The New World

[Leo Anthony Vale]

No, the amount of light needed would be the same, but you would need longer focal lenghts working in 65mm to cover the same angle of view (a 100mm lens in 65mm covers more or less the same angle as a 50mm in 35mm). The longer the lens, it has less depth of field, so to compensate you end up shooting at deeper stops, thus requiring more light.

 

---With 35mm anamorphic the equivalent focal length would be closer to the 65mm.

4 perf height vs. 5 perf. 100mm in 65 would be closer to 80mm in 35 anamorphic, so the depth of field would would be closer.

100=50 would be fer 65mm vs. S35.

 

---LV

[David Mullen ASC]

That's true -- I was thinking the other day that the focal lengths used in 5-perf 65mm must be similar to 35mm anamorphic, since both double the horizontal view over regular 35mm but in different ways (twice as wide film versus a 2X squeeze.) So depth of field issues would be similar.

 

I got a gift from the producers of "Astronaut Farmer" - the Taschen Kubrick Archives book. It has some of the script / camera notes from shooting "2001" which includes, for a particular set-up example, footcandles, f-stop, focal length, etc. information. Noticed that Kubrick used a 35mm lens quite a bit, which must be similar to the wide-angle 35mm anamorphic lens in view. He also seemed to be using the Todd-AO "Bug Eye" super wide-angle lens quite a bit judging from photos.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I got a gift from the producers of "Astronaut Farmer" - the Taschen Kubrick Archives book. It has some of the script / camera notes from shooting "2001" which includes, for a particular set-up example, footcandles, f-stop, focal length, etc. information. Noticed that Kubrick used a 35mm lens quite a bit, which must be similar to the wide-angle 35mm anamorphic lens in view. He also seemed to be using the Todd-AO "Bug Eye" super wide-angle lens quite a bit judging from photos.

 

---I read a magazine interview with D.Trumball talking about 'Brainstorm'.

He said that a Todd-AO 'bug-eye' was bought for "2001'. I think he said Kubrick bought it, old editions of the 'AC Manual' list a 17mm Super Panavision lens, which must be the Todd-AO.

 

Trumbull said, he had a copy built from scratch by, maybe, Fairchild for 'Brainstorm'.

He also used a 19mm Kowa 66 fish-eye for steadicam shots.

 

The American Cinematographer article on "Spartacus', mentions a 35mm Technirama lens was used.

Lists of Technirama lenses give a 50mm Leitz as the shortest. There are a lot of very wide interiors, also exteriors of the forum, with strong horizontal curvature.

 

Incidentally, if one wears thick eye glasses, curved horizontals and verticals are part of one's normal vision.

 

---LV

[Guest Markus]

If they after all shot part 35mm anamorphic, part 65mm, how would the different formats integrate?

Would they need a DI, which I hope they don't!

[David Mullen ASC]

If they after all shot part 35mm anamorphic, part 65mm, how would the different formats integrate?

Would they need a DI, which I hope they don't!

 

A DI would make the most sense for blending the footage together.

 

Otherwise, you have to optically dupe all the 65mm material thru an IP/IN step and intercut that with original 35mm anamorphic footage, negating any value in shooting 65mm in the first place. Plus the contrast would mismatch.

 

Now if there were significant amounts of 65mm footage, as in "Little Buddha" or "Brainstorm", you could also make a 65mm master where all the 35mm footage was duped / blown-up to 65mm thru an IP/IN step, but then the 35mm material would stand out but you'd be preserving the quality of the 65mm material. Trouble is, you'd have to release the movie in 70mm prints (as "Little Buddha" and "Brainstorm" did.) And 5-perf 70mm has pretty much died out as a release format.

 

Of course, you could blow this all up to IMAX, but again, you'd probably want to do it digitally.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

A DI would make the most sense for blending the footage together.

 

Otherwise, you have to optically dupe all the 65mm material thru an IP/IN step and intercut that with original 35mm anamorphic footage, negating any value in shooting 65mm in the first place. Plus the contrast would mismatch.

 

Now if there were significant amounts of 65mm footage, as in "Little Buddha" or "Brainstorm", you could also make a 65mm master where all the 35mm footage was duped / blown-up to 65mm thru an IP/IN step, but then the 35mm material would stand out but you'd be preserving the quality of the 65mm material. Trouble is, you'd have to release the movie in 70mm prints (as "Little Buddha" and "Brainstorm" did.) And 5-perf 70mm has pretty much died out as a release format.

