Joseph Arch Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Bringing sexy back? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/technical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Strange that Arri Media havent said anything about it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 14, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 14, 2011 Maybe not so strange. The date given is 2013, and the Arri guys tend to be careful about making sure it's real before they say anything. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Arch Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 Paul Thomas Anderson is directing it. I am sure they won't get something like that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 14, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 14, 2011 You never know -- sometimes the plug gets pulled even on really big projects. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Arch Posted July 14, 2011 Author Share Posted July 14, 2011 Don't jinx it :ph34r: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Vincent Sweeney Posted July 14, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 14, 2011 Now this technology I'd pay extra for, assuming a 4K projector is used or IMAX. Definitely preferable to 3D so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Joseph Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Now this is strange, the cinematographer's previous credits are Youth without Youth and Tetro, being digitally shot Copolla. It seems as though he has gone the opposite way, maybe an appreciation for a chance to shoot some film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted July 15, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2011 Bringing sexy back? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560747/technical The Epic Slayer :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted July 15, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2011 Maybe Marcus it has more to do with the Director Cinematographer agreeing the given format fits the given wanted aesthetic within the confines of the budget and shooting style. I mean we all have preferences, but in the end we need to do what is best for the film (which means for the director and very very often for the budget). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 This project is mysterious. First, this is the first time Anderson choses other DP rather than Robert Elswit, who won the Academy Award for their last film together, "There Will Be Blood". Second, Anderson, as Elswit told AC at the time that film was released, is some kind of a purist, who went as far as neglecting his DP the use of the 85 filter when using tungsten balanced film in daylight as he wanted the film to look as clean and crisp as possible, plus insisted in avoiding high-speed stocks (Elswit used 200T and high-speed anamorphics instead) with a photochemical finish. And fourth, he hires a DP whose major credits are digital (and spherical) films. Now if he's really using 65mm film it won't strange me that much, but then he'll have to go through a digital step or a regular DI, so the film could get a general 35mm release and 2K and 4K digital prints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted July 15, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2011 The Epic Slayer :rolleyes: Where is Tom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 This project is mysterious. First, this is the first time Anderson choses other DP rather than Robert Elswit, who won the Academy Award for their last film together, "There Will Be Blood". Second, Anderson, as Elswit told AC at the time that film was released, is some kind of a purist, who went as far as neglecting his DP the use of the 85 filter when using tungsten balanced film in daylight as he wanted the film to look as clean and crisp as possible, plus insisted in avoiding high-speed stocks (Elswit used 200T and high-speed anamorphics instead) with a photochemical finish. And fourth, he hires a DP whose major credits are digital (and spherical) films. Now if he's really using 65mm film it won't strange me that much, but then he'll have to go through a digital step or a regular DI, so the film could get a general 35mm release and 2K and 4K digital prints. Optical printer instead? I know S35 looks better through a DI, but that is blowing a smaller format up. Generally you lose about 1/2 of the resolution whenever you go through a lens. 65mm 5-perf. might still come out the winner in that situation. I wouldn't be comfortable going through just a 4K with 70 unless I wanted to sacrifice the resolution I went through all that trouble, extra money for. 6.4 or 8K is probably adequate for this format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Optical printer instead? I know S35 looks better through a DI, but that is blowing a smaller format up. Generally you lose about 1/2 of the resolution whenever you go through a lens. 65mm 5-perf. might still come out the winner in that situation. I wouldn't be comfortable going through just a 4K with 70 unless I wanted to sacrifice the resolution I went through all that trouble, extra money for. 6.4 or 8K is probably adequate for this format. Even with DLP becoming ubiquitous, I assume you can still show up with a timed interpositive or the master positive and say "Here, your problem now, this is timed perfectly." David Mullen said that there are still some variances in a finish, timed, master positive, but *most* of the look can be locked in photochemically. And, it's funny, they managed to use master positives or teleprints just fine on all of these "obsolescent, grainy" pre-DI movies. BTW, the compression algorithms are a hell of a lot more bothersome to everyone, not just me, on HDTV than grain :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I just can't see anyone going through all the trouble of shooting 65mm these days to end up releasing the picture in a bunch of optically reduced 35mm prints. Even Christopher Nolan -who in the past has positioned himself against DIs- scanned the 65mm and VistaVision segments of "Inception" for the general release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 15, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2011 Any picture that shoots 65 would normally release both 70mm contact prints and 35mm reductions. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Of course, but the roadshow era died more than 40 years ago. Plus distribution and marketing were very different back in those days (less prints that lasted longer in 70mm large theaters). Nowadays your options to release a picture shot in 65mm are 35mm prints (optically reduced or scanned), IMAX's blow-ups and digital projection (2K or 4K). Chances of shooting 65mm and contact print to 70mm are very unlikely. If you're a photochemical die hard supporter, as P.T. Anderson has been in the past, regular 35mm (1.85:1) and 35mm anamorphic are the only formats that can avoid scanning or optical steps. Perhaps he has changed his mind over the years. Before he hired his new DP and the 65mm rumour spread out, there was also some buzz about him testing HD cameras for this project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member John Sprung Posted July 15, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted July 15, 2011 "Titanic" released in 70mm -- digital sound only, because the mag stripe made the film thick enough that a show that long wouldn't fit on a platter. -- J.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Joseph Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Maybe Marcus it has more to do with the Director Cinematographer agreeing the given format fits the given wanted aesthetic within the confines of the budget and shooting style. I mean we all have preferences, but in the end we need to do what is best for the film (which means for the director and very very often for the budget). I meant it is strange in the sense that he has chosen a DP who has shot mostly digital and not a lot of what you'd consider big films to helm a 65mm film project. But perhaps him being on the project had more to do with Elswit's recommendations than his work (which I do think is good). I find what Igancio is saying about There Will Be Blood surprising, I didn't know PTA was that adament about quality pictures, but then again that movie certainly was quality. I think if this does go ahead as is, it'll definitely be something worth watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 So why is this under Arriflex 765 when the link says Panavision System 65? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Arch Posted July 27, 2011 Author Share Posted July 27, 2011 It has been changed again. Now it's Arriflex 16 S. Since I started this thread, the technical information has changed. Twice. Someone in this forum is playing games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Joseph Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 http://cigsandredvines.blogspot.com/2011/06/master-shooting-entirely-in-65mm.html It seems as though it's both 35 and 65. Doesn't seem like 16mm and I don't think anyone from this forum would be bothered to mess around with the imdb tech page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted July 28, 2011 Share Posted July 28, 2011 So why is this under Arriflex 765 when the link says Panavision System 65? As of 8pm 7/27, the link says that it's being shot on 16mm with an Arri S. Someone is fooling around with imdb perhaps....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted August 16, 2011 Premium Member Share Posted August 16, 2011 I think "B" camera is a CP16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Hunt Posted August 22, 2011 Share Posted August 22, 2011 So why is this under Arriflex 765 when the link says Panavision System 65? That particular 70mm format was pioneered by Panavision. The 765 shoots the same format, however due to trademark issues (I assume), Arri usually calls it something else. But really it's the same format so it's not uncommon to see things on IMDb listed as Arri 765 and "Panavision System 65" as the cinematographic process. 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