new Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

Ravi Kiran · August 14, 2015

How much does a production like this save by doing the VFX and DI at 2K instead of 4K? I can understand the 2K DIs in the early days of DIs, but 4K is not a new thing. Seems like it would be cheaper in the long run to do the 4K DI now than to go back go the negatives and redo the films in 4K. Or are they just planning on upscaling these 2K movies for 4K broadcast and home video formats?

Tyler Purcell · August 14, 2015

4k scanning is about double the price of 2k scanning. The biggest problem is; what do yo scan? This film may have been edited and finished by scanning all the good takes in 2k during production. Then all they needed to do was take the editing bay's EDL, re-link to original source media in DaVinci, do the color and prep for distribution. This is a FAR cheaper way to work then going back and re-scanning the entire film in 4k and doing the finishing that way. Sure, you scan MORE up front, A LOT MORE, but the cost of 2k scanning is so much cheaper, you ultimately wind up with a more streamlined workflow and spending less money. It also allows for higher quality dailies as most films dailies aren't scanned, they're telecine'd.

Honestly, the best way to do all of this is;

- telecine the negative into raw color space Pro Res 1080p files.

- Edit

- Cut/conform negative

- Photochemically color negative (internegative)

- Scan color'd negative in 6k

Preservation print exists in the highest quality possible and the digital exists in the highest quality possible.

Mind you, there are thousands of films that have used DI and are only 2k. It's just, in today's age you'd expect a big hollywood blockbuster to spend a bit more money and do it right, especially for IMAX purposes. I for one am very much against DI only and vastly prefer a photochemically timed print for 'preservation' purposes, based on the original negative, rather then some computer data and preservation print based on some digital representation of what the 'film' looks like.

Jay Young · August 14, 2015

Its funny that there have been quite a few comments about the actual projection of the film. The other forum I frequent solely about film projection talks about how their craft, that of the projectionist, is also an art to be mastered. Years ago I went around to various theatres only to be turned down every single time; I wanted to be the projectionist, so I could ensure that films actually looked (and sounded!) great. I was turned away at every theatre because projection is a "managers job", but they're too busy making sure the mass of 12 year olds they hired to serve popcorn are actually doing their job. We all be to our fair share of crappy films with various problems. Complaints are met with "we can't fix that" because the managers wouldn't know a Super-Simplex B if the arc lamp bit them!

It's not only the studios that are multinational corporations, it's the actual movie house too! The theatre in my home town is owned by I think eleven individuals. After 15 years, it was as run down as possible. The next town down the road built a new cineplex and everyone started to go there. Instead of actually fixing broken seats, burnt out lights and warn carpet, they decided to build a HUGE new screen with "stadium seating"... Still not impressed. Please fix my old theatre. If I had 10 million, I'd buy it today - Actually, I'd open a two screen cinema of my own.

And Regal. Yes, I like the European style seating situation, yes I like the reclining seats but WHY IN THE WORLD do you have to put BLINDING BLUE LED's EVERWHERE!? The 4" round buttons that make the foot rest move are bright shining beacons of blue terribleness. My wish for the world is that the blue LED be uninvented. Know what's a good idea? Lets put the wavelength of light thats most damaging to night vision in humans everywhere - that's sure to sell more tickets.

I didn't mean to rant, but I'm not sorry. This is why I visit the local two screen, because no LED's anywhere, and I can buy beer!

Freya Black · August 20, 2015

And Regal. Yes, I like the European style seating situation, yes I like the reclining seats but WHY IN THE WORLD do you have to put BLINDING BLUE LED's EVERWHERE!? The 4" round buttons that make the foot rest move are bright shining beacons of blue terribleness. My wish for the world is that the blue LED be uninvented. Know what's a good idea? Lets put the wavelength of light thats most damaging to night vision in humans everywhere - that's sure to sell more tickets.

Are you saying they have bright blue lights in the theatre while the movie is showing!!!???

Freya

cole t parzenn · August 21, 2015

That's the new school of film making. No rehearsals and no light. Ugh!!

G

"Interstellar" interiors were 500 ASA and T2-2.8, right? Was there enough light for the humans to see? ;)

On the topic of what resolution film should be scanned at, is digital having different resolutions for each angle to the frame edges (i.e., being grid-based) taken into account? You sometimes hear mention of the nyquist limit but only at the angles at which digital has the highest resolution, anyway.

Jay Young · August 24, 2015

Are you saying they have bright blue lights in the theatre while the movie is showing!!!???

Freya

YES!!!!!! I CAN'T EVEN! So now, I take some gaff tape and a piece of card to at least block the one that is in my seat!

If I could get them to replace the "safety lights" on the pathway out of the theatre it would be awesome, but I doubt that's going to happen.

"Interstellar" interiors were 500 ASA and T2-2.8, right? Was there enough light for the humans to see? ;)

On the topic of what resolution film should be scanned at, is digital having different resolutions for each angle to the frame edges (i.e., being grid-based) taken into account? You sometimes hear mention of the nyquist limit but only at the angles at which digital has the highest resolution, anyway.

