Saul Pincus

"Crocodile Dundee" (I and II) were Panavision anamorphic ? and Australian (though they sometimes don't want the credit!) 'Scope is actually quite an asset with comedy ? it allows for two-shots, which are essential to make most comedy tick well. And there's a great legacy of stunning, low-budget 'scope Australian films, dating back to the early 70's at least.

Great post, Tim. Thanks!

Thought I'd bump up this thread now that the teaser trailer's live. Sweet anamorphic photography and classic Spielberg compositions and cutting. There have been many complaints on other boards about the film looking "overlit," but does anyone in cyberspace really have a properly-calibrated monitor? Sheesh.

David, I love Sammon's book. The print of Blade Runner I saw in Toronto 1982 was advertised as being "in 70mm" ? which is precisely why I sought it out. Now, it's quite possible it wasn't actually 70mm ? a projectionist at Montreal's Imperial Theatre once told me they ran Raiders of the Lost Ark for at least one week in 35mm before the 70mm print arrived ? but the whole time, it was being advertised as "in 70mm." Nonetheless, my point about the visual effects in the 2007 35mm anamorphic version sticks.

Yes, and correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time, Trumbull boasted that in the 1982 70mm prints, his 65mm comps were cut directly into the 65mm material blown up from 35mm anamorphic ? thus making the 70mm prints the ideal environment to experience his effects work. They still look wonderful, but there's also this noticeable softness and slight washed-out appearance with super-fine detail in the backgrounds that was never there before. Believe me, I was pretty surprised too ? particularly since everything else was so sharp and properly contrasty in comparison. Now this is pure speculation, but could this be because "The Final Cut" was never really intended to be filmed-out ? only projected digitally in a few select locations ? and the element used for the film record wasn't really intended for this purpose? Again, this is not to fan fires ? I'm just speculating. (Really wish I could see a 2K screening to compare!)

Not to go off topic here, but I saw a 35mm anamorphic print of this title tonight in Toronto. (The projectionist ? an acquaintance ? told me they tried to get the digital version, but couldn't due to "server incompatibility.") I should point out that in the past I've seen the 70mm Dolby A print (in 1982), the 35mm anamorphic Dolby A version (in the mid 1980s), the "Director's Cut" 35mm anamorphic Dolby SR version (1992), and now this 2007 version. While I agree that the live action portions of this 2007 version are gorgeous ? and stunningly sharp ? the visual effects sequences are less crisp than I remember them. Memory can be a tricky thing, but there are many cityscape shots where pinprick lights in the distance (so much a staple of Doug Trumbull's/EEG's work of the period, to help sell scale) appear soft and mushy. This aside, I applaud the restoration team for delivering one of the most unobtrusive restorations/updates in recent history.

John, as you probably know, DIs are back-end driven. They're a source of much pleasure to studios and distributors, who can re-purpose the content much more conviently and predictably than before. DIs are a post-production tool that allows creativity on the part of the filmmakers, but even if it only allowed a measure of creativity equivalent to the RGB world of photochemical printing, it would still have been a fact of life eventually.

Agreed ? though these days I'm happy to see any anamorphic acquisition at all in mainstream North American cinema, let alone the recent batch (The Brave One, Michael Clayton) that show an exceptional command of the format. Haven't seen Wes Anderson's latest yet.

I've always enjoyed Robert Elswit's work, and this is no exception. Though there were a couple of noticeably soft shots, by and large the work was tack-sharp and atmospheric ? quite a successful throwback to the paranoid thriller feel established by Willis and Roizman in the early 70s in terms of look, tone, color, and composition. And Elswit and his team always makes complex choreography seem effortless. What a great early fall's its been thus far for anamorphic acquisition.

Any section or individual shot featuring a color image (the red girl, or the framing sequences in color) was hand-spliced into each release print. Except for this, Schindler's List was printed on genuine black and white stock.

Max, did your print have hand-scribed changeover cues?

Bump.

