Batman Begins

[David Mullen ASC]

Would you happen to know what digital process they used for Batman? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No idea but I'm sure it's not a plug-in -- not yet. Probably not too complicated though.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Pulling the lens out for a moment?

 

I haven't seen it yet, but are you just talking about a really severe focus bounce with some flaring?

 

Phil

[drew_town]

Hi,

 

Pulling the lens out for a moment?

 

I haven't seen it yet, but are you just talking about a really severe focus bounce with some flaring?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Something like that. Or a digital effect to the same affect. It's pretty crazy and severe looking.

[Guest fstop]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I know French VFX house BUF handled the scarecrow's hallucination sequences through various parts of their patented effects techniques. My brother saw the movie and he said the hallucination sequences looked like a visual trick used in Fight Club, which by no coincidence BUF also worked on.

 

BUF also produced Poison Ivy's swirling dust particles from Schumacher's Batman and Robin, as ironic as that may seem!

[Saul Pincus]

Just saw the IMAX version. DMR has really come a long way since "Apollo 13"; the "blockiness" is virtually gone. Contrast was also improved considerably over the "Matrix" sequels and "Harry Potter - excessive contrast is usually the case with DMR, due to the "sharpening" (edge enhancement) process.

 

Perhaps these improvements are the result of originating from true 4-perf anamorphic, I don't know. Previous live action DMR releases have originated on Super 35.

 

Saul

Edited June 18, 2005 by Saul Pincus

[drew_town]

No idea but I'm sure it's not a plug-in -- not yet. Probably not too complicated though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Certainly. It looks like an advanced composite of alterations of the same image. Or some tricky matte work to separate the background and foreground into different layers. I'd be interested to know how this was done if anyone finds out.

[Trevor Allen]

Yes David, you are right.

 

I've been tooling around with After Effects. Using some compositing (rotoscoping the foreground from the background...as "drew_town" noted, in the film the foreground object seems to be much more normal vs. the shakey pulsing background), a "camera shake" plugin, along with a motion blur plugin, and overlapping the same background footage multiple times (each layer shaking and pulsing in slightly different directions, each layer's exposure flaring brighter & darker as it shakes/pulses) ......with all this I can get a poor man's version of the Batman effect. For one hour's work, not that bad of a result.

 

"fstop" that's very interesting. That Batman effect did remind me of the effect used in Fight Club, where Pitt is looking into the camera and it shakes (where you can see the film perfs on the edge of the frame). BUF seems to do/invent a lot of the best effects. I did not know they did the Fight Club or Batman effects, I only knew them as the creators of the "Matrix Bullet Time Effect" (in the Gondry video....before it was the coined as the "Matrix" effect).

...respect is building rapidly for BUF :)

 

Thanks so much to everyone for all the great information!!!

Trevor

[Andy O'Neil]

Audiences tend to adore mediocrity, but "Batman Begins" is getting worthy praise. Having said that, may I suggest one thing to all filmmakers: Dig even deeper, and resist the urge to be average.

 

The MPAA rating wasn't the only impediment. Nolan was constrained by the "comic book" formula. He didn't quite make it his own. Two-thirds of the way in, I was like, "Okay, there's the underlying comic book structure right there, and here's where the world must be saved - yawn.

 

The enemies seemed actually bad in this one; at least they were more menacing than any villain in LOTR or the latest Star Wars. I know that's not saying much.

 

Superheroes tend to be invincible. I am never concerned for their well-being because they're too damn strong; they're flawless. "Unbreakable" transcended this urge. "Batman Begins" did okay too.

 

I'm pretty aimless right now.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

It has been very nice to watch again a big budget film not using a DI, specially when it was shot with anamorphic lenses. The images were so sharp and the blacks were so deep that I was blown away. The look of 5218 combined with anamorphic is great. Even pushed te grain was varely visible.

 

I enjoyed the whole film a lot. To my taste, the best Batman movie to date, though I still think that Superman is the best superhero-movie ever made (those epic first 45 minutes are very hard to beat).

Edited June 19, 2005 by Ignacio Aguilar

[Guest fstop]

Just seen it, and I was very impressed, I thought they did the best job they could for a self-contained, audience accessible 2 hour superhero movie.

