New, high quality digital camera developed for EPISODE III

[Kev]

how would this digital movie system work? would the studios send the movie to the theater on an HD-DVD or something?

i don't think they'd be too keen on that, since it's almost guaranteed that there will be DVD-quality copies of the movies released on the internet within weeks of the film's theatrical release (maybe even before).

 

[glen]

Theoretically...in a perfect world, but we live on Earth dude.
Quit criticizing, you are no economics prize winner.

Look he made a common mistake about economics.
My point is TRUE on Earth, dude.
It is a very fundamental point about economics and it is important to understand it when talking about the cost of a good.

 

[MaxDepth]

And I'll be one those poor schlubs watching the movie at one of the places that won't convert to the new projector.
So, it'll be a really crappy pixilated film with tired, boring plot development and uninspired dialogue.
Gee, Mr. Luas, thanks. As if I wasn't already depressed enough this morning...

 

[pulse8]

Even if theatres dont go with digital projection, movies filmed on digital can be distributed on film with savings to the studios.

That's wrong. It's still cheaper to shoot on film and finish on film than it is to shoot digitally and finish on film. A normal transfer from video to film is incredibly expensive. To transfer using a technology that's still in it's infancy is going to cost a fortune to do.

Anyway, I'm not real big on them going digital. I think Episode II looked pretty good, but if there's a movie made for digital, it's Star Wars. I want to see a character and story driven movie done in a digital format and then see if it still holds up.

As expensive as the equipment is for this HD shooting is, it all still looks like soap operas to me.

 

[HendrixFan]

maladriot, there are currently over 50 theatres nationwide that have digital screens, Im sure some have more than one screen that is digital. I know for sure that the digital theatre in Plano, Texas had two of its screens in digital, the rest were analog. There was another theatre in Dallas that added digital screens in August, though I dont know how many.

Movies that play on digital screens with DLP come on hard drives, a RAID system for backup security Im sure. Episode II was supposed to be around 60-70GB total. The audio was uncompressed 24 bit 5.1, and the video was 1920X1080p MPEG2. By my rough calculations, the audio takes up around 5GB, leaving the remaining amount for high resolution, high bitrate MPEG2 video.

These movies that screen on digital have, as far as I know, never been bootlegged out, though I wouldnt mind having such a copy of Episode II. So, the opportunity has already existed, and for whatever reason, we have yet to see a digital movie leak out.

Edit: pulse8, Robert Rodriguez claimed filming Spy Kids 2 on digital saved him over $10 million total.

 

[pulse8]

pulse8, Robert Rodriguez claimed filming Spy Kids 2 on digital saved him over $10 million total.

Well, it may be benficial for a movie with as many comps and CG effects as those, but with a movie that's actor driven and not effect driven, it'd still be more expensive.

 

[Platypus]

I wonder if this new high-tech camera can write a script worthy of wiping my ass with.

 

[BigJohnKC]

I for one am excited about seeing Episode 3 in a few years. This will be one dark, depressing movie for sure - one of the major themes is the eradication of all the Jedi in the galaxy, plus the conversion to the Dark side of Anakin. The first two episodes were good, but not great. I liked 2 a lot better than 1. I think 3 will be the best in the series. But maybe that's just wishful thinking. And seeing it in that high a resolution with a new camers will make it even better - seeing 2 in the digital theater made a lot of difference.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Even if theatres dont go with digital projection, movies filmed on digital can be distributed on film with savings to the studios.

That's wrong. It's still cheaper to shoot on film and finish on film than it is to shoot digitally and finish on film. A normal transfer from video to film is incredibly expensive. To transfer using a technology that's still in it's infancy is going to cost a fortune to do.

Anyway, I'm not real big on them going digital. I think Episode II looked pretty good, but if there's a movie made for digital, it's Star Wars. I want to see a character and story driven movie done in a digital format and then see if it still holds up.

As expensive as the equipment is for this HD shooting is, it all still looks like soap operas to me.

I'm gonna debate you here Pulse

When shooting on digital you need fewer lights (thus saving some money) and you don't have to pay for film proccessing (thus saving lots of money). Plus you don't have to wait for dailies to go out and come back (since you can view the "canned" tape on the spot) so you probably save money by having fewer reshoots.