 

Of course, you could blow this all up to IMAX, but again, you'd probably want to do it digitally.

 

---I think 'Tron', which was a mix of 65mm, mostly Vistavision and a smalll amount of 35mm anamorphic, had 65mm I/Ps made of all the cut OCN, which was then cut together. So the 65mm I/P, in effect, becomes the finished 'original'.

 

The revised version of 'Night of the Living Dead' which includes newly shot footage, used a similar process.

A new fine grain was made of 'Night...' and intercut with fine grains of the new footage.

The final edit was done with 5360 autoposivives of the fine grains.

 

It seems that a 2K DI would be a waste of the 65mmm footage. A 6K would seem to be the prefered DI.

 

---LV

[David Mullen ASC]

So the 65mm I/P, in effect, becomes the finished 'original'.

 

Yes, but does that make sense to blow all the 35mm footage up optically to 65mm if, let's say, 20% of the movie is 65mm and 80% is 35mm anamorphic? Anyway, it's all moot since you can't release a movie in 5-perf 70mm anymore, so what's the point of mastering a mostly-35mm movie optically in 65mm?

 

Better to do a 4K or 6K DI and make both 65mm and 35mm anamorphic digital negatives, so at least you can make a couple of 5-perf 70mm prints to take around to the few venues that will show it that way.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Just saw it at a screening. As usual with Malick, this is a film that demands that you are a fan of

his particular style of filmmaking. Those who are not accustomed to his trippy, philosphical non sequitur way of telling a story (if you can call it telling a story), will get very bored, perhaps even angry. In short, if you didn't like The Thin Red Line you will hate this one. Thankfully, I don't mind his way of making film. For me it's a bit like watching a beautiful exhibition of strange paintings or something. They don't have to make sense all the time and there's something refreshing in focusing on something else than plot points and three act structures at times. But I digress - let's talk about the LOOK!

 

Emmanuel Lubezki has done fantastic job. The film looks, and is (as I understand), virtually unlit. This of course puts an enormous strain on the DP, and it shows. It's not a wall to wall beauty film. There are lots of shots that are shot in very unfavorable conditions, such as the grey skies of Virginia with its muddy spring waters or in mid-day harsh light. And sometimes the need for a glint in a eye, or a slight fill here is overpowering - you know that with just one light this could have become a prettier picture, but not necessarily better. But that's the discipline they chose and I respect it. It's also virtually all handheld, which makes it even more raw and natural. It looks like a documentary, except in widescreen anamorphic.

 

But the stuff that is more "beauty" looks absolutely amazing. Mainly all the night shots by fire, all available light, are stunning. There's a close-up of the young Kilcher (Pocahontas) as she warns Colin Farrel (John Smith) lit by a huge bonfire that blew me away completely - one of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen.

 

There's also a lot of great shots inside the natives tents, with great shafts of light penetrating the dark interiors like rays from heaven. And just to show you there's no 18K or Xenon up in some cherry picker, Lubezki frequently tilts right up into them and flares the lens out to show you nothing's there except the sun. Gorgeous stuff. There's also some stuff in England that's absolutely fantastic - and if that's unlit too, then my hat's really off to Lubezki.

 

My only complaint is perhaps the deep stop. It gives the film sharpness, but it also means that lots of the "busy" backgrounds in harsh daylight certain times get a little to close for comfort. I think the film would have looked a bit more romantic shot at shallower depth of field.

 

I can also say that there was no trace of any 65mm-footage in the print I saw. I'd be surprised if they actually used it at all.

Edited December 18, 2005 by AdamFrisch

[Max Jacoby]

Apparently they only used the 65mm for 'heightened' moments. Since the film went through a DI, I suppose the difference between 35mm anamorphic and 65mm are not as visible. Hopefully the did a 4K DI, because if it is only 2K then there would have been no point shooting 65mm in the first place.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

You can normally tell on wides - that's when resolution counts (it's a bit like the 60's in Detroit car making - 'there is no substitute for cubic inches'). I didn't see any of the wides exhibit that particular kind of crispness that only a bigger neg can provide. In fact, on very busy, contrasty wides like in the forests, you can clearly see the lack of definition even in 35mm anamorphic.

 

But the close-up lit by the bonfire was stunningly sharp and defined. But then again, close-ups tend to be very sharp in 35mm anamorphic, so that's no indication of 65mm usage. But if it was used, then maybe that might have been the place (but it doesn'm make much sense to do so).

