Blade Runner 2049

[Brian Drysdale]

Sony studios or "Columbia Pictures" Both "named" production companies on the movie Blade Runner 2049 and Sony logo's all over the movie.

 

They pioneered 4k finishing and they're one of the only companies who are producing consistent 4k material, even though their 3D content is still only 2k like everyone else.

 

Not sure if having your brand all over the movie is good in this case.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/31664223/the-curse-of-blade-runners-adverts

[Jon O'Brien]

The cinema has gone through dull patches before. In the 70's I remember catching a train into the city with a friend and we saw 'The Computer who wore tennis shoes.' Good grief! It was boring. Then along came Star Wars in 1977 and blew the whole movie going thing out of the water. Today it's not cheap Disney pictures, shot over a few days, about tennis shoe wearing nerds, it's the CGI-fests with a staff of a thousand that are simply tarted-up 70's Saturday morning tv animated cartoons re-worked into 2K. Those old tv cartoons were better.

[Robin R Probyn]

I dont think cinema will disappear.. people will always want to go out and mingle eventually .. even my kids !.. but something decent has to be on offer.. they did actually go to the cinema to see Lala land and Dunkirk ..?? but probably based on internet chat..

[David Mawson]

Ohh man good Digital looks great, but it's such a "democratic" format, there is no differentiation anymore, nothing to separate "cinema" from "television".

 

On average television is better written.

 

Because it gives you a unique look that simply separates you from the world of digital. It makes your product stand out in a crowd instead of it looking like every other show. Maybe something easy to do in post, but ya know... people do notice those things.

 

 

You are confusing what you care about and notice and what the audience care about and notice. And still more with what you can use as a marketing message to get the audience into the cinema in the first place.

 

(Also, one of these days Foveon style video sensors will arrive. And you really can't tell Foveon from film - it has the same highlight behaviour as well as the lack of Bayer interpolation. The most frequent questions I get asked about my Foveon stills are "What film did you use?" and "Was it a Hasselbad or a Rollei?" Although actually the shots look more like they came from a Mamiya to me...)

Edited October 11, 2017 by David Mawson

[David Mawson]

 

​The inter web is killing cinema.. and TV for that matter.. my kids only watch anything online.. its changing.. but wow has TV drama ever been better.. its amazing whats on netflix et el these days..

 

Actually, British TV used to be about as good as modern HBO. The original House Of Cards was peak TV; Blake's 7 had variable episode quality but the best were superb and set the rules for modern plot-arced genre shows; Callan is still probably the best spy drama; When The Boat Came In was a long running sort of super-soap that hasn't been matched; children's shows like Noggin The Nog (laser armed vikings...) and Rhubarb matched Adventure Time very well. There was the BBC RSC Shakespeare project, Tom Baker's run on Dr Who, Fawlty Towers...

 

...Then at some point it disintegrated for complex, obscure, British reasons.

[Robin R Probyn]

 

Actually, British TV used to be about as good as modern HBO. The original House Of Cards was peak TV; Blake's 7 had variable episode quality but the best were superb and set the rules for modern plot-arced genre shows; Callan is still probably the best spy drama; When The Boat Came In was a long running sort of super-soap that hasn't been matched; children's shows like Noggin The Nog (laser armed vikings...) and Rhubarb matched Adventure Time very well. There was the BBC RSC Shakespeare project, Tom Baker's run on Dr Who, Fawlty Towers...

 

...Then at some point it disintegrated for complex, obscure, British reasons.

 

True there were a few good programs on UK tv.. I was referring to a more recent past..where its not much the case anymore..and internationally where even nat geo and discovery to gone to the dogs.. just about blowing stuff up ..and re run of shark attacks.. basically what Im saying is no one cares about 6K.8K.. the quality of a de mosaiced CMOS sensor .. they want to watch something good.. which includes it looking good as far as production goes.. content .. surely this is the main point.. and serial high end TV is just running away with the audience ..

[Tyler Purcell]

Ah ok got it.. But thats just the business owners of the studio isnt it.. do they have any techie input from the suits in Tokyo..?

Sony wants to pioneer, so when they can, I do think Japan steps in and says "you must try".

[Tyler Purcell]

I dont really care that TV must look different from film.. what counts is the content..

Sure, but the reason studio's are doing WHAT they are doing, is because they're scared. They are trying to differentiate what they distribute, from what is available on the TV. If you go back and look at the early anamorphic and large-format movies, you'll see a lot of the same trends we have today... lots of kinda not great content, more "visual" then storytelling.

 

Ohh and when I say "TV", that includes ALL content we watch at home, because a lot of people watch web stuff on the television set, whatever that is these days.