That said, it still looks like a soap opera to me too and I still prefer the asthetics that (currently) only shooting on film can give.

Lethal

BTW, the "back to LA" countdown is at 18 months, and I'm currenly shooting/producing for CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) and having a blast at the track. I'm not making bad money either.

 

[apoppin]

I really can't get excited about it . . . it's like playing a crappy videogame (poor story line, crappy control and gameplay) but with excellent graphics.

Now if Lucas could find some good writing talent . . .

 

[JellyBaby]

Empire is still the best and not so ironically Lucas had the least to do with making that one.

 

[HendrixFan]

While Lucas had the least to do with Empire, and it indeed was the best of the 5 so far; Lucas did have the idea for the whole shebang. I felt that Episode II was the second best of the series thus far, and it is not too far behind Empire. I think the biggest problem with the new trilogy is that Lucas has way too much story that he wants to tell in a 3 movie span, and everything feels rushed. THe original cut of Episode II was nearly 4 hours and they trimmed about an hour and a half to get the final product. Having read the leaked script, the movie suffered from the cuts, with character development and pacing.

For those of you that feel digital filming too closely resembles the "soap opera" look, I have to disagree. If you look at the outdoor lighting scenes, they look incredibly sharp and dont have "the look". I agree that some of the indoor shots have that look, but I think that has much more to do with the lighting than digital film, which would explain why the outdoor shots look so good. As was already mentioned, digital doesnt require the same lighting as film, and that difference could explain the interior shots.

Visually, digital is sharper and clearer than film when seen on digital projection. The largest visual difference is the colors seem to be stronger and there is absolutely ZERO jitter on the picture. Actually, the lack of jitter may be the reason it looks sharper, but the end product is certainly better. I think the biggest difference about digital projection was the uncompressed 24 bit audio though, that really blew me away more than anything else.

 

[kami]

uh, Ep2 was shot in 1080p

Weird. I heard from a few places that the actual resolution (of the widescreen picture) is 1440x880 or thereabouts. isn't 1080p like 1920x1080? (HD??). I maybe got my numbers screwed up...oh well.

 

[HendrixFan]

HD TV standards are 1080 interlaced or 720 progressive, with the 720 progressive being the higher quality of the two. Star Wars, or any movie shown on a DLP system will look nice. You would think that the 1920X1080 image would be pixelated if shown in digital, but their DLP process does a fantastic job of smoothing over (essentially the same thing as an overlay on media player) the pixels while maintaining clarity.

kami, would you happen to know what resolution the digital effects from LOTR were rendered in? I felt that swooping scene for the huge battle at the beginning of FOTR looked nice, with no pixelization either.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: pulse8

Even if theatres dont go with digital projection, movies filmed on digital can be distributed on film with savings to the studios.

That's wrong. It's still cheaper to shoot on film and finish on film than it is to shoot digitally and finish on film. A normal transfer from video to film is incredibly expensive. To transfer using a technology that's still in it's infancy is going to cost a fortune to do.

Anyway, I'm not real big on them going digital. I think Episode II looked pretty good, but if there's a movie made for digital, it's Star Wars. I want to see a character and story driven movie done in a digital format and then see if it still holds up.

As expensive as the equipment is for this HD shooting is, it all still looks like soap operas to me.

I'm gonna debate you here Pulse

When shooting on digital you need fewer lights (thus saving some money) and you don't have to pay for film proccessing (thus saving lots of money). Plus you don't have to wait for dailies to go out and come back (since you can view the "canned" tape on the spot) so you probably save money by having fewer reshoots.

That said, it still looks like a soap opera to me too and I still prefer the asthetics that (currently) only shooting on film can give.

Lethal

BTW, the "back to LA" countdown is at 18 months, and I'm currenly shooting/producing for CART (Championship Auto Racing Teams) and having a blast at the track. I'm not making bad money either.

While what you say is true about not paying for film processing and instant dailies, you still have to account for the cost of the equipment to do such things. Between that cost, the cost to transfer to film and the cost of having someone who knows enough about this new technology around to see over everything, I'd still say that it's not cheaper to shoot digitally and transfer to film.

