Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Jurassic World (JP IV) shooting in 65MM (partially)

This is topic Jurassic World (JP IV) shooting in 65MM (partially) in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=006954

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-06-2014, 07:32 PM:

Director Colin Trevorrow tweets:

Honored to be working with cinematographer John Schwartzman on Jurassic World, shooting this April on 35mm and 65mm film. @Kodak @Panavision

https://twitter.com/colintrevorrow/status/431295438356893696

Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 02-06-2014, 08:05 PM:

Awesome!! [beer]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-06-2014, 10:27 PM:

I'll bet the 65mm work will be similar in method to that used on Gravity -mainly for visual effects plates.

Posted by Allan Young (Member # 6332) on 02-07-2014, 10:39 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'll bet the 65mm work will be similar in method to that used on Gravity -mainly for visual effects plates.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the only use of 65mm in Gravity was for the final scene on Earth.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-07-2014, 12:27 PM:

That's what Wikipedia thinks, and that the final scene was shot on wide film for artistic reasons rather than to capture extra image information to aid the integration of visual effects in post-production.

I'm a bit surprised that this is being shot on a combination of 35 and 65. For a megabucks blockbuster (I'm presuming that the production budget will be well north of $100m), I wouldn't have thought that the increased cost simply of shooting the whole thing on 65 would have been big enough to make the extra logistical costs of using two origination formats (two lots of cameras and lenses, dealing with different labs and scanning facilities, etc.) worth it.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 02-11-2014, 05:42 PM:

I love how it's always (partially).

My hunch is that if they were finishing on film, they might've gone 65 all the way, to streamline the workflow. But, since they're just "capturing" it doesn't really matter. I suspect it's for effects sequences -- basically, replacing VistaVision's role.

My cynical hunch -- what I *really* believe -- is that shooting "some scenes" in 65mm is the industry's new way of saying "look at how much confidence we have in this movie."

My super-cynical observation -- Spielberg isn't directing. (Not even partially.)

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-18-2014, 05:11 PM:

quote: Geoff Jones
shooting this April on 35mm and 65mm film.

I think this is going to be a "shot in IMAX" release similar to Catching Fire.

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-18-2014, 05:16 PM:

Like the other three JURASSIC PARK films, a good portion of the new film will be shot here in Hawaii on the islands of Kauai and Oahu.

-Claude

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 02-18-2014, 05:42 PM:

quote: Allan Young

I'm sure I read somewhere that the only use of 65mm in Gravity was for the final scene on Earth.

that is correct.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-19-2014, 11:54 AM:

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Like the other three JURASSIC PARK films, a good portion of the new film will be shot here in Hawaii on the islands of Kauai and Oahu.

It will be nice to see location shooting in Hawaii.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-19-2014, 04:55 PM:

I'll take this over:

Shot with a Go-Pro on top of Jeff Goldblum's head whilst being chased by a T-Rex.

Now if it's a Go-Pro on top of Jeff Goldblum's head whilst checking out Laura Dern...well that's a different story. [evil]

AJG

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-22-2014, 10:33 PM:

Interestingly, they are also planning to release it with a "very comfortable" 2:1 aspect ratio.

(This is fairly old news, but I hadn't picked up on it until now.)

http://screenrant.com/jurassic-park-4-world-details-cast/

quote:
“We’re shooting 35mm and 65mm film. We’re also using an aspect ratio that hasn’t been seen theatrically in a very long time. The movie will be presented in 2 to 1. It’s basically a middle ground between 2.35 and 1.85. It allows us enough height to fit humans and dinosaurs into a single frame, without giving up that sense of scope. It’s very close to the ratio of the digital IMAX screens, so it will look great in large format. I think other filmmakers will want to give it a try when they see how it looks. It’s very comfortable.”

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-22-2014, 10:52 PM:

What a moron. First he is making up an aspect ratio so the vast majority of screens will have a poor presentation. Second he thinks "digital IMAX" is large format.

Like I said, moron.

Why is Universal trusting such a potentially large movie to a guy that hasn't even proven himself on anything yet (and is clearly a moron, as stated)? Just look at this guy's IMDB page.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-22-2014, 11:03 PM:

So it will fit neither a scope or a flat screen...

Posted by Shawn M. Martin (Member # 6762) on 11-23-2014, 12:02 AM:

I suppose this means the 35mm material is Super 35 rather than anamorphic. I can't see the point of chopping off the sides of a scope image, but then I can't see the point of this stupid decision either.

