King J Greenspon

I'm currently working on a production shooting 35 with a Super 35 gate. They're doing this to get the 2.35:1 aspect ratio using spherical lenses without losing the of depth of focus. I think this is a brilliant idea, being a huge fan of deep focus and spherical lenses (a la Citizen Kane, A Clockwork Orange, Rumble Fish, etc...). My question: Can the same thing be done using 16mm? Could you use say an Arri SRII or 3; shoot 16mm using a super 16 gate and spherical lenses to achieve the same result? Thanks, King

I just watched the Quiet for the first time on DVD, knowing in advance that it was shot digitally. Usually this is something that I try to avoid, especially if it isn't HD. (I tried watching Sorry, Haters and I couldn't get through it.) However, I have to say that I was mystified at how fabulous The Quiet looked. I can't speak to what it looked like in a theater, but I rarely saw any digital noise, especially in the blacks. Question: Did it take the DI to get rid of the digital noise or was it the way it was shot (lit)? Every time I've shot or been on a shoot (even with the F900) I've seen noise in the blacks. And I know a certain DP that's horrified by blacks while shooting with the HVX200. This has been one of the reasons I push for film. The blacks. And of course the latitude. But with the way this film looked, I'm beginning to believe. Any illumination into the subject I'd appreciate. :blink:

All the information on this release that you could possibly want can be found on TheDigitalBits.com http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/br2007/announce.html

I wasn't trying to say that anything was OK or not. I was just trying to voice my disappointment in the use of shaky handheld through the entire movie. Even though I'm not a fan of the style in general, I do think it has great use in extreme action/suspense sequences. However, in my opinion, in this movie it was entirely overused - the extreme close-ups, the over the shoulder shots. I agree whole-heartedly with what David Mullen wrote. I'm not trying to bad mouth Paul Greengrass. I thought United 93 was one hell of a film. I thoroughly enjoyed both Bourne sequels. There are a lot of hacks out there and I don't think he's one of them. I was just trying to put my opinion out there. King

Steven H. Burum! Ever see Rumble Fish? Vittorio Storraro Michael Ballhaus Michael Chapman Roger Deakins Gordon Willis Thierry Arbogast Robby Muller Ed Lachman Steven Soderbergh Dion Bebe (even though I don't like his digital work) (too many to list) Dead: Greg Toland Conrad Hall

He told that guy he was in his office to let him know that Bourne knew he was lying. As in, "I'm smarter than you and I know that you were stupid enough to go to that meeting site." As for the second thing, did you ever see Alien Resurrection? Good looking people will always dominate the screen. Even if they can't act. As for them knowing what they were doing ("being more organized"), I'm sure they did it on purpose. But I still think it's a cheap cheat. The Bourne Identity had great camera moves, as did director Doug Liman's Mr. & Mrs. Smith. These guys are just trying to put the "NYPD Blue" documentary style into major action films. It brings more "immediacy" to the action. But using it the entire movie, even in extreme close-ups and shot-reverse shots is overdoing it. ;)

Was anyone else disappointed and annoyed with the camera work in the Bourne Ultimatum? I mean, I really enjoyed the movie, but almost every single shot was handheld and incredibly shaky. My eyes had to work overtime to try and take all the information in. Even shots that could've been executed with sticks were intentionally shaky and jarring. To me, this seems like a cheat. If you can't create suspense with plot, character and action, why cheat by creating the suspense with shaking the camera? Of course, there are always times when the shaky camera is called for (the running scene in Rosetta, the beginning of Saving Private Ryan), but through an entire movie with a huge budget?? On the other hand, the lighting was wonderful. I've no complaints about that. The flashbacks (done in the style of The Limey - but not as extreme) were especially pleasing. (By the way, does anyone know how the flashback effect is executed in The Limey?). The pop zooms were jarring also. They took me out of the narrative and reminded me I was watching a movie. Of course, I know all these decisions were made purposefully. I just disagree with them. All this said, I did really enjoy the film. I just think Garrett Brown would be as horrified as I was. Thoughts?????? Sincerely, King J. Greenspon