Edited December 18, 2005 by AdamFrisch

[Max Jacoby]

On E-Film's website, in the Filmography section, they put the film under sequences.

 

http://www.efilm.com/filmography.php?page=Sequences

 

I do find that a bit baffling, because if they did not put the whole film through a DI put only parts, then they would have to cut these sequences back into the film and they would not really win a generation. So I am wondering if this is how they got the 65mm secnes or shots into the neg, by outputting them in 35mm anamorphic. But then again, they did not specifically say that they did the DI sequences in 4K, as they have for other projects in their filmogrpahy (Jarhead, Rent, etc...) and I do not really see the point of shooting in 65mm when you output your neg at 2K...

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Adam, how does it compare (as a film) to Malick's previous works?

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Well, both stylistically and thematically they're very similar. I haven't seen Badlands, so I can't factor that one in. But it's very, very similar to The Thin Red Line - complete with the changing characters voice overs and disrupted and multiple threads.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

On E-Film's website, in the Filmography section, they put the film under sequences.

 

http://www.efilm.com/filmography.php?page=Sequences

 

I do find that a bit baffling, because if they did not put the whole film through a DI put only parts, then they would have to cut these sequences back into the film and they would not really win a generation. So I am wondering if this is how they got the 65mm secnes or shots into the neg, by outputting them in 35mm anamorphic. But then again, they did not specifically say that they did the DI sequences in 4K, as they have for other projects in their filmogrpahy (Jarhead, Rent, etc...) and I do not really see the point of shooting in 65mm when you output your neg at 2K...

 

---I received the January AC yesterday. The 'New World' article mentions that 65mm was used when some

charecters are having 'heightened' sequences. But nothing is mentioned about D/I or how the 65mm footage was integrated with the 35mm. Even the box at the end of article which lists equipment and stocks makes no mention of any D/I.

 

'The New World' is still a mystery.

 

---LV

[David Mullen ASC]

I was even at the AC offices a few weeks ago when they told me that there would be an article on "New World" -- so I asked, "that's great -- so how did they integrate the 65mm footage into the 35mm anamorphic negative?" Apparently they didn't think to ask that question...

 

Odds are very high that it was done digitally, of course -- what scanners are used for 65mm anyway?

[Landon D. Parks]

If they after all shot part 35mm anamorphic, part 65mm, how would the different formats integrate?

Would they need a DI, which I hope they don't!

Most films today, and almost all epic's like this go through a D.I! It's standard anymore for a film with any kind of budget to do a D.I. This cuts cost, since you can make the Video transfer and film transfers from the same scan, unlike with optical where you putting your film transfer trough a seperate process, plus your Video masters through the DI Process.

 

To tell you the truth, most DI's are so good now days, that to me it don't matter if they use a DI, as long as they do it right.

[Max Jacoby]

This film certainly had a budget for a DI, so one could presume that the reason they didn't do one was because Terrence Malick and/or Emanuel Lubezki didn't want to. Since during the shoot they went for a natural, unlit approach I wouldn't be surprised that for postproduction, as an extension to that approach of not fixing what nature gave them, they choose to time the picture photochemically. And really, since they shot anamorphic, doing a DI would have resulted in a loss of sharpness anyway.

[David Mullen ASC]

The point is that the 65mm footage obviously has to be converted to 35mm anamorphic somehow. Personally, while an optical printer reduction to 35mm anamorphic obviously would not have the grain build-up problems normally associated with IP/IN duping, there would still be a contrast build-up, plus any printer dirt & dust issues, so a D.I. makes sense for the conversion if the goal is to blend it in with the 35mm footage.

 

In terms of a D.I. softening something shot in anamorphic, that's a result of them not being done at a high enough resolution (i.e. being done at 2K.) Also, you have to factor in whether the release prints are being made from an IN (most likely). In theory, an all-4K D.I. producing multiple "original" Estar IN's for making all release prints could give your superior results to a photochemical finish requiring release prints go through an IP/IN step.

 

Of course, we often get the worst of all approaches: 2K D.I.'s that THEN go through an IP/IN step for making release prints... unless we're talking about Super-35 photography where contact-printing all generations is not possible anyway.

Edited December 23, 2005 by David Mullen

[Max Jacoby]

Of course, we often get the worst of all approaches: 2K D.I.'s that THEN go through an IP/IN step for making release prints... unless we're talking about Super-35 photography where contact-printing all generations is not possible anyway.