 

Pfister blew me away with a look chock full of everything from classic dark Owen Roizman to Bruce Surtees and Gordon Willis (great underexposure, single source fall off), but overall this is one beautiful shrine to Jordan Cronenwerth- warm 3200K colours, almost exclusive side/backlighting (even on the lead actress), smoked sets- much reminded me of Cronenwerth/Thomson's Alien3 while there's a crane shot in there of a Gotham slum with citizens on bicycles in the rain that design and photography wise is a love letter direct homage to Blade Runner!

 

I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed the clearly pushed Wayne Manor exteriors, particularly anything dealing with the contrast in those branches and hedges- reminds me of pushed colour stills work I cherish.

 

Stunning!

[Max Jacoby]

That Batman effect did remind me of the effect used in Fight Club, where Pitt is looking into the camera and it shakes (where you can see the film perfs on the edge of the frame).  BUF seems to do/invent a lot of the best effects.

 

All they did there was to pan the camera back and forth very quickly while they were shooting, then in post they kept Brad Pitt's face in the middle, thereby having the edges of the film move.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yes. Bear in mind it's actually possible to do that for real in many types of scanner, because they don't support the edges of the film at the point where the scanning takes place. Certainly on the Spirit you can zoom out and see not only the edges of the film but the backlight plane behind it, which looks cyan blue at that point.

 

Phil

[Trevor Allen]

All they did there was to pan the camera back and forth very quickly while they were shooting, then in post they kept Brad Pitt's face in the middle, thereby having the edges of the film move.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhh, thanks for the info!!!

 

You wouldn't happen to know how they kept Pitt's face in the middle?

 

Thanks!

Trevor

[Mark Allen]

You wouldn't happen to know how they kept Pitt's face in the middle?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If any planning went into the FX at all on both of those films (batman and fight club) I would have to imagine the foreground object is a green screen - even if it is just a greenscreen dropped behind the actor.

 

If you did not have the greenscreen, you would have to create an FG plate by rotoing the front character out and stablizing him (that's in AE, play with it, it's fun) and then also (even hard) painting in the missing parts of the BG (which isn't that hard since it's a straight subtle pan, so the missing footage does exist) but still it's labor. easier to drop a screen behind the actor, shoot them panning on a small degree (if at all) then fly them out, and shoot the BG and pan larger.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

I just came from the theatre after viewing this film and I think it was a good movie, definitely worth seeing. The look: colors, lighting, shades, contrast, set design, of the movie was I think the closest you can come to a definitive Batman look. I agree that dark works for this character. The touches of color in Bruce Wayne's world plays against the lack in Batman's world. I did notice a little too much distinction between the CGI and "real" elements within some shots but, I was willing to forgive them. I liked this version of gotham more than all the others that came before - seems more like I pictured it myself - though I would have liked to see more sets/elements built - but that's a personal thing with me. I loved the shots, and the fight scenes could have been less choppy, but it was a better effort than recent attempts.

 

Lots of people have made comments and I thought I would try to give my opinions.

 

"Just seen it, and I was very impressed, I thought they did the best job they could for a self-contained, audience accessible 2 hour superhero movie." fstop.

 

I agree that the movie was well done and definitely accessible to a wide audience. But, I think there was room for improvement, particularly since I didn't buy the Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul link, which to be honest was obvious to me, but not told within the context of the story: they never even met, saw no build-up to revealing that element of the story it was just there hanging and I guess obvious, sorta as Andy mentioned when he pin-pointed the comic-book structure. On the Ra's character, I had no problem with the change from the comic-book asian/non-caucasian to caucasian, however there was no drawing on the potential mysticism of the character and a "cookie cutter secret shadow society tied to the death of Bruce's parents. AND the biggest shock there was the abrupt change from Ninja's :ph34r: who know the secret of being invisible to plain thugs and a very very small army, pitiful really. The Bruce and Rachel link was also a bit weak and although the acting was solid, I didn't buy any suggestion of romance between them; that kiss at the end really really was a lame attempt to wrap that plot - pale imitation of the Spider Man-Mary Jane kiss from Spider Man 1's ending. At least that's what it seemed like to me. Christian Bale makes a really good Bats and Bruce though - kudos to him.

 

fstop asked "How does it compare to past Batmans?"

