Indiana Jones 4: Panavision anamorphic, Super 35, or HD?

[Patrick Cooper]

"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.

[Guest Jake Braver]

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

[David Mullen ASC]

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."

[John Holland]

David beat me to it , have horrible feeling this going to be S-35 , Kaminski wrong chap for this one .

[Saul Pincus]

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

[Joe Sexton]

I know it doesn't mean much but the IMDB is reporting the cinematic process as anamorphic.

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

 

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

[David Mullen ASC]

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...

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

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

[Emmanuel Lariviere]

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.

[chris dye]

[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.

[Emmanuel Lariviere]

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.

[Emmanuel Lariviere]

"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.

[David Mullen ASC]

"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".

[Emmanuel Lariviere]

Thanks, David. I thought I was missing one.

[Saul Pincus]

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

[chris schaller]

heard from reliable source that it's super 35 then a DI to look like previous films.

[Larry Nielsen]

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

[Max Jacoby]

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?

[Ignacio Aguilar]

Any news?

[Bill Totolo]

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!

[Ernie Zahn]

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

[Logan Schneider]

That looks like the Lev Head on the Ultimate Arm

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

[Emmanuel Lariviere]

Thanks, David. For fans of the look of the first three, this is good news.