Blade Runner 2049

[Stuart Brereton]

If you watch the movie, you can see moments where the framing was clearly wrong. There appeared to be more information above and below the 2.40:1 framing. This is also evidenced in IMAX promotions which show a more 2:1 aspect ratio being used for laser projection theaters, which are a native 1.90:1.

 

 

The imager on the Alexa 65 is a native 2.28:1 aspect ratio, similar as 5 perf 65mm. I don't know why they would shoot it in "full frame" and then crop it down, makes no sense.

Deakins has said on his website that while they had to be aware of framing for the IMAX release, the film was properly composed for 2.40:1

 

They didn't shoot on Alexa 65s, just regular Alexa, Open Gate 3.4k

 

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/blade-runner-teaser/

[Brian Drysdale]

Can we steer the thread back to the women making out with women please..

 

There is no women making out with women, the only scene that could be mistakenly taken that way is about an AI entity interacting with reality as part of the film's main theme. It's a heterosexual encounter, plus the women are dressed. I've seen worse at a dance.

[Samuel Berger]

Quite a few of us are. Even more of us are outside the US. Most of us make it clear in our profiles.

Try not to forget that this is an international forum.

There is a good deal of common ground between the ratings systems in the UK and the US and the age classifications are usually similar.

Some of us are also old enough to remember the original.

I didn't mean in the forum, I meant "we" as in the folks over here where the film opened first.

 

If I keep talking too much from personal POV, though, I can tell I'm going to be the forum's next Tyler Purcell. ;-)

[Samuel Berger]

Guess it's one to watch on the computer.

 

Someone down-arrowed me for this? LOL!

[Tyler Purcell]

It wasn't shot on the Alexa 65 .

Damn... you're right! What the F. There was a marketing/promotional piece from Arri about the Alexa 65. I didn't even contemplate looking it up on IMDB until now because they made such a stink about it prior to production.

[Tyler Purcell]

Deakins has said on his website that while they had to be aware of framing for the IMAX release, the film was properly composed for 2.40:1

 

They didn't shoot on Alexa 65s, just regular Alexa, Open Gate 3.4k

Well go watch the movie and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

But yea, I mucked up. I read an article saying the movie was "going" to be shot on the Alexa 65 and evidently it wasn't. So that's my bad... sorry.

[Stuart Brereton]

Well go watch the movie and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I have seen the movie. Saw it at the Arclight yesterday. Didn't notice any problems with framing.

 

If you were seeing picture information outside of the 2.40:1 frame, it's more likely that the theater didn't have the correct mask in place than Deakins et. al made a mistake.

[Tyler Purcell]

I have seen the movie. Saw it at the Arclight yesterday. Didn't notice any problems with framing.

I saw it at the arclight Shearman oaks in theater 2.

 

When it comes out on video, it will be interesting to see if they include the IMAX version. That will put this conversation to rest. Until then, there isn't much but my opinion.

[Robin R Probyn]

 

There is no women making out with women, the only scene that could be mistakenly taken that way is about an AI entity interacting with reality as part of the film's main theme. It's a heterosexual encounter, plus the women are dressed. I've seen worse at a dance.

 

 

Oh ok thanks.. well.. I might go and see it anyway ..

[Keith Walters]

Will you all stop with this "Alexa is 3.4K" crap.

Arri designed the Alexa to produce a maximum horizontal pixel count of 2K RGB equivalent.

Calling it "3.4K "is basically a piece of verbal rod-whalloping that belongs in the trashcan of history (along with the "$17,000" Red One...)

As with most technological advances, what eventually passes for the history of the subject is a shabby confabulation of the half-(or-less)-understood prattlings of assorted posers, fantasists, wannabes, and a sprinkling of outright ratbags.

 

 

[Adam Frisch FSF]

No matter what it's shot on, film looks amazing. Gorgeous work by Roger.

[Stuart Brereton]

Will you all stop with this "Alexa is 3.4K" crap.

