Dune 4K UHD (2021) ᑐ ᑌ ᑎ ᕮ ¹

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

Not bad, not bad.

Have you already made your mind up on which ones you're going to frankenstein into one set?

[Synchg]

never buy a used-years old slipcover with the rotten tomatoes clear sticker on it. it'll take the coverart with it when you try to pull it off

[Geoff D]

News at 11

[Vangeli]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Have you already made your mind up on which ones you're going to frankenstein into one set?

With the worldwide steenboks being this overwhelmingly decent, the exclusive steels should be loverly.

As to making a frankenstein set; I’ve learned the tricks, simplified my ways. Should be much better than the numerous editions of BR2049 I’ve needlessly purchased.

Of course, it all hinges on me enjoying the movie or not.

[puddy77]

So ICG just posted their magazine with the Dune cover. Here's a link to the article: https://issuu.com/icgmagazine/docs/october2021/32

There's an interesting part at the end. It seems the DI is based on a scanned filmout. From what I understand, it has a regular DI, it's printed to film, scanned, then has another pass in the DI like it originated on film. It seems they wanted the aesthetic of shooting on film without the hassle of actually doing so.

There was one new step added to postproduction, an innovation that first occurred to Fraser while shooting Vice. “I thought that after the DI, we could spin the final out to film before scanning neg back in,” he says. “The idea was to see if that got us back some of the intrinsic beauty of film, specifically its contrast range and how it exposes highlights. We discovered that it also served to take the digital edge off the bright sun highlights.”

Cole and Fraser had tried the approach before on a music video. “We found shooting to a digital negative that has the exposure level of 1 ASA, like a dupe stock and with the smallest possible amount of grain, was very similar to what true 15-perf, originated-on film looked like when you put them up on IMAX screens,” the colorist reveals. “It wasn’t about grain per se, but all the aspects that one might describe as film artifacts: interlayer halation, the nonlinearity of density across the frame and even allowing some dust to come through. The weave, blur, and slight density breathing of film – the latter is something we had tried emulating digitally – were organic qualities that in the past we did everything possible to mitigate against, but here we were trying to bring them to the fore since they don’t exist in digital. They added a sense of life, especially in the 1:1.43 aspect ratio, and that includes the many VFX shots, which, while they were the best I’ve ever seen, still benefited from this.”

Posting Dune at FotoKem – a film lab still prospering in the digital era – was key to working out those methodologies. “We’d take it as far along in the DI as possible, then scan out to film and match it back,” Cole adds. “The negative was not a printing stock. It was a nonprintable digital negative, optimized for this specific process, and used as a data storage device. Scanning it back in afterward used scientific procedural processes to bring the image back into ARRI’s Log-C world. I had to employ the same lookup tables used for the creative DI. This also accounts for all the film quirks, and matches that procedurally; and I’d do a trim pass after that, just for a final polish, the last two percent.”

[Vangeli]

This was known a while back. So it’ll be 4K but it won’t be as sharp as it could’ve been.

[Resettito]

Okay, I think that explains why it doesn't look like a filmout. I've seen filmouts on Guava Island, the S2 finale of Atlanta, I also have Pro Res files of filmouts printed on 50D stock and it's super convincing.

But seeing the Dune trailers in Pro Res, it doesn't feel like that at all, very much subtle, low grain. They know what they wanted though.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Resettito

Okay, I think that explains why it doesn't look like a filmout. I've seen filmouts on Guava Island, the S2 finale of Atlanta, I also have Pro Res files of filmouts printed on 50D stock and it's super convincing.

But seeing the Dune trailers in Pro Res, it doesn't feel like that at all, very much subtle, low grain. They know what they wanted though.

It doesn't have to have great gobs of grain to be filmic, it's more a 'feel' in this case than an overt in-your-FACE kinda deal. I think part of it is because they didn't output to a conventional dupe negative stock but this specific nonprintable "digital negative" designed to be as clean a reproduction of the source image as possible.

[bokes]

Ugh. Best Buy got it right when they gave all 3- blu-ray- 3D- 4K together in one steel.

Now you need to buy 2 sets to get the same.
And
the standard blu-ray artwork is the best.
They really want you to buy all 3.

[Resettito]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It doesn't have to have great gobs of grain to be filmic, it's more a 'feel' in this case than an overt in-your-FACE kinda deal. I think part of it is because they didn't output to a conventional dupe negative stock but this specific nonprintable "digital negative" designed to be as clean a reproduction of the source image as possible.

I'm fully aware yeah . The trailers just don't at all feel like it to me since I'm really familiar with what a filmout looks like (and am doing the process on my next film, and my DP is doing it on another one as well). Now I guess it's possible it wasn't ready yet for the trailers that just feel like the regular Alexa LF noise to me (and Fraser went up to 2000 ISO).

