Justice League 4K UHD (2017)

[pjvader]

i was on set for a reshoot, it was shot digitally 6K iirc and the monitors did have a 2:35:1 safe frame visible too for some reason

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by pjvader

i was on set for a reshoot, it was shot digitally 6K iirc and the monitors did have a 2:35:1 safe frame visible too for some reason

That doesn't necessarily surprise me. WB may have thought about making the IMAX version have expanded AR while everyone else gets an all-scope version. Shooting for both ARs is just about having options.

[BluRayHiDef]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Snyder was all set to do the reshoots, but he left because of family circumstances.

Plus, haven't all the DCEU fans been saying that Whedon would be sticking faithful to Snyder's vision? Funny how that changes once you think something's wrong.

Nothing has changed; it's just that you made an erroneous generalization about Snyder's fans, which was a very stupid thing to do. Never generalize. Ever.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by BluRayHiDef

Nothing has changed; it's just that you made an erroneous generalization about Snyder's fans, which was a very stupid thing to do. Never generalize. Ever.

And you made the incorrect assumption that WB and Whedon were "interfering" with Snyder's work, when by all accounts the footage that Whedon shot would have been shot by Snyder had he stayed on. It's not "interfering" if he was gonna do it himself.

[Resettito]

You've got to be ****ing kidding me, they shot the reshoots digitally? Are they that irresponsible? This is insane. Why? I saw an Alexa for a regular lighting situation in the behind the scenes and I was hoping it was principal photography. Maybe it was a specific situation, ie an underwater shot, low light, or something.

[Resettito]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I'm not hating on 35mm. I'm saying 95% of what makes film... film will be completely wiped away in the DI.

This is ridiculous, 99 % of the projects shot on film go through a DI these days, and it still looks like film, going through a DI doesn't wipe that away. A photochemical finish and a film print will have a different quality to it, but I can assure you that the hundreds of BDs shot on film that I possess do very much look like film despite the translation. Ridiculous

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Resettito

You've got to be ****ing kidding me, they shot the reshoots digitally? Are they that irresponsible? This is insane. Why? I saw an Alexa for a regular lighting situation in the behind the scenes and I was hoping it was principal photography. Maybe it was a specific situation, ie an underwater shot, low light, or something.

Cheaper, more flexibility, cuts down on the post-production time. It makes financial sense, but it is disappointing. Hopefully the difference between the Alexa 65 and the 35mm footage isn't too distracting.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Resettito

This is ridiculous, 99 % of the projects shot on film go through a DI these days, and it still looks like film, going through a DI doesn't wipe that away. A photochemical finish and a film print will have a different quality to it, but I can assure you that the hundreds of BDs shot on film that I possess do very much look like film despite the translation. Ridiculous

Have you seen the trailer? It's CGI'ed up the arse.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Resettito

You've got to be ****ing kidding me, they shot the reshoots digitally? Are they that irresponsible? This is insane. Why? I saw an Alexa for a regular lighting situation in the behind the scenes and I was hoping it was principal photography. Maybe it was a specific situation, ie an underwater shot, low light, or something.

Meh, they'll stick a film emulation LUT on it, job done.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Have you seen the trailer? It's CGI'ed up the arse.

That doesn't have anything to do with the DI, it's because of a cheap attempt to "improve" a stylized, desaturated color grade and rushed VFX due to a rocky post-production.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yeah it's definitely Snyder's fault that BvS was a huge movie the studio was betting big on, with tons of visual effects and a two-time Oscar winning star who's one of the most recognizable faces in the world. And with Justice League, Snyder's such a hack for spending $300M all over again, especially when a good chunk of that came from reshoots he wasn't even part of.

Please direct me to the part where I called Snyder a “hack”, a term I’ve never used.

Your entire argument falls apart anyway when you consider Fantastic Beasts, a movie from the same studio, with similar hopes placed on it, with a heavier reliance on VFX (and IMO better VFX than Batman v Superman) and an Oscar winning actor as it’s star only cost $180 million to make compared to Batman v Superman and Justice League costing $300 million each. And it’s really only Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons who could negotiate a massive salary out of the cast (maybe JK Simmons) so I doubt salaries are a reason. And Suicide Squad had very extensive reshoots but still only cost $175 million.

I think the simple answer here is that Snyder (and by extension Whedon) just can’t keep a handle on budgets (probably spending/shooting more than they need to, inflating the budget) while other directors for WB like David Yates and David Ayer can (making Suicide Squad relatively cheaply despite its production issues is probably the reason Ayer was invited back for Gotham City Sirens).

Justice League cost more than Star Wars: The Force Awakens and is the third most expansive movie of all time (with Pirates of the Caribbean 4 and 3 in front of it). That’s... troubling.

[Resettito]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Meh, they'll stick a film emulation LUT on it, job done.

I don't know man, if it's quick shots here & there inserted within existing scenes, and it's done properly, I guess it'll be fine, but it might be jarring to see some scenes suddenly on digital and others not.

