Patrick Cooper Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 "In 16mm, the sprocket rows on one side are removed when making a sound print, to put the soundtrack there. In Super-16, you use single-perf negative stock to expose a picture out into that missing perf row, so you can't make a contact print with a soundtrack." "In Super-8, they made the perfs themselves smaller (since regular 8mm perfs are the same as 16mm and 35mm, i.e. unnecessarily large) so they could enlarge the picture." Yep, that's right. I shoot both formats (super 8 and 16mm.) But I'm new to the world of 35mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jake Braver Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I was reading my local paper this morning and they confirmed that it is indeed Anamorphic. http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?ne...=7576&rfi=6 Interesting.... Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 29, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted June 29, 2007 Unfortunately, saying that they are shooting in a "anamorphic, widescreen process" doesn't necessarily mean they are shooting with anamorphic lenses. I've seen the term "anamorphic" used loosely to mean anything meant to eventually be shown in anamorphic widescreen, whether shot with anamorphic lenses or in Super-35. I recently read an AC article where the DP talked about how great "anamorphic", how important "anamorphic" was for his movie, and then says "so we shot it in Super-35." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 David beat me to it , have horrible feeling this going to be S-35 , Kaminski wrong chap for this one . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Pincus Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 (edited) I guess we're still in a holding pattern for confirmed info. It's a little bizarre that, with this relatively high-profile shooting happening at Yale, no one can confirm what type of glass is on their Panaflex. Edited June 29, 2007 by Saul Pincus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sexton Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 I know it doesn't mean much but the IMDB is reporting the cinematic process as anamorphic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Just for people who are unfamiliar, it would be good to explain that the final image does NOT look the same, only has the "same" aspect ratio. To many times I've heard people who don't know ask me what is the difference if in the end you end up with the same ratio. Shooting with an anamorphic lens has very different image characteristics in terms of depth of field, breathing focus, and as David said you have less grain due to the larger negative size and no need for optical step (granted that goes away with a DI, but then there is the whole 2K vs 4K). Back to the topic, the Indiana Jones trilogy has a very present Anamorphic style, I think in many instances to the use of wider anamorphic lenses that most people tend to avoid (there is more distortion) and the lighting style of Douglas Slocombe. I'm obviously keen on what Kaminski will do, but I'm afraid of it looking out of place with the other films if shot on S-35. Just my 2 cents. Best, -felipe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 30, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted June 30, 2007 I'm obviously keen on what Kaminski will do, but I'm afraid of it looking out of place with the other films if shot on S-35. Well, to some extent, if this story takes place 18 years after the last story, then they have more leeway to drift away from a 1940's serial look, not that the new one is going to therefore look like a late 1950's Douglas Sirk melodrama... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 (edited) Well, to some extent, if this story takes place 18 years after the last story, then they have more leeway to drift away from a 1940's serial look, not that the new one is going to therefore look like a late 1950's Douglas Sirk melodrama... Very true, until we see the film we can't make judgments because we don't know the story; so much is just rumors. Its the filmmaker choice, I just meant I hope it fits in and doesn't feel like a kind of addendum that people will later try to forget it is actually there (Alien Resurrection comes to mind as an example; although visually that does fit the other three... hmmm, maybe I have to think of a better comparison). Edited June 30, 2007 by Felipe Perez-Burchard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Lariviere Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I used to be concerned about the look not being consistent. Since the film is taking place in the 50's and looking at pictures of Shia on a motorcycle dressed like a greaser, I can accept if the look is no longer the same. I will still miss the anamorphic look on the film but I can accept it a little better now. I would'nt be surprised if we see a few digitally added anamorphic flares in the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris dye Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 [quote name='Felipe Perez-Burchard' post='180783' date='Jun 29 2007, 05:47 PM']Just for people who are unfamiliar, it would be good to explain that the final image does NOT look the same, only has the "same" aspect ratio. To many times I've heard people who don't know ask me what is the difference if in the end you end up with the same ratio. Shooting with an anamorphic lens has very different image characteristics in terms of depth of field, breathing focus, and as David said you have less grain due to the larger negative size and no need for optical step (granted that goes away with a DI, but then there is the whole 2K vs 4K).