Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Mr. and Mrs. Smith

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Mr. and Mrs. Smith

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-13-2005 02:25 PM

quote: Michael Schaffer
Is that good or bad?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=butterface

quote:
Butterface
Chick with a hell of a nice body, but the face is ugly.
She looked real good... but her face (butterface)

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 06-13-2005 06:03 PM

Could you explain the butterface thing to us foreigners? [Confused]

In return, I offer a German insult: A (female) friend of mine saw me watching TOMB RAIDER on DVD and sneeringly called Angelina Jolie a blusen-schönheit which translates to "blouse beauty" - a lady built so spectacular that you never look high enough to see her face.

I still think it was nothing but jealousy... [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Steve Anderson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 168
From: Nashville, TN
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 06-13-2005 08:08 PM

Was this movie filmed on HD video? Reason I ask is the whole film had a digital transfer look to it. You could see the aliasing artifacts on the cars and plants, and the facial detail would change when the subject moved his or her face.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 06-13-2005 08:34 PM

It is impossible to film a movie on video.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-13-2005 09:42 PM

I could have sworn I saw film cameras on the set -shown on one of those HBO First Look thingies. I was channel surfing and saw them filming Angelina Jolie doing some wire rig descent stunt down the side of a hotel.

Even if film cameras were used in production, a digital intermediate could have been used in post production. Since just about any DI is rendered at 2K resolution (instead of something more appropriate for 35mm like 4K) there is a risk of pixels showing up on screen.

Haven't seen the movie yet though. Probably will sometime this week. I'm not sure if I'll notice any pixels though. I seem to be on more of a cringe alert when it comes to that damned crap CAP code.

| IP: Logged

Steve Anderson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 168
From: Nashville, TN
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 06-14-2005 06:41 AM

Joe, go back under your rock.

Bobby,

Take a close look at the movie and see what you think. Is it a common practice to go from the DI to a release print. You know while I was watching "Project Greenlight" I didn't know the movie they were filming was actually shot on video,using the Sony HDW F900. With all the gear and matte boxes attached, it was hard to tell the difference. Oh btw the "crap codes" on the movie I saw were set dead center during an intense action sequence.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-14-2005 08:18 AM

quote: Christian Appelt
Could you explain the butterface thing to us foreigners?

I'll try again:

Butterface = But her face (isn't perfect).

quote: Steve Anderson
Take a close look at the movie and see what you think. Is it a common practice to go from the DI to a release print.

AFAIK, it was shot on film by cinematographer Bojan Bazelli, and used Digital Intermediate. The credits seem to indicate a film crew, rather than video:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356910/fullcredits

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 06-14-2005 01:04 PM

I'm second guessing what I saw on the HBO First Look featurette, but do remember seeing cameras with film magazines.

quote: Steve Anderson
Is it a common practice to go from the DI to a release print.

I don't think you go direct from a 35mm strip output on a laser film recorder direct to release print. John would certainly know a lot more about this than me. The digitally printed film strip is a pretty expensive item. Not something you want to use to dupe 6000 release prints just for North America alone. More than likely the digitally printed strip is duped to a set of interpositives and/or internegatives for multiple uses, such as archiving and making release prints.

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 06-14-2005 01:23 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
I don't think you go direct from a 35mm strip output on a laser film recorder direct to release print. John would certainly know a lot more about this than me. The digitally printed film strip is a pretty expensive item. Not something you want to use to dupe 6000 release prints just for North America alone. More than likely the digitally printed strip is duped to a set of interpositives and/or internegatives for multiple uses, such as archiving and making release prints.

The digital intermediate is output to film, either as a master positive (from which multiple duplicate negatives can be made), or directly as duplicate negatives. A typical laser recorder used for this process takes between 13 and 31 HOURS PER REEL (depending on the resolution) to output the D.I. to film, from which the release prints are made:

http://www.cinesite.com/?1631&0&1117

quote:
Cinesite outputs to 5242 intermediate stock, which is virtually grainless (ASA 0.1) and has the ability to record the grain pattern from faster stocks so that the digital transformation is unnoticeable in the final edit. The lasers that the Cinesite systems use are more intense than CRTs and are able to record out the full dynamic range of any other scanne doriginal negative stock. At Ciensite the lasers are calibrated to give a maximum dynamic range of 2.046 density units to match the capability of the 5242 stock. The pixel size is 6 microns (millionths of a meter) and with a recording speed of 1.7 seconds per frame for 1.85 ratio 2k Cinesite's systems are very diffcult to beat in terms of speed and image quality.

http://www.arri.com/entry/digital.htm

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 06-14-2005 01:58 PM

I thought that our print looked fantastic. I haven't seen the whole thing yet, though, but the parts I have seen looked great.

| IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 06-14-2005 03:16 PM

Heya Steve, check out the spelling of the word "filming". Did you notice it wasn't spelled "videoing"?

Seriously, I agree with Joe here. Stop calling it filming when you are videoing. It shows disrespect for the film format and true filmmakers, because let's face it, video is easier and doesn't require as much skill as shooting on film. (Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 06-14-2005 03:59 PM

I am someone who is incapable of reading what Brad wrote above.

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

[ 06-15-2005, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 06-14-2005 05:42 PM

Me too.

I need to learn to be able to read what part of "this matter" means before editing a post. I should also pay attention to rule #2.

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

[ 06-15-2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

| IP: Logged

Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

posted 06-14-2005 08:27 PM

Me three!

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

As far as how the image looked on screen, I thought it looked great after all the crappy looking policy & sound trailers finished, when it opened on Mr. & Mrs. Smith sitting on the couches the quality of the image struck me. I did notice shading around Pitt's head during one of the chase scenes, dunno if that's because it was shot in front of a green/blue screen or from the DI? It's possible that it's due to being shot on video, but I thought it was shot on film (but can't now find anything to back that "thought" ... I'm writing from a highly firewalled computer)

[ 06-15-2005, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

| IP: Logged

Michael Schaffer
"Where is the
Boardwalk Hotel?"

Posts: 4143
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Apr 2002

posted 06-14-2005 08:38 PM

Wow look at me. I replied TWICE. Someone slap me.

quote: Brad Miller
(Any further comments on this matter should go in a non-review thread.)

[ 06-15-2005, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.