Spider-Man 3

[David Sweetman]

The AC article mentions that VistaVision was used for some VFX work. Am I to understand this is the same 'lazy-8' 8-perf format that was used on films such as The Searchers??? I had troble finding information about this "Beaucam" online.

[James Steven Beverly]

Did you Google?

 

Beaucam

 

 

The Beaumont Vista Vision camera is a lightweight motion picture camera that records an image on a full 8-perforation 35mm film format. The larger negative size is ideal for post process composites of visual effects photography. The compact feature of the camera is beneficial for any type of plate photography including Steadicam and remote systems applications. In 2003 Geo Film Group purchased The Secret Labs camera department, which included some of the cleanest Mini Vista Vision cameras in existence. These cameras are available in Panavision, PL, and Leica lens mounts. Complete sets of re-barreled, Panavision mounted Leica lenses compliment each camera package.

 

Specs:

 

Length: 17? with 400? magazine

24? with standard lens and MB-18 matte box

 

Width: 14? with 400? magazine

20? with 1000? magazine

 

Height: 14? with eyepiece

9? without eyepiece

 

Speeds: 2fps ? 72fps

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, VistaVision (8-perf 35mm horizontal) was created in 1954 as Paramount's answer to the widescreen large format trend. After a number of features was shot in the format, it was discontinued by the end of the decade, to be resurrected by the "Star Wars" effects team as a format for shooting efx elements, to counteract the increase in grain due to optical printer duping (I believe it was Richard Edlund's idea). Doug Trumbull was already using 65mm for the same reasons around that time, but VistaVision had the advantage of being 35mm.

 

This led to some new 8-perf MOS cameras being built like the Wilcams and the Beaumont.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvstory.htm

[James Steven Beverly]

Someone had a VistaVision camera and projector with some other equipment on sale on ebay a while back. I think they wanted like 12 grand for each. I don't remember for sure but I do remember I thought it was kinda a lot for a specialty camera that whould see very little use. I guess if you've got a lot of compositing on film to do, it's the way to go, though.

[Patrick Cooper]

What an interesting concept....running 35mm movie film horizontally through a camera - just like IMAX! Very clever way of getting a super big widescreen image without using anamorphic lenses. Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film.

[John Holland]

And if you did add a anamorhic lens it became Technirama ,which could be printed on to 70mm which was then called Super Technirama 70 .

[timHealy]

Yes, VistaVision (8-perf 35mm horizontal) was created in 1954 as Paramount's answer to the widescreen large format trend. After a number of features was shot in the format, it was discontinued by the end of the decade, to be resurrected by the "Star Wars" effects team as a format for shooting efx elements, to counteract the increase in grain due to optical printer duping (I believe it was Richard Edlund's idea). Doug Trumbull was already using 65mm for the same reasons around that time, but VistaVision had the advantage of being 35mm.

 

This led to some new 8-perf MOS cameras being built like the Wilcams and the Beaumont.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VistaVision

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vvstory.htm

 

If I recall correctly Edlund and ILM referred to their vistavision effects camera as "Empireflex". Which from memory looked very similiar to the way the Beaumont camera looks in the image above. They used it on Empire and Jedi. I don't know if it was around for the first (episode 4) Star Wars. Maybe someone here knows.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

Ah I just read the link. They seemed to have used some sort of vista vision camera for episode 4. But don't know if it was th "Epireflex" specifically.

Edited April 30, 2007 by timHealy

[David Mullen ASC]

The Empireflex was built from the ground-up for "Empire Strikes Back", as the name suggests.

[Guest Tim Partridge]

"Dykstraflex" was the mo-control camera on the first STAR WARS movie.

 

Don't forget that large format plates weren't really that new an idea when STAR WARS came out, Disney and Van Der Veer had been doing it for years (Trumbull too as David mentions). The difference with Edlund and ILM's use of VV was in the innovation regarding moving camera/motion control composites, which I think is what everyone has followed since.

[James Steven Beverly]

Here you go, you can try it out:

 

Ebay item number: 270116823407

 

B)

[Chris Keth]

Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film.