Arri designed the Alexa to produce a maximum horizontal pixel count of 2K RGB equivalent.

Calling it "3.4K "is basically a piece of verbal rod-whalloping that belongs in the trashcan of history (along with the "$17,000" Red One...)

As with most technological advances, what eventually passes for the history of the subject is a shabby confabulation of the half-(or-less)-understood prattlings of assorted posers, fantasists, wannabes, and a sprinkling of outright ratbags.

 

 

Keith, some sort of evidence to support that statement would be nice. We all know that de-bayering a CMOS sensor only yields about 75% of the stated resolution, but that's the same for any camera. It's been an accepted thing for many years. Why suddenly bash the Alexa now as if it is deliberately deceiving?

[Tyler Purcell]

No matter what it's shot on, film looks amazing. Gorgeous work by Roger.

Flat out gorgeous! It would have liked to seen it shot anamorphic with longer lenses, more like the original. However, Roger' style was a unique vision into that world, which was nice to see.

[Tyler Purcell]

Arri designed the Alexa to produce a maximum horizontal pixel count of 2K RGB equivalent.

Yep, it's designed for a 2k finish. I heard some rumors that Bladerunner was finished at 2k because the computer effects were all rendered out at 2k. Haven't been able to quantify that and I didn't have my glasses on when I saw it... so I couldn't tell what it was via the crispness of the image.

 

Still Steve Yedlin's most recent documentary series, kinda proves without a shadow of doubt that 2k is fine for theatrical. Remember, we've been watching 2k for 100 years via 35mm prints, so it's still regarded as the "gold" standard.

[Stuart Brereton]

I heard some rumors that Bladerunner was finished at 2k because the computer effects were all rendered out at 2k.

 

Roger says on his website that all the VFX elements were kept at the same resolution as the main unit footage, 3.4k. The DCP was output at 4k. He also says that the only 2k elements were for the 3D version.

 

If we are going to say that Alexa is not a 3.4k camera in Open Gate, then we also have to say that RED Weapon is not 8k (or 7k, or whatever), or the Sony F55 is not 4k, or that NO other CMOS camera is what it claims to be in terms of resolution. Again, this is not news.

[Tyler Purcell]

Roger says on his website that all the VFX elements were kept at the same resolution as the main unit footage, 3.4k. The DCP was output at 4k. He also says that the only 2k elements were for the 3D version.

Maybe... I'm waiting for an article by someone who actually did the work.

 

If we are going to say that Alexa is not a 3.4k camera in Open Gate, then we also have to say that RED Weapon is not 8k (or 7k, or whatever), or the Sony F55 is not 4k, or that NO other CMOS camera is what it claims to be in terms of resolution. Again, this is not news.

If you want a 4k output, you shoot at > than 4k, not < or = to 4k. As Steven Yedlin's documentary series suggest, scaling pixels is not a great idea, but it's regularly done with the Alexa thanks to its pixel limitation.

 

This is part of my beef with digital technology in general. Names like 1080p, 2k, UHD and 4k aren't anything but a marketing ploy for consumers.

[Stuart Brereton]

Maybe... I'm waiting for an article by someone who actually did the work.

 

 

If you want a 4k output, you shoot at > than 4k, not < or = to 4k.

I doubt that Roger is the kind of guy that spreads misinformation on internet forums, particularly his own.

 

The fact that debayering yields less pixels that the sensor specs might suggest is something that has been endlessly debated for years now. I'm not sure what Keith's point was in bringing it up again.

[David Mullen ASC]

Deakins posted this:

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/post-the-di/blade-runner-2049-4k-vfx-usage/

"The film was shot at 3.4K, which is the full resolution with the Alexa in Open Gate. The entire workflow, including all the effects work, was kept at this originating resolution of 3.4K. The DCP was then made at 4K. The only 2K elements made for 'Blade Runner 2049' are for 3D projection."