I saw THE BRAVE ONE tonight, and was struck by Phillipe Rousselot's fine 'scope lensing and lighting. Though Rousselot seemed to be typically working with what appear to be deep stops where possible, there were plenty of night situations via steadicam that featured nothing less than herculean, tack-sharp focus pulling (no mean feat in true 'scope). I hope this doesn't sound like I'm casually slagging other people's work, but these days it's rare to see such craftsmanship on display at this level; i.e. few if any soft shots, fluid framing My impression may have been helped by the fact that what I was watching appeared to be a showprint (left over from the Toronto Film Festival screenings, no doubt), complete with hand-scribed changeover cues. Or was I watching a print struck from a DI neg? It didn't feel like one, certainly not a 2K job ? it just felt too sharp.

Hi Marcel, Are you shooting direct to tape, or using the V1's 60gb external hard drive?

According to Steven Awalt at SpielbergFilms.com, the film will be shot "old school" in 35mm anamorphic. http://www.spielbergfilms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7367 Awalt has proven himself trustworthy with info. His site's been around a long time, he's in direct contact with Spielberg's people, and claims to always confirm info with them before posting it.

In the 1970s, Super 35 was not an option. What often gets lost in discussion is that format choices are increasingly governed by distribution needs, not artistic ones. Super 35 and digital intermediate work are artful to the cinematographer, but as tools they're even greater tonics to post-production and distribution folks. Why? Distribution loves Super 35 because they can open the matte and bend the frame to any destination medium they might need. True scope negatives (and Techniscope negatives) are far less flexible to them. Again, in the end, it's all about how many sales a studio can makes, and how easily they can make their versions to complete their sales. And it's not just theatrical, home video, or television markets anymore ? there are many ancillary markets (foreign, web & new media devices, airplane) in many flavours and combinations to consider. Artistically, it sucks big time. Unless you are a very powerful producer or director (Michael Bay on Transformers), and you're going to champion the use of a format (Christopher Nolan on the Batmans ? scope and IMAX), you more often than not face an uphill battle. Outside this forum, most folks only notice that you've gotten the 2.39 frame, not how beautifully light gets handled by true anamorphic optics. I'm certainly in the true anamorphic camp (when artistically appropriate), but I've worked in post-production and undertstand why things have become the way they are. It's a sad and sobering truth.

I guess we're still in a holding pattern for confirmed info. It's a little bizarre that, with this relatively high-profile shooting happening at Yale, no one can confirm what type of glass is on their Panaflex.

Indiana Jones.com posted a few fleeting snippets of day#1 EPK today ? you can clearly see they're shooting film.

Thanks Luc. We seem to have established it's film. (Best news for this particular project, IMHO.) Next query: true scope or S35?

I love FCP and I've been a dedicated owner and user since version 2.0. I've also cut features (cutting neg, or for DI) on Avid systems dating back to 1997, serving as a post supervisor on these projects and many others. I haven't tested FCP Studio 2 (I've been out of the country for a few months), but I sincerely hope Apple has improved their Cinema Tools integration. It's not just neg lists ? carrying audio EDL data and generating accurate lists is unnecessarily hassle-prone and not all that idiot-proof. But now we're getting into territory for another forum!

With INDY 4 ramping up, does anyone on this board have a sense of what's actually happening with regard to format? Is anyone in the know? Saul Pincus

Now that Lucasfilm and Amblin have jointly confirmed they're moving forward with this project (this was confirmed an hour ago by the Hollywood Reporter), does anyone care to take bets on what the primary origination format will be? Will Lucas use the force to convert his friend Steven to the merits of HD? For consistency's sake, I'd hope for true scope. Spielberg's and Slocombe's focus pulls for the first three films often heartily acknowledge the anamophic format's optical distortions ? but the filmmaker hasn't shot a true scope film in years. Saul

"An American Werewolf in London" (dir. John Landis) used the very same device quite successfully in 1981. Saul

David, this demonstrates yet again your mastery of the scope frame. It's great to see your talents find subject matter to properly exploit them, and we're lucky to have you here.

I always look forward to a Bond film, if for nothing else than its attention to detail in the crafts departments. I'm gonna miss true 'scope, but if it must be Super 35, can we at least hope for a 4K DI? Saul