Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Jurassic World (JP IV) shooting in 65MM (partially) (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: Jurassic World (JP IV) shooting in 65MM (partially)
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

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


 - posted 11-24-2014 03:11 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Most movies these days are not shot with the camera locked down, running with actors allowed to improv at length.

For one thing, the horde of investors and other people demanding the Save the Cat templates be followed strictly aren't going to stomach much improv work.

Next, consider the ADHD pace of editing in contemporary movies. It's more in line with TV commercials, music videos and movie trailers. The only way new movies hold a shot for any significant length of time these days is when some kind of technical stunt is being pulled.

5-perf 65mm and 15-perf 65mm have greater challenges than just the film magazine capacity. Lighting and depth of field issues are much more extreme than with 4-perf 35mm.

 |  IP: Logged

Jonathan Wood
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 206
From: Oxfordshire, United kingdom
Registered: Jan 2008


 - posted 11-24-2014 05:40 PM      Profile for Jonathan Wood   Email Jonathan Wood   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It's not about holding a shot for five minutes it's about the disruption to workflow on set when each time you turn over you need to think about when you need to cut. Also most 2nd AC's or clapper loaders get very nervous towards the end of a roll - who wants to tell Christian Bale they didn't get his last take as the roll ran out- so they tend to conservatively estimate the time left on the roll, so in essence you only have 4 or so mins . It's a good way of focussing actors but also a good way of 'breaking the spell' . Also if you wish to use Steadicam then you are limited to a 500 foot mag so your run time is even less. The characteristics of large format cinematography would be in no way an extra challenge to a suitably experienced DOP , so it's unlikely that issues such as reduced depth of field and a slightly more limited choice of lenses would be an issue. Although the design , make up, costume depts etc would almost certainly be much more attentive to their duties with the increased resolution and that is bound to equal lengthier prep times and extra costs

 |  IP: Logged

Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009


 - posted 11-24-2014 05:59 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
'Mommy' is actually in 1:1 AR. When you watch it, it will actually appear a bit like a portrait framing. Yes, we will see more of these formats in the future. We are prepared to it, since we can adjust our horizontal masking to any AR through playlist cues. As long as it works like this, I don't care.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008


 - posted 11-24-2014 10:29 PM      Profile for Jonathan Goeldner   Email Jonathan Goeldner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
not to ruin the surprise but 'Mommy' has two aspect ratios - and it's a brilliant scene as to how it's implemented.

 |  IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

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


 - posted 11-25-2014 02:04 AM      Profile for Joe Redifer   Author's Homepage   Email Joe Redifer   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
1.33 for all scenes inside the womb. 2.39 for all scenes after exiting the womb.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul H. Rayton
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 210
From: Los Angeles, CA , USA
Registered: Aug 2003


 - posted 11-25-2014 12:31 PM      Profile for Paul H. Rayton     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, there has **already** been a movie photographed entirely with a cell phone. It didn't exactly set the boxoffice on fire -- I'm not sure if it ever got any distribution outside of its' native South Africa -- but in 2008 there was a show by the name of "SMS Sugar Man". It had been in the works for a while, as I have some old e-mails about the project dating from 2006. Apparently there were a couple of different editorial versions between those years.

There's not much about it on IMDB now, but there's an interesting article in an online publication, "Underground Film Journal", with some technical details, etc. You can check the original (and a few comments) here . The text of the article is copied here:

quote:

Movie Review: SMS Sugar Man
By Mike Everleth ⋅ November 17, 2008

Aryan Kaganof‘s SMS Sugar Man has either the dubious or celebratory distinction — depending on your point of view of these kinds of things — of being the first feature film shot entirely on a cell phone, specifically the Sony Ericsson W900i. Given the film’s strong sexual content, Sony probably won’t be championing the film any time soon. But, in their absence, I will.

To Kaganof’s grand credit, the technique in which the film was shot never comes across as being gimmicky. The majority of the movie is shot as any traditional movie is shot despite the unique camera being used. Every once in awhile we do get a direct POV shot from one of the characters holding his or her own camera, but this is used very sparingly and is thus unobtrusive.

Scenes are mostly lit and executed as if filmed with a traditional camera. What’s most surprising about the movie is that one might presuppose — or, at least I did — that it would be comprised of mostly quick cuts. I don’t own a cell phone with a camera, but I had assumed one of them could only hold small files for short scenes. Against expectation, Kaganof comprises SMS Sugar Man with fairly longish shots and gives the film a very lyrical tempo.

The entire plot of the film takes place on one Christmas Eve and director Kaganof and cinematographer Eran Tahor suffuse their scenes in yellow and red hues. The effect of this, however, is to give the film a less overall holiday feel and instead nicely gives the impression that these characters are burning in the fires that they’ve stoked for themselves.