[Tyler Purcell]

You are confusing what you care about and notice and what the audience care about and notice. And still more with what you can use as a marketing message to get the audience into the cinema in the first place.

Naa... I have a lot of "laymen" non-technical friends who also visit the cinema and I ask them questions about their experiences. 9 times out of 10, people do notice that cinema looks like TV. They can't place the reasons why, it's not ABOUT the technical reasons, but they do notice it.

 

 

(Also, one of these days Foveon style video sensors will arrive. And you really can't tell Foveon from film - it has the same highlight behaviour as well as the lack of Bayer interpolation. The most frequent questions I get asked about my Foveon stills are "What film did you use?" and "Was it a Hasselbad or a Rollei?" Although actually the shots look more like they came from a Mamiya to me...)

Faveon is cool technology, but it's not ready for Digital cinema because to have 3 layers like that, eats up SO MUCH LIGHT and processing power. The reason it hasn't been instituted into a real D cinema camera is because of that AND evidently a multitude of other issues. I don't think the imager issues are what throws me a curve ball. If you take digital files, laser them out to film and project them, many of the "issues" magically go away. It is celluoid and the projection of it, which is the "missing" element, the flicker, the silver constantly moving, the "life" film creates from non-moving images. Digital is just dead unless you're doing whip pans every 10 seconds.

[David Mawson]

 

True there were a few good programs on UK tv.. I was referring to a more recent past..where its not much the case anymore..and internationally where even nat geo and discovery to gone to the dogs.. just about blowing stuff up ..and re run of shark attacks.. basically what Im saying is no one cares about 6K.8K.. the quality of a de mosaiced CMOS sensor .. they want to watch something good.. which includes it looking good as far as production goes.. content .. surely this is the main point.. and serial high end TV is just running away with the audience ..

 

People were fine with 28 Days Later and that was shot on 720 ENG cameras.

 

To be honest, I think cinematography often seems to get in the way. The people who don't want Marvel want actual story with good performances and sometime so much time is spent on lighting setups and fussy camera work that there is no time left on lower budget shoots to get those performances right - or the fussing over everything else destroys the performers rhythm. Everyone remembers Al Swearengens's monologues but no one remembers a single shot from Deadwood. My own feeling is that tolerable adult film-making will be saved by going back to Godard. Shoot Breathless cheap, with Breathless grade story and performances, and one camera person shooting run and gun style, distribute online.

[David Mawson]

 

 

Faveon is cool technology, but it's not ready for Digital cinema because to have 3 layers like that, eats up SO MUCH LIGHT

No, you just need bigger lights. And actors with asbestos skin... Or you could find people who are absolutely epilepsy proof and use flash 30 times a second.

 

Seriously: no it's not ready yet. But it seems an area of obsessive interest to Canon as well as Sigma. I suspect that the problems might get easier with curved sensors.

 

Naa... I have a lot of "laymen" non-technical friends who also visit the cinema and I ask them questions about their experiences. 9 times out of 10, people do notice that cinema looks like TV. They can't place the reasons why, it's not ABOUT the technical reasons, but they do notice it.

 

Well -

 

1. The way you ask such questions can highly bias answers

 

2. It doesn't matter. For marketing purposes, only easily communicable appeals count - "It's Marvel!", "This film is a real ride!", "So scary!", "Her head spins around and she throws up!", "It has b**bs in. Big ones!"

Edited October 11, 2017 by David Mawson

[Robin R Probyn]

Sony wants to pioneer, so when they can, I do think Japan steps in and says "you must try".

 

 

But then I wonder that they don't stipulate all their films are shot with a Sony f65.. or the new Venice

[Keith Walters]

 

 

But then I wonder that they don't stipulate all their films are shot with a Sony f65.. or the new Venice

Interesting you should say that, because for a very long time, Columbia (owned by Sony) didn't release a single feature that wasn't shot on film. This is despite the fact that until Arri got the Alexa up and running, the bulk of digitally-shot features were shot with Sony cameras. But every time I pointed this out here, one of the then-current generation of twat-sperts would invariably pull some lofty expostulation from their posterior to the effect that that was purely a corporate decision, and Sony is a big corporation and they're different divisions etc etc.

To me it just demonstrated that Sony have never really been serious about "digital cinematography". Their bread and butter was TV studio equipment, and because Columbia were pulling in far more money than their video manufacturing division, if their producers said film was going to deliver the better product, then film it was....

The most ironic thing was, when Columbia finally did start releasing features that were shot on video, most of the early ones were shot with Red cameras....

