Captain America 2 shooting on Alexa AND Epic?

Reuel Gomez · August 15, 2013

While you can't see what lens they're using, this image clearly shows the cameraman holding an Arri Alexa Plus.

evans-johansson-filming-captain-america-

Wheras this image shows a camera with a Red Pro monitor which from my understanding, can only be used with the Red Epic. The lens is labeled "E100" making me think that it's a Panavision E-Series anamorphic prime, which Trent Opaloch used on Elysium with the Red Epic as well.

Captain-America-The-Winter-Soldier-Set-P

Now, Marvel seems to want to keep the workflow of their films streamlined by using the Codex Vault. And while the Codex Vault does accept footage from the Epic, Marvel Studios' senior vice-president of production Bruce Markoe stated that they bought both Codex Vaults and Recorders/Capture Drives (which makes no sense since they're bound to become obsolete in a few years when Codex comes out with something more advanced, oh...wait...they already did)

Shawn Martin · August 15, 2013

If IMDB is to be believed, they're using Cooke S4s and Optimos on the Alexa Plus and Canon C500.

That is an E-Series 100mm in the second photo. Maybe they're trying to get different looks for different characters or locations, spherical in some parts, anamorphic in others. Or treating different cameras like different film stocks.

The upcoming RoboCop remake also shot on both Alexa and Epic.

Reuel Gomez · August 16, 2013

If IMDB is to be believed, they're using Cooke S4s and Optimos on the Alexa Plus and Canon C500.

That is an E-Series 100mm in the second photo. Maybe they're trying to get different looks for different characters or locations, spherical in some parts, anamorphic in others. Or treating different cameras like different film stocks.

The upcoming RoboCop remake also shot on both Alexa and Epic.

iMDB is not to be believed because I wrote that. Don't ask me why.

Reuel Gomez · August 16, 2013

But why would someone use two different camera systems other than for size and/or HFR?

Adrian Sierkowski · August 16, 2013

Some shots may need FX work later on and the higher resolution and ability to reframe may be quit beneficial.

That's just an off the cuff guess though.

David Mullen ASC · August 16, 2013

Yes, they may be carrying Epics for rigs that need to be smaller/lighter or when they want 5K RAW for efx work, and having those cameras on the package already, probably the director started just using them as one more camera to roll on an action scene, figuring he will make it all match in post later.

Reuel Gomez · August 17, 2013

Some shots may need FX work later on and the higher resolution and ability to reframe may be quit beneficial.

That's just an off the cuff guess though.

How could they reframe if they're using anamorphic lenses? Or was that just you telling me another use of the Epic?

Reuel Gomez · August 17, 2013

Yes, they may be carrying Epics for rigs that need to be smaller/lighter or when they want 5K RAW for efx work, and having those cameras on the package already, probably the director started just using them as one more camera to roll on an action scene, figuring he will make it all match in post later.

Couldn't they just use the Arri Alexa M instead of switching over to an entirely different camera system? Also, is it possible to match Alexa and Epic in post?

David Mullen ASC · August 17, 2013

Sure, they could use an Alexa M, which still gets cabled over to an Alexa body, and then to a data recorder for raw, but that's 2.88K raw, not 5K raw, if the efx people wanted more resolution... though now that you mention anamorphic lenses, they wouldn't be getting much more resolution compared to a 4x3 Alexa since the Epic has a 1.9 : 1 sensor -- cropped to 1.20 : 1 for 2X anamorphic photography, I think it's more like 3.2K raw.

Probably though for some efx shots, like wide shots, they might be carrying some spherical lenses in order to shoot 5K with some vertical room for repositioning. But for grabbing the Epic to use as a B-camera, they are just putting the same anamorphic lenses on as the Alexa.

Keep in mind that the Epic records raw data onboard, which an Alexa cannot do (until the XT version comes out with the built-in Codex recorders), so the Epic is more self-contained as a unit, which can be useful when running around.

Productions have tried to match HD footage from DSLR's and GoPros into a big movie shot in a better format, but usually in an action scene, those shots are very brief even if they don't match. But the Epic footage would be very close to the Alexa footage, I've seen tests where they've been matched fairly closely, hard to tell them apart. The Epic has maybe about 1.5-stops less headroom in the overexposed areas, but with careful exposure, that could be corrected for somewhat, and all you'd have to do if it were really critical was to add some contrast to the highlights of the Alexa footage. Action films are often color-timed on the snappy, contrasty side anyway.

"Oblivion" used Sony F65's mixed with Epics for steadicam shots and it all matched pretty well.

Even "Skyfall", which was shot on the Alexa, used Epics for some aerial work.

Reuel Gomez · August 17, 2013

Sure, they could use an Alexa M, which still gets cabled over to an Alexa body, and then to a data recorder for raw, but that's 2.88K raw, not 5K raw, if the efx people wanted more resolution... though now that you mention anamorphic lenses, they wouldn't be getting much more resolution compared to a 4x3 Alexa since the Epic has a 1.9 : 1 sensor -- cropped to 1.20 : 1 for 2X anamorphic photography, I think it's more like 3.2K raw.

