Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Non-visual effects shots

This is topic Non-visual effects shots in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=007966

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-29-2006, 10:23 PM:

quote:
Although it was ultimately determined to be fiscally unfeasible to shoot the entire film on 65mm film stock, this has the distinction of being the first feature film in nine years to shoot on 65mm stock for non-visual effects shots.

OK, so what exactly does that mean?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-29-2006, 11:55 PM:

What movie are you guys even talking about?

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-30-2006, 12:23 AM:

"The New World" by T. Malick. But it was also a general question. What does the term mean exactly as opposed to "visual effects shot". The latter seems pretty clear - a shot into which visual effects will be inserted. Or is a shot of a visual effect as such? Maybe it's not quite as clear as I thought. Explanations would be welcome.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-30-2006, 01:07 AM:

I seem to recall that optical effects (as opposed to CG effects) are typically done in VistaVision or 65mm to have larger frame areas to work with. Larger frame areas allow any slight precision errors in the alignment of the various photographic elements of a given shot to be that much smaller and therefore less conspicuous. On such a production, the principal photography would be in 35mm but the effects shots could be in 65mm. Wikipedia cites Close Encounters of the Third Kind as an example of this. See also Michael Coate's From Script to DVD site for an interview with Harrison Ellenshaw entitled Meeting a Master of the Matte which talks about 65mm effects work.

Apparently The New World had some principal photography in 65mm, not just optical effects shots.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-01-2006, 02:47 AM:

Thanks! But I want more explanations, please! Mr Pytlak?

Posted by Larry Myers (Member # 738) on 05-01-2006, 07:42 AM:

The feature Brain Storm did the same thing. The "Brain Storm" scenes were shot 65mm and everything else 35mm. Although the fact that these "Brain Storm" scenes were shot 65mm was in it's self a visual effect. Many different reasons why this didn't work as well as it could have. If you think about it, it would be rather easy to do all non-sound second unit scenes in VistaVision or 65mm.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-01-2006, 08:07 AM:

When most VFX were done optically, it was relatively common practice to shoot material for VFX in a larger format, either 8-perf 35mm VistaVision or 65mm. The main reason was to minimize the buildup of grain when going through multiple stages of duplication.

One of the major users of the 65mm format for VFX was Boss Film Studios (Richard Edlund, ASC). Prior to their widescale use of digital VFX, Lucasfilm's Industrial Light and Magic often used the VistaVision format.

http://www.vfxhq.com/spotlight97/9709c.html

quote:
Boss Film, before its announced closure on August 28, 1997, was one of the few houses in existence that could boast a pre-digital era. In fact, Boss will most likely be remembered for their wonderful work on some of the 1980's biggest effects films, all of which were created optically, long before the days of digital.

http://www.vfxhq.com/houses/boss.html

quote:
During the 1980's, something interesting happened: Boss developed a recognizable style for visual effects, something no other effects house can claim. Just look at some of the great pre-digital effects films of the eighties, like DIE HARD, POLTERGEIST II, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA and GHOSTBUSTERS. These brilliant optical effects had personality and character--and they still hold up extremely well in the digital 1990's.

http://www.vfxhq.com/houses/ilm.html

quote:
ILM is at the front of visual effects technology and creativity, and is marvelously consistent in creating dazzling images. ILM has won 13 Oscars in the last 15 years, and has worked on some of the most successful movies of all time.

The Lucas Digital company has, as of late, become the bailout effects house of the industry.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-01-2006, 08:19 AM:

Thanks for that info. So does the term "non-visual effects shot" refer to a shot to which no visual effects will be added?

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 05-01-2006, 11:21 AM:

Yes.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-03-2006, 06:27 AM:

I guess my confusion is caused by the hyphen then. Non-visual effects looke like, effects, but those that are non-visual (what would that be supposed to mean? I don't know). But the meaning of the term is apparently Non visual effects. I was just confused because there were articles, some of them quoted here, which said that "New World" was considered for 65mm shooting, but then they ended up doing only a few shots. The imdb quote seems to suggest most of it was actually done in 65, but I guess that's just a case of someone copying and pasting info from somewhere. The DP's statements quoted in the review forum are obviously more reliable.