Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 6, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2011 One of my favorite works of cinematography is coming out this week on blu-ray! http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews53/excalibur_blu-ray.htm Nothing else to say, just that I'm excited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Sean Lambrecht Posted March 6, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted March 6, 2011 Seconded! Years ago I got a great deal on a case for 4x5 filters which happened to include a full set of Tiffen low con filters. My first thought was, "Excalibur... sweet..." Errr, did Thomson use low cons on Excalibur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted March 7, 2011 Author Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2011 Seconded! Years ago I got a great deal on a case for 4x5 filters which happened to include a full set of Tiffen low con filters. My first thought was, "Excalibur... sweet..." Errr, did Thomson use low cons on Excalibur? Maybe somewhere, but mainly he used Harrison Black Dot Texture Screens (sort of a forerunner to something like Classic Soft Blacks) and sometimes a white net on the back of the lens. "Barry Lyndon" was mostly shot with a #3 Low-Con, except for the f/0.7 candlelight shots. A few shots also had a net on the lens, I don't know front or back. The wedding scene, for example, and I think the bath scene where Barry comes in and kisses Lady Lyndon in the bathtub in the daytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Sean Lambrecht Posted March 7, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted March 7, 2011 Interesting, thanks David. Wow, those Harrison filters are really something. I want a set! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Just been trying Harrison Double Fog with my Eos 550d/ T21 . Do like what iam seeing . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I just read this interview with art director, set decorator & production designer Roger Christian, where he briefly talks about the early involvement of "Alien" cinematographer Derek Vanlint with "Excalibur". Wasn't it Tony Pierce-Roberts who was replaced by Alex Thomson when the shooting had already begun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roberto Hernandez Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 A few shots also had a net on the lens, I don't know front or back. What is difference visually when using netting over the front or behind the lens? Do you know if popular cinematographers like Janusz Kaminski prefer one over the other. What technique for netting the lens do you prefer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Hulnick Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Interesting, thanks David. Wow, those Harrison filters are really something. I want a set! Those filters look unbelievable. You'd think the images would be unusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 The score for this movie was terrific. And I love that shot of the hand of the Lady Of The Lake pulling the sword back down underwater, I've always wondered how they did that shot? The sword just goes straight down. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 19, 2011 Author Premium Member Share Posted May 19, 2011 The score for this movie was terrific. And I love that shot of the hand of the Lady Of The Lake pulling the sword back down underwater, I've always wondered how they did that shot? The sword just goes straight down. R, I think they built a mechanical rig for the sword and fake hand/arm poking out of the water and going back down, but for that shot where Percival tosses the sword and the hand catches it at the end, I think that was a reversed shot, the sword was yanked out of the hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Arch Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Why do you enjoy these types of films David. The old films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Why do you enjoy these types of films David. The old films. Um, maybe because it's a good movie? And it's not so terribly old. I remember when it came out as I presume David does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Arch Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I am guessing because they used a tripod and you can actually see what's happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I am guessing because they used a tripod and you can actually see what's happening. Ha, good one. When I was making Dark Reprieve a lot of people asked me if I would do it all handheld. I said no I was breaking with tradition and it would all be tri-pod mounted shots. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Arch Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 How did they react? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Dom Jaeger Posted May 20, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted May 20, 2011 Ha, good one. When I was making Dark Reprieve a lot of people asked me if I would do it all handheld. I said no I was breaking with tradition and it would all be tri-pod mounted shots. R, That's what I like about you Richard, you're a true rebel. You probably shot it on some weird medium like film too. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I know crazy! I even used this new device called a dolly, and another new invention....the camera jib. It makes the shots like all crazy smooth and stuff. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted May 20, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted May 20, 2011 Pfft; where's the realism in that! We all know you're not cool Richard unless you shoot on something Digital; because that's where it's at obviously. I heard some people say so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 One of my favorite works of cinematography is coming out this week on blu-ray! http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-ray_reviews53/excalibur_blu-ray.htm Nothing else to say, just that I'm excited. Unfortunately it's not properly framed... :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Hulnick Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Why do you enjoy these types of films David. The old films. Many "Old" movies are timeless classics. Not a lot of today's crop will past the test of time me thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Hulnick Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Unfortunately it's not properly framed... :-( 1.78:1 isn't that far from the original (1.85:1) theatrical ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 I was helping a student friend to shoot a documentary about Ardmore studios and "Excalibur" was one of the films being shot at the time. We tried to get permission to film some behind the scenes material, but that was turned down. However, we did sneak onto the set when they were rehearsing the shot where Igrayne came down the stairs to dance. They'd taken over all the stages and even knocked a hole in one stage's exterior wall for one of the Camelot sets. BTW Neil Jordan directed the making of documentary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Cooper Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 This is a film that I always enjoy watching when it comes on TV. I first saw it back in primary school in the early 80s. One of the things that stands out for me is the mist. There was a lot of mist in this film! I think they had their smoke machines running overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michel Hafner Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 1.78:1 isn't that far from the original (1.85:1) theatrical ratio. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20146249#post20146249 (original is 1.66:1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Hulnick Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20146249#post20146249 (original is 1.66:1) Really. Blu-ray.com states 1.85:1 as the original a/r. i on't doubt you, Br.com is always getting things wrong. 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