters]

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.

[Keith Walters]

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:

[Mark Dunn]

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.

[Freya Black]

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

[Freya Black]

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

[James Compton]

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 April 14, 2013 by James Compton

[John Holland]

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 .

[Daniel Singer]

 

 

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??

[Daniel Klockenkemper]

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.com/2013/03/29/claudio-miranda-asc-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 April 14, 2013 by Daniel Klockenkemper

[Chris Millar]

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

[Guest]

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,

[Freya Black]

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

[David Mullen ASC]

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...

[Guest]

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,

[David Mullen ASC]

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,

Sounds like a D.I. issue, not a film versus digital origination issue... Unless you miss the days of getting a neg cut, answer print, color-corrected IP or low-con print, and then a straight video transfer. But otherwise, if you are doing digital color-correction these days, whether you shot on film or digitally, it's all file-based... with the issues you are describing.

[Keith Walters]

'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,

What are you doing the render on?

 

That's the sort of thing that happens when the computer hasn't got enough RAM, even when it supposedly meets the software's spec.

Often, the symptoms are that it will render SD faultlessly, occasionally hiccup on 720p and seriously lose it on 1080p.

Generally the more RAM you can stuff in there, the better it likes it. I have heard that you can\ alleviate such problems in PCs by using "Readiboost" rated USB-3 drives, although I'm not entirely sure why that would help. But if it doesn't, you can still use it as an ordinary drive.

 

The other thing that can help is to always do a full (slow!) format of any hard discs or flash memory that you will be using for storage/scratchpad use. It's quite remarkable what a difference that can make.

 

If you're using a Mac system, I don't know much about those, but I would imagine the same things would apply..

[Freya Black]

Well I finally saw this.

 

Firstly in relation to the cinematography I actually thought it was somewhat interesting. I liked the way they used back projection in the house and the strange way that it sometimes looked like the people were cgi characters from that final fantasy movie years ago was quite odd but was also different, so not boring. The muted look of everything was a bit boring but overall I thought it basically worked.

 

The biggest problem I had tho, was that nobody mentioned the movie was a very thinly (wafer thin) veiled remake. Once I started watching the movie and they started talking about protecting the harvesters and that one of the rovers was out of action, I was thinking "this all sounds very familiar!" so I was quite unsurprised by the way the movie progressed.

 

It's not as good as the original by a long way. In rewriting it they removed a lot of the more interesting aspects. However it bought in $286,168,572 worldwide on a budget of $120 million. So it did okay, certainly a lot better than the original movie! You can't argue with the star power of Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman and I can understand the desire to remake a good story and take it to a wider audience than might have seen it otherwise.

 

The set design was really nice.

 

Overall it was okay but nothing to write home about.

 

Freya

[Nicolas Courdouan]

The biggest problem I had tho, was that nobody mentioned the movie was a very thinly (wafer thin) veiled remake. Once I started watching the movie and they started talking about protecting the harvesters and that one of the rovers was out of action, I was thinking "this all sounds very familiar!" so I was quite unsurprised by the way the movie progressed.

 

Apparently (Apparently), Oblivion was written in 2005, but Kosinski was having a hard time selling his screenplay at the time, so he had a comic-book studio turn it into an as-of-yet unreleased graphic novel first, which was then used to get movie studios on board.

 

So yeah, Oblivion and Moon have a lot in common, but if you believe the official word, it's all fortuitous.

[Phil Rhodes]

I heard evil rumours that the whole "comic book" thing was to get around some sort of writing regulation/industrial action/union thing/whatever red tape, and that there has never actually been an illustrated version of it. Not sure though. Just spreading dirt, really...

 

P