Jump to content

Shawn Martin

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Shawn Martin

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Washington DC
  1. Rob Hahn has an interesting one with Frank Oz on "The Score".
  2. Some shots were digital, for "practical reasons" according to the Kodak InCamera article. I don't know what they used, probably Alexa though. They shot 35mm grain separately to layer over the digital to try and match it. There's also a DIT in the end credits.
  3. To start - 35mm, Kodak, Panavision anamorphic. Every single frame of the movie would be on 35mm, and with a front-element PV anamorphic (no cheating w/ digital and flat lenses for nighttime aerials). If Vision3 Expression existed, I'd use that for some, because I liked the look of 5284 and 5229. If not a photochemical finish, then a 4K or higher DI. 4K DCP release, along with some 35mm prints. The premiere (Hollywood of course) would be shown on film.
  4. Saw it on opening night. It's got that same old, flat gray/yellow/purple digital look. Eh. And the script was written on a napkin. I will say that the nighttime sequence with the explosions in the forest is phenomenal. There's a shot of one of the mercenaries running and being swallowed by the flames that looks absolutely real.
  5. There is an 18mm JDC Cooke Xtal Express lens.
  6. It's two shots blended together, one of the stuntman falling out of the window, then another of the house on fire and the stuntman running past the camera. From the August 2010 American Cinematographer: -------- A more outlandish sequence to film practically and piece together digitally was the burning of an old house, a scene that opens the film and plays an important role in the story. The initial challenge, of course, was finding a real house the production could burn. "The scene was in danger of getting cut from the schedule for weeks, but we sent loca- tion scouts far and wide looking for a place that would work," Boyd recalls. "We came across a long-abandoned house halfway through production; it was out along a two-lane highway that we could control at night. We put five or six cameras out there, including a couple of Eyemos, and one on a dolly track in the woods that I operated myself. Basically, we had one crack at it. We timed it at magic hour, with a small amount of skylight left when the house went up, and it was over in about 30 minutes." To complete the illusion, the filmmakers had to show a man bursting out of a second-story window, running across the roof, leaping to the ground and running into the woods. That requirement led the team to film the burning house in two rapid takes. Schneider explains, "We first had a controlled burn around the edges of the windows for when [the stuntman] bursts out and jumps off the roof. Then, we quickly reset before the sky went dark and hid a stuntman in a little heat shelter where he had left off in the previous take. We set the house fully ablaze, and when the fire reached the right level, we cued the stuntman to run across the field toward and past the camera. The intent was to blend the first shot of the controlled burn and stunt with the second shot of the man running away from a raging fire to make it look like one seamless shot. As a visual effect, the shot was composited by tiling different portions of the controlled-burn element with other tiles from the raging-fire element to create a mosaic of blended elements. For example, if a chunk of roof falls off four minutes into the burn, you can blend that with another piece of action from the first minute, such as the moment when a neighboring tree catches fire, and create your own custom inferno. Since the shot was locked off, it was almost like compositing a live-action shot with itself."
  7. Saw this a couple of hours ago. It's the best-looking film of 2017 so far, and a very well-done adventure. So many wonderfully-lit and staged scenes. Loved the ones Fawcett defending his sightings to the RGS crowd, and the reporter interviewing him in his house All the oval bokeh and flares, too...
  8. I recall the very extensive article in AC on Furious 7 saying that it was shot on both digital and film. There's also b-roll in YouTube somewhere that shows Arri LTs being used during a warehouse shootout (?).
  9. Saw it the night it was released. I thought it was terrible and made the first movie, which I loved, look like The Godfather. The Plain Jane script with its tired, beaten-to-death-by-CBS-procedurals cliches about private military contractors, the hacky daddy-needs-a-new-beach-house score by Henry Jackman, the detour to New Orleans in search of tax breaks, one of the few decent shots the whole thing - the heroes running on the tarmac in the airport while the villains run by windows in the airport up above - marred by a glaring reflection of the dolly in those windows... A big waste of time all-around. I think Edward Zwick was in the market for a beach house too, because I can't see why else he'd put his time and name on this. Definitely the worst of his, and Cruise's, movies that I've seen.
  10. Dan Sasaki at Panavision mentions this shooting with the Primo 70s in last November's AC (in the article about Spectre, which also used them with the 65).
  11. Something about the script was "off" to me... Not that these movies are particularly complicated, but a lot of it seemed overly... simplistic, like the reason for Bourne's recruitment, the Asset's role in it, and the practically mustache-twisting CIA director. I think this was really missing Tony Gilroy's touch. Universal probably didn't bother approaching him, given how much he and Paul Greengrass despise each other - one of his conditions for coming on to write Bourne Ultimatum was that he wouldn't have to speak to Greengrass. Not that long ago, I made an awful post in another topic about how I'd stopped caring about the differences between film and digital. It's interesting how even a big-budget, handheld zoomy movie like this can change that. The film stuff - including the grainy S16 flashbacks - really does look better than the digital. A lot more "real". It's reinvigorating, for some reason, to notice this again.
  12. Maybe this isn't a very useful or constructive post, but why not be honest: When it comes to the differences between 35mm and digital, I've found, especially within the last year, or year and a half, that I've just stopped caring. (I've stopped caring about a lot of things, actually.) For years I used to be all rah-rah about 35mm, being a projectionist who ran a ton of 35mm for years before my theater went digital, and a photographer who's taken a ton of 35mm and digital pictures. Now it's like, "whatever", especially seeing so much D-Cinema since 2012 or so. I just watched the all-digital Our Kind of Traitor tonight, and besides some of the glaring, blurry wide-angle shots and what looked like some GoPro footage, I didn't really notice or care. Some 35mm stuff is even becoming annoying to watch, for some reason, like the daytime scenes of Nightcrawler.
  13. Panasonic Varicam 35: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?138169-what-is-Aziz-Ansari-s-quot-Masters-of-None-quot-shot-on
  14. At least one of the Lord of the Rings movies - I can't remember which - had this same mesmerizer effect.
  • Create New...