Probably though for some efx shots, like wide shots, they might be carrying some spherical lenses in order to shoot 5K with some vertical room for repositioning. But for grabbing the Epic to use as a B-camera, they are just putting the same anamorphic lenses on as the Alexa.

Keep in mind that the Epic records raw data onboard, which an Alexa cannot do (until the XT version comes out with the built-in Codex recorders), so the Epic is more self-contained as a unit, which can be useful when running around.

Productions have tried to match HD footage from DSLR's and GoPros into a big movie shot in a better format, but usually in an action scene, those shots are very brief even if they don't match. But the Epic footage would be very close to the Alexa footage, I've seen tests where they've been matched fairly closely, hard to tell them apart. The Epic has maybe about 1.5-stops less headroom in the overexposed areas, but with careful exposure, that could be corrected for somewhat, and all you'd have to do if it were really critical was to add some contrast to the highlights of the Alexa footage. Action films are often color-timed on the snappy, contrasty side anyway.

"Oblivion" used Sony F65's mixed with Epics for steadicam shots and it all matched pretty well.

Even "Skyfall", which was shot on the Alexa, used Epics for some aerial work.

What do you mean by VFX work?

David Mullen ASC · August 17, 2013

VFX means visual effects -- an effect added in post -- as opposed to what are called physical effects, mechanical effects, special effects -- things done on set. It's a nickname, not a standardized term; I sometimes use efx and vfx interchangeably.

Reuel Gomez · August 17, 2013

VFX means visual effects -- an effect added in post -- as opposed to what are called physical effects, mechanical effects, special effects -- things done on set. It's a nickname, not a standardized term; I sometimes use efx and vfx interchangeably.

No, I mean, what kind of VFX work would one use the Epic for?

David Mullen ASC · August 17, 2013

If you shot spherical, you'd be able to shoot and use 5K raw, versus 2.88K raw on the Alexa going to a Codex.

During live-action production, an "efx" camera would mainly either be shooting background plates or people against green screens, or elements to be added to a composite -- the main advantage of shooting spherical at 5K raw full-frame (which is 1.9 : 1 on the Epic) would be the ability to zoom in and reposition the frame due to the extra resolution.

It meant more in the old film days of doing composites on an optical printer. Due to generational loss, the bigger-budgets movies would shoot anything that would get duped in post on a larger negative format, like VistaVision or 5-perf 65mm, both formats also having the advantage of not using anamorphic lenses, which make composite work harder and shooting miniatures harder. The idea being that a larger negative duped a few generations would intercut better with original 35mm negative, than if you had duped 35mm a couple of generations.

Once compositing became digital, using scanned footage, the grain/contrast increase from generational loss was less of an issue but there were still advantages to the larger negative formats -- the ability to avoid using anamorphic lenses for 2.40, the ability to do some reframing, etc. But generally then the larger format film cameras were saved for shots where the extra resolution or finer-grained was more advantageous, like wide shots, shots with digital camera moves added, not your run-of-the-mill efx shot (like erasing some piece of equipment in the frame, adding an animated effect like a laser blast, etc.)

In this case, putting the anamorphic lens on the Epic, there would be no advantage over using the Alexa recording to a Codex, other than the smaller size and that the raw recorder was built in. I think in this case it was more likely the reason was simply it was one more camera on their truck, why not throw it in?

Reuel Gomez · August 17, 2013

If you shot spherical, you'd be able to shoot and use 5K raw, versus 2.88K raw on the Alexa going to a Codex.

During live-action production, an "efx" camera would mainly either be shooting background plates or people against green screens, or elements to be added to a composite -- the main advantage of shooting spherical at 5K raw full-frame (which is 1.9 : 1 on the Epic) would be the ability to zoom in and reposition the frame due to the extra resolution.

It meant more in the old film days of doing composites on an optical printer. Due to generational loss, the bigger-budgets movies would shoot anything that would get duped in post on a larger negative format, like VistaVision or 5-perf 65mm, both formats also having the advantage of not using anamorphic lenses, which make composite work harder and shooting miniatures harder. The idea being that a larger negative duped a few generations would intercut better with original 35mm negative, than if you had duped 35mm a couple of generations.

Once compositing became digital, using scanned footage, the grain/contrast increase from generational loss was less of an issue but there were still advantages to the larger negative formats -- the ability to avoid using anamorphic lenses for 2.40, the ability to do some reframing, etc. But generally then the larger format film cameras were saved for shots where the extra resolution or finer-grained was more advantageous, like wide shots, shots with digital camera moves added, not your run-of-the-mill efx shot (like erasing some piece of equipment in the frame, adding an animated effect like a laser blast, etc.)

In this case, putting the anamorphic lens on the Epic, there would be no advantage over using the Alexa recording to a Codex, other than the smaller size and that the raw recorder was built in. I think in this case it was more likely the reason was simply it was one more camera on their truck, why not throw it in?

True. But does the original Epic (not the Dragon) have high speed capabilities in ANA mode?