Ricardo Diaz Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 There will be an accompanying 45 min 65mm IMAX film called Voyage of Time that will be released separately but also cut into Tree of Life. I didnt quite get those specifics as I was too involved in hearing about Chivo from my camera friend and Terrence from my editorial friend. So not sure if they shot the 65mm stuff simultaneously or if its a new project (and if so will Chivo shoot it) but I plan on finding out after i get a beer with them this coming week. Either way sounds good to me. You got 65, 35, and digital all being used. Anyway, back to the topic. I'll type something in the other thread u started if I hear something interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 There will be an accompanying 45 min 65mm IMAX film called Voyage of Time that will be released separately but also cut into Tree of Life. I didnt quite get those specifics as I was too involved in hearing about Chivo from my camera friend and Terrence from my editorial friend. So not sure if they shot the 65mm stuff simultaneously or if its a new project (and if so will Chivo shoot it) but I plan on finding out after i get a beer with them this coming week. Either way sounds good to me. You got 65, 35, and digital all being used. WOW.... Sounds like Malick's long-rumored "Q" project. Are you sure about this? This is like major news if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo Diaz Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 I dont know if its Q or not I just know typed what I was told. But like I said alot of that footage is being put into Tree of Life AND also being used for the IMAX film. That is all I know at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Outstanding! Thanks for the tip. That is epic news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 At least we have Keith here who entertains us with his quick-search wikipedia knowledge - even though he believes Oscar Wilde was a pedophile :rolleyes: . A nice week-end to all, -Michael I didn't say anything about Oscar Wilde. I repeated what turned out to be a misquote of one of his famous epigrams, and somebody else pointed this out. How we got from there to Wilde's being a pedophile I'm not sure. As for "quick search Wikipedia Knowledge", the Wikipedia is the ultimate and unassailable repository of what everyone thinks, not what is actually true. Any attempt to inject even a minite percentage of veracity is immediately erased by the People's Institute of Wot's Troo an' all... As far as humanly possible I get my historical information from contemporary sources, no what some peabrain slob journalist thought he remembered reading in a weekend supplement back in 1968. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Michael Lehnert Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 Jeez, we're just having fun here. No need to get all serious and start attacking people personally. You film guys need to lighten up. I think all those photochemicals are getting to you.. hehe. Jeez, Tom, we're just having some contextual sarcasm here. No need to get all counselling-like. You Digitalians need to get more nuanced. I think all those data specs have been taking you over.. ;) (as in: ;) :rolleyes: ) Cheers, -Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 He sits enthroned above the [circle of the earth], and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. - Isaiah 40:22 Obviously a reference to the grotesque vastness of a Video Village setup, NOT usually required when shooting antediluvian film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 However these digital cameras (well only one really, the Red) are not exactly replacing 35mm cameras. They are doing exactly that - and also the prices for 35mm lenses have reached an all-time high. These cameras are bought by people who cannot afford to shoot on 35mm film. I don't see any rental houses chucking out their Arricams, or even BLs and Moviecams for Reds... You are wrong. Doug Liman and many other A-Budget producers, Dops and directors might disagree on that. http://red.cachefly.net/video/doug_liman.m4v Also, iirc, you bought together with steven w. a red - can´t you afford to shoot on film? Furthermore, red cameras are, right now, typically more expensive to rent than a solid 35mm mechanical camera setup - ludwig in munich is running his 10 @ 650?, cinegate is running its at 550-650? etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jan von krogh Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Hi Jan, As somebody once said on CML 'If you know how to light it does not matter what you shoot with, If you don't know how to light it does not matter what you shoot with. Yeah. Many clips posted on REDUSER prove the point. Best, Stephen I suppose you dont refer, as example, to the Mr. Mullens posts on reduser however. There are plenty of awesome, plenty of mediocre and plenty of bad clips. From Top-budget commercials & full features to skeleton-crew low-budget shorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Davis Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 I know this is rarely if never