[Keith Walters]

I doubt that Roger is the kind of guy that spreads misinformation on internet forums, particularly his own.

 

The fact that debayering yields less pixels that the sensor specs might suggest is something that has been endlessly debated for years now. I'm not sure what Keith's point was in bringing it up again.

OK, so what's the horizontal resolution of the Genesis/F35 then?

I could scan a piece of film footage of an early 1930s 30-line attempt at a TV broadcast at 1080p, and it will still be 30 lines.

I wouldn't call it "debated" so much as mass-debated.... :rolleyes:

[Keith Walters]

Deakins posted this:

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/post-the-di/blade-runner-2049-4k-vfx-usage/

"The film was shot at 3.4K, which is the full resolution with the Alexa in Open Gate. The entire workflow, including all the effects work, was kept at this originating resolution of 3.4K. The DCP was then made at 4K. The only 2K elements made for 'Blade Runner 2049' are for 3D projection."

Which just shows that knowing how to make movies doesn't necessarily mean you understand how the technology works.

"The DCP was then made at 4K"

He could "make" it anything he likes; you can't put back wasn't there in the first place....

The only 2K elements made for 'Blade Runner 2049' are for 3D projection.

And er, what does that mean, exactly....

 

Where's George Lucas? He'll talk some sense....

[Stuart Brereton]

Keith, no-one is denying that the effective resolution of a CMOS sensor is less than what the manufacturers claim. What we are questioning is why you are raising this issue in such a forceful manner, years after it has been accepted by just about everyone.

[Tyler Purcell]

And er, what does that mean, exactly....

What it "literally" means is that there isn't a 4k 3D format in existence today. All digital 3D is 2k period. A far cry from IMAX 3D 15/70 which is.... :cough: a lot higher. So what Deakins said is that the 2D version was made at 3.2k and upresed to 4k for release. This is very typical for anything made by Sony.

 

What Deakins may not know is that the effects house generally render out everything in 2k. The cost/time for 4k renders is off the chart. I have a few VFX friends and they've told me, making 4k renders is a nightmare because there are individual pixel mistakes that show up and it's sometimes hard to fix them. So 4k isn't just more time consuming on the server side, it's far more time consuming for the artist. Since they KNEW they'd be rendering out all the VFX shots for the 3D version in... well 2k, they most likely only worked in a 2k world for ALL of the VFX shots.

 

The sad part is the stereo conversion guys work from a "final" movie and not with the VFX guys... which is stupid. The whole 3D thing is so bloody stupid and wasteful.

[Dom Jaeger]

wow... "What Deakins may not know" blah blah... And only a day after not even knowing what camera was used.. It's like some kind of satire..

[KH Martin]

You've only got another ten days or so till the studio-imposed moratorium on talking about BR VFX lifts. That's why we didn't get into it for my ICG article, because the editor wanted it running in the October issue, not the November one. But I'd be surprised if this whole 'what the VFX were executed at' aspect isn't addressed in pretty much every VFX story.

 

It's funny, this business with 6K and 8K and all that. 15 years ago, I remember reading that 6K and 8K texture maps were used on the remake of SOLARIS in order to finish at 4K, and I figured that was why it was (back then) just about the only totally credible CGI spacecraft work in film. But I went back just now and checked the couple of tech articles online about the film, and there's no mention of those texture maps, and I only found one reference to Cinesite's space CG work being finished at 4K.

[Robin R Probyn]

"What it "literally" means is that there isn't a 4k 3D format in existence today. All digital 3D is 2k period. A far cry from IMAX 3D 15/70 which is.... :cough: a lot higher. So what Deakins said is that the 2D version was made at 3.2k and upresed to 4k for release. This is very typical for anything made by Sony."

 

Whats made by Sony here..? In the big features league the F65 over samples/down samples what ever way you look at it.. from 8/6K to "true 4K" that you say you hate look. .. wasn't BR shot on an Arri.. not 65.. or have I missed something..?