 

[Ben Rowsell]

<Interesting you should say that, because for a very long time, Columbia (owned by Sony) didn't release a single feature that wasn't shot on film.>

 

I was involved in a Columbia shoot a few years back around the time that the Genesis (aka Sony 35) was in use. Pre Arri, Red, etc. There was requirement from the studio that we shoot on that camera. None of the creatives wanted to, and in the end we had to shoot extensive tests replicated on both formats to prove that 35mm film (the only real alternative at the time) was the better option. Of course the tests were shot in such a way to show the weaknesses of digital at the time, but thats another matter.

 

So I can't comment on company policy, but in that case there was certainly at least a lot of pressure from the studio to go down the digital road.

 

Ben R

AC

 

[Keith Walters]

 

But yes you probably do shoot more.. can be a good thing too though..

Not for the poor bastard who has to edit it for you!

For multi-scene commercials we had a general rule: 5 takes of every scene, no more, no less, unless there was a particular reason for it.

Then we'd all sit down afterwards and review the takes all one by one, and make notes about which we thought was the best one, which was second and so on.

Then we'd hand all that to the editor.

"Excellent is the mortal enemy of good" was not spoken there.

I can tell you, there's nothing that gladdens the heart of an editor more than being handed a cheaparse project where they've made at least 30 takes of each scene , and they're all awful....

[Keith Walters]

 

 

So I can't comment on company policy, but in that case there was certainly at least a lot of pressure from the studio to go down the digital road.

 

I don't doubt that would have been at least some pressure, but clearly it was over-ruled.

The Genesis (like the F900) is just a tarted-up TV studio camera, and it shows.

 

Of course the tests were shot in such a way to show the weaknesses of digital at the time, but thats another matter.

Well, why wouldn't you do that? It's what I would do. It's not like they were lying.

 

The greatest irony is that in 2004 Warner Bros were so hell-bent on using the Genesis for Superman Returns, which ended up looking like video game footage, but all their latest DC comics features (Man of Steel, Batman, Wonder Woman etc) were shot on film!

[Keith Walters]

Kodak did a very scientific study years ago about physical resolution on screen. They found PROJECTED prints, stuck from IP's, which was the process used until film died, are around 2k worth of horizontal resolution.

 

Original Super 35mm camera negative is around 5k... though quite a few films scan on the Arri at 6.

The usually quoted figure is about 1,500 lines across the screen width, which is equivalent to about 3,000 pixels or 3K.

And that's AFTER four stages of copying from the initial camera negative.

The filthiest lie being promulgated by the Digi-Wankers, was to the effect that: "Therefore, the 1440 x 800 images from [Geo Lucas's favourite toy] the F900 wound indistinguishable from film"

First of all, it was only 1.44K which gives a horizontal of about 700 lines, and then (at least before cinema owners had digital projection shoved down their throats) it went through the much the same 3 or 4 generation duplicating process, which made the final film prints pretty diabolical.

But (having an answer for everything) the same DW's would then loftily trot out the fat-headed line to the effect that "digital acquisition only works properly with digital projection", as there is some magical digital "essence" that pervades both systems, which in reality have very little in common, apart from not involving film.

The correct answer was that digitally-shot footage is always going to look better on a cinema quality electronic projector, simply because it then doesn't have to go through a film duplication chain!

And the only fly in that otherwise excellent ointment is that if you do a scan off an original 35mm negative and project that, it's also going to avoid the same multi-generational degradation and look a lot better too!

[Tyler Purcell]

I dont think cinema will disappear.. people will always want to go out and mingle eventually .. even my kids !.. but something decent has to be on offer.. they did actually go to the cinema to see Lala land and Dunkirk ..?? but probably based on internet chat..

Well, it already did in the US. We lost 500 or so screens during the move from film to digital, most of those rural/smaller theaters. If you visit film-tech.com you can see the "closing" list and you'll be shocked how many theaters are still closing, every week one more shutters. David pointed out, for every closing, there are also NEW theaters being built and the total amount of screens available in the US, hasn't changed much.

 

Right now, the Wanda group owns more than 50% of the US theatrical market and I'm sure they'll control more soon.

[Tyler Purcell]

But then I wonder that they don't stipulate all their films are shot with a Sony f65.. or the new Venice

Cuz, Warner actually made the movie in this case.

[Robin R Probyn]

Cuz, Warner actually made the movie in this case.

 

 

Yeah but for Sony studio films.. very few are actually shot with f65 are they..

 

Yes I guess maybe esp in the US alot of screens are ,or were, in malls.. which are falling like flies.. and the more down town stand alone theaters will survive.. as long as the chattering classes have something decent to watch ..!

