Superman Returns

[Ricardo Diaz]

Well, back to the topic. After seeing that clip online with the Superman footage in it I am really stoked for this film. It seems very moody and desaturated which I think is a really interesting choice for a Superman movie. The full trailer will be out with MI3 and Ill more than likely watch it at my local DLP theater. Should be sweet.

[Ricardo Diaz]

Well, back to the topic. After seeing that clip online with the Superman footage in it I am really stoked for this film. It seems very moody and desaturated which I think is a really interesting choice for a Superman movie. The full trailer will be out with MI3 and Ill more than likely watch it at my local DLP theater. Should be sweet.

 

The trailer is up in HD at Apple Trailers. The film looks really good and the Genesis might have its day.

[Matt Lazzarini]

The trailer is up in HD at Apple Trailers. The film looks really good and the Genesis might have its day.

 

Beautiful trailer. Can't wait to see it projected

[Guest Markus]

I find Singer's following statement quite interesting. Somehow it gives mit a lot of faith in the film's look?

Anyway, if you haven't read it, here you go:

 

Press: Why did you decide to use the Genesis cameras to record the film?

 

Singer: Uh, well it depends on if you?re projecting film digitally and it will mean, for me, based on this film, higher resolution image that will at the same time will retain a romantic quality, the texture and dynamic range of film. When you see it you?ll feel like you?re watching something special but you?ll still feel like you?re watching film. The only analogy I can make is the one when there came the advent of 70mm- that?s the idea. The impetus came from when I was doing a screen test with Brandon Routh [actor playing Superman] and originally I was just going to shoot it in 35mm- 35 widescreen-? and then Tom & I decided, why not get an old 70mm- or 65mm whatever- camera to shoot a few takes in that so we can have the experience of shooting in 65mm since we?ll probably never have that experience again. So we shot a few takes in that and when we processed them and had them in a theater we were just so- when we switched back from the 35mm take to the 65 mm take it was just, there?s a clarity and the image was so strong- like in films such as ?2001?- and we felt that it- how can we shoot Superman in 70mm? Then the issue was that the cameras are too large to put on certain complicated rigs, the film is too expensive, they don?t process it in Australia and the lenses of the 70mm camera have too little depth? to focus. What you had in this situation- and then you couldn?t use zoom lens because of the elements in the lens is too visible for what the 70mm picks up and it became impossible to make this movie in 70mm. Then Tom says there?s a new camera built from the ground up in a joint project by Sony and Panavision called the Genesis camera that takes the image onto a single CTD chip with about 12 million mega-pixels. It is meant to take the light and color more like film and the final result is very different than the standard three chip cameras being used in features. They only had one of them and they?re building a second one because for every six hundred chips that get made, only one works, which is then put in a camera and tested in the hot, cold environments and shaken up and then they send it to Panavision, where many of them are rejected, so you have a lot of unfinished cameras. There were only one or two, they brought it from France, brought it here, tested and did what to date is the most comprehensive Genesis film possible. We did long, elaborate late night, one light tests with Brandon, tests with crystal, to try to make an actual comparison. We sat in this theater actually, sent everything back to L.A to have it transferred to film so we could compare the results and how they appeared next to each other for an absolute comparison that was much like the one the day we screened of the dailies of Brandon?s audition. That side by side comparison, Tom & I just exclusively, without anyone involved, we really wanted to make this a personal decision of two people who have worked together a long time since making ?Usual Suspects? together, to make this leap. We felt the comparisons were acceptable and the artifacing that usually bothers me in digital film wasn?t there and there was a possibility to make it look something you hadn?t seen before yet wasn?t making you feel like watch Superman: The Video.

 

Source: http://www.bluetights.net/article.php?id=21

[Max Jacoby]

Haha

 

I think Bryan Singer is hilarious. CTD chip et al. Sometimes it's better not to say anything, because otherwise you'll just end up embarassing yourself.

 

'A joint decision' by the two people responsible for the overly artifacted DI of X2, now that really gives me comfort in the Genesis.