[/quote] I agree. Even as a kid, before I knew much about cinematography or what an anamorphic lens was, I noticed certain theatrical movies had a seemingly bigger look to them (especially when they were shown on TV). Personally, I love the anamorphic look. It's shallow depth of field, full use of negative etc. I know it's a pain for first AC's in regards to focus, etc, but I will shoot in that format one day, even if it's a five minute short. It'd be a shame if it went away. It surprises me to hear that Spielberg may have been 'forced' to shoot in that format in his early years. I convinced myself that he loved the format because it's so 'anti-television' and it was his way of saying goodbye to working in the small screen back then. Anamorphic lenses may have 'flawed' characteristics, but weren't lens flares considered bad in the beginning? Now they intentionally add stuff like that in video games to give it a 'cinematic' feel to them. Anamorphic almost means 'cinematic' to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Lariviere Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I agree with Chris and others positive response to anamorphic lens. If it's true that Spielberg hates anamorphic lens, it would be ironic, in that so many people learned to love that look by watching his films. His first five feature films were anamorphic and they all showcased the famous flares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Lariviere Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 "Temple of Doom", "Last Crusade" and "Hook" were his last films shot with anamorphic lens. "Minority Report" was super 35. If I missed one after "Hook", that was "widescreen", that was also super 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 30, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted June 30, 2007 "Temple of Doom", "Last Crusade" and "Hook" were his last films shot with anamorphic lens. "Minority Report" was super 35. If I missed one after "Hook", that was "widescreen", that was also super 35. "Munich" was his other Super-35 / 2.40 movie besides "Minority Report". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Lariviere Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Thanks, David. I thought I was missing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Pincus Posted July 3, 2007 Author Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) According to Steven Awalt at SpielbergFilms.com, the film will be shot "old school" in 35mm anamorphic. http://www.spielbergfilms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7367 Awalt has proven himself trustworthy with info. His site's been around a long time, he's in direct contact with Spielberg's people, and claims to always confirm info with them before posting it. Edited July 3, 2007 by Saul Pincus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris schaller Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 heard from reliable source that it's super 35 then a DI to look like previous films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Nielsen Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Its Anamorphic, in fact, a request was made at Panavision to have Mauro Fiore's lenses from the "Island", long story short those lenses pretty much don't exist anymore, but there are others of equal quality out there. I'm sure they are very similar C's and E's. As David pointed out earlier, looked to small to be anamorphic lenses, the 60mm anamorphic is about 4 inch's long, with a 2,1/2 inch circumfrence up front. its a 19" minimum focus lense. This is a C series lens. Great write up in Milimeter magazine about what I did with those lenses on the Island. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted July 8, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted July 8, 2007 Its Anamorphic, in fact, a request was made at Panavision to have Mauro Fiore's lenses from the "Island", long story short those lenses pretty much don't exist anymore, Who broke them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Any news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill Totolo Posted August 8, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted August 8, 2007 I shot a set visit last week for a Denise Richards/Scott Caan comedy called "Deep in the Valley". Couldn't figure out why security was so tight, then Janus Kaminski walked over during lunch. Ahh. I get it, they were filming Indy 4 on the same lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Zahn Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 (edited) Dunno if you all have seen this, but it's the set up they have going for the movie: I nabbed it from the IndianaJones.com site. Edited September 9, 2007 by Ernie Zahn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Schneider Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 That looks like the Lev Head on the Ultimate Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 9, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 9, 2007 I talked to someone working on the movie who said that they were shooting 35mm anamorphic, Panavision C and E-Series, and did not plan on doing a D.I. except for the digital efx that had to be transferred to film, otherwise a traditional film post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmanuel Lariviere Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Thanks, David. For fans of the look of the first three, this is good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now