discussed, but my preferred advantage of film over digital is that it's tactile. I don't need a codec or computer/VTR/disc reader to to see it. Just hold it up to light. There's no BIG advantage there, except possibly archival purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 If 35mm film can resolve at 8K, why doesn't IMAX scan 35mm features at 8K for their DMRs? Well, apparently they can and do. I went to Wally Pfister's seminar at Cine Gear a few hours ago, and he says that for "The Dark Knight" portions of the 35mm anamorphic were scanned at 8K for the IMAX DMR blow-up. He says they were scanned from a timed IP once the film was cut. Other parts of the film, probably the effects work, were scanned at 5.6K. He did not specify if that was from the negative. The IMAX sections were printed photochemically, some as direct contact prints and others through IP/dupe neg. He does claim that 35mm anamorphic should be scanned at 8K for the best possible image quality and you have to admit, he is uniquely qualified to judge this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) Well, apparently they can and do. I went to Wally Pfister's seminar at Cine Gear a few hours ago, and he says that for "The Dark Knight" portions of the 35mm anamorphic were scanned at 8K for the IMAX DMR blow-up. He says they were scanned from a timed IP once the film was cut. Other parts of the film, probably the effects work, were scanned at 5.6K. He did not specify if that was from the negative. The IMAX sections were printed photochemically, some as direct contact prints and others through IP/dupe neg. He does claim that 35mm anamorphic should be scanned at 8K for the best possible image quality and you have to admit, he is uniquely qualified to judge this. Well, that is something new, and I have to admit, that is interesting news. Can you give us some more details? Did he claim that tests were done? 4K or 6K simply were not good enough? Could the difference be seen on 15-perf IMAX filmouts? The last Batman was scanned at 6K for the DMR, if I remember correctly, also shot anamorphic. Another question that comes to mind is, why not blow up the anamorphic 35mm to IMAX optically? Edited June 22, 2008 by Tom Lowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 Another question that comes to mind is, why not blow up the anamorphic 35mm to IMAX optically? 35mm grain is quite distracting on a big IMAX screen, so part of the DMR process is a degraining and then resharpening process. Makes the 35mm footage look a bit digital though, clean and edgy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Ah yes, now I remember you talking about de-graining being part of the DMR process. How does degraining work, anyway? Sounds difficult. Sort of like a luminance noise filter in Photoshop? Those tend to really soften the pictures up, but are good at reducing digital noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Matthew W. Phillips Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 As for "quick search Wikipedia Knowledge", the Wikipedia is the ultimate and unassailable repository of what everyone thinks, not what is actually true. Any attempt to inject even a minite percentage of veracity is immediately erased by the People's Institute of Wot's Troo an' all... As far as humanly possible I get my historical information from contemporary sources, no what some peabrain slob journalist thought he remembered reading in a weekend supplement back in 1968. Wow, someone auditioning for "Grumpier Old Men Part Deux?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 Yeah. I suppose you dont refer, as example, to the Mr. Mullens posts on reduser however. There are plenty of awesome, plenty of mediocre and plenty of bad clips. From Top-budget commercials & full features to skeleton-crew low-budget shorts. Hi, David Mullen can light, so what is your point? Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 You are wrong.Doug Liman and many other A-Budget producers, Dops and directors might disagree on that. They are the exception of the rule I'm afraid. Of the several thousand Red cameras, only a small percentage are used on what you like to call A-budget productions. I don't see any rental houses or labs closing down because of Red, now matter how much you wish for that. In fact the contrary is true, I know several rental places who are busier than ever renting 35mm gear. Furthermore, red cameras are, right now, typically more expensive to rent than a solid 35mm mechanical camera setup - ludwig in munich is running his 10 @ 650?, cinegate is running its at 550-650? etc. Haha, more expensive than that Arri 2B you have kicking around maybe, but I'm talking about sync-sound cameras that people use to actually shoot features with. Just quickly scanning my Arri Rental catalogue, Arricams go for 1250 Euros a day, 535s and Moviecams for 800 a day, even the ubiquitous 435 for 750. And those are 2003 prices. Cinegate have exactly the same prices if you'd actually bothered to check. Red is so cheap that it would be ridiculous and quite dishonest to charge as much as a 35mm camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 Max, I can see that