Lemony Snicket

[Wendell_Greene]

Has anyone here seen this film? What was your impression of the cinematography? I haven't seen "Cat in the Hat" and "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" is yet to be released but some of you may have attended a screening; but what were your thoughts about the look of those films?

 

Do you believe the growing popularity of the DI will revive Super 1.85 as a viable, realistic option or is this simply a case of a studio, producers, director, et al, making an allowance for the perference of one world class cinematographer?

 

What is your opinion of Mr. Miyagashima's comments in the article below?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

"The Darker Side of Fantasy" by David E. Williams

Excerpt from December 2004 issue of American Cinematographer:

 

On "Lemony Snicket", DP Emmanuel Lubezki, A.S.C., A.M.C. decided to use a tactic to give him the sharpest and fullest image possible:shooting with Panaflex Platinums in full aperture 4 perf Super 35mm, with the pan to later extract and reduce from the 0.980" x0.735" image aread to acheive a final 1.85:1 composition. [He used Primos lenses: 21mm, 27mm & 40mm]

 

This process, known as "Super 1.85" would give his original image area an increase of about 30 percent over the 0.825" x0.446" standard projection aperture. Like many cinematographers, Lubezki has frequently used Super 35 in this manner for increased resolution while shooting TV commercials because working without any need for prints or soundtracks makes it an ideal choice. " I think you can really feel the difference in the increased negative size," says Lubezki who also shot The Cat in the Hat and The Assassination of Richard Nixon in Super 1.85.

 

During the 1980's, a number of filmmakers experimented with shooting in 1.85 for reduction prints on theatrical films, [ like "Malcolm X" photographed by Ernest Dickerson, ASC -WSG ] but the required optical-printing step negated any gain of using the larger negative and resulted in an edgy image quality that actually enhanced apparent grain (although it did result in improved 70mm prints).

 

Today, however the advent of the DI has given this use of Super 35 a new life.

 

Lubezki's Super 1.85 approach on Lemony Snicket prompted concerns about optics, because he wondered if the outer edges and corners of the format's exposure area----generally discarded in the standard Super 35 process when the frame is cropped to 2.40.1----- might not seem as sharp or contrasty as the area coverd by the "best" part of the lens. As he notes, any such differences would probably be invisible on even the largest TV screen, but they might create a problem on even a medium-sized threatical screen. " I did many tests and couldn't see any loss of quality", Lubezki maintains. "After going all the way through the DI, working at 2K and outputting it to film, we did comparison tests with standard 1.85 and everybody thought Super 1.85 look slightly better.

 

Asked to discuss the issue of edge to edge image sharpness in Super 1.85, ASC associate member Tak Miyagishima, Panavision's Senior VP of Engineering, offers " the 'best' par of the lens---the center is dictated by the laws of physics. As you move from the center of any lens, there's going to be illumination falloff. Howeer, the longer the lens, the more ilumination you will retain in the corners; conversely the shorter the lens, the greater the loss.

 

We took that into account when we designed the Primo lens and tried to improve the light transmission to the corners. With the older, non-Primo lenses, there is a stop-loss in the corners--- some time a dramatic stop loss, as well as distortion and more breathing-----but we've corrected that with the Primos, so they would be the lenses best -suited for that use of Super 35."

 

He adds that "working at the bottom of the lens, as Lubezki often does, will accentuate the performance limitation of any cinema optic. "Most lense were designed to offer their best performance between T2.8 and T4, but the every cinematographer knows this and works with that limitation."

 

"I would have loved to work with more DOF" Lubezki admits, "But the storybook look were after is very closely related to and dependent upon the effects of DOF, when you start to see too much, you lose that quality. I would have loved to have shot at T2.8 just to have enough depth to allow the actors to feel where they were and tie them into their backgrounds. But I also like to separate them with DOF to be able to focus a little more on their faces."

[David Mullen ASC]

If D.I.'s become commonplace, then what's the point of NOT using the soundtrack area on the negative, other than for anamorphic photography where it's not needed?

[Wendell_Greene]

None whatsover that I can see.

 

Have I overlooked any other films and DPs using this along with a DI?

[John Pytlak RIP]

I brought up the advantages of using Super-35 for 1.85:1 aspect ratio in my articles and SMPTE technical presentation on "Scope 1.5X" release format:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...k/apertures.pdf

 

Possibly, the

"squeeze" could be done digitally (as many special effects are today), but at

additional cost.

 

http://www.smpte.org/members_only/library/...file=pytlak.pdf

 

If you are using a digital intermediate anyway, the much larger image area of Super-35 1.85:1 is a very good way to improve image quality (Image area used is 0.825x0.446 inches vs. 0.945x0.511 inches)

[Elhanan Matos]

I just saw the movie and I thought it looked great! The cinematography was absolutely gorgeous!

[Landon D. Parks]

I just saw it today. It's a nice film. These are the kinds of films I want to direct!!! Im in love with films like Harry Potter, Lemony Snicket, ect.

 

The story seemed to suffer a bit though, and it almost seemed just a tad to chopping in the editing.

 

But on a scale from 1 to 6 on the Direction of the film, I'll give it a 5. and on a scale from 1 to 6 on the Cinematography of the film, I'll give it 6.

 

I hope they turn this into a series of movies, so that one day I might have the chance at one of them.

 

Anyway, good film!