Kaganof stars as the eponymous Sugar Man and he’s introduced in a clunky intro scene where he orders a hit on the father of his girlfriend Selene’s (Deja Bernhardt) child. But the bumpy ride quickly smooths out when we learn that Selene is also a prostitute pimped out by Sugar Man. On one Christmas Eve in Johannesburg, Sugar Man pimps Selene and three other white girls, whom he calls “sugars,” out to lonely and horny rich black dudes staying in posh hotels.

Given the smallness of the camera being used, Kaganof frequently brings it in close to capture a brutal intimacy between the characters. And I’m not using “intimacy” as a synonym for sex here despite the film being about prostitutes. The sex in the film is an act that is sometimes consumated, but more often its an act that serves to separate people on a raw emotional level. One prostitute has such a devastating personal encounter with a client that she runs away from her profession and pimp in a psyche-shattering rage, all without ever giving that client what she was paid to do.

In that regard, the script never takes the cheap route in the telling of the story. For that, SMS Sugar Man is a film that defies expectations on several fronts. This is a poetic, haunting film that uses a bold new technology to capture the most basic and primal of human interactions. Kaganof focuses sharply on the evils of love, sex and obsession in a new medium that mutes out the detail and grain that can be seen in traditional film. Some may see this as a heresy to the history of filmmaking, but Kaganof has taken a secure first step on a viable new path of capturing compelling emotions in a whole new lens.

Considering that show was done at least six years ago, I'd be surprised if there haven't been a few other such ideas that were attempted. The quality of cellphone cameras now (as cf. 2006) is such that the appeal of a cheap production process will call to many. We'll either get weird aspect ratios, or maybe they'll figure out how to hold those cameras "sideways" and we'll end up with something approximating a normal 1.85:1. I can dream, can't I?

 |  IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 12-17-2014 07:16 AM      Profile for Frank Angel   Author's Homepage   Email Frank Angel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
At this point, this what's-his-name is talking off the top of his head. It may very well be that, long before any cameras start rolling, the producers are going to override this 2:1 nonsense and make him shoot in a standard AR. His claim to fame is he's got some video short that's GONE VIRAL...oooh! He doesn't have the clout of a Nolan. It may wind up very different from what this guy is saying in his inverview.

 |  IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

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


 - posted 12-30-2014 11:26 AM      Profile for Christian Appelt   Email Christian Appelt   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jonathan Wood wrote
quote:
There is a very good practical reason directors choose not to shoot entirely in 65mm and instead opt to shoot some scenes on 35mm and that's running time . If you shoot 1000 foot of 35mm you get around 9mins, whereas in 65mm iits around half that , in other words it's a little kinder on the actors .
Not true. Although 65/70mm stock is twice as wide (and heavy) as 35mm, it adds just 20% to the length for a given running time (each frame is 5 sprockets high vs. 4 for 35mm).

One minute @24fps:
90 ft. of 35mm film (= 27,43 meters)
112.5 ft. of 65/70mm film (= 34.29 meters)


Check it out here. Film lenghts/running times

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 12-30-2014 11:49 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
<picking nits> It adds 25% to the length of footage to shoot on 65mm versus 35mm, presuming the same perforation pitch (.1866).

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 01-17-2015 06:47 PM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Quentin Tarrintino is fixing that "partially shot in 65mm issue" he is shooting Hateful Eight completely in Ultra Panavision 70. Some of the lenses being used are the old prismatic type. The 100mm Ultra Panatar is shown here.

 -

 -

 |  IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008


 - posted 01-17-2015 09:23 PM      Profile for Jonathan Goeldner   Email Jonathan Goeldner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
^ thumbs up! [beer]

 |  IP: Logged

Jonathan Goeldner
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1360
From: Washington, District of Columbia
Registered: Jun 2008


 - posted 04-15-2015 03:26 PM      Profile for Jonathan Goeldner   Email Jonathan Goeldner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I can understand nestling the image into a 1.85 frame with letterboxing; but how would a 2.0 image be done on a fixed 2.35 screen?

 |  IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012


 - posted 04-20-2015 06:46 PM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If you put it into a scope container (bad idea, since you lose much more resolution), it would automatically end up being pillarboxed.

If you put it into a flat container, it will be letterboxed and you need to zoom it in, until it fits the screen vertically.

 |  IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012


 - posted 04-22-2015 12:30 AM      Profile for Terry Lynn-Stevens   Email Terry Lynn-Stevens   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The new trailer is out for Jurassic World, I have never seen a trailer give away so much information about the movie in 2 1/2 minutes.

 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 04-22-2015 08:17 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Watch the trailer for "Free Willy"

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

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.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.