Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One to be Filmed Using 6K Large Format Camera.

Death StarWhen I attended Star Wars Celebration Anaheim, I learned that the proof-of-concept trailer that they showed for Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One needed special technology to be played on the big screen. The reason for this has now become apparent, as it’s just been confirmed that the movie will utilize a new, cutting-edge camera to film.

 

 

From The Hollywood Reporter:

 

Parts of Star Wars: Rogue One and Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation were shot with Arri’s Alexa 65, a large format, 6K resolution model of Arri’s popular Alexa camera that is available exclusively through Arri Rental.

 

Many cinematographers are in line to get their hands on one of the still limited number of the new cameras, which really dazzled when unwrapped last fall, using test footage lensed by cinematographer Greig Fraser (Zero Dark Thirty), who’s using it on Rogue One (the production is also using film).

 

As part of a partnership with Imax, Arri is also co-developing a version of the Alexa 65 for Imax production. Avengers: Infinity War is set to be shot with it in its entirety, and Captain America: Civil War will also use the Alexa 65 for an Imax format.

 

This technology will also be utilized for the forthcoming movies The Revenant and The Great Wall. The format appears to be one with a bright future, given the movies that it is being used for now and will be used for in the future.

 

+ posts

Grant has been a fan of Star Wars for as long as he can remember, having seen every movie on the big screen. When he’s not hard at work with his college studies, he keeps himself busy by reporting on all kinds of Star Wars news for SWNN and general movie news on the sister site, Movie News Net. He served as a frequent commentator on SWNN’s The Resistance Broadcast.

Grant Davis (Pomojema)

Grant has been a fan of Star Wars for as long as he can remember, having seen every movie on the big screen. When he’s not hard at work with his college studies, he keeps himself busy by reporting on all kinds of Star Wars news for SWNN and general movie news on the sister site, Movie News Net. He served as a frequent commentator on SWNN’s The Resistance Broadcast.

56 thoughts on “Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One to be Filmed Using 6K Large Format Camera.

  • June 10, 2015 at 3:36 pm
    Permalink

    How much more clear can it get? I’ve yet to even see 4k…

    Progress can be amazing how fast it moves in some areas and how slow in others. I’m still content with my 1080p… but by the time I get 4k it’ll all be about 6k 😛

    • June 10, 2015 at 3:53 pm
      Permalink

      They will go up until they bridge some of the final gaps between film and digital, and there are some. A lot of this depends on what kind of shots are in the film itself. A movie that takes place in a prison cell for example has far different requirements than one that is trying to film large vast landscapes to composite CGI spaceships onto.

      • June 10, 2015 at 5:13 pm
        Permalink

        “They will go up until they bridge some of the final gaps between film and digital, and there are some.”

        Only in some people’s minds because they care more about theoretical ideas than real world performance.

        The reality is that the gap was bridged years ago already as AOTC and ROTS show.

        Digital is far beyond anything film could ever do but the mind trick that some film-maker’s play on themselves is that they equate shooting on film then using digital technology to extract images as being due to film itself when it isn’t at all.

        They aren’t using optical film-printing or compositing anymore. They aren’t copying to interpositives or inter-negs or film prints or using photo-chemical color timing.

        They are merely convincing themselves that shooting on film and then using digital is still somehow making a movie on film when it’s total nonsense.

        • June 10, 2015 at 8:10 pm
          Permalink

          “The reality is that the gap was bridged years ago already as AOTC and ROTS show.”

          LOL!

          Those 2 films were filmed @ 1080p, TPM & the OT can be scanned @ at resolutions of up to 12 k. AOTC & ROTS will be stuck @ 1080 p forever.

          There is no superior medium… when all is said & done film & digital both get mastered to 4k. The only difference is the characteristics of both mediums… it’s up to the tastes of the director to select which they think works best for the film they are working on.

        • June 12, 2015 at 2:58 pm
          Permalink

          Attack Of The Clones looked like steaming Bantha shit.

      • June 10, 2015 at 6:51 pm
        Permalink

        This is really true. We’ve just begun to work with 4K footage (Black Magic) & there are some real drawbacks. It’s super clear, so clear that images stutter at 24 FPS. It’s actually hard to introduce enough motion blur (even in post) to pan the camera. The effect is worse on a home theater system — the way images are projected in a theater mutes the effect. That’s why (IMHO) filmmakers are pushing for higher frame rates. Everything is clear & smooth. But it’s sort of jarring to most people. The technology will settle into something that allows filmmakers to capture the most information possible (helps with grading, FX and etc) about a scene while providing a pleasant viewing experience in theaters, at home and on mobile devices.

    • June 10, 2015 at 4:55 pm
      Permalink

      Isn’t it a shame that most of us (those who wern’t at Anehiem) only got to see that 6K footage at the quality level of smartphone cameras???