[Tenolian Bell]

12 million-mega pixels.

 

That's a lot of zeros.

[Mike Kaminski]

I was dissapointed by the latest superman trailer. I thought the first one looked fantastic and it got me really excited for the Genesis but now the second one has sort of calmed me down. It just looked a lot more "digital" than i expected. Good still, but not quite as i expected.

[Michael Nash]

A new article here:

 

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/newslett...front_05092006/

[David Mullen ASC]

I had the opposite reaction -- I couldn't tell squat from the first trailer but this new, longer one looks pretty good to me, and certainly less grainy than the "X-Men 3" trailer that followed it. Sure, it looks digital, but what's important is that it looks nice.

[Gary Robinson]

I just saw MI 3 which was preceded by a number of trailers, including Superman. I have 2 35mm cameras, and as much as I love film over video, the Superman Trailer had the cleanest image I saw in that theater.

 

Gary R.

www.sharpcut.com

[Trevor Greenfield]

the Superman Trailer had the cleanest image I saw in that theater.

 

I would hope so?

[nathan coombs]

Very sharp, very clean...

 

...but I didn't like the look of these images. I'm sure some of it is the use of lighting, but it looks horribly plasticy, just like the Star Wars films.

 

I can't see the use of this 'look' for more authentic filmmaking. This is not the one to convince me of the merits of HD yet. Although I will be looking out for Nuri Bilge Ceylan's 'Climates' which was shot on the F900.

 

I'm one of those people who wants digital to be good but is continually disappointed...

[elvworks]

Digital is taking over.

 

 

 

 

 

I said this a while back, almost a year ago and some people got real mad, rude even. Some were nice, some agreed and some had their own unique input, which is great, one can always learn.

 

In the last year, a good amount of movies have been shot digitally (video, hd, whatever you want to call it), this time next year, even more movies are going to be shot digitally.

 

It is taking over, the public is getting used to it, and you will too. You got used to cell phones, remote controls, digital cameras, hd tv, the list goes on.

 

Embrace digital, but love film.

 

Rick

[Max Jacoby]

Gosh, is it really? There is no need to self-congratulate yourself for your prediction, because I'm afraid you really don't have to be a clairvoyant to realize that more and more films will be shot on digital.

[David Mullen ASC]

Elvworks, please change your Display Name to a real first and last name, as per the forum rules. Thanks.

 

As regarding your post, sure, more and more movies are being shot digitally, yet by far, most feature film and dramatic TV and commercial work is still shot on film. So the trend is towards more digital, obviously, but we're still in the early stages of any kind of switchover.

 

There may be a tipping over point where film suddenly declines in use, but we are not near that point yet, partially because the newer cameras and post technology that promise near-35mm quality are just arriving, and thus have not been widely distributed. Even Warner Bros., who made "Superman Returns", is not fully convinced about the idea of shooting movies digitally. Rumors have been that it is a somewhat uphill battle with some of the studios to be allowed to shoot a major feature digitally.

 

Trouble is that the cheaper digital camera technology, so far, produces inferior results compared to 35mm, and the new, higher-quality digital technology, once it goes through all the shooting and post work, ends up not being any cheaper than film to shoot, so for now, until there is a major improvement in quality coupled with an increase in the distribution and range of digital camera equipment, plus a decrease in costs coupled with an improvement in workflow efficiency, we will continue to see what we've already seen in the past few years: the occasionaly major feature dabbling in digital shooting, but being the exception, not the norm.

 

Excluding documentaries, how many theatrical features released in 2007 were shot digitally? Just picking up the LA Times and looking at what's in the theaters this week, I can only spot a couple of digitally-shot features. In fact, I can spot as many if not more that opted to use Super-16 as an alternative to 35mm rather than digital.

 

Personally, I would have expected more dramatic TV shows and commercials being shot in HD by now, but even that's been a slow move away from film.

[elvworks]

Thank you for your indepth reply Mr. Mullen, I always appreciate your insightful posts.

 

And thanks for bringing me up to speed on the forum rules. I will make the necessary changes.

 

Rick