[David Mullen ASC]

When I was growing up in the 1970's, there were a lot fewer screens, and almost all theaters were single-screen venues. So it's hard for me to not think that we have a glut of screens today -- I'm surrounded by multiplexes with 12, 15, 18 screens each just in my corner of Los Angeles.

[Keith Walters]

When I was growing up in the 1970's, there were a lot fewer screens, and almost all theaters were single-screen venues. So it's hard for me to not think that we have a glut of screens today -- I'm surrounded by multiplexes with 12, 15, 18 screens each just in my corner of Los Angeles.

At the moment, in this country at any rate, the distributors still maintain their vice-like (death) grip over how and when their wares are displayed. If the cinema owners could make their own decisions about screening schedules, they could get far better utilization of their resources. For example, why not have "encore" screenings of features that have reached the end of their cinematic run, for the benefit of people who never got round to seeing them. I think that would be a lot better than continually playing the same movie over and over to a virtually empty cinema.

I know an independent cinema owner up country who hasn't signed onto the "Digital Print Fee" scheme. (I thought it was compulsory, but apparently not). According to him most people can't tell the difference between a standard cinema distribution file and a blu-ray, and his projector will accept HDMI from a computer, Blu-Ray/DVD player, HD set top box or Kodi-type android streaming box. So, there's nothing physically stopping the showing of "reruns" in cinemas.

 

One other possibility he'd thought of was running live screenings of major sporting events, and charging admission, but the networks are still way too arse-clamped to even consider such a notion.

 

As far as flexibility goes, a film projector compared to an electronic projector is like comparing a steam locomotive to a sports car. Yet the content providers are still demanding that the sports car only be able to run on railway tracks....

[Robin R Probyn]

When I was growing up in the 1970's, there were a lot fewer screens, and almost all theaters were single-screen venues. So it's hard for me to not think that we have a glut of screens today -- I'm surrounded by multiplexes with 12, 15, 18 screens each just in my corner of Los Angeles.

 

 

Oh Im surprised to hear that.. in the UK they all became bingo halls !.. and in London now even the smaller art house places that where centrally located are being sold as the land is worth so much.. The thing the lovely Curzon in Soho closed recently..

I dont think cinemas will die completely.. but you have to wonder a bit of the future of the big multiscreen places.. Malls are closing all other the US.. endless same ish crap tent poles films being made..(and more losing money) and just judging from my kids and all there friends .. they will only go very rarely .. everything is watched online.. on phones and iPads . they dont even care about the size of the screen.. they watch stuff in 4-3.. cinema going will become a niche market.. films will have to make their money from Netflix et el..

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Perhaps a different conversation, but unfortunately, I think film has a great future, but cinema does not. Just like we've gotten used to digital, I think we need to start realizing that the future of filmed drama, will be on the small screen. It's sad, but inevitable. I myself, between work and family, simply can't get to the cinema more than a few times a year. I still consume a lot of TV and film, but on my computer or TV. And the more I do so, the less I feel like I miss the cinema. So, when I get the precious time to go to the cinema, I will inevitably choose a movie that delivers these criteria:

 

1. Entertainment.

2. Production Value.

3. Doesn't make me feel depressed.

4. Has good reviews.

 

Most of these criteria do not favor the independent cinema scene today and unless it's had great reviews, I find I tend to go with the first 3 more often than not. I'm sad to say, I'd like to support smaller films, but too often they fail these criteria. I want to feel elated and energized after seeing a good film. Entertained. I don't want to feel guilty or depressed after a movie.

[Robin R Probyn]

.. recently I saw Dunkirk on a huge screen,.. it was ok.. good entertainment .. well made etc.. no character depth at all.. but like a long roller coaster ride.. next up was Manchester by the Sea on the back of plane head rest.. a good film but yes sad and a bit depressing ..no Hollywood happy ending.. but it was well worth seeing.. and it has stayed with me long after Dunkirk,which disappeared as fast as the pop corn aroma.. when leaving the cinema.. followed by Lala land which was great.. !

 

But Im the same as you.. not much time.. cinema is expensive..parking ,, blah blah.. I have a large TV in a nice room with a sofa.. and Netflix and Hulu.. and there is alot of good stuff available .. films and tv series .. the standards are the same.. I dint think any of us will be out of job.. if anything there will be more .. but I think the actual trip to the cinema will be for a special occasion only.. I think it already is for most people.. esp families .. having to re mortgage your house for 5 tickets and balls of sugar..

Edited October 13, 2017 by Robin R Probyn