      Nice information, but what would be nice would be a proper version of the trailer!!

      • June 10, 2015 at 8:03 pm
        Permalink

        I guess they wanted to leave some stuff for the people who paid to go? I would more upset about not seeing it, but I am too excited about The Force Unleashed right now to worry about an Anthology film.

        • June 10, 2015 at 8:44 pm
          Permalink

          The Force Unleashed?

        • June 11, 2015 at 2:37 am
          Permalink

          You Mean the Force Awakens?????

    • June 10, 2015 at 5:19 pm
      Permalink

      As long as they don’t shoot in a high frame rate. Watching “The Hobbit” in 48 fps was the worst movie experience of my life. Might as well paid to see “The Hobbit: A New Stage Play by Peter Jackson.”

      • June 10, 2015 at 6:27 pm
        Permalink

        What I can’t figure out is why the dwarves look CG?
        Like, how does that work?

        Making the graphics texturing on a living person non-convincing?

        How did they do that?

        • June 10, 2015 at 8:04 pm
          Permalink

          I believe that they didn’t use real dwarfs. They hired regular sized actors and CGI’d them to be dwarf sized.

          • June 11, 2015 at 2:39 am
            Permalink

            No, they were covered in prosthetics. They are full size people with prosthetics to make them look like they have dwarf proportions.

    • June 10, 2015 at 6:57 pm
      Permalink

      is right , to most of us ,though, it doesnt make much difference anyway , we will be watching it on screens that cant show it like that and only have a few speakers .if a film is crap it doesnt matter how good it looks or sounds and if the story etc is great then itll be great on vhs with a dirty head.

      like the cd/mp3 v vinyl thing , my turntable is ok and the amp and speakers are fine … the records i have though (small label punk/metal/hardcore /goth etc)are mostly cheap flimsy crap, so to me , a cd or mp3 is a vast improvement and im not going to spend sh=t loads on stuff just to get it “warm and punchy” (to quote steve albini)and they all sounded fantastic on my dads old thing with a 6 inch nail for a needle. good is good … bad is going to be bad no matter what process it goes through. (yeah sounds great – pity its sh=i=e music though)

    • June 10, 2015 at 9:48 pm
      Permalink

      I always shoot raw…

  • June 10, 2015 at 3:37 pm
    Permalink

    Sounds interesting! Hopefully VIII and IX are consistent with what they’re doing with VII, though.

    • June 10, 2015 at 4:05 pm
      Permalink

      Rian Johnson’s tweet talking about rumors of Rogue One being shot with Panavision 70.

      @LaRabiaCompany I really wanted to, but for some specific logistical reasons we’re sticking with 35.

      • June 10, 2015 at 4:10 pm
        Permalink

        Johnson was talking about rogue one?

        • June 10, 2015 at 4:27 pm
          Permalink

          No. The question was asked what he was using for Ep VIII. If it was going to be the same as Rogue One and he said they’re gonna stick with what was used for TFA. And he’s not sure yet if any of it will be filmed in IMAX.

  • June 10, 2015 at 3:58 pm
    Permalink

    Are we not currently seeing a sufficient number of our favorite stars’ nose pores onscreen as it is?

    • June 10, 2015 at 4:15 pm
      Permalink

      It’s not about nose pores. It’s about how well the digital files can be processed and manipulated when editing. Believe it or not film still has more stretchable limitations in shadows, highlights, and color. That is part of the appeal for directors who still use film. These new large sensors in these cameras are getting closer to those film capabilities.

      • June 10, 2015 at 4:58 pm
        Permalink

        Well, there’s always been an issue with digital falling short of analog as far as nuances go. This goes all the way back to when CDs first hit the mass market. Audiophiles have long claimed that digital recordings lack the warmth and depth of digital recordings, and though plenty of advances have been made there, even my middle-aged ears can still hear a definite difference between a CD and the same piece of music on high-grade vinyl on a good turntable.

        So it doesn’t surprise me at all that film still has advantages over digital as far as things like shadow, color and highlights go. And really, I don’t know that simply upping the available resolution on digital cameras is ever going to completely compensate. You’re still going to be working with a digital interpretation of light and image. Though I’m sure they’ll get close, I still think there’s always going to be a touch of Zeno’s Paradox to all of this.

        • June 11, 2015 at 7:04 pm
          Permalink

          “Audiophiles have long claimed that digital recordings lack the warmth and depth of digital recordings”

          I think you mean the warmth and depth of analog.

  • June 10, 2015 at 4:46 pm
    Permalink

    Perhaps Im too stupid to understand this, but what advantage is there to shooting a portion of a movie at a higher resolution than the rest of it (thoughts go back to Dark Knight) … my understanding is that the end product must be viewed on something that can support it … (example: watching a widescreen 1080p movie on a standard format non widescreen 480i TV instead going to make it look better) wouldnt the theater need to have a projector that supports 6k then?