Edit: Glad to hear things are going well. You'd better get back here quick, though, because business is booming for some reason. Who knows how long it'll last.

 

[pulse8]

but the end product is certainly better.

That's subjective, though. I believe that film adds character to a movie. I feel there are things that are done in camera and on film that cannot be done in the digital format. There's a wider range of possibilities with an organic process like film than one of digital nature. I feel that digital "film" limits the creativity of cinematography during the time of shooting.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan<br. Visually, digital is sharper and clearer than film when seen on digital projection. The largest visual difference is the colors seem to be stronger and there is absolutely ZERO jitter on the picture. Actually, the lack of jitter may be the reason it looks sharper, but the end product is certainly better. I think the biggest difference about digital projection was the uncompressed 24 bit audio though, that really blew me away more than anything else.

IMO, and in many industry people's opinions, the "sharpness" of video is part the the draw back. In comparrison to film video looks hard, angular<sp?> and flat. When shooting video DPs are always applying filters and diffusion to try and "soften" video up. And I don't just mean movie DPs, everyone from yer local news show, to an Oscar willing DP is looking for a new and better way to shape the way video looks. Also, as Pulse8 pointed out DPs are more limited w/what they can do in camera when shooting video over film. With film adjusting the iris, apature, selection of film stock and how it's developed can all be used to give the film a disticnt that can't be duplicated when shooting on video. Someday you'll be able to mimic the look of film on video entirely in post, but that day is not here yet. Even though I've been pointing out video's flaws it is the way to go in my opinion. Personally, I wish people would stop trying to make video look like film 'cause all you end up with is video that looks like crappy film. I think people stop being ashamed to shoot on video and trying to make it look like film. Shoot on video and play up the mediums strengths and just go with it. A good story is a good story no matter what it is shot on.

Pulse: Stricly looking at the highest of high ends... film and HD budget costs might be argueable as to which is least expensive. But looking at features as a whole (including indies and documentaries) video is much cheaper to shoot on. Granted it doesn't look as good as film, but current video can certainly get the job done and look good doing it.


Lethal

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
HD TV standards are 1080 interlaced or 720 progressive, with the 720 progressive being the higher quality of the two. Star Wars, or any movie shown on a DLP system will look nice. You would think that the 1920X1080 image would be pixelated if shown in digital, but their DLP process does a fantastic job of smoothing over (essentially the same thing as an overlay on media player) the pixels while maintaining clarity.

kami, would you happen to know what resolution the digital effects from LOTR were rendered in? I felt that swooping scene for the huge battle at the beginning of FOTR looked nice, with no pixelization either.

i certainly saw pixels and i was only about 10 rows within the front. every bright scene was pixelized, it was horrible. maybe i'm better then catching it then others, but big square blocks are not something i'll pay to see.

not enough res to even display the text between previews without pixel blocks, talk about horrid.

its like come back when your truely @% superior. plus, eps 2 is a bad example of how digital looks, its an animated film pretty much.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Episode II was shot at 1920X1080p, which is slightly higher than film resolution. Now, they did use digital zoom (crop) after the shot was already in the can, which in a few scenes was visible, most noticable when Anakin says "I am a slow learner".

I really didnt see any pixelization at all in Episode II, either on film or on digital (and seeing it on digital was amazing). I dont see why so many people made a big deal about resolution, that was never really a concern. It was always a question of how good the colors and contrast could look being shot directly on digital. Every "blockbuster" nowadays uses digital effects, and the film must be scanned in to digital, then converted back to film for release after the effects are added. So its really quite common for movies to go through the digital to analog conversion for release.

uh, film doesn't have a "resolution." it's analog. The resolution in the end all depends on the film --> digital converstion (It's called telecine IIRC, but the word always conjures up the evils of a 24fps to a 29.97 fps conversion )

 

[HendrixFan]

I meant to say HDTV resolution, not film resolution.

I find it strange to see so many people against digital with all its strengths, given the massive amount of digital manipulation seen in most (certainly not all) movies today. Personally I find the color filtering to be the most annoying of the current trends, seen in likely more than half of the movies, and nearly every single TV commercial. I guess it all comes down to individual opinions on the matter.