But this is too vague to know, might have been isolated shots for example. It just reeks of laziness if true, there's no good reason for it, they have a 300 million dollar budget, a lab in London, I'm not buying the "it's faster, easier".

More like Whedon worked with the Alexa on both Avengers (to iffy results to say the least, especially the first one), and he might have wanted to stick with that, ugh.

Thankfully, only two or three reactions out of about thirty mention a notable difference, supposedly, between Snyder & Whedon footage. There is a clip of Bruce & Alfred in a brightly lit room discussing how important Superman is, it was YT quality, but even there, I thought it looked flatter, and we can see an Alexa for this scene in the BHS featurette, reshoot?!

[Resettito]

FB better VFX than BvS?! Huh? First of all, the two are so different in what they do, it doesn't make sense to compare them. Second, yeah, fact, those films cost a lot of dough to make, just the name of the game, you mention FB which was shot completely on a lot and on stage and is a very contained film overall to Justice League, which had photography in several countries, on location, not just stage work, which is a much more epic film in terms of scale and is a goddam superhero film.

Yes, it's all very expensive, you have no idea, thousands of people on payroll, not to mention that since they had to wait for some of the actors' schedules to clear up (ie Ezra was busy on FB 2, Jason on Aquaman, Henry on MI6 (necessitating extensive CGI to remove his moustache that he wasn't authorized to shave (yes, for real). Every day on set can cost 100 to 200 K, this shit adds up, so yes, a week of reshoots with this actor over here, another one with this other actor over there.

TASM2 cost 250 million dollars. This isn't an exclusive thing, Snyder is not wasting anything, not to mention those budgets are rarely confirmed.

[pottyaboutpotter1]

Originally Posted by Resettito

FB better VFX than BvS?! Huh? First of all, the two are so different in what they do, it doesn't make sense to compare them. Second, yeah, fact, those films cost a lot of dough to make, just the name of the game, you mention FB which was shot completely on a lot and on stage and is a very contained film overall to Justice League, which had photography in several countries, on location, not just stage work, which is a much more epic film in terms of scale and is a goddam superhero film.

Yes, it's all very expensive, you have no idea, thousands of people on payroll, not to mention that since they had to wait for some of the actors' schedules to clear up (ie Ezra was busy on FB 2, Jason on Aquaman, Henry on MI6 (necessitating extensive CGI to remove his moustache that he wasn't authorized to shave (yes, for real). Every day on set can cost 100 to 200 K, this shit adds up, so yes, a week of reshoots with this actor over here, another one with this other actor over there.

TASM2 cost 250 million dollars. This isn't an exclusive thing, Snyder is not wasting anything, not to mention those budgets are rarely confirmed.

Like I said, the budget for this film makes it the third most expensive film ever. Location filming, being an epic film and working around actor schedules doesn't justify that. This film cost MORE than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. It cost more than Avatar. It cost more than John Carter.

TASM2's budget more than anything proves my point. That some directors, and studio executives think throwing money at something will make it good, taking the "you have to spend money to make money" ideology to it's insane extreme. Throwing lots of money at TASM2 didn't help Sony. Spider-Man: Homecoming cost $75 million less and had bigger names in the cast and made more.

Just because a movie is "epic" doesn't mean it has to cost a fortune. This film cost $50 million more than Star Wars: The Force Awakens and likely won't even gross half what that did.

And yes, budgets are rarely confirmed. In fact, Justice League could have cost MORE than they're reporting. In fact, after marketing costs, the film will have cost about $500-600 million.

[EbonDragon]

I disagree with Fantastic Beasts having better effects work than BvS. That’s ridiculous. The CG work is wonky in a few placesc, most notably when they’re inside the briefcase sanctuary. But yeah, Snyder works best when he’s restrained by a studio so the budget being high is not surprising. I wouldn’t say entirely troubling but telling about how much he’s actually not been kept in line by WB. He really needs that limit though. He’s less creative when he’s allowed to be more creative, if that makes sense?

[Pieter V]

All 35mm elements were 4K scanned (mentioned this earlier before this Summer) and I just got word from Fabian Wagner (DP) the movie is 2048x1556 16 bit EXR finished.

[Geoff D]

2K boooo....16-bit yay! (As that will be capable of yielding a handsome amount of dynamic range)

[LoSouL]

Originally Posted by pottyaboutpotter1

Looks like Zack Snyder doesn’t have the ability to make these movies without spending a fortune. Batman v Superman cost the same.

Quick search says Watchmen cost 120 million and 300 cost 65 million. Clearly he can successfully make comic book movies at lower budgets.

You're employing what's called confirmation bias where any fact you come across is used as a basis to justify what you already think about Zack Snyder and validate your taste.

[imsounoriginal]

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

All 35mm elements were 4K scanned (mentioned this earlier before this Summer) and I just got word from Fabian Wagner (DP) the movie is 2048x1556 16 bit EXR finished.

So if it's finished in 1.33 (actually 1.316, but whatever), does that mean the 15/70 and 4K IMAX versions will be in 1.43?