  • June 10, 2015 at 4:48 pm
    Permalink

    When I read how film has more depth over all these digital efforts, it makes me think of nasa spending thousands of dollars to invent a pen that could write in zero g, and the Russians who used a pencil.

    • June 10, 2015 at 6:08 pm
      Permalink

      NASA developed the pen for specific reasons. They found that small pieces of the graphite in the pencil would rub off into the air (and micro gravity) and get lodged in the filtration and computer systems. They were worried that a buildup could lead to a problem with the craft and jeopardize the astronauts lives. There was a reason they spent money on the pen.

      • June 11, 2015 at 3:30 am
        Permalink

        that’s actually the first thing I thought of when using a pencil in zero G

  • June 10, 2015 at 4:58 pm
    Permalink

    I don’t see the advantage. Analogue Film has a resolution comparable to 16k. At some point, digital 16k will become the standard. Why shoot a movie in lower resolution now, when there’s no way to improve it later?

    The original trilogy will one day be seen in 16k. And movies filmed 35 years later will only be available in 6k?

    • June 10, 2015 at 10:13 pm
      Permalink

      Well it gets more grainy the higher resolution you scan it. You can already see it in the 1080p versions of the OT. They will look slightly better at 4k, but past that it will be hard to tell a difference.

    • June 13, 2015 at 5:38 am
      Permalink

      16k? I mean 4 perf is good but isnt max res closer to 6 or 8k?

  • June 10, 2015 at 5:22 pm
    Permalink

    I don’t give a shit if it’s filmed with a toaster just hurry the fuck up and make it good. I’m tired of waiting for these movies. We are all gonna be dead before we ever even get to see a damn poster!

    • June 10, 2015 at 5:34 pm
      Permalink

      If I remember correctly they can’t advertise for rogue one until after MI5 Rogue nation comes out because paramount is afraid people will get the two confused with each other. U know because of how stupid all us mass audience is that we can’t differentiate between Star Wars and Mission Impossible.

      • June 10, 2015 at 5:39 pm
        Permalink

        Yea I know. I was mostly talking about episode VII poster. But we probably won’t see that until after comic con

    • June 10, 2015 at 11:58 pm
      Permalink

      youre tired of waiting? hurry the %$# up?
      jj, disney, hey everyone! speed up the entire timeframe here!! wer have an angry fan! quick, everyone, film ALL THE MOVIES NOW, hurry hurry!!!
      lol. idiot

    • June 11, 2015 at 3:32 am
      Permalink

      sorry but waiting is part of life, get used to it

  • June 10, 2015 at 5:52 pm
    Permalink

    A little disappointed, thought it was going to be shot on 35mm film. 35mm or Super35 film has a far bigger resolution than 6k film. Plus, Star Wars does not work with digital. The world should be shot on analogue film; otherwise, the true feel and atmosphere of Star Wars is gone. One day, 8k and 16k will be the standard resolution for films, and if they shoot Rogue One with a 6k camera, there is no way they can release it on a future 8k and 16k film.

    • June 10, 2015 at 6:59 pm
      Permalink

      Super 35 and the anamorphic 35 mm film format that SW has been shot on have the resolution of about 4-5k. For 8k you would need 5 perforations/frame 65 mm film and for 16k IMAX (i.e., horizontal 65 mm).

    • June 10, 2015 at 7:26 pm
      Permalink

      The article mentions that they are also using film on Rogue One. So the 6K camera is only being used on certain scenes I guess.

  • June 10, 2015 at 6:24 pm
    Permalink

    Unnecessary numbers will be the death of really great cinematography.

  • June 10, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    Permalink

    6k ?? Pftt even my Vic20 had more ram than that

  • June 10, 2015 at 8:45 pm
    Permalink

    That death star is pretty close to that planet. Don’t you think it might bump into it? Or is the death star that big? Death star 2 was bigger

  • June 10, 2015 at 8:56 pm
    Permalink

    So what the pilots of the squad will be like “I can see my house from up here!” and the audience will be like “so do we?”

  • June 10, 2015 at 9:15 pm
    Permalink

    I have to say that movie theatre experiences in video quality has been good enough; but, people with home theatres lose visual interest by the sounds systems. I like the AMC (Harkins good too) when I saw Avengers II (age of Ultron) and the rattling booms under my theater seat with controlled sound easy to hear quality dialogue. Buying a Blue Ray video and replaying it has TV screen dimension problems and sound quality problems. NOTE: I became sound picky with theatre experiences in Steven Spielberg’s movies because Pixar Studios design great sound affects like THX or Lucasfilm.