How many of you guys out there saw star wars on digital, and were blown away by the uncompressed 24 bit audio?

 

[pulse8]

Pulse: Stricly looking at the highest of high ends... film and HD budget costs might be argueable as to which is least expensive. But looking at features as a whole (including indies and documentaries) video is much cheaper to shoot on. Granted it doesn't look as good as film, but current video can certainly get the job done and look good doing it.

Well, an HD feature staying in the digital realm is cheaper than a film feature. The part that I was arguing about was shooting on HD and finishing on film is more expensive than just shooting on film and finishing on film.

As for shooting on video such as DVCAM, it's much cheaper than both HD and film, but I've found that film adds it's own production value to the movie. It sucks, but I think it's true for most people. I also feel that it depends on the movie whether or not shooting on video will work. A hardcore drama piece that's completely actor driven never really seems right to me. I can't get into it and it just looks cheesy to me. Comedies, however, can work very well if shot on DVCAM.

 

[LethalWolfe]

No digi-Star Wars for me Closest theater is 4 or 5 hours away and in another state.

I find it strange to see so many people against digital with all its strengths, given the massive amount of digital manipulation seen in most (certainly not all) movies today. Personally I find the color filtering to be the most annoying of the current trends, seen in likely more than half of the movies, and nearly every single TV commercial. I guess it all comes down to individual opinions on the matter.

Manipulating a film image digitally is much, much different than shooting digital to begin with. Like I said before, I'm not against digital, but film gives you much for shooting flexibility in terms of image manipulaiton, and their are certain looks, and images that you can only get by shooting film. Look at "Seven" or "Fight Club" you could not achieve the same look and feel if you tried to shoot those movies digitally.

Technology be damned film just has the ability to look cooler... end of story.


Lethal

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
While Lucas had the least to do with Empire, and it indeed was the best of the 5 so far; Lucas did have the idea for the whole shebang. I felt that Episode II was the second best of the series thus far, and it is not too far behind Empire. I think the biggest problem with the new trilogy is that Lucas has way too much story that he wants to tell in a 3 movie span, and everything feels rushed. THe original cut of Episode II was nearly 4 hours and they trimmed about an hour and a half to get the final product. Having read the leaked script, the movie suffered from the cuts, with character development and pacing.

Who is the "THEY" that trimmed 1-1/2 hours out of EP2? It was Lucas' baby. Maybe he needs a better ccntinuity person and editor as well as a better screen writer instead of "better" digital video..

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
While Lucas had the least to do with Empire, and it indeed was the best of the 5 so far; Lucas did have the idea for the whole shebang. I felt that Episode II was the second best of the series thus far, and it is not too far behind Empire. I think the biggest problem with the new trilogy is that Lucas has way too much story that he wants to tell in a 3 movie span, and everything feels rushed. THe original cut of Episode II was nearly 4 hours and they trimmed about an hour and a half to get the final product. Having read the leaked script, the movie suffered from the cuts, with character development and pacing.

Who is the "THEY" that trimmed 1-1/2 hours out of EP2? It was Lucas' baby. Maybe he needs a better ccntinuity person and editor as well as a better screen writer instead of "better" digital video..

Easy their trigger... don't start draggin' poor old script girls (aka continuity person) and editors into the blame-fest that rests totally on the shoulders of Lucas. An editor can only work w/what the director gives him. Don't blame Ben Burtt (the editor) because Lucas has the directing skills of a wet paper bag.


Lethal

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: apoppin

Who is the "THEY" that trimmed 1-1/2 hours out of EP2? It was Lucas' baby. Maybe he needs a better ccntinuity person and editor as well as a better screen writer instead of "better" digital video..

Easy their trigger... don't start draggin' poor old script girls (aka continuity person) and editors into the blame-fest that rests totally on the shoulders of Lucas. An editor can only work w/what the director gives him. Don't blame Ben Burtt (the editor) because Lucas has the directing skills of a wet paper bag.

Lethal

Actually that's what I'm getting at - it was ALL Lucas. He used to be pretty good . . . how did he disconnect from the audience so badly?