This ratio has been used before, by the DP Vittorio Storaro, for his "Univision/Univisium" format, essentially 3-perf Super 35. He even reframed some of the anamorphic movies he shot (Apocalypse Now, The Last Emperor) to this ratio on DVD. Fool.

There was also a French movie from 2012, "Les Seigneurs", that did the same thing. The 2:1 image was letterboxed within 1.85 on both the 35mm prints and DCP.

Posted by Steve Moore (Member # 4753) on 11-23-2014, 08:16 AM:

Brad; I think Bugs Bunny's saying in this instance would suit better.. "What an ultra-maroon"

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 11-23-2014, 09:03 AM:

I agree with the sentiments and would rather he project in 2.4:1.

But let me ask this:

Didn't I read somewhere that there a lot of (lousy) theatres that just have 2:1 screens with no masking? (And crop the sides for scope and the top/bottom for flat)

Is he playing to the lowest common denominator here?

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-23-2014, 12:03 PM:

The "ultra-maroon" director probably has only been to those crappy new theaters too cheap to put in masking and thinks that's some sort of quality presentation.

The industry is not setup for this. It will look bad in 1.85 and it will look bad in 2.40 I'm tempted to just run it in scope and to say the hell with it. I know many of my customers will NOT be happy one bit about letterboxing or pillarboxing and will end up essentially demanding I "fix it" anyway. Perhaps I should just get ahead of the game and setup cropped 2.0 "flat" and cropped 2.0 "scope" formats and then just decide which format the movie plays best in upon a test QC.

Like I said, he's a moron.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-23-2014, 02:27 PM:

I seem to remember somebody on this forum (not sure who) saying that if you don't have masking and you have a choice, it's better to have the flat picture pillarboxed than it is to have the scope picture letterboxed. I assume it's because the pillarboxing is on the sides of the picture, thus more out of your field of attention. So, I would run it at scope, make it fill the screen top to bottom and let it be pillarboxed a little on the sides.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-23-2014, 02:48 PM:

It is all up to how they author it. Since the imager has a native aspect ratio of 1.896:1...the "best" resolution will be letterboxed full-container. So I could see a "C-2.00 designation

You could create a special PCF (or input file) that defines the resolution. You'll need a dedicated lens and screen setting for it. I'm sure all of the automated TMS systems out there are all ready for the new format they have chosen.

If they are looking for existing DCP compatibility, they have no choice but to use the Scope format since any ratio over 1.896 will be wider than flat and would appear to be a floating image in a 1.85 ratio screen. Thus far, only the 70mm people have tried to use the Flat container to hold a 2.20 image. It does get more pixels on the screen but it also does require a "special" lens setting...special doesn't do so well in the masses.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-23-2014, 06:36 PM:

I don't know why they're choosing to shoot in a ratio other than 1.85:1. All the previous movies in this saga were shot flat. Why change?

It kind of drives me up the wall when a series of movies changes the aspect ratio from one installment to the next.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-23-2014, 07:04 PM:

So, this year alone we had directors with egos that didn't fit in a single aspect ratio, now we have directors with egos that won't fit in a standard aspect ratio.

What's next? Directors with egos that don't even fit on a single screen? Hmm... Wait...

Posted by Sam King (Member # 4029) on 11-23-2014, 07:38 PM:

So is this Sclat or Flope? You decide!

Posted by Buck Wilson (Member # 5885) on 11-23-2014, 10:36 PM:

Well as long as he's comfortable, who cares what it looks like, right?!

It'll look SO GOOD cropped on every screen in the country! Just the way the director intended!

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-23-2014, 11:45 PM:

The new teaser trailer is out, it is a pretty damn good tease... the music from the original is heard [Smile]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-24-2014, 04:27 AM:

What I think this no-name director is trying to do is make a name for himself. People will see the movie in 2:1 aspect ratio and realize just how brave and wonderful whats-his-name is. In fact, whats-his-name pioneered the new standard format which is nicknamed "comfortable". Now directors no longer need to decide of flat or scope, they can just shoot it comfortably. Everyone wins! Give whats-his-name an award and also hire whats-his-name to direct many more great movies because whats-his-name definitely knows what he's doing. Fame will soon be his and he'll have his handprints in front of the Chinese within a few months at the latest.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-24-2014, 09:02 AM:

Yeah, because people remember movies mostly by the aspect ratio they are in. [Wink]

I wonder when the first movie entirely shot on iPhones comes out, entirely composed in 0.56:1! With all the shaky camera "found footage" crap out there, someone must have thought about such an ingenious concept.

quote:
Just the way the director intended!