 

That's kind of the idea, actually. With that downsizing you will also be downsizing your composites and making them look better.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

What an interesting concept....running 35mm movie film horizontally through a camera - just like IMAX! Very clever way of getting a super big widescreen image without using anamorphic lenses. Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film.

 

But it would still look better than the print from the 4p OCN. And a contact print would be comparable to a 70mm print from a 65mm OCN. Only 1.96/1 instead of 2.2/1.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Ok, sooo who's seen the movie?

 

...I have !!!

 

My initial thoughts, no spoilers.

 

I thought the cinematography was better this time around, especially the swinging/spydercam type shots. They all seemed more organic, flowed better with Spidey's movement, were clearer. The effects shots all looked clean and very very nicely lit; I barely noticed the grain - though there are some night shots (really there are a LOT of night shots in this film) where I saw a little extra grain, but it didin't bother me.

 

I really liked the angles, the coverage and the way the camera was always nicely position to give the audience the best seat possible!!!

 

I liked the colors - spidey still popped - and the lighting was especially good when they transitioned into "Dark Spidey" and then back again - although there were a lot of lighting changes throughout the film, I really thought they were effect, almost seamless, but definitely brought out the emotional elements within the scene.

 

I liked the way certain sequences seemed almost different: the chase sequence with Eddie Brock looked very distinct from let's say, the fight sequence between Dark Spidey and Sandman in the subway. I really liked the changes, the play on light and dark; the hard edges, the soft fronts...ok, it seems I liked everything!

 

I think the CGI has improved tremendously and cut well...but, I of course prefer the live action shots. It is fantastic the way they integrated the different elements into continuous shots however, and I must say that was pretty mind blowing for me. Things seem to be getting so, you can almost do anything now...of course, it costs a lot of money!

 

There's a lot more to say, but those would inevitably involve spoilers...so I'll wait till some more people have seen it and comment.

 

I'm going to see it again tmrw!

 

Go web go!

 

K.

[Josh Bass]

I'm glad someone liked it. Seems to be getting crappy word of mouth. I liked part 2 a lot, was lukwarm on part 1, and I'm kinda scared to see this one 'cause of most of the reviews I've seen.

[chuck colburn]

The Empireflex was built from the ground-up for "Empire Strikes Back", as the name suggests.

 

Good evening David,

 

Almost but not quite from ground up.

Jimmy Beaumonte and I worked togeather at his shop in L.A. at he time of the start of the "Empireflex". The basic VistaVision movement was from an existing camera. What we did in L.A. was to breadboard the movement on a piece of tooling plate to find the best location for sprockets, rollers and where to position the Arri 35 mags that were used for the camera. Some work was also done on the mirror reflexing componets. After that Jimmy and his wife Hillary went up to Lucasville to finish the project.

 

Chuck

[David Sweetman]

I thought the cinematography was better this time around, especially the swinging/spydercam type shots. They all seemed more organic, flowed better with Spidey's movement, were clearer.

Really? I thought Bill Pope's treatment of 2 was awesome, though it always feels like the image goes unnoticed in a Raimi movie. (with the exception of A Simple Plan.)

[Patrick Cooper]

"Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film."

 

"That's kind of the idea, actually. With that downsizing you will also be downsizing your composites and making them look better."

 

I was referring to the use of Vistavision for regular narrative storytelling - where the whole movie would be shot using this format - like some of those old classics in the past. If they could overcome the technical hurdles and produce a reliable means of projecting the whole frame by transporting the film horizontally like IMAX, I am sure that the results would look quite impressive on the big screen.

 

Whenever I go to the cinema, I am surprised that the image quality is good as it is considering that the size of the frame being projected is only about half the size of a frame of 35mm still film.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Patrick Cooper

[Krystian Ramlogan]

Oh, I agree Spidey 2 was a step up. I'm just saying I think Spidey 3 is also a step up from 2. Its a more complicated film and I think it looks amazing.

 

K.

[Francesco Bonomo]

Saw it yesterday and I didn't like it at all. Sure, it looks great and from a technical standpoint is almost flawless (it better be with a declared budget of 260$ million), but it looks like the screenwriters were so busy trying to just add stuff that they forgot about the story (which is confused and doesn't really go anywhere) and characters.

