Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Leaders on 'Ocean's Thirteen'

This is topic Leaders on 'Ocean's Thirteen' 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=008816

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-08-2007, 11:54 AM:

If anybody has this film at the moment look at the very small text printed on three frames between '9' and '8' on the Academy leaders; it's rather interesting, and I've never seen anything similar on any other film.

Basically, it tells you what the film went through between the original camera, and the print, or digital release copy.

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 07-08-2007, 01:38 PM:

How'd you notice that? [eyes]

I gave up trying to read it with my naked eyes and just used my digital camera.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-08-2007, 05:08 PM:

As with the other O13 thread, please post the picture! [Big Grin]

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-08-2007, 05:23 PM:

I've actually borrowed the leader from one of the reels for a couple of days, but for the last few weeks I haven't been able to use my main computer with the scanners on it, as my landlord's son is using it to create his magnum opus in Final Cut Pro. He's encoding it tonight, to produce a DVD tomorrow morning, so I'll try to scan the leader when I get home tomorrow evening.

Posted by Jon P. Inghram (Member # 4125) on 07-09-2007, 12:09 AM:

I got some pictures using my digital camera:

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 07-09-2007, 02:36 AM:

Wow. Hats off, Larry & Co! [thumbsup]

Everyone should do this!

[curious that it claims the film-outs were targetted for 2383 instead of 2393...hmm, reading the 2393 datasheet, I guess they're both 1.09/1.06/1.03. Funny, I'd always assumed there was some change necessary beyond just threading up the other stock. (Also, the 2393 datasheet still mentions Process ECP-2B, instead of ECP-2D...ah well)

It's also great to hear that there were multiple film-out INs.
That suggests that every (domestic) print is only 2 generations from the DI, which is about all you could ask for. Makes you wonder if there were any film-out release prints ("EK"?)...]

--jhawk

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-09-2007, 08:57 PM:

Way cool! Thanks for the pictures, Jon! [thumbsup]

Posted by Mark Escorcia (Member # 1192) on 07-10-2007, 11:36 PM:

It's fun to learn something new every day... [Big Grin]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-11-2007, 02:06 PM:

That's cool. I'd like to show that to all the people who can't understand why it costs a lot to make a movie.

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 07-11-2007, 04:31 PM:

Super 35 and Digital Intermediates [thumbsdown]

,

I'm sure Henri Chrétien is rolling in his grave.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-12-2007, 04:00 AM:

There is a vast difference between the best and the worst of digital intermediates. Going via a DI doesn't make something either good or bad.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-12-2007, 06:50 AM:

I dunno about that Stephen...I've been really put off by DIs...they really seem to put the image though a bottleneck under close observation. Then again, O13 was shot Super-35 which is also a huge (or should I say tiny) bottle neck of its own. I found the grains rather large and easily observable in this film. What is the height in the aperture? .394"? or so...that is practically shooting on 16mm.

I don't know why there is this fascination with Super-35...there is nothing super about it except the grain size. If they want spherical lenses with the scope ratio, they need to see if they can handle 65mm.

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 07-12-2007, 07:36 AM:

I would say that most of the DI films I see don't look very impressive, but a few do, therefore it's possible to make a good DI. I think most of the good ones I have seen have been done by Technicolor.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-12-2007, 07:52 AM:

The first one (the 2001 remake) was grainy as well. I belive that I read somewhere that this was an intentional artistic choice, and not so much an artifact of the process. The negative was probably slightly under-exposed (which gives more grain). Many DPs like to over-expose 5218 by 1/2 or 2/3 of a stop to reduce grain and the results look much better.

Super-35 keeps getting better, but I agree that the format is sub-standard for feature work (it probably makes good sense for material that will only end up on television and video, though). I talked with a DP about it a year or so ago, and it seems that the reasons for using it are basically that spherical lenses are smaller and lighter (thus, easier to work with in tight spaces and for handheld and steadicam work), and are more available and cheaper to rent. Also it makes some CGI work easier.

Agreed that DIs are generally unimpressive, but that there will be a good one every so often. Spider-Man 2 (4k DI) looked great and Astronaut Farmer (4k scan, 2k output) also looked quite good. Personally, I think that there is a certain amount of "magic" in an optical print that doesn't exist in a DI print, but I can't really articulate what it is or why it appeals to me.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-12-2007, 11:37 AM:

FWIW, I can't stand that hard, grainy, desaturated look in the new "Die Hard". What's up with that? It ruined the show for me.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-12-2007, 12:18 PM:

Tim, you have to read more interviews with DPs! Don't you know that Super-35 is SO MUCH better than true anamorphic, because nowadays film stocks are soooo good and lenses are soooo sharp? [Wink]

I like the leader frames with the tech data. Didn't prevent the two OCEAN'S THIRTEEN prints I saw from looking like Gremlins from the Kremlin did color grading at day and printing & processing during the night shift! [Mad]