K Borowski Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 [ Why even a DI at all? Ditto. Then again, "Julie & Julia" and "Time Traveler's Wife" are also DI films. I have no idea why. It is still cheaper to go to optical finish, right? I know HD deliverables for TV are all but required these days, but even there it is a lot cheaper to telecine a timed master positive than a negative, right? I just don't get the whole notion that the convenience is worth the noticeable loss of quality. When less than maybe 1/8 of the movie has CG in it, what is the point of a DI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I think its just that the two major labs have done a great selling job to silly producers about the wonders of a DI , because they make so much money from doing a DI !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I think its just that the two major labs have done a great selling job to silly producers about the wonders of a DI , because they make so much money from doing a DI !!! I have to admit, John, that this one looked pretty good, especially for 2K anamorphic, but EFilm DIs still tend to look pretty wonky to my eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 I don't really remember anything in the film that would have required the DI at all...this film could easily have been timed photochemically, apart from the few effects shots. I haven't read the AC article yet, so perhaps it delves into it a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I don't really remember anything in the film that would have required the DI at all...this film could easily have been timed photochemically, apart from the few effects shots. I haven't read the AC article yet, so perhaps it delves into it a bit. Yeah, that is what is so surprising. Some of the scalpings & killings looked CG, and maybe Pitt's scar could have been CG at times (thought it by no means would have needed to be CG). Everything else seemed to be very straight pyrotechnics, so the DI seems to have made for an easier HD deliverable, easier color timing, with the "mere" loss of sharpness and detail. Am I ever going to see a sharp-looking anamorphic film again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Moers Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Yeah, that is what is so surprising. Some of the scalpings & killings looked CG, and maybe Pitt's scar could have been CG at times (thought it by no means would have needed to be CG). Everything else seemed to be very straight pyrotechnics, so the DI seems to have made for an easier HD deliverable, easier color timing, with the "mere" loss of sharpness and detail. Am I ever going to see a sharp-looking anamorphic film again? That's what I was saying also! I mean, I want to see some good anamorphic, especially from a master like Bob Richardson whose earlier photochemical anamorphic work is among some of the best, in my opinion. In fact I thought the DI in this film looked a little too contrasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Taylor Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Could a DI have also been a factor because of all the sub-titles? I know in the old days subtitles meant another generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Could a DI have also been a factor because of all the sub-titles? I know in the old days subtitles meant another generation. Well, they were added to the 2nd generation, the master positive stage usually. So, now you would just make the hold out neg. and the blue title neg. digitally, but print it optically. Apparently, still to this day, for some foreign releases it isn't even a photographic process used to add subtitles, just some sort of laser burner that burns the actual film base. I guess that could have been a factor, though they seemed to be just straight, unmoving, yellow-colored titles at the bottom of the screen with a standard font. Compare that to the much more stylized font-work in "Pulp Fiction" and the titles in this film were quite straight-forward. To put it another way, there was nothing that was "outside the box" with the titles in this film ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hayes Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 All around great film. Gorgeous cinematography, acting, writing, and especially directing. One of Tarantino's best. I thought Hitler's make-up was atrocious. He looked like Al Pacino in Dick Tracy. Really distracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Regan Posted August 29, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted August 29, 2009 Am I ever going to see a sharp-looking anamorphic film again? Whenever I feel that urge I watch 'There will be Blood." I agree, it was contrasty, but for the most part it didn't bother me at all. Seemed to fit the often direct lighting style quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Whenever I feel that urge I watch 'There will be Blood." That was the last one I saw too. Problem is: Without a 35mm projector in my home, how do I see sharp anamorphic prints? As for the contrast in "Basterds" didn't mind it at all. Some people have criticized the unmotivated lighting in the film. While it was obviously stylized, I very much liked it. Hearkened back to early Daguerrotype portraiture I've seen where they used a hole in the ceiling as the light source. I'm sure they were just using diffused HMIs here, but it very much looked like skylight in the opening scene in the farmhouse. Does anyone know what issue of ASC this is in? Let my subscription lapse, but this is worth a read. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Hoffler Posted August 29, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted August 29, 2009 Does anyone know what issue of ASC this is in? Let my subscription lapse, but this is worth a read. . . September 2009, with "The Baader Meinhof Complex" on the cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Justin Hayward Posted August 29, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted August 29, 2009 Does anyone know what issue of ASC this is in? Let my subscription lapse, but this is worth a read. . . September 2009, with "The Baader Meinhof Complex" on the cover. Just got finished reading it. They don't say why he chose to go through a DI, but there's some very interesting commentary from Yvan Lucas at Efilm who did it. I also really like Robert Richardson's explanation for his affinity to muslin... no highlights coming back whereas plastic materials give a shine off the makeup or skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lester Dunton Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I think there were several factors why a DI finish was used. During the shooting of the film a Photochemical finish had been anticipated, and great care was taken during shooting to allow this. I think a combination of time constraints, subtitles, and 65mm material made going a DI route acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Beilharz Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 I thought it was a great film and definitely a welcomed departure from 'Death Proof'. The film references particularly the German ones were fun to see and true Tarantino style to set most of the film in a cinema. The fictitious nature of the film was done well by mixing some real people and situations into the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg lamshöft Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 "65mm material" Really? Where was it used? I thought all they had was 35mm nitro :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Carruthers Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I actually wasn't speaking of those scenes. Those actually looked really great for focus - I was especially taking a look at those. I'm talking about I think later in the film that were just simply static shots. Kinda strange. I saw it at the Ziegfeld though, and I doubt it had anything to do with the projector or what have you. I remember that shot,its the only one I notice to be soft brad pitt kept taking steps towards the camera,and the last step he took must of been to close. I agree with Jonathan on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Carruthers Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 This film was probably the most fun I've had in a theatre in a while. Great tension as mentioned above, and a very 'smart' fillm, not the pointless bloodbath the trailer had me expecting. I also enjoyed Richardson's work, although the heavy-top down didn't always cut it for me. There were some great, dramatic, almost noir feeling shots where heavy back/top light really worked wonderfully. However the scene that really bothered me was the very first, the conversation at the table, perhaps it was an overly bright projector, but that table was just so incredibly hot, and so obviously coming from source directly above. The scene being in an otherwise dim cottage, with windows on the sides, the light just seemed strikingly out of place. Perhaps you could say it was a skylight, but given how much brighter the table was than even the ext. seen through the windows, it didn't seem justified. However scenes such as the bar (particularly the SS agents introduction) made up for it. in the recent ASC mag, richardson says he purposely kept hot top lights even though they where not justified,or not very natural? he said he likes the mood it creates,and doesn't always try for naturalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Peter Moretti Posted February 16, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted February 16, 2010 There may not have been a lot of effects, but the film looked pretty heavily graded to my eyes. Both overall looks (almost burnt yellow in the beginning and abundance of dark green/blue when the Basterds are in the filed) and secondary CCing (poping the blue in eyes) may have helped make the case for a DI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted February 17, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted February 17, 2010 in the recent ASC mag, richardson says he purposely kept hot top lights even though they where not justified,or not very natural?he said he likes the mood it creates,and doesn't always try for naturalism That's just part of his lighting style, he does it in every film. We might as well just call it the 'Bob Richardson effect'. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 17, 2010 Author Share Posted February 17, 2010 Yeah, the hot top light is definitely his signature. He took it to nuclear even, in some scenes from "Bringing out the Dead" 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