 

Well, I've seen all the previous movies and this one definitely ranks up there between Bats 1 and Bats 2. It does not match Bats 1 in terms of sheer excitement but I think is a better balance of light and dark, since Bats 1 was really really dark, almost too dark sometimes. It's better in some ways than Bats 2 since there is more emphasis on Bats, than a split between Bats and another character. BUT, I would have loved to have seen more character development on Ra's - something of his past, come on, not even a flashback? Also, the scarecrow character, what is his motivation? Money? Of course, but come on, throw us something meatier and let's see some development there as well. Rachel? Hmmm, aside from the flashbacks what do we really know of her? She has no friends, we never see her house, what the hell happened to her DA's/Friends body man? No one ever really found the guy, come on. Major major dangling plot line. I expected better. If I'm missing something here, someone please correct me. The only other thing I hate is the fact that they made Batman into a wuss by having him "give" his identity to Rachel by saying that stupid line. An essential part of Batman's conflict with himself/Bruce Wayne is the fact he cannot have people share in his twin lives and he would never do that, although the film Batman it seems has developed an inclination to doing this. Where has his pimp style gone? Sigh, :(

 

Of course, I did say I liked this movie, didn't I? :D

 

So, those are my immediate comments. I do have a laundry list of things I felt were wrong, or not resolved properly, etc. But I'm not here to bash the movie, really I think it was a good movie, with flaws :P but none which really detract from the enjoyment of the experience it provides.

 

As always it easy for us looking at someone else's work to pick it apart, but I have a lot of respect for what C. Nolan has brought to this interpretation of the Batman.

 

Think I'll go see it again! :D

[Marty Hamrick]

I've been running this movie at the drive in the last week and I was afraid the movie's dark look would be lost on the drive in screen the way Star Wars was.Star Wars was a definite waste at the drive in imo,however Batman Begins fared well.It's a three screen drive in and we've got it on the screen with the shortest throw which I'm sure made a big difference.I was pleasantly surpised at how well it worked at the drive in compared with other dark movies.

I enjoyed the background plot,however I do agree they went overboard with the car chase.I'm not a big fan of chase scenes anyway.

Am I to understand the whole process was photochemical,no DI?What stocks were used?The blacks were definitely there and I noticed some really nice detail in shadow areas that I was afraid would be lost on the drive in screen (which is not only pushing it for a dark print,but our screen is in bad need of painting)..Thoroughly enjoyable movie,I'm hoping our IMAX theater gets it.

[Gillian]

Batman Begins is a beautifully lit movie. I will see Cinderella Man tomorrow night-which most people are saying is the best summer film so far, until then Batman Begins is the best I?ve seen. Thanks for the info on the blue flower/hallucination sequence! When I saw it I was like ?how did they do that?? I had a few ideas but it was nice to hear what pros in the field thought. I worked in professionally in post-sound design-so I?m relatively new to the camera and lighting end of filming. I was very impressed by the contrasts, the deep shadows and the interesting lighting. In such a dark movie it?s easy to get too black. I never felt that with this movie. -Pfister did an amazing job. I hope if Christopher Nolan films more Batman that he brings Pfister along as DoP! I 2nd Marty?s question?

?Am I to understand the whole process was photochemical, no DI? What stocks were used? The blacks were definitely there and I noticed some really nice detail in shadow areas that I was afraid would be lost on the drive in screen (which is not only pushing it for a dark print, but our screen is in bad need of painting)??Thanks everyone for your insightful and interesting posts.

Gillian

[Tim J Durham]

The enemies seemed actually bad in this one; at least they were more menacing than any villain in LOTR or the latest Star Wars. I know that's not saying much.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't think the Ring Wraiths were menacing? Or the Mouth of Sauron? Or Saruman? Or the Balrog? Or Wormtongue? I admit the Orcs were pretty easy to bump off, but what about the Urukai (sp?)? Or the Nazgul?

 

Which one of the characters in this Batman (or any Batman film) would have avoiding being scarfed by a Nazgul? Even Gollum would've kicked the cr** out of that Scarecrow guy!

 

Would they have been more menacing wearing hockey masks?

[Andy O'Neil]

First off, I've already written my diatribe on LOTR, I was pretty dissatisfied, but the truth is, I thought it was an amazing feat considering the story they had to work with.

 

You're right; I genuinely thought the Ring Wraiths were scary in the first movie. They evoked the same fear the shark did in Jaws. I had forgotten this because by the third movie, their menace had diminished. (pardon that annoying rhyme.)

 

The Mouth of Sauron as an arch nemesis was really dissatisfying. I was never fully aware of where this mouth was coming from. I loved the opening battle in the Fellowship, but the story evolved into this theme of nature vs. machines. I didn't find it very compelling. Maybe it's just a personal problem.