Interesting that you comment this, as I can see fine at 500 ASA when my light meter says.. "no". Too bad my meter doesn't go down to T 0.4...

KH Martin · August 24, 2015

I was just reading someplace about a 'crew work light' being used so folks could negotiate behind the scenes without tripping over their feet due to the available-light approach employed on digitally originated night exterior shoots. Am wondering if crew will have to wear nightvision goggles if captures take place at ISO 3000 ...

Satsuki Murashige · August 24, 2015

I just have my headlamp permanently attached on set so I can see what I'm doing, where I'm going, and what I just dropped. Not just night exteriors either...

Ravi Kiran · August 27, 2015

4k scanning is about double the price of 2k scanning. The biggest problem is; what do yo scan? This film may have been edited and finished by scanning all the good takes in 2k during production. Then all they needed to do was take the editing bay's EDL, re-link to original source media in DaVinci, do the color and prep for distribution. This is a FAR cheaper way to work then going back and re-scanning the entire film in 4k and doing the finishing that way. Sure, you scan MORE up front, A LOT MORE, but the cost of 2k scanning is so much cheaper, you ultimately wind up with a more streamlined workflow and spending less money. It also allows for higher quality dailies as most films dailies aren't scanned, they're telecine'd.

It seems shortsighted to do a 2K DI today, especially for a big studio, who is presumably interested in selling their films to consumer again in a new 4K format one day. When Breaking Bad and the new Wet Hot American Summer show are available in 4K on Netflix, a major studio film being finished in 2K doesn't make sense.

Tyler Purcell · August 27, 2015

It seems shortsighted to do a 2K DI today, especially for a big studio, who is presumably interested in selling their films to consumer again in a new 4K format one day. When Breaking Bad and the new Wet Hot American Summer show are available in 4K on Netflix, a major studio film being finished in 2K doesn't make sense.

I know, it's pathetic! Especially since they already booked the film in IMAX theaters.

Jeff L'Heureux · August 27, 2015

Does anyone know what the post workflow was on Ghost Protocol when they actually did shoot IMAX film for some sequences? All I can confirm is that a DI was done, but was it a 2K one as well, with IMAX footage? That seems ludicrous to bother shooting IMAX if you're mastering it at 2k. Even on films like The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar they talked about trying to keep as much of a photochemical post work flow with the 65mm footage as possible to preserve the quality for IMAX film prints, even noting that the release prints were struck straight off of the original negative wherever possible to maintain the highest quality output.

Tyler Purcell · August 27, 2015

Ghost Protocal was finished at 6k, not 2k. We're talking about the most recent film, Rogue Nation being finished in 2k, which has no IMAX material, only 4 perf full-frame 35mm anamorphic.

Jeff L'Heureux · August 27, 2015

Yes, I know the current topic is on Rogue Nation, but that raises even further questions still. Why downgrade from a 6k finish on Ghost Protocol to a 2k finish on Rogue Nation with the same cinematographer/relative budget? The AC article on Rogue Nation mentions Tom Cruise's preference for shooting film over digital as well, and he's also arguably the head producer as well so you'd think he'd advocate for the best finish too.

That's what concerns me overall, is when even the mega blockbusters start to skimp on quality to save a few bucks and have the "it's good enough" attitude with the final stage of post before getting it to the screen. Fine, if it's an independent film or a smaller budget film that can't afford a higher resolution scan and DI. This had no reason to go 2k, especially if they knew it was going to have an IMAX release, and the Mission Impossible series has always been about visual spectacle to begin with.

It's strange too, the article in American Cinematographer on Rogue Nation does not include any talk about the DI either. It was added in as an editor's note at the end.

David Mullen ASC · August 27, 2015

I suspect it is as simple as Paramount telling the production company -- if they want the green light -- to find "x" amount of cost savings to compensate for what they perceive as the likely return at the box office, based on the theory that often a sequel does "x" amount less at the box office than the previous film (not knowing that "Rogue Nation" would be as successful as it has become.) So out went IMAX photography, out went a 4K finish, etc.

Tyler Purcell · August 27, 2015

I personally think they ran out of money. There might have been a problem we don't know about, maybe a re-shoot or something and it drained the budget. The finish sure feels "polished" so if there was a budgetary problem, it didn't show up on screen.

I'm frustrated with IMAX anyway. The use to be a large-screen high-resolution format and today they're just a joke. IMAX has turned into a way for cineplex owners to make more money. So IMAX is certifying garbage theaters, diluting the IMAX name. They put so much hype on laser 4k projection, yet their film format is 12k.

So when you think about that, who really cares if a regular film is finished in 2k, if the IMAX version is only 4k. It's just bonkers I tells ya! Bonkers! They charge MORE MONEY for less quality!