you are planning to go out like General Custer.... Tom, remind me again, in that White Men vs Indians conflict, who ended up having the last word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 They are the exception of the rule I'm afraid. Of the several thousand Red cameras, only a small percentage are used on what you like to call A-budget productions. I don't see any rental houses or labs closing down because of Red, now matter how much you wish for that. In fact the contrary is true, I know several rental places who are busier than ever renting 35mm gear. Several Thousand? As far as I am aware, they are only up to shipping serial# 2,000, and of those they refuse to comment on how many deposit holders are still making up their minds. By the way did you see this article ? from the NY Sun? (emphasis mine:-) Some Highlights: When "Wanted," the new Angelina Jolie thriller, hits movie screens next weekend, moviegoers are sure to be wowed by the slow-motion bullets, flipping automobiles, and other special effects that have made the trailer a must-see. But few will realize that these sequences were filmed with an entirely new brand of video camera, a state-of-the-art device that is poised to permanently alter the landscape of the movie industry. Already well-known to filmmakers ? not to mention thousands of owners ? the name of the device is the Red One. To get technical for a moment, most movies shot on 35 mm are scanned into computers via a process that typically results in a resolution of 2K (this is what audiences see in the movie theater). Most HD cameras take in data at a rate just slightly lower than this, which is why digital films seem to lack the warmth or glow of traditional movies, and why filmmakers must pay special attention to such things as lighting and color when working with a less sophisticated piece of equipment. Haha, more expensive than that Arri 2B you have kicking around maybe, but I'm talking about sync-sound cameras that people use to actually shoot features with. Just quickly scanning my Arri Rental catalogue, Arricams go for 1250 Euros a day, 535s and Moviecams for 800 a day, even the ubiquitous 435 for 750. And those are 2003 prices. Cinegate have exactly the same prices if you'd actually bothered to check. Red is so cheap that it would be ridiculous and quite dishonest to charge as much as a 35mm camera. Watch what you say about the 2B; you can still make serious money with one of those when rentals are tight. :P I remember a time when I worked at Panavision Australia when was given the job of modifying a pile of old 8 Volt Arri STs that nobody thought would ever see the light of day again, so they could be run from standard 12V batteries. It was just one of those strange "events" when everybody suddenly wants to shoot film at once and they'll take what they can get (except video:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 (edited) Wow, someone auditioning for "Grumpier Old Men Part Deux?" No, I only appear in commercials. Edited June 22, 2008 by Keith Walters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 Watch what you say about the 2B; you can still make serious money with one of those when rentals are tight. :P Hey I like the 2B, I've used it myself. It's a good cheap MOS/crash camera. I've even used it in one of those huge blimps from the 60s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 Several Thousand? As far as I am aware, they are only up to shipping serial# 2,000, and of those they refuse to comment on how many deposit holders are still making up their minds. I don't know the exact number, but my point is that for such a big number of cameras available the amount that is actually used on proper budgeted projects (i.e. anything that has enough money to shoot on whatever format they like) is still small. The Red is mostly replacing HVX and the likes, not 35mm cameras. Really, the only digital camera that is established on Hollywood films as a main camera is the Genesis, with the Arri D21 probably getting there also. Viper is not really used (only by Mann and Fincher it seems), same for the Red and the Dalsa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted June 22, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted June 22, 2008 By the way did you see this article ? from the NY Sun? (emphasis mine:-) The above link has been FUBARed by the Forum editor. This will work: http://www.nysun.com/arts/new-camera-poise...lmmaking/80357/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 The above link has been FUBARed by the Forum editor. This will work: http://www.nysun.com/arts/new-camera-poise...lmmaking/80357/ I read that article awhile ago, and the errors in it are rather startling, but understandable for someone not knowledgeable in film production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Max, I can see that you are planning to go out like General Custer.... Tom, this is possibly the funniest thing I have seen on this forum, ever :lol: Do you mind if I use this as my logo instead of my picture from now on? Also, what about Fuji? Do they get a "dead horse" too? :P ~KB 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