  • June 10, 2015 at 9:47 pm
    Permalink

    There was a time when people thought digital would never out do the information on film. That’s no longer the case. I think the argument now is more for the future of TV, as more and more, people are enjoying the theatrical experience in the comfort of their own home with snacks at hand that don’t cost a leg and an arm. My bet is that we haven’t seen the pinnacle of TV technology and that these measures are simply steps that will inevitably lead to the next transition into 4 or 6 K TV technology. I don’t know when it stops. Probably not until the next meteor wipes us out, that or we wipe our own selves out.

    • June 10, 2015 at 10:24 pm
      Permalink

      Laser projectors with HDR are starting to make their debut @ premium theaters (check out AMC prime theaters or IMAX laser if one gets built near you). Some TV’s are being equipped with HDR but you won’t be able to watch HDR on TV for probably another year. Even if so, the price of entry won’t be cheap for some time. Laser projectors with HDR aren’t even being considered yet at this point, but I’d imagine they will run somewhere in the 60,000 dollar range for the next few years if they do hit the market.
      I would agree that image quality on an expensive TV set is better than the average cinema… though for the time being most TV sets are still stuck in the rec 709 color space with no content to see anything beyond that for folks with TV’s capable or reproducing P3 color space… only cinema currently is the place to see P3 color.

      • June 10, 2015 at 10:27 pm
        Permalink

        BTW… this should be of particular interest for Star Wars fans… Disney is the first & so far the only franchise to release films in HDR… I’m guessing Star Wars 7 will be mastered in HDR… if that is the case… I’d highly recommend to watch star wars in an AMC prime screen or IMAX laser screen when it comes out.

        Speaking of which… I had a nightmare last night… I went to see SW7 and it sucked . I was very happy when I woke up to find it was just a dream.

        • June 11, 2015 at 12:17 am
          Permalink

          You clearly have certain unconcious fear issues that play out in your dreams. Past cinematic trauma is likely to blame for this. Were there hordes of Gungans and Ewoks rampaging throughout Episode Seven as you saw it in your dream? Was the destruction of Alderaan retconned as a “near-hit”? Was there an unspeakably terrible moment of “Rey, mesa is yousa father”? Was the First Order brought down by an army of teddy-bears?

          • June 11, 2015 at 1:25 am
            Permalink

            HAhaha! I actually had 2 Star Wars premier nightmares:

            In the dream I had last night, 2 obnoxious commercials appeared in the film… but it was like part of it. & then I saw Leia, but she looked very different… I can’t explain it.

            The other nightmare I had was with the falcon… but it didn’t look like the falcon, it was a purple plastic toy that they used as a prop for it, like a baby toy or something. I was like “man that looks like shit!”. I was very glad when I woke up.

          • June 11, 2015 at 6:02 pm
            Permalink

            I had that dream too a few months ago. For some reason Obi-wan and Qui-Gon were in it, trying to convince luke to stop slacking off.. Man, I’m glad that was a dream..

  • June 10, 2015 at 10:31 pm
    Permalink

    Interesting, Aras. I hope your dream is wrong. In reference to your prior comment, 60,000 dollars for laser projectors? That seems pricy although I do remember the first chump to buy a plasma TV probably spent somewhere in the range of 15,000 or so, so maybe that’s not too far off.

    • June 11, 2015 at 1:33 am
      Permalink

      I think @ (CEDIA?) some laser projectors for home were debuted, they were like ultra ultra high end… Home theater geeks mentioned those projectors & people balked @ the cost. I think the cost of installing IMAX laser or Dolby prime laser is 200k!

      Laser is a bit of a novelty item right now so I think when it becomes something mass produced I bet the prices will be more reasonable for Laser with HDR. Within 5 years I bet you could get one for 3,000 bucks or something.

      Well either way… I’m excited about laser projection! I plan to see inside out with my step daughter in a few weeks with HDR laser @ AMC prime 🙂

  • June 11, 2015 at 9:14 am
    Permalink

    Still broadcasting in Standard Definition in Australia. Bloody ridiculous country.

  • June 13, 2015 at 10:10 am
    Permalink

    Largely the reason for upgrading digital to rival analogue, even when analogue appears to have more depth and resonance is that is much cheaper to process a digital signal. I can only compare it to digital audio since that’s the medium I work in, but, before digital came along en masse, it took a room full of signal processors and various rooms of different sizes shapes and purposes, just to achieve the particular “sound” you were looking for and to be able to perform the tasks of multi tracking, mixing etc. Now many if those processes are cut down to the inside if a computer that ultimately spits out a file for consumption. No more magnetic tape lying around to warp stretch or degrade in a poor environment. It obviously still takes talented people and patience. But it makes the overall process less expensive and easier to be creative when you don’t have to fight a sticky zoom, or a bitchy, hungry actor for half a day, just to get 10 seconds of something you might throw away anyway.

Comments are closed.

LATEST POSTS ON MOVIE NEWS NET