Someone from the Dejonghe Laboratory I believe, who did a lot of filmouts, said that to really get texture and the feel of it you need to print on Vision 3 camera stock. And I've seen that on all the examples I've seen. I've yet to see Dune but I'm curious to see what the final result looks like. I remember David Sandberg saying they tried a filmout on Shazam but the results were not there, so I think he must have printed on print stock, hence the less than perceptible results.

It bums me out to see that Fraser and Villeneuve tested 35mm and 65mm film for Dune, but felt that 35mm was too grainy (?), and 65mm had issues apparently with the conditions they were shooting in, in addition to Villeneuve somehow feeling film was too nostalgic.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

This was known a while back. So it’ll be 4K but it won’t be as sharp as it could’ve been.

Why does it have to be sharp?

[Merkur]

I wonder what it would've looked like if they treated it like a Nolan VFX shot; finishing it photochemically instead of a DI process.

Sometimes I think it's totally unnecessary yet at the same time I'm so fascinated by these experiments. I always wondered what would happen if you shot digitally but printed on film then scanned it again and I guess it's been done before so the answer is out there, and Dune is an example of that. But we don't have any reference to what it looked like without the process. I assumed everything we saw was from the Alexa itself.

I had reservations on the cinematography when the first trailer came out. But seeing the trailers in HQ (especially in 4K) and seeing the film in IMAX and Dolby Cinema, my opinion on it changed drastically. It's a gorgeous looking film. Except for one sequence heavily featured in the trailers. It was just too dark even for a day for night exterior.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Merkur

I wonder what it would've looked like if they treated it like a Nolan VFX shot; finishing it photochemically instead of a DI process.

Sometimes I think it's totally unnecessary yet at the same time I'm so fascinated by these experiments. I always wondered what would happen if you shot digitally but printed on film then scanned it again and I guess it's been done before so the answer is out there, and Dune is an example of that. But we don't have any reference to what it looked like without the process. I assumed everything we saw was from the Alexa itself.

I had reservations on the cinematography when the first trailer came out. But seeing the trailers in HQ (especially in 4K) and seeing the film in IMAX and Dolby Cinema, my opinion on it changed drastically. It's a gorgeous looking film. Except for one sequence heavily featured in the trailers. It was just too dark even for a day for night exterior.

So shoot digital and then conform to a 65mm neg? Why on earth would they bother??
This movie cost enough as it was

[Resettito]

If you want a better example, look at Guava Island (in high quality of course), the S2 finale of Atlanta, or this for example (one of the best examples though obviously, compression): https://www.garylongdop.com/sober (16 mm filmout)

[Vangeli]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

Why does it have to be sharp?

It doesn’t matter to me, it’s just been a common sentiment from those who have already seen it. It’s not as sharp as expected given the cameras used and the 4K master.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Vangeli

It doesn’t matter to me, it’s just been a common sentiment from those who have already seen it. It’s not as sharp as expected given the cameras used and the 4K master.

Not everything is filmed to be sharp

[Resettito]

I don't know, the Pro Res trailers look razor sharp but haven't seen the full film yet.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Resettito

I'm fully aware yeah . The trailers just don't at all feel like it to me since I'm really familiar with what a filmout looks like (and am doing the process on my next film, and my DP is doing it on another one as well). Now I guess it's possible it wasn't ready yet for the trailers that just feel like the regular Alexa LF noise to me (and Fraser went up to 2000 ISO).

Someone from the Dejonghe Laboratory I believe, who did a lot of filmouts, said that to really get texture and the feel of it you need to print on Vision 3 camera stock. And I've seen that on all the examples I've seen. I've yet to see Dune but I'm curious to see what the final result looks like. I remember David Sandberg saying they tried a filmout on Shazam but the results were not there, so I think he must have printed on print stock, hence the less than perceptible results.

It bums me out to see that Fraser and Villeneuve tested 35mm and 65mm film for Dune, but felt that 35mm was too grainy (?), and 65mm had issues apparently with the conditions they were shooting in, in addition to Villeneuve somehow feeling film was too nostalgic.

It’s definitely an odd way to go about it, to want a film-type look but something that’s so subtle it’s almost like an aftertaste or a memory rather than an active participant. I know you don’t rate film emulation, like at all, but for their purposes they could’ve done this effect a lot cheaper than filming out the entire movie and scanning it back in again.

[Resettito]

I'm waiting to see the final result to properly judge but considering how they describe it, even if it's subtle, they can't get that without a filmout. Just like the filmouts that I've seen, you can never get that close without a filmout. I haven't seen anything as convincing, nowhere, not even from the likes of Yedlin and co.

I have to say that it's as close as it will ever get to shooting on film although there's still a clear difference. It's the only thing that makes me comfortable shooting digitally if for some reason, I can't shoot on film.

[Merkur]

Originally Posted by Agent Kay

So shoot digital and then conform to a 65mm neg? Why on earth would they bother??
This movie cost enough as it was

Well, they ended up doing something similar anyway. Plus, I didn't say they should've done that. I'm wondering how it would've looked that's all.