 

The action scenes are really cool and there's a couple of great cameos from Ted Raimi and Bruce Campbell, but overall the movie looks like too many scenes stitched together with some automated software, never knowing where the story is going.

 

I like the first SpiderMan, I thought the second was a major improvement, but the third chapter was a huge disappointment.

[Patrick Cooper]

Going back to efx work, Ive read that some productions utilize medium format still film for composites, according to Cinefex.

[David Sweetman]

Going back to efx work,

Yeah, I think I should have titled this "VistaVision in Spider-Man 3," now there's two threads here kind of jumbled together.

[Brian Rose]

I saw Spiderman 3 the other day. I saw it in Imax, and I have to say that I had some mixed feelings about the cinematography. It looked great, I will admit, and the though the grain was more visible in some scenes than others, it did not bother me so much. What dove me nuts was the shallow depth of field, which was especially noticeable on the extra large screen. I recall one scene (no spoilers) in Peter's apartment when he's talking to his aunt. He is in the foreground, she in the back. As she speaks, the focus is on Peter's face, so we can see his reaction to her advice. Fair enough. But it was so annoying that all I could make out was his face, and the rest was just a mushy blur, until he turns to face her, and then the focus shifts to the aunt, and now Peter is a blur. I suppose whether you like shallow or deep focus is an opinion kinda thing, but I thought the scene would have been SO much stronger if it (as well as others) had been shot deep focus so we can see the speaker and the listener both in focus. It just seems to me a bit lazy, when one could have crafted a stronger scene with a little composition, some extra lighting, and a stopped down lens. What it boils down to is I don't like being forced to watch something because of the focus. "Okay, look at him...rack focus...now look at her." Back and forth, back and forth. I wished I could just sit back, and watch the scene. The way directors and DPs use focus to direct the audience...it justs feels to me like I'm being led by the hand every step of the way. I think that's one reason why movies like Citizen Kane and The Best Years of Our Lives endure. Gregg Toland's use of deep focus allows the audience more freedom to discover new things within the frame. Every time I see those movies, I discover something new, thanks to the masterful use of deep focus and composition. But that's just one guy's opinion.

Brian Rose

[Daniel Smith]

As far as the '8-perf' goes, I know they used it on Star Wars Ep. 1.

 

I thought Spiderman 3 was pretty awesome to be honest. It was a lot darker than the first two. The story just had a lot of depth to it. But didn't over complicate things so that numbskulls like me couldn't understand it. (Like Pirates 3...)

 

And the end scene had half of everyone behind me in tears.

 

After watching that I hold a lot more respect for Toby Maguire, better actor than I thought.

Edited June 1, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

[chuck colburn]

The Empireflex was built from the ground-up for "Empire Strikes Back", as the name suggests.

 

Almost from the ground up. It used an existing VistaVision movement.

[Mark Williams]

Spiderman 2 had some brilliant lines and characterisations like Doc Ock and aunt may. The plot was flimsy and awful. Peter had many problems and was true to life. It was overdone. Tobey Maguire played the character convincingly although comes over as too nerdy. His look of a dreamy nice guy reminiscent of Edward Scissorhands is surreal. The comic portrayed him as good looking but for some reason always picked on. Perhaps the film version is more accurate but I preferred the comic because it showed a good looking and well adjusted sensible Peter Parker being put down which had a certain appeal. The plot was non existant and an attempt to give the film some emotional interest was half baked and needed work. This has been done obviously far better by many others. The film seemed to be uncared for and in my opinion Cinematography suffered. The real love was the effects and getting them right. A couple of things I noticed was spiderman sporting a wire and Elya Baskin the landlord with his todger showing on the stair balcony. The effects were sometimes brilliant and occasionaly awful. Although the docs tentacles were fantastic. and Aunt mays speech regarding heros. in fact she was a real star and a better interpretation of even the original comic book.

 

Overall the film had the potential to be a classic. But in my opinion wasn't taken seriously enough.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Mark Collins