The only way to see it as the director intended will be in a theater built especially for the movie. You need to set your standards high!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-24-2014, 10:41 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I wonder when the first movie entirely shot on iPhones comes out, entirely composed in 0.56:1!

I have actually shown an iPhone video (converted to DCP), in that ratio, on a theater screen. It was of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was to have done a Q & A after a screening of The Terminator, apologizing for wussing out, because he had a cold. No prizes for guessing what he said at the very end of the video...

Even upscaled to 2K, it actually didn't look that bad. It was weird seeing such a vast expanse of blank screen either side of it, though. Our masking doesn't go in far enough to mask that picture, so I just left it on 1.85 for the entire evening.

I have a vague memory of Sergei Eisenstein once writing something advocating the use of "portrait" format aspect ratios. I don't know of one ever having been used for a feature film, though. But as you say, it's surely only a matter of time before some experimental/arty type tries it.

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 11-24-2014, 02:05 PM:

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 . Especially those (and som e directors for that matter,) who are bought up on digital acquisition where the custom is to keep running until you get what you want or drop , whichever is sooner! To the best of my knowledge the largest available camera magazine still only holds 1000 feet of negative.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-24-2014, 02:44 PM:

Jonathan, good points. There are a whole bunch of other limitations. 35mm is the best compromise format.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-24-2014, 03:11 PM:

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.

Posted by Jonathan Wood (Member # 4614) on 11-24-2014, 05:40 PM:

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

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 11-24-2014, 05:59 PM:

'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

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-24-2014, 10:29 PM:

not to ruin the surprise but 'Mommy' has two aspect ratios - and it's a brilliant scene as to how it's implemented.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-25-2014, 02:04 AM:

1.33 for all scenes inside the womb. 2.39 for all scenes after exiting the womb.

Posted by Paul H. Rayton (Member # 1817) on 11-25-2014, 12:31 PM:

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?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-17-2014, 07:16 AM:

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.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 12-30-2014, 11:26 AM:

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

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-30-2014, 11:49 AM:

<picking nits> It adds 25% to the length of footage to shoot on 65mm versus 35mm, presuming the same perforation pitch (.1866).

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-17-2015, 06:47 PM:

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.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-17-2015, 09:23 PM:

^ thumbs up! [beer]

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-15-2015, 03:26 PM:

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?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-20-2015, 06:46 PM:

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.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-22-2015, 12:30 AM:

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.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-22-2015, 08:17 AM:

Watch the trailer for "Free Willy"

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 04-22-2015, 09:33 AM:

it seems to be a bad trend,Terry - heard the trailers for the Poltergeist remake are just as worse in giving too much away.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2015, 11:09 AM:

I ran a little survey a while ago on our Facebook asking for comments on trailers -- do we run too many or not enough, do people like them, etc. but only one person said he tries to tune out of trailers for movies he's interested in.

I think people like to know the story in advance, for whatever reason. In some of these modern action movies you almost have to have seen the revealing trailer to keep up with the furious pace!

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-22-2015, 11:40 AM:

You could be right. I guess average person is not going to remember too much of the trailer.

It could also be that Universal knows that Jurassic World is a turd so they are going all out on the marketing to try to get every last person in the door. (Truthfully, the new trailer does not look very good)

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-22-2015, 01:22 PM:

I am curious about the turd-ness of the film for sure. On the one hand, the last one definitely was a turd, but on this one Spielberg is back on board and he's usually reliable, but... I don't know what to think.

We're currently in our annual dilemma over what to play -- do we go with JW or Inside Out? (They are a week apart.) JW is going to be overhyped so it might be the one to go with, and wait a while on IO and let the good word of mouth help market it.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 04-22-2015, 01:28 PM:

I think Jurassic World is going to play out like Godzilla.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-22-2015, 03:23 PM:

If the amount of exposition in the trailer is already unbearable, I wonder how the movie turns out.

quote: Mike Blakesley
do we go with JW or Inside Out?

JW got quite a bunch of exposure and I think it will generally be the bigger crowd puller, even if the end result will most likely suck all kinds of unfavorable suckables. Inside Out hasn't gotten all to much TLC in the media until now, but will almost undoubtedly be the better movie.