Tom Lowe

At ASC?

In my humble opinion, Lubezki got robbed of his due Oscars two years in a row now. Does anyone who has seen The New World actually doubt that his natural-light photography was the best of the year?? Geisha? It was good, but I think Academy voters often get art direction mixed up with cinematography. Or special FX, etc. After his ridiculous loss in 2005 for The New World, Lubezki was once again robbed (IMO) for his amazing work on Children of Men. Bottom line: Children of Men would not have worked as a movie were it not for Chivo's photography. The only saving grace is that the ASC honored him for CoM. Thank you ASC!

To me, this is what big, cheesy, special-effects-fueled cinema is all about. I was most disappointed by all the POTC and Shrek, etc, sequels, but Transformers was big fun. Even taking into account all of Bay's known deficiencies. :lol:

I will try to catch it. any chance this is on bit torrents?

Keep in mind how difficult it is to match these shots during magic hours. All told, I thought they did a good job of managing to shoot in warm light, but still keeping decent continuity. Your average viewer probably would never notice those cuts. While I did enjoy the movie a lot (I had the toys, too :lol:), I agree with the guy who was let down by the Prime-Megatron "fight".... Yeah there was one cool shot of them blowing through a building, but any fan of the old cartoon knows that the highlight of every episode or season was Prime and Megatron duking it out in full view. There were so many damn cuts that you couldn't tell what was going on... then all of a sudden it was over. But that's my only real complaint.

The photography really looked superb on this movie. There were very few shots at all that gave away its digital origins in a bad way, and a few night and evening shots that just looked great (like Collateral and Miami Vice).

Lucky you.

I use the Canon Rebel XT (350D) and I love it.

For my money, cinematography doesn't get any better The New World. Definitely better than CoM, for me. In fact, The New World has the best cinematography since at least 2000's In the Mood for Love, in my opinion. You should check it out when you get a chance. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. I think it's fair to say with TNW and CoM, Lubezki has vaulted himself into the very upper echelons of working DPs.

That's big news, Jim. Awesome.

IMO, Lubezki has been robbed of his rightfully due Oscars two years in a row now.

So Singer seems to be saying that he chose not to go with 65mm because there were no labs in Australia that could process it and because it's too bulky. But with a 200 million dollar budget, would it really have been "too expensive," as he claims? Did the studio say no, or did he decide not to use it, or was it a combination of both, I wonder? I did manage to see Superman Returns on an IMAX screen, and it looked decent, but it surely would have been more impressive if shot in 65mm? I remember reading that the Superman Returns IMAX 3D showings raked in huge amounts of money for the picture, and shattered IMAX per-screen revenue records wherever it played. Maybe with this in mind, and with having an eye toward archiving films at the highest possible resolution to future-proof them, some major Hollywood films might once again turn to 65mm? Well... at least let me dream about it. :lol:

David, why do you think it is that no one is shooting features in 5-perf 65mm these days?

well no, it wouldn't need to be 15 perf IMAX, because the shooting resolution is only 5-perf 65mm (in the scenario I was suggesting). I guess the effects would be done at whatever resolution the 65mm scan was done at. Then again, I don't know much about effects or how high the resolution can be done at. 2K? 4k? 6k?

O'Russel's behavior is a total disgrace in that video, IMO. What a spoiled, whiny little jerk.

Hmmm. I wonder why more features don't go for this? You would think that someone might give it a go at 65mm. Maybe for a big epic or something. The industry is well aware of how much cash can be raked in on IMAX screens with big-ticket feature films, and 5-perf 65mm film could probably be passed off to the public as "made for IMAX" or something like that. :lol: I assume the quality would be really good compared to a 35mm blow up? I do understand how a 65mm 4K, 6K, or 8K scan would be super-duper expensive, though. But with a budget of $150 million or whatever Batman is budgeted at, it seems like they could do: 5-perf 65mm>6K scan>DMR>print to 15-perf IMAX In that case, what resolution would the special FX in done at?

Generally speaking, just how expensive is 70mm compared to 35mm, when all the costs are added up?

Why not just shoot the whole picture in 70mm? It should blow up OK for IMAX. That way the picture would have consistent quality.

I have to admit I don't really understand what he's trying to do with this, but it's Nolan, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Is he literally saying that the screen size itself will expand in the middle of the movie?

Interior 50ASA... lol! This must be why all the old school actors complain about how hot the lights used to be when they were shooting. A lot of autobiographies of movie stars from way back have this complaint about always getting cooked by the lighting.

The fact that people were forced to do this or that in times before doesn't mean much to me. In this day and age, you should shoot a movie to the full extent of your abilities.

Most certainly, if you are trying to shoot natural light, the time of day is VERY important.

David, thanks so much for your reply, as always. You are right. For instance, I don't hold the melodramatic acting in Casablanca against the movie, because I realize it's a product of its time. But for some reason, I hold camera work to a more recent standard? I need to think about it. I really don't focus only on natural-light cinematography, though. It does dominate my top 5, but WKW & Doyle's In the Mood for Love and 2046, also dominate my cinematography top 10. For me, those movies have such beautiful framing (composition) that it basically blows me out of the water. David, what do you think of their 1/8th style framing in those pictures?

David, thanks so much for your reply. Someone on REDUSER also pointed out BARRY LYNDON, and I was in error to leave it out, because, as you say, it was far ahead of DAYS OF HEAVEN. I literally worship the cinematography of LYNDON. It's so well done. But David, do you hold the overlighting of movies like THE SEARCHERS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA against the movie? Because frankly, I do. If you ask me what are the top 10 cinematography masterpieces, I have to admit that movies like Lawrence and The Searchers are overlit, while pictures like Apocalypse Now and The Thin Red Line are beautifully lit, with natural light.

It's interesting. I saw Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm on Saturday night, and I felt sure that it would rock my Cinematography Top 10. While the movie was just spectacular, and while it makes my Top 20 Cinematography for sure, I did feel that some of the scenes were overlit. Mainly these were the indoor scenes, but several times some of the outdoor scenes appeared to be overlit as well, to me. Way too much bounce back onto O'Toole. I do realize that this is a product of the time in which the picture was shot. I also had the same exact problem with The Searchers.... While the outdoor, natural-light cinematography was flawless and amazing, as soon as they went indoors, many of the scenes were way overlit, IMO. Is it fair to say that a turning point was reached with Days of Heaven, when Almendros agreed to the shoot the whole picture with natural light, aside from a a very small handful of scenes? Or were there pictures before DoH that really set the precedent for natural light? For me, natural-light cinematography reached its apex with John Toll's The Thin Red Line, and has not really been topped since, with the possible exception of Malick's next picture, The New World. Thoughts?