 

Dont get me wrong, there were scenes I loved. I just wanted so much more.

 

Your heroes are only as interesting as the antagonists allows them to be.

[drew_town]

OK, so I went to see Batman Begins again, and I want to retract some of the things I said earlier. I did enjoy it much better the second time. I sat way back in the back so I could actually see the movie. The projection was much better at this theater. It did look quite beautiful. However, I'm still holding firm to my belief the movie needed a different editor and the script probably a few more revisions. Nevertheless I'll bump up my "C" first response to a "B+" to give Chris Nolan a break.

[Adam Paul]

Nice to see anamorphic used for a big studio action film again too.

 

Can't wait to see it on the big screen - just to see some good old anamorphic crispness again, warts and all.

 

This gives me the impression anamorphic movies are rare today, but yet I see anamorphic(2.35.1) quite often on the big screen. Am I missing something here?

[Mike Panczenko]

A lot of the 2.35 movies you see are shot in Super-35, where the soundtrack area of the film is used, followed by the image being cropped, to acheive a 2.35 aspect ratio (sometimes 1.85). The negative is horizontally squeezed, either in printing, or, most of the time nowadays, in the DI, so the image is projected in 2.35, but the squeeze occured after it was shot, as opposed to anamorphic, where the camera lens squeezes the image. The advantages of Super-35 are that you can use more lenses, since many will cover the super-35 frame, and you can shoot in lower light, due to quality issues you get at lower stops in anamorphic. But, many are excited whenever a picture shoots anamorphic because the negative area is larger, so you get more resolution, and, if a picture doesn't go through the digital squeeze in the DI, the optical squeeze adds a generation, degrading the quality of the image. And, one overlooked area of the whole anamorphic vs. super 35 debate is that many feel the out of focus ovals in anamorphic are aesthetically pleasing!

[David Mullen ASC]

This holiday season, for example, I saw the following 2.35 movies:

 

Good Night, and Good Luck (Super-35)

Legend of Zorro (Super-35)

Capote (Super-35)

Jarhead (Super-35)

Walk the Line (Super-35)

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Super-35)

Pride & Prejudice (Super-35)

Syriana (Super-35)

Chronicles of Narnia (Super-35)

Memoirs of a Geisha (anamorphic)

King Kong (Super-35)

Munich (Super-35)

The New World (anamorphic)

The Promise (Master of the Crimson Armor) (Super-35)

 

Only two anamorphic films, but 12 Super-35 films -- big difference. But those two plus "Batman Begins" were nominated for Oscars for their cinematography, then one Super-35 film and one 1.85 film.

[Adam Paul]

A lot of the 2.35 movies you see are shot in Super-35, where the soundtrack area of the film is used, followed by the image being cropped, to acheive a 2.35 aspect ratio (sometimes 1.85). The negative is horizontally squeezed, either in printing, or, most of the time nowadays, in the DI, so the image is projected in 2.35, but the squeeze occured after it was shot, as opposed to anamorphic, where the camera lens squeezes the image. The advantages of Super-35 are that you can use more lenses, since many will cover the super-35 frame, and you can shoot in lower light, due to quality issues you get at lower stops in anamorphic. But, many are excited whenever a picture shoots anamorphic because the negative area is larger, so you get more resolution, and, if a picture doesn't go through the digital squeeze in the DI, the optical squeeze adds a generation, degrading the quality of the image. And, one overlooked area of the whole anamorphic vs. super 35 debate is that many feel the out of focus ovals in anamorphic are aesthetically pleasing!

 

I see now. So normally 1.85 is shot Academy and 2.35 is shot either Super35 or Academy with anamorphic lenses? What are the give aways to recognize anamorphic? Are there any 16:9 movies shot those days anymore? If so I would think it would also be Academy?

[Dan Goulder]

I see now. So normally 1.85 is shot Academy and 2.35 is shot either Super35 or Academy with anamorphic lenses? What are the give aways to recognize anamorphic?

When the focus is on a foreground object, you can study the backgrounds in Super 35mm vs. anamorphic movies and observe the different qualities of how the focus drops off. The anamorphic focus falls off more quickly (with greater distortion), which, on the plus side, can potentially cause the in-focus foreground object to really stand out. On the other hand, not everyone likes the out-of-focus anamorphic look, and some filmmakers prefer the more gradual and less distorted fall off in focus that is achieved with spherical lenses. So, it's all a matter of personal taste, and what best flatters a particular project.