I saw a film like that yesterday. 'Le temps qui reste' by François Ozon. Shot 35mm anamorphic Panavision they took the film through an inferior DI (by LTC, which say on their website that they do the scanning with Spirits...). I really did not see the point for a DI in this case, since the look of the film was quite straightforward and did not need the added color-correction capabilities of a digital grade. Here straight contact printing would have resulted in superior picture quality.

[David Mullen ASC]

the look of the film was quite straightforward and did not need the added color-correction capabilities of a digital grade. Here straight contact printing would have resulted in superior picture quality.

 

Probably true -- although you don't know how much digital work went into creating a straightforward look -- maybe something was screwed up and had to be fixed digitally...

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I saw there was a new thread on The New World. Now that the film is out and more readily available it'd be better to continue in this thread to get some consistency, therefore I'm posting here to make it appear at the top pnce more.

[Sam Wells]

My only complaint is perhaps the deep stop. It gives the film sharpness, but it also means that lots of the "busy" backgrounds in harsh daylight certain times get a little to close for comfort. I think the film would have looked a bit more romantic shot at shallower depth of field.

 

I can also say that there was no trace of any 65mm-footage in the print I saw. I'd be surprised if they actually used it at all.

 

Adam I don'tknow if I would agree that it *should* have looked more romantic in terms of stop.

 

I like deep stops sometimes, maybe I'm just being perverse and going against the shallow dof is cool trend :)

 

On some of the wides I thought the focus fell of subtly but nicely. Perhaps that was the 65mm ?

 

Sometimes it looked like you could grab a canoe and paddle right into the movie :D

 

I had a very hard time telling what was 35 and what was 65 with a couple of exceptions.

And I had no sense at all of any kind of DI, so I don't think so.

 

Excellent projection at a local AMC 24 - that was pleasant !!

 

It did feel kind of rushed - makes me wonder what was different in the first cut released in Dec. I hear there wil be a 3 hour cut on the DVD, but until I get a 40 foot wide 8K TV at Circuit City, I'd love to see *that* in a theater, oh well...

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

I felt it was a notch below "The Thin Red Line" -- although both have the same theme, Eden invaded by man & warfare, the WW2 element gave "The Thin Red Line" a little more gravitas and drive, whereas this was a little too thin, narratively-speaking.

 

Also, after seeing how the ragtag Jamestown colony was barely surviving through the winter, cutting for the first time later to Christian Bale on his farm outside the colony felt like a time jump of several years, not a year. It seemed like the colony went from poverty to being successful exporters of tobacco in a short time.

 

The photography was excellent and avoided too much "prettiness" for its own sake, although I'm not against prettiness. Despite shooting day scenes at a deep stop, as soon as you had interiors and night/dusk scenes, etc. the depth of field dropped off noticably, so I don't consider it a deep-focus movie.

 

I think the only 65mm shots were of the ships arriving in the harbor probably, but nothing stood out as being 65mm ever. Shooting stopped down took the "stretchiness" out of the anamorphic photography, so it's harder to spot any 65mm spherical-lensed shots among them, normally a clue.

 

 

While I heard that no DI was done for the film (except for the 65mm shots probably), now I hear that the cut I saw last month has been reworked and shortened. Assuming they cut the negative, it makes it much harder to recut it now. It's one of the arguments for a DI since you don't have spliced negative to deal with in creating alternative versions.

[Sam Wells]

In comparison with The Thin Red Line I might agree for the moment, but would want to see this one again.

It was the current/shorter version I saw; as a friend said, it "needed more breathing room"

 

I think the "beauty shots" were consistent with the film thematically.

 

Pretty good digital blowdown if that was the case. I guess it doesn't hurt to have a 65mm negative to scan..

 

-Sam

[Oliver Ojeil]

Dear All,

I just saw The New World two days ago. The trailer had really captured my heart because I am in love with history and epics, and the trailer portrayed the whole mood of the movie as if it is a survival story with an epic battle at the end, in the midst of a forbidden love and personal struggle.

Therefore, and with that in mind, I went to see it on the big screen, and to be honest, I kept looking at my watch after the first 45min, trying to get a grasp of the story acts: their initiation and enfolding. To be fare, the beauty of that world was well captured, but the story leans more toward a docu-narration, which maybe explains why it did so horribly in the box office. All of the people I know and who have seen it, thought it was VERY boring. I didn't think so, because I let myself get taken by the beauty of nature, and the purity of that world. Anyway, great movie that I'd add to my DVD library.

Regards